By David Weber
TE, New River Presbytery
The current debate in the EPC concerning the ordination of same-sex attracted individuals is often framed in terms of personal holiness, repentance, and the ongoing struggle with indwelling sin. These are weighty concerns. And yet, Scripture presses us to a more foundational question, one that concerns not only the character of the individual but also the nature of the office itself. The New Testament consistently presents ordained leadership as a charge entrusted with the ordering of God’s household, the church. Elders are called not only to be men of personal integrity, but to embody and model that divinely given order.
The question, then, is not merely whether a candidate is chaste or sincere in repentance, but whether his life is fitting for an office designed to reflect and uphold God’s ordered design for His church. Therefore, we must ask whether a persistent pattern of disordered desire is compatible with the kind of ordered life that the Scriptures present as essential to those who shepherd God’s people.
Two major positions have emerged in the EPC concerning the question of SSA ordination. The first, represented by the AIC report, argues that the presence of homosexual desire is not in itself disqualifying for office, provided the candidate is repentant of these desires and has demonstrated a long pattern of chastity. The second position, represented by the Redline statement and the Pacific Northwest Presbytery (PNW) overture, argues that the presence of such unnatural desires is itself disqualifying for ordination.
Critics of the PNW overture contend that this standard is excessively stringent and inconsistent with how the church treats other ongoing struggles with indwelling sin, such as anger or alcoholism. A candidate is not ordinarily disqualified simply because he experiences temptations toward sinful anger, so long as he does not yield to them. Why, then, should homosexual desire be treated differently? Does such a distinction undermine our doctrine of progressive sanctification or imply a demand for perfection in one area that we do not require in others?
Yet this objection misunderstands the argument. The issue is not a denial of progressive sanctification or the continuing presence of indwelling sin in the believer. Rather, the argument is that certain forms of indwelling sin bear directly upon a candidate’s fitness for ordained office. In particular, homosexual desire is understood to belong to the category of disordered desires. This is not a novel category but one rooted in the language of Romans 1 and long recognized within the Christian moral tradition. Historically, this category has included sins such as lesbianism, sodomy, and bestiality as reflected in Westminster Larger Catechism 139.
Why does unnatural desire specifically affect one’s fitness for ordained office in the church? Very simply, it is because homosexual desire strikes at the very foundation of the familial relationships that bring order to the church and therefore to ordain such candidates would bring harmful disorder to the family of God.
The Household of God
The New Testament teaches that the order of the family is to shape the life of the church. When Paul writes to Titus, he explains:
“This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (Titus 1:5).
The church is “put into order” through the appointment of qualified elders. Elders are not merely administrators or teachers. They are shepherds entrusted with the right ordering of the household of God. The church’s order is not arbitrary but patterned in significant ways after the household.
Therefore, Paul immediately connects the qualifications for eldership to the order of a man’s own home:
“If anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers…” (Titus 1:6).
Paul develops this same principle further in 1 Timothy 3:
“Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife… He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (1 Timothy 3:2, 4-5)
The proper ordering of the home is the most basic test for eldership. Why? Because the order in the home is the same order upon which the relational dynamics of the church are built. If the home is healthy there is reason to believe that the same healthy order will be established in the church. However, if one’s home is out of order, it would be foolish to put such a person in the position of greater responsibility managing God’s household.
This principle should not be understood to mean that marriage is a prerequisite for ordained ministry. Both Jesus and Paul were unmarried, yet each modeled and established the order of God’s household. The issue is not whether a man is married, but whether his life, desires, and relationships reflect and uphold the creational pattern upon which the family is built. To be single and celibate is not inherently sinful, but to be attracted to the same sex is unnatural, sinful, and not consistent with God’s created design and order for His creation.
This creational pattern affects how one behaves within the Church. As Paul explains:
“Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity.” (1 Timothy 5:1-2)
The relationships within the body of Christ are to be ordered according to those of a family — fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters — and the elders in particular are called upon to establish this familiar order.
It is widely recognized that stable households are of utmost importance to human flourishing. Children raised within healthy and intact homes generally experience greater stability, emotional health, and social well-being. Scripture teaches that this is not accidental. God created the family with a particular order and purpose (Ephesians 5:31-6:4).
This relational order has direct implications for the current debate concerning the ordination of same-sex attracted individuals. Those under consideration for ordination are not merely private candidates, but members of the family of God. If ordained, they will be entrusted with its care and ordering. Ordination standards, therefore, are not only about personal integrity, but about raising up leaders fitted to cultivate that order within God’s household. It is therefore difficult to see how one whose sexual desires remain fundamentally disordered can faithfully serve in an office whose charge is the ordering and the health of the church.
Christ and His Bride
To further strengthen the understanding of the church as the household of God, Ephesians 5 presents the marriage relationship as a living picture of the union between Christ and His church. In this passage, Christ is revealed as the faithful and self-giving husband who lays down His life for His bride, cleansing and sanctifying her (v. 25-27). The church, in turn, is portrayed as the bride who receives His love and responds in faithful submission to Him as Lord (v. 24).
In this way, marriage is not merely a social institution but a divinely appointed image and reflection of the gospel itself. At the foundation of the church’s life together is this covenantal pattern of sacrificial love and faithful response between one man and one woman. When that pattern is distorted, the clarity of the gospel is also obscured.
For this reason, Scripture places great weight on marital faithfulness in those who hold ordained office. The qualifications for elders and deacons, including being “the husband of one wife,” underscore the importance of integrity and stability in this foundational relationship. The domestic life of church leadership is not incidental to the ministry; it is part of the public witness to the order of God’s household.
Within that framework, it is also necessary to guard ordained leadership from a more fundamental distortion of this creational pattern — unnatural sexual desires. If the relational desires and affections of an elder are at odds with the foundational dynamic of the union of Christ and His church, then the gospel itself is obscured. The church, therefore, must not place into leadership those whose relational desires are contrary to the biblical order of covenant union.
The issue of SSA ordination, at its core, is not merely about a private struggle with unnatural sexual desires but about the public relational implications of allowing someone with disordered desires into ordained ministry. When the created order of husband and wife is set aside, the symbolism intended to point to Christ and His Church is upended and the relational dynamics of the family of God distorted. Seen in this light, homosexual desire is not just a departure from God’s created order but a rebellion against it. For this reason, the church must preserve the clarity of the gospel testimony and the proper order within its ordained leadership.
Conclusion
Much of the current debate within the EPC has focused on the qualifications of the individual candidate. Can one who experiences ongoing same-sex attraction be ordained if he is celibate, repentant, and chaste? While these questions are of vital importance, they can unintentionally narrow the discussion. Scripture directs us to also ask a broader question: What is the purpose of ordained office itself?
The New Testament presents elders as those entrusted with the ordering of God’s household. The office exists not primarily for the benefit of the candidate but for the good of the church. Therefore, the question before the church is not merely whether a particular candidate meets a minimum standard of personal qualification, but whether his life and affections are suited to the task for which the office was established. It is clear that those who have a persistent experience of homosexual desire are not rightly suited for this office. If a candidate’s relational desires are not properly ordered at the most basic level of the family — one man and one woman — how can he be qualified to bring proper order to the household of God? It is folly to believe such a candidate would be fit for this calling.
As a denomination, we cannot open the door of ordination to candidates who profess, persist in, or identify with unnatural desires or affections. To do so would introduce disorder into the very office established by God to bring order to His church.
Leave a Comment