By Editorial Board, Presbyterian Plumb Line
We are grateful that the preliminary report from the Ad-Interim Committee (AIC) appointed to deal with the question of SSA and ordination will be presented to the 45th General Assembly. Ruling and teaching elders across the EPC will now have an opportunity to provide feedback over the next year before the final report and recommendations are presented at the 46th General Assembly. We appreciate the diligent efforts of all the committee members who labored on this issue. There is much helpful material in this report that counters the heresy of Side B Christianity.
Unfortunately, the report concludes with “counsel to sessions and presbyteries” (CSP) that SSA persons may be considered for ordination to office in the EPC. This can be found on pages 17-19 of the attachment to the AIC report: Pastoral Letter “Same-Sex Attraction” Section Comparison. This counsel is ultimately inconsistent with the report’s recommended amendments to the Book of Order, contrary to biblical teaching, opposed to the Westminster standards, ignores lessons from recent history in the PC(U.S.A.) and PCA, and is simply bad advice that should be rejected.
The AIC was directed by the 44th General Assembly “to study the Scriptures, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and Catechisms” and “to review our Position Papers, Pastoral Letters, and the Book of Order.” It was surprising to find no citation anywhere in the report from the EPC Position Paper on Homosexuality (1986, revised 1994). The homosexuality paper enumerates the biblical material thoroughly, addressing SSA and healing. The Position Paper on Homosexuality was among the earliest adopted by the EPC and was a distinguishing mark setting the EPC apart from the stance of the PC(U.S.A.) on homosexuality.
As a point of clarity, the EPC Position Paper on Human Sexuality (2017) did not supersede the paper on homosexuality. The General Assembly decided “With the approval of the proposed position paper, that the current papers on Homosexuality and Sanctity of Marriage be removed from our EPC website and made available upon request.” (2016 GA Minutes, p. 307). The Position Paper on Homosexuality was not replaced or rescinded. It would require an act of the Assembly to do this. The AIC did not follow the directives of the 44th General Assembly when it failed to review the Position Paper on Homosexuality and “recommend potential changes.” The AIC report would have been strengthened by reviewing the biblical views on homosexuality as expressed in this paper.
“Experiencing SSA”
The report includes many helpful things about only ordaining qualified persons to church office according to biblical requirements. However, the report is unhelpful in its use of the term “same-sex attraction” (SSA) to describe persons with sexual desires for persons of their own gender. The euphemism SSA sanitizes the seriousness of perverted passions which Scripture describes as “dishonorable passions … that are contrary to nature” (Romans 1:26). The language of SSA diminishes the divine design of God’s purpose of male and female created sexually for each other in marriage (Genesis 2:22-24). Using this term downplays the teaching of Scripture (Romans 1) and the Westminster Larger Catechism (L.C.Q. 150, 151) which both indicate that homosexual desires and acts are unnatural and heinous sins. This euphemism (Same-Sex Attraction) obscures the hard truth about sinful desires for homosexual acts.
The CSP speaks of candidates for office who are “experiencing SSA” (present tense) indicating that such a person could be a mature believer qualified for office. The idea that Christian growth in sanctification (sufficient for leadership) could be congruent with ongoing unnatural sexual desires has no biblical support. Nowhere in Scripture is there any suggestion that a person experiencing unnatural homosexual longings may qualify as a shepherd in Christ’s church.
Rather than “experiencing” SSA (present tense) the appropriate biblical language would be “experienced” (past tense); that is, unnatural sexual desires in one’s past life before conversion. A mature believer with a perverted sexual past is freed by the Holy Spirit from former unnatural desires and has fully embraced newness of life in Christ. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Such a person would never identify as homosexual or same-sex attracted, but as born again.
How can we deny the sanctifying power of God’s grace (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)? Why would we find our identity in the old life, and not in the new life? How can we dare put constraints on the transforming grace of Christ by suggesting that what the Bible calls “dishonorable passions contrary to nature” (Romans 1:26) are consistent with Christian living and the call to ordained ministry?
Experience over Scripture
An underlying assumption of the Ad-Interim Committee’s preliminary report is that SSA is an enduring reality for some believers and, therefore, they may be ordained to leadership. This premise is not rooted in biblical teaching but a secular modern mindset dependent on human experience and feelings. According to the Word of God, dishonorable passions contrary to nature are a result of God giving persons over to the lust of their hearts, impurity, and a debased mind (Romans 1:26-28).
