Clarity not Compromise

7 Reasons to Vote Against the AIC Report

By the Editorial Board, Presbyterian Plumb Line

Should the EPC ordain celibate homosexuals? Instead of resolving this issue, the AIC report has created confusion, discord, and division. Despite mountains of feedback imploring them to align this report with Scripture and our doctrinal and constitution standards, the AIC has given us a report that opens the door to celibate homosexual ordination. For this reason, we recommend that the report be rejected in all its parts: the revised Position Paper on Human Sexuality, the revised Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality, and the recommended Book of Government amendments.

If the AIC Report is adopted, the EPC will be headed down the path of compromise on homosexuality that has led to the ruin of all the mainline Protestant denominations. Instead of compromise and confusion, the church needs to speak clearly and say “no” to any form of homosexual ordination.

In good conscience, faithfulness to Christ, and obedience to Scripture, we urge you to vote down the AIC report. Below, we offer seven reasons why the AIC report should be rejected:

1. The AIC Report Rejects the Use of Biblical Language 

Instead of using Biblical terms for homosexuality such as sodomy, unnatural desire, and dishonorable passions, the AIC report uses the term “Same-Sex Attraction” which comes not from the Bible but from our contemporary culture. The AIC report attempts to distinguish homosexuality from same-sex attraction. However, the Bible recognizes no such distinction. For the AIC to claim that same-sex attraction and homosexuality are not the same thing is deceptive, and invents a distinction that is not valid biblically, confessionally or legally. Instead of using clear Biblical language, the AIC report resorts to false and misleading euphemisms. Once you substitute the word “homosexual” for “same-sex attraction,” the AIC report is exposed as unbiblical and unorthodox.

The AIC employs similar verbal sleight of hand by using phrases such as “latent propensity” and “proclivity” to argue that same sex attraction is not sin. The Bible makes no room for such sophistry. All desire for sexual relations outside of biblical marriage is sin and immoral according to Scripture. Sexual lusts and acts are equally sinful in Jesus’ ethic (Matthew 5:27-30). When we use unbiblical language, it leads to unbiblical conclusions, as we see with the AIC report.

2. The AIC Report Misinterprets Romans 1:26-27

Romans 1:26-27 is the most clear and transparent passage on homosexuality in the entire Bible. The gay Christian movement has been trying to explain away these verses for 50 years, and it is tragic to observe the AIC also attempting to do this.

The Westminster Larger Catechism asserts that “sodomy and all unnatural lusts” are sins forbidden in the seventh commandment (L.C. Q. 139). The Biblical proof texts for “sodomy and all unnatural lusts” are Romans 1:24 and 26-27, and Leviticus 20:15-16. Clearly, in the minds of the Westminster Divines “unnatural lusts” only refers to both homosexual lusts and bestiality. This is undoubtedly the case, since the language of “contrary to nature” (i.e., “unnatural”) comes directly from Romans 1:26. And yet, the AIC claims that “unnatural” refers to all the sins listed in Romans Chapter 1. In this misinterpretation, the AIC is going against 2,000 years of Biblical scholarship and orthodox belief.

3. The AIC Report Violates the Westminster Larger Catechism

The AIC argues that all sins are equal, that homosexuality is no more evil than other sins. However, this is contradicted in the Westminster Standards. The Westminster Larger Catechism addresses this issue in L.C.Q. 150:

“Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?”

Answer:

“All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.”

The following question (L.Q.151) addresses aggravations which make some sins more evil in the sight of God. One aggravation is “from the nature and quality of the offence” and under this category the catechism has a list of offenses including those “against the light of nature” (L.C.Q.151.3). The lone proof text for “against the light of nature” is Romans 1:26-27 — homosexuality. In other words, homosexuality is a heinous sin.

Homosexual lusts are more grievous than heterosexual lusts because they violate God’s created order. God has ordained only one expression of sexual desire and that is between married men and women. Homosexuality is not only evil and immoral, but contrary to God’s design for creation. And yet, the AIC report makes no reference to L.C.Q. 151 anywhere in its report.

