Limping Along

By David Milroy
TE, Presbytery of the Alleghenies

“And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” And the people did not answer him a word” (1 Kings 18:21).

On August 27, the Ad-Interim Committee on Same-Sex Attraction (AIC) put forth three updated documents that are still under construction: the pastoral letter, the position paper, and the proposed change to the Book of Government. They have spent many hours on these documents, for which I am grateful. I have never been on such a committee. I imagine it is awkward and difficult work trying to write in the voice of nine people. I sincerely appreciate the commitment and the time invested by these brothers and sisters in Christ.

It is apparent, though, that at this point the report provides no clarity for sessions and presbyteries who examine same-sex attracted (SSA) candidates for office. The collective voice of the committee limps along between two different opinions. It has thus far failed to give direction on the pressing issue:

Do we ordain candidates to office who persist in SSA or who identify with their SSA? Or do we lovingly and firmly tell these candidates that they are disqualified if they profess, persist in, or identify with same-sex desires?

Here I offer a few critiques, beginning with the document which helps the church the most (and which carries the least authority), descending into the one that is least helpful (and would, if passed, carry the most authority).

Pastoral Letter

There is much to appreciate in this letter. It is compassionate while also calling those with SSA (as well as the rest of us) to repentance. One of my favorite lines is this:

Any experience of same-sex attraction then must be subordinated to our identity in union with Christ: our besetting sin may be same-sex lust, but we need to be repenting of that and seeking growth in sanctification as we turn away from it to Christ in a new obedience (page 5, lines 16-18).

Yes, and amen. But for ambiguity, there is nothing more confusing than these paragraphs:

That means that how one who experiences SSA describes oneself requires the exercise of wisdom. Consider for example the language of “gay Christian”. We recognize that some Christians may use the term “gay” in an effort to be more readily understood by non-Christians. The word “gay” is common in our culture, and we do not think it wise for churches to police every use of the term. If “gay Christian” is meant to refer to a Christian who affirms, engages or expresses solidarity with same-sex sexual activity or desire, it is an oxymoron and inappropriate. 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 (page 5, lines 42-43).

We, however, affirm that those in our churches would be wise to avoid the term “gay Christian.” Although the term “gay” may refer to more than being attracted to persons of the same sex, the term does not communicate less than that. For many people in our culture, to self-identify as “gay” suggests that one is engaged in homosexual practice. At the very least, the term normally communicates the presence and approval of same-sex sexual attraction as morally neutral or morally praiseworthy (page 6, lines 1-15).

What are we to make of this? Do we use the term “gay Christian” or not? Churches shouldn’t police the term, but they should avoid it. It may refer to someone who’s practicing same-sex sex, or one who is not. But if it “normally communicates the presence and approval of same-sex sexual attraction,” why wouldn’t we police it, if by “policing it” we mean telling people not to use the term? Even the phrase “policing every use of the term” evokes the image of the scolding, nagging SNL Church Lady from the late 1980s (yes, I’m dating myself).

As Christians, any identification with our sin is unbiblical and foolish. This portion of the pastoral letter confuses the faithful and invites misinterpretation. I hope it is revised.

Position Paper

The position paper is written in a therapeutic register. In emotionally heated tones, it points the finger, Nathan-like, at the EPC man/woman in the mirror: “You are the man!” (2 Samuel 12:7). It is so self-condemning that it makes our staid Reformed denomination sound like a hotbed for lusty sins, grievous cover-ups, and bullying. I am sure there are sins. But I don’t know of any cover-ups or bullying. Perhaps the motive is to have a posture of humility, which is sort of an Iron Dome of defensibility (imagine the critique: “you’re too humble!”). But in reality, it is not humble. To be humble, as C.S. Lewis suggested in Mere Christianity, is not to think less of ourselves, but to think of ourselves less frequently. This paper points us to think often of ourselves, and when we do, to remember that we are really super very bad sexual sinners.

We, as evangelical Presbyterians, readily and sorrowfully confess our manifold violations of His Word: as a people, we have engaged in premarital sex, adultery, ungodly divorce, and sexual lusts of every sort, not only before coming to faith in Christ, but also afterward. As churches, we have at times sanctioned unbiblical marriages, violating the expressed will of God revealed in the Scriptures; and we sometimes have self-righteously condemned others for their sexual sins while committing our own. We stand in need of God’s forgiveness and power to live holy lives. Our churches desperately need revival and a humble return to godly sexual practice. And so, with humble and repentant hearts, we return to the Lord, and we invite those both inside and outside the Church to join us in seeking God’s blessing in our sexual lives (page 2, lines 26-35).

We desire to adhere fully to biblical sexuality. Out of love we remind ourselves and share with others the message of God’s judgment upon all forms of sexual immorality. We also believe that there is no place for any form of cruelty, hate or denigration of those who either disagree with these positions or hold to other positions. We unequivocally condemn all injustices, sinful intimidation, and physical violence perpetrated against anyone because of sexual attraction or practice (page 3, lines 6-11).

Sheesh. Is this stuff really happening? “Physical violence perpetrated against [people] because of sexual attraction or practice?” Of course, we condemn these things. Does anyone think these are problems within our own denomination? If so, let’s get the police involved and bring charges against these criminals. But if these problems do not exist, what is the purpose of writing about them? To me, the subtext suggests something like this: “How can we judge SSA candidates for office when we are so sinful ourselves?” This is a logical fallacy, of course, so it is left for us to intuit through the language of guilt and shame.

