By Nate Atwood
TE, Central Carolinas Presbytery
Sodomy. Okay, I said it. I’m sorry if I offended you. But wait. I’m not sorry. Sodomy is the Bible’s language when it comes to homosexuality. The AIC report may call it same sex attraction (SSA), but the Bible calls the act behind that attraction sodomy (Genesis 19:1-8; 1 Timothy 1:8-10; 2 Peter 2:6).
A War of Words
How often have we seen it? Liberals in our culture change language in order to disguise what they are pushing. For example, abortion isn’t child sacrifice or child murder, it’s being “pro-choice.” Mutilating the body of a 10- year- old is “gender affirming surgery.” It’s not homosexual marriage, it’s “marital choice.” What liberals understand all too well is that he who controls the language controls the argument.
Perhaps this is where the AIC report first went astray. Rather than using Biblical language such as “unnatural” desire, or “sodomy”, the AIC choose instead to use the culturally sanitized euphemism, “same sex attracted.” Can we just be honest about it? To be “same sex attracted” is to be sexually attracted to the same sex … which is homosexual attraction … which is to be attracted to sodomy. (I don’t know and don’t want to know what female-on-female sex is called.)
If you’ve tried to read the AIC report (all 10,000 words of it) and are left a bit confused, then I suggest you re-read it, utilizing the language of the Bible rather than man’s language. Every time you see the phrase “same sex attracted” (SSA), just substitute “attracted to sodomy.” Suddenly, the report becomes very clear — and very disturbing. To be blunt rather than “winsome,” the AIC report affirms ordination of those attracted to sodomy; that is, who have an inner desire to either sodomize or be sodomized by another man.
It is amazing how clear things become when we use Biblically faithful language.
Why Are We Even Talking About This?
“Why are we even talking this?” How many times have I heard that question from shocked ruling elders over the past two and a half years? How did a denomination whose doctrinal statement commits us to the Bible — and the Bible alone — as our ultimate authority end up discussing this?
The core of the debate comes down to two simple truths that are colliding with one another. The “big idea” driving the AIC report is “progressive sanctification.” This is the Biblical doctrine that all have sinned and no one on this side of heaven is perfect. (Or even close to perfect). The argument of the AIC report is that since all have sinned and no one is perfect, how can we