Apparently, the AIC was not interested in what the constitution has to say about homosexuality when it would prevent the goal of ordaining celibate homosexuals. While heterosexual desire has the capacity to be stewarded faithfully; same sex desires can never be stewarded faithfully; homosexual desire is always grievous sin and never has any godly purpose.

4. The AIC Report Distorts the Doctrine of Sanctification

The Westminster Confession chapter 13 contains this climatic final paragraph:

“Although the old nature temporarily wins battles in this warfare, the continual strengthening of the sanctifying Spirit of Christ enables the regenerate nature in each believer to overcome. And so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” (WCF. 13.3)

Growing in grace by the sanctifying Spirit of Christ would be an expectation of anyone aspiring to be a Deacon, Ruling Elder, or Teaching Elder in a Presbyterian congregation. How could a professing Christian claiming a gay identity and/or ongoing unnatural sexual desires claim to be experiencing “true wholeness through the freeing, renewing grace of God in Jesus Christ”? Christ indeed sets us free, which is what the new birth is all about. A Christian brother or sister with continuing struggles in understanding their sexuality biblically is not suitable to be a Deacon, Elder, or Pastor. Members of our Christian family with persistent sexual confusion need love and discipleship, not the recklessness of ordination for leadership.

The AIC response to this critique is to cry “Perfectionism!” This is a diversion to obfuscate the issue. No one has ever claimed perfection is a requirement for ordination. Here is the answer provided by A Red Line on Ordination and Same-Sex Attraction in the EPC:

“… spiritual leadership in Christ’s church must not only affirm sound doctrine but also embody it. Their lives are to be shaped by increasing conformity to Christ and maturity in godliness (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1).”

“We acknowledge that believers come from many backgrounds, including sexual brokenness, and we rejoice in the sanctifying work of the Spirit that brings genuine healing over time. However, ordination demands evidence of progress in sanctification and the ability to serve as a model for the flock.”

“But ordination must be reserved for those who have borne fruit in keeping with repentance and who exhibit maturity in sexual holiness. This includes those who, if they once struggled with SSA, now enjoy marked freedom from its power and no longer claim it as part of their identity.”

“We affirm that God can and does deliver His people from every form of sin and disordered desire, including those of a sexual nature. And we expect that those who lead His church will be living testimonies to that redeeming and renewing grace.”

5. The AIC Report Ignores and Contradicts the Position Paper on Homosexuality

In 2016, the General Assembly approved the preliminary Position Paper on Human Sexuality and agreed “that the current Position Paper on Homosexuality be removed from our EPC website and made available upon request.” (See Minutes of the 36th General Assembly motions 36-28 and 36-31, p. 53-54.) Despite the claims of some AIC members, the Position Paper on Homosexuality (PPH) was never rescinded by the General Assembly and still serves as a guiding document for the EPC. And yet, the PPH is not referenced in the AIC report. Indeed, the AIC report is clearly contradicted by the Position Paper on Homosexuality, which states:

“… redemption from homosexuality is mercifully offered in the atoning work of Jesus Christ. The word of hope that the church presents is that through the death and resurrection of Christ, God offers sinners both the forgiveness of sin and the power to live a life pleasing to him (Romans 8:1-4).”

“As Christians who are ourselves sinners redeemed by the grace of God, we must reach out to those persons who are struggling with homosexuality, offering them the word of hope that is the Gospel to the end that they may experience true wholeness through the freeing, renewing grace of God in Jesus Christ. ‘So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.’ (John 8:36).”

At the end of the PPH is a summary of Biblical teaching on homosexuality:

“The witness of God’s Word in both the Old and New Testaments is clear, declaring that the practice of homosexual behavior, including lust, is a grievous sin, and that any who continue to engage in such activity face the consequences of God’s condemning judgment.”

6. The AIC Report Threatens to Cause Great Harm and Damage to the Church

What is the harm of ordaining celibate homosexuals? One need only look at the Roman Catholic Church, where numerous priests who vowed celibacy turned out to be pedophiles and homosexuals — see the 2004 John Jay College of Criminal Justice study, which found that in 81% of sexual abuse cases involving priests and deacons, the victims were boys ages 11-17. As a result of this damning report, the Roman Catholic Church issued a statement: “Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and Holy Orders” (2005). This document stated:

“One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”

As Catholics figured out, anyone with ongoing SSA (i.e., homosexual tendencies) is an unacceptable candidate for ministry.