The primary problem with this section in particular and the position paper in general, is that none of this has anything to do with same-sex attraction. Even when there is an opportunity — a golden one — to address this topic, the position paper punts. The section entitled “Recovering from Sexual Brokenness” on pages 4-5 states,

Those in and out of the Church struggling with various forms of sexual disorientation or gender dysphoria should find God’s people ready to walk lovingly with them in their struggles and to invite them to join us in following the Lord. Together as a people, we must all seek healing for our own lives and for each other’s lives, discovering what it means to be godly men and women in the circumstances decreed by His providence. Glorifying God in our sexual lives will at times entail suffering or persecution of various sorts, but, by God’s empowering grace, we aspire to obey Him with joy (page 5, lines 8-14).

Indeed, we have all sinned with respect to sexual morality. Who could argue? However, that does not make all sins equal in terms of rebelliousness against God and His created order, nor in effect. This is a perfect section to address SSA, to call those men attracted to men to repent, to call women attracted to women to repent. But there is no mention of it. Why?

Instead, there is a brief paragraph about gender dysphoria. But rather than addressing the fundamental confusion in our culture about the reality that male and female cannot be changed, there is instead a sentence about how we should walk lovingly with people afflicted with gender dysphoria. Yes, and amen. But where is the call to teach with clarity on this matter as a church? Where is the pleading with pastors to speak with courage about the truth of Christian anthropology? Where is the naming and condemning of the demonic ideology which teaches that our gender is something we choose for ourselves, that our bodies are merely instruments to be changed as we desire, and that our feelings override our biology? If this topic is going to be broached, there is so much more that needs to be said. What does the obedience entail that is mentioned, almost in passing, at the end of the paragraph with respect to obedience to Christ in our sexual lives? Isn’t this the time to say to those who are same-sex attracted: “repent and to trust the Spirit’s sanctifying work?” Shouldn’t it be stated that this sanctification includes great hope for the removal of unnatural lusts and disordered affections?

The most fascinating aspect of the position paper as it now stands is that it never mentions same-sex attraction. Not once. For a committee entitled “Ad-Interim Committee on Same-Sex Attraction and Ordination Standards,” it is more than a little odd that SSA would be completely ignored in its position paper.

Proposed Amendment

This is the most troubling of the documents. It is the one with binding authority. And once again, it does not definitively address the matter at hand. Belaboring the point, the reason the AIC was formed was to address this issue: should we, or should we not, ordain those who persist in SSA, or those who identify with their SSA? To date, the committee will not say one way or the other. The committee proposes this language four times, in four different places:

Faithful conformity to [Jesus’] character, obedience to him as Lord, and steady progress in spiritual growth (page 1).

It then proposes this language for BoG 9-3a.:

Officers must conform to the biblical requirement of chastity and sexual purity (see Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 138-139; D.1-10) in their descriptions of themselves, their convictions, character, and conduct (page 2).

None of this is objectionable, but it doesn’t address the pressing issue. It can be interpreted in whatever way presbyteries or sessions desire. It is unfortunately reminiscent of the PC(USA)’s language in their constitution, when they allowed the ordination of practicing homosexuals and lesbians with amendment 10-A in 2010. Before the passage of 10-A the constitution stated:

Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W‐4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self‐acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

With the passage of 10-A the PC(USA) constitution was amended to:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G‐1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G‐14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W‐4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

It was an obfuscating, cynical move to open the door to the ordination of practicing homosexuals with the language “submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life.” I am not saying that the AIC’s work will allow practicing homosexuals to be ordained. But the language choice is similar to 10-A in the sense that it allows presbyteries to ordain SSA officers precisely because of what it does not say. It speaks in generalities, when specifics are needed.

An Onramp or a Guardrail?

There are some, perhaps many, in our denomination who believe that we are obliged to welcome candidates for office who are same-sex attracted in an ongoing, persistent way or who claim their same-sex attraction as a discrete identity provided they do not act on these attractions. I think they are wrong, and that if their perspective wins the day will have disastrous effects on our denomination — immediately and in the future.

In 1978, the PC(USA) approved the ordination of “celibate homosexuals” with these words:

“Persons of homosexual orientation are not automatically disqualified from ordination …  so long as they do not engage in homosexual practice and maintain celibacy.”

Of course, the PC(U.S.A.) ended up going down the slope all the way to the bottom. We will be stepping onto that same slope if we opt to ordain SSA candidates. That slope is seriously steep, and once the slide begins it is nearly impossible to scramble back up the hill. But that isn’t the point of this essay.

I would actually be more comfortable if the committee stated clearly, “we unreservedly recommend the ordination of SSA candidates who are not practicing and we recommend that identifying as a ‘gay Christian’ not be held against such candidates.” Why? Because then we would have something to debate at GA. The lines for debate would be clearly drawn. The AIC would in that case be recommending an onramp. I am in favor of a guardrail, and would use all means provided to try to persuade our GA commissioners that a guardrail is what we need, not an onramp.

But as it stands, it will be difficult to have the debate next summer. Without a clear recommendation on SSA and ordination, all we can debate at GA is whether to accept or reject recommendations that do not address the matter. It causes our denomination to limp along with no clear guidance. And if we fail to debate this matter at GA next summer, it will be a very serious failure indeed.

It will lead to referring the decision to the presbyteries. Some will then choose to ordain SSA candidates, and others will not. This is the so-called “local option,” which would be better termed the Judges 21:25 option: “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” It will certainly result in SSA officers being ordained which will then result in many difficult things — churches leaving, charges brought, division, acrimony. It is a terrible option because it will undermine the peace, unity, and purity of the EPC.

The work of the AIC has so far provided neither a guardrail against SSA nor an explicit onramp. This is a profound problem that will prevent serious debate about a very important issue. I hope this changes, and changes soon. We cannot go limping along to Denver next summer.