Are All Sins Equal
in the Sight of God?

By David Weber
TE, New River Presbytery

While teaching a Wednesday night class a few months ago on Kevin DeYoung’s What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality, I made a clarifying comment about the relative weight of different sins. Leaning on the wording of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, I explained that some sins are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

It is more heinous to physically commit adultery than merely to lust. It is worse for a man to strike a woman than to strike another man, and worse still for a man to strike a young child. Worst of all would be for a father to maliciously strike his own daughter. All sins are not the same.

In relation to homosexuality, I explained that it is more grievous in the sight of God to commit homosexual sin than heterosexual sin, because these sins differ in kind. Following the class, a student thanked me for clarifying the issue. She told me that she had always been taught all sins were equal in God’s sight, but it had never made sense to her either Biblically or experientially.

That conversation got me thinking about how deeply this misconception has shaped our thinking within the church. We live in an age that seeks to flatten moral distinctions — to make all sins equal, and in doing so to make us unable to discern their relative weight. Yet the Word of God and our confessional standards affirm that some sins are indeed more grievous in the sight of God than others.

Understanding this truth is not merely a matter of theological precision, it is deeply practical. It is essential to the health of the church, and particularly the health of church leadership. If we cannot distinguish the relative weight of sins, we will have no ability to discern who can fulfill the requirements for ordination.

For example, if one man struggles to be patient with his children and another struggles to keep from physically abusing them, we must be able to say that one of these struggles is disqualifying and one is not. One man needs encouragement and growth; the other needs counseling and perhaps a restraining order. If we cannot tell the difference, we are unfit to discern who should serve as an officer in Christ’s church.

In the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, we are facing a crossroads concerning the ordination of those who experience ongoing same-sex attraction. Much of the debate is clouded by confusion over the relative weight of sin. I have heard some argue that if we disqualify those with homosexual desires, then we must also disqualify those with heterosexual desires. And if those who experience heterosexual desire are disqualified, then no one could be ordained. But this reasoning misunderstands the distinction between the heinousness of different kinds of sin.

Are all sexual sins equal in the sight of God? And if not, how should that reality inform our current debate concerning the ordination of those who continue to experience unnatural same-sex desires?

Why Has This Confusion Arisen?                                                                                                             

The idea that “all sins are equal” most likely stems from a misapplication of two deeply Biblical truths. First, all sin separates us from God. Even the smallest transgression makes us lawbreakers (James 2:10) and therefore rightly subjects us to God’s wrath and curse (Romans 6:23). God is holy, and no sin can stand in His presence.

Second, no sinner is beyond the sovereign grace of God. The Lord graciously called the murderous Saul to Himself and forgave the “chief of sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15). Whether murderer, addict, liar, homosexual, or idolater, God forgives all who come to Him. He washes us in the blood of Christ and frees us from sin’s dominion.

However, these truths do not mean that all sins are equal in kind, degree, or consequence. To say otherwise is to ignore both Scripture and our Confession of Faith.

Biblical Evidence for Degrees of Sin

Scripture repeatedly affirms that there are degrees of sin and guilt. In Ezekiel 8, the prophet is carried by the Spirit into the temple courts of Jerusalem where the Lord unveils a shocking series of visions. Ezekiel first sees the elders of Israel burning incense to engraved images. Then he witnesses women weeping for the pagan god Tammuz. Finally, he sees men bowing down to the sun in the very courts of the Lord’s house. After each revelation, God says, “But you will see still greater abominations than these” (Ezekiel 8:6, 8:13, 8:15).

The progression is deliberate. The Lord shows Ezekiel how sin intensifies — moving from hidden chambers of idolatry to open desecration of His sanctuary. The language of “greater abominations” reveals that rebellion can deepen in gravity, and that sin becomes more heinous as it approaches what is most sacred.

A similar principle appears in John 19:11. As Jesus stands before Pilate, He declares, “He who delivered Me over to you has the greater sin.” Pilate is guilty, yet Jesus distinguishes degrees of culpability. Pilate sins through cowardice and expedience; the Jewish leaders and Judas sin through betrayal and unbelief. They commit the greater sin because they acted against greater light.