With precedent as a warning, here are ten ways the AIC threatens the EPC:

• We will have to protect children and youth from homosexual church leaders; it’s never worth the risk of sexual abuse.
• A person experiencing ongoing SSA has no God-honoring sexual outlet. This is an accident waiting to happen. The recent fall of Sam Allberry, removed from ministry after disclosing a homosexual relationship, is yet another warning that ordaining SSA persons is terribly unwise and dangerous.
• Because they are struggling with their own sexuality, homosexuals cannot relate correctly to men or women in congregations or be expected to counsel and guide the flock of Christ. To lead God’s church, an elder must be spiritually healthy.
• If the EPC approves the ordination of celibate homosexuals, we will be doing them a disservice. If we affirm them in their sin, they will have no reason to seek the freedom and deliverance offered in the Gospel. For the church to ordain homosexuals is not loving or compassionate, it is pastoral malpractice, causing damage to their souls.
• The church will open itself up to the hidden consequences of potential lawsuits. See “AIC Recommendations Create Hidden Legal and Financial Risks” in Volume 2, Issue 4 of the Presbyterian Plumb Line.
• There will be severe division throughout the EPC; some churches will leave immediately; others will begin plans for departure.
• Trust within the EPC will further dissipate; presbyteries will be suspicious of one another and will initiate overtures and/or disciplinary proceedings when homosexuals are ordained.
• The EPC will have opened the door to the LGBTQ+ invasion of the church. The past 50 years in the mainline churches has shown what happens when biblical sexuality is abandoned. In the PC(USA), polyamory — having multiple sexual partners — is now being debated as acceptable behavior for those being ordained to leadership.
• It will tarnish our Gospel witness to the world; we will be bearing false witness by ordaining homosexual persons.
• Ordaining celibate homosexual persons will damage our reputation — the EPC will become known as a denomination that ordains homosexuals. Fraternal partnerships will be threatened; World Outreach missionaries will be at risk for backlash from supporters, mission agencies, and certain countries where they serve; and our military chaplains will be put at risk.

7. The AIC Report Forsakes Historic Christian Teaching

In a pagan world that glorified sexual immorality, lust, and promiscuity, Christians were distinguished by their sexual ethic. The Church Fathers were aware of homosexuality in their societies; they wrote about and condemned it as unfitting for followers of Christ. St. Paul indicates that homosexuals were converted and experienced life change (1 Corinthians 6:11). The Medieval church likewise spoke about homosexuality, which was prevalent in parts of Italy — and a big problem among monks and priests (see The Book of Gomorrah). The Reformers also mentioned the evils of homosexuality; Luther believed homosexuality was inspired by Satan. The idea of knowingly ordaining a person who battled homosexual lust was inconceivable for Protestants.

Beginning in the 1970s, mainline Protestants began to depart from Biblical standards of sexuality. Homosexuality was normalized through support of gay ordination and eventually gay marriage. In response to this creeping moral drift, the EPC was founded by churches who were compelled by conscience to leave the UPCUSA and the PCUS and establish a new Presbyterian body that would be faithful to Scripture and the Reformed faith. One of its first position papers was on homosexuality; that statement firmly rejected homosexual ordination. The Position Paper on Homosexuality did not address celibate homosexuality, as it was just assumed Scripture condemns all homosexuality — celibate or not. Those who founded the EPC (some of whom are still alive) are deeply distressed by our current discussion of celibate homosexual ordination. They cannot believe we are even having this conversation.

The unanimous testimony of the Church (before the madness of the 20th Century) has been to condemn all forms of homosexuality as evil, unnatural, and perverse: an abomination. History has also revealed how compromise in sexual ethics goes hand in glove with other doctrinal aberrations. The AIC has offered no historical witnesses for its cavalier interpretation of Scripture and the Confession and Catechisms; it is because there are no witnesses. For the AIC to suggest that 17th Century Puritans who wrote the Westminster Standards would approve of celibate homosexual ordination is false and preposterous, and they must surely know it.