The Church has never embraced the idea that unnatural desires are consistent with Christianity until the “gay Christian movement” started its nefarious attempts to change the mind of the church in the 1960s and 1970s. Sadly, this unorthodox thinking has captured all the old mainline churches — and they have reaped the whirlwind for their heresy. God forbid the EPC starts to go down this road by deciding that ordaining persons with continuing dishonorable passions contrary to nature can be acceptable Christian practice.
Homosexual persons converted to Christ need careful discipleship and biblical counseling to assist them in mortifying these passions (in other words, killing them!) and understanding who they are as male or female made in God’s image and new creatures in Christ. As believers we are called to hate and kill sin. Only when a person gains victory over his sinful, unbelieving past, matures in sanctification, and walks in holiness of life is he ready to be considered for church office. A self-professed SSA person with ongoing unnatural desires does not meet the biblical qualifications for church office. To put such a person in a leadership position would be dishonoring to Christ and recklessly put church members under the care of an unqualified shepherd. The CSP reminds us of the criteria for church leaders in Titus 1:7-9, but shockingly concludes that SSA persons may meet those qualifications.
As Protestants we are committed to the principle of Sola Scriptura. Martin Luther rejected the official teachings of the 16th-century church which had no basis in the Word of God. The heart of Protestant church reform was jettisoning those things that had no foundation in Holy Scripture. Sola Scriptura is an issue in the debate about SSA ordination. Luther’s writings contain wisdom for believers who cling to their homosexual feelings instead of the Scriptures. Luther writes:
“The believer discredits his own feelings as false and puts trust wholly in the Word of God, even if it goes completely against his own feelings.” (Luther, Lectures on Romans).
Luther believed unnatural desires were demonic in origin. Commenting on the Sodom and Gomorrah story, he wrote:
“They departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.” (Luther, Lecture on Genesis)
As faithful Protestants, should we not declare that any affirmation of desires contrary to nature has no basis or foundation in Scripture?
A Stronger Report
If approved by the 46th General Assembly, the CSP will not solve the problem confronting the EPC. It will only aggravate it. Many of us in the EPC are committed to keeping Greg Johnson out of the EPC. His teaching is dangerous. He is a crusader for his aberrant, heretical views. And he is not open to correction.
The list of seven questions to ask SSA candidates recommended in the CSP are solid, biblically based inquiries and appear to address concerns about Johnson. However, in our opinion these questions would not necessarily be effective in Greg Johnson’s case or any SSA candidate. The questions are “counsel” only.
Johnson’s documented track record in the PCA is that he is slippery in his answers. He will profess orthodoxy in one context and then contradict it in another. We have been in conversation with several members of the PCA Standing Judicial Committee who participated in the Greg Johnson case and their testimony is that he lacks credibility. He can give orthodox answers, but then in practice teaches contrary to those affirmations. This double-speak finally caught up with Johnson in the PCA and so he departed rather than face discipline. In one of the final overtures directed against him, several PCA presbyteries listed ten examples of “public comments from TE Greg Johnson either contradicting or offering confusion to his affirmations to Missouri Presbytery’s BCO 31-2 investigation (July 21, 2020) and the Standing Judicial Commission Judicial Case 2020-12 (October 21, 2021).”
A primary concern with the AIC report is its inability to solve the constitutional crisis facing the EPC. What authority will the CSP have since it will not be a part of the constitution? It has the potential to be interpreted like the Stated Clerk’s December 6, 2022, “guidance” which was widely understood to give Mid-America Presbytery the green light to proceed with examining and receiving Greg Johnson. Recall the divisive nature of that “guidance” which was the catalyst for New River Presbytery introducing its overture. Will the leadership (Stated Clerk, NLT, PJC) of the EPC interpret the AIC recommendations if adopted as the de facto judgement of the EPC allowing the reception of ministers with unnatural desires into an EPC presbytery? Will ordaining a gay person become a “non-essential” in the EPC like the ordination of women and gifts of the Spirit?
Some in the EPC have already proposed allowing a local option of presbyteries ordaining SSA persons. That is, some presbyteries may choose to ordain/receive those with ongoing unnatural sexual desires and some presbyteries may not. This was the early tactic in the PC(U.S.A.): “Let’s leave it up to our presbyteries. That way we’ll get along and tolerate differences on homosexual ordination.” This idea is completely unacceptable to the majority of the EPC and would, in effect, create divergent standards of ordination in our denomination.