This same logic undergirds Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:23. Condemning their hypocrisy, He says, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.” God’s commands are all righteous, yet some carry greater moral weight because they touch more directly on His character and the well-being of His people.

Taken together, these passages demonstrate that God distinguishes between lesser and greater sins. Sin is not a flat landscape; it rises in degrees of guilt and consequence. The nearer one stands to the truth, the greater the responsibility and therefore, the greater the sin when that truth is rejected.

The Westminster Standards                                                                                                                     

The Westminster Shorter Catechism affirms this Biblical truth:

Q. 83: Are all transgressions of the law equally heinous?
A. Some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

The Larger Catechism expands on this in Questions 150–152, teaching that sins are made more or less heinous by the circumstances, by the person offending, the parties offended, the nature and quality of the offense, and the time and place in which it occurs (WLC, Q.151).

Applying these categories to the question of ordaining a candidate who experiences homosexual desires, we see several relevant principles:

From the person offending: Sins are more grievous “if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others.” Ministers are called to be examples to the flock (1 Peter 5:3). When the shepherd himself is marked by disordered desire, it is particularly grievous. Our debate is not about whether same-sex attraction disqualifies one from salvation, but whether one marked by such disordered desires can rightly guide others.

From the parties offended: A sin is more heinous “if immediately against God, His attributes, and worship.” Homosexuality explicitly rebels against God’s created order. Heterosexual desire is a God-given desire; it has a proper aim and end. The sexual desire of a husband for his wife and a wife for her husband is good. When wrongly aimed, it is sinful but it remains a corruption of something good. Homosexual desire, by contrast, is an affront to God as Creator. This rebellion against God may explain why Leviticus categorizes homosexuality as an “abomination” (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13).

From the nature and quality of the offense: A sin grows more heinous if it is “against the light of nature.” Paul describes homosexual lusts in precisely this way: “exchanging natural relations for those that are contrary to nature” (Romans 1:26). One of the designed purposes of sexual desire is procreation. Homosexual acts are inherently sterile; they are, by kind, disordered and contrary to nature itself.

From the circumstances of time and place: Sin is worsened “if it be in public or scandalous.” In our cultural moment when the world celebrates pride in what Scripture calls shameful, the public affirmation of such desires by a minister is especially scandalous. We cannot allow even a hint of affirmation of homosexual desire, for to do so would publicly discredit the church’s witness to Biblical ethics.

Taken together, we see that same-sex attraction and desire are clearly more heinous in the sight of God than desires created and blessed by Him for uniting one man and one woman in marriage. This is not to argue that heterosexual sin is not heinous, nor that degrees of heterosexual sin cannot be disqualifying for ordination. Rather, it is to say that homosexual desire, by its very nature, is different in kind and must be addressed differently. We could say the same for other disordered sexual desires that Scripture calls abominations such as incest (Leviticus 18:6-17), bestiality (Leviticus 18:23), and cultic prostitution or sexual acts associated with idolatry (Deuteronomy 23:17-18).

Conclusion: Guarding the Flock                                                                                                           

The editors of the Plumb Line have rightly stated:

“Neither a person who self-identifies as a ‘gay Christian,’ nor one who continues to experience ongoing same-sex attraction — regardless of how they label it — should be considered a qualified candidate for ordination in the EPC.”

This position is not born of prejudice or fear but of pastoral and Biblical fidelity. Ordination is not a right; it is a calling to exemplify holiness. While we show compassion to those who wrestle with same-sex attraction, we must also uphold the Biblical qualifications for office.

If a candidate’s desires remain persistently disordered in a way Scripture calls “against nature,” ordaining him would confuse the flock and compromise the church’s witness.

Why is the presence of homosexual desire in a pastor different from heterosexual desire? Because it is unnatural. It manifests the fall’s deeper corruption. It represents a disorder of affection that is, by its very nature, contrary to creation and to God Himself.

There are indeed degrees of evil in sin. To guard the ministry of the EPC, we must recover the Biblical wisdom to discern them. Let us stand firm upon the Word of God and guided by the wisdom of our Confession as we remain resolved to maintain the purity, peace, and unity of Christ’s church.