Suggestions for Improvement
There are several suggestions we offer for AIC consideration that we think will resolve the crisis we face in the EPC over Greg Johnson and the question of SSA ordination. We believe these recommendations would strengthen the AIC report and make it more acceptable across the EPC:
- In the “Book of Order Recommendations” document, add this amendment:
Amend the Book of Government Chapter 9 such that a new clause, G.9-3C, be added which reads as follows: Only men and women with sexual desires and conduct consistent with God’s natural order may be candidates for church office (Genesis 1 / Romans 1).
Rationale: Only a clear statement like this in the Book of Order will resolve the constitutional crisis we face. Allowing someone “experiencing SSA” (unnatural desires) to qualify for church office would be a denial of both biblical teaching and our Book of Order on the necessary evidence of God’s transforming grace in the life of candidates for church office. - In the “Proposed Revision to the Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality” document, on page 7 add “desires and” to this sentence:
“Furthermore, we must insist to those former evangelicals that the Scriptures place our sexual desires and conduct at the core of our ethical behavior as Christians.”
Rationale: This will add internal consistency to the document. - In the “Proposed Revision to the Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality” document, on page 11 delete the sentence that comments on the term “gay Christian”:
“If it is meant to refer to the ongoing experience of a persistent, latent pull towards same-sex sexual temptation while one is making every effort by God’s grace to think and act according to God’s will, then it may be a useful descriptive term in some settings.”
Rationale: This deletion will make the report more internally consistent. As it stands this sentence gives license to use a term that is contrary to a biblical understanding of being new creatures in Christ. The term “gay Christian” is, in fact, a contradiction that negates the new life we have received in Christ. - In the “Proposed Revision to the Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality” document, on page 17 delete the sentence: “The absence of opposite-sex sexual desires is not evidence of lack of sanctification.”
Rationale: This change will make the report more internally consistent. The Bible indicates that ongoing lust and sinful sexual desires (or any ongoing sinful pattern in one’s life) indicates lack of growth in sanctification that demands urgent attention by the individual and the church. - Throughout the report’s recommendations the term “experiencing SSA” (present tense) is used. We suggest that this term be replaced with the term “experienced unnatural desires” (past tense).
Rationale: This change would reflect biblical teaching and biblical language. Ongoing unnatural desires may be a part of one’s biography before conversion, but it is not part of one’s new nature as a person born of the Spirit.
Conclusion
There are many of us in the EPC who categorically reject that a person who professes ongoing unnatural desires is qualified to be a church officer. Our members intuitively recognize the incongruity of ordaining such persons to shepherd the flock. The consistent witness of Scripture against sinful unnatural desires is unmistakable, and that is sufficient. The “Open Letter to the EPC” explains more fully what Scripture and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms say about unnatural desires and qualifications for ordination.
Again, we appreciate the labors of committee members to produce this report. There is much in it that is commendable. However, we believe the report can be improved with the recommendations above in order to serve the EPC well and resolve the immediate problem faced with Greg Johnson as well as potential new questions about human sexuality and ordination that may arise in the future. We urge prayer throughout our beloved denomination that biblical faithfulness will prevail and that God might grant us both purity and peace in our denomination.
Questions for the Ad-Interim Committee:
- Would not acknowledging some believers have experienced SSA in the past be more biblical than speaking of a Christian “experiencing SSA” in the present? (1 Corinthians 6)
- How can a new creature in Christ ever view himself as “SSA” contrary to what Genesis 1 and Romans 1 describe as God’s created design for men and women?
- How can we limit the transforming grace of Christ by suggesting that what the Bible calls “dishonorable passions contrary to nature” (Romans 1:26) can be present in the life of a born-again believer?
- Why does the report suggest a Christian may use the term “gay Christian” in some contexts, when this concept has no foundation in the Scriptures?
- Why does the report fail to cite the teaching of Scripture (Romans 1) and L.C.Q. 151,152 which both indicate that homosexual desires and acts are particularly heinous sins?
- Why was there no reference to the EPC Position Paper on Homosexuality in the report?
- Why is the historic teaching of the Church on these matters ignored in this report?
- Why is there a seeming lack of trust in these historic sources as helpful aids to the EPC in dealing with this issue?
- Will the leadership of the EPC (Stated Clerk, NLT, PJC) interpret these AIC recommendations if adopted as the de facto judgement of the EPC allowing the reception of homosexual ministers into an EPC presbytery?
- Will ordaining a person with unnatural desires to church office become a “non-essential” in the EPC like the ordination of women and gifts of the Spirit?
- As Christians, are we truly a new creation, or must we be content with our old, sinful nature and make allowances for it?
- Has a person who identifies as a “gay Christian” truly repented or been born again?
Leave a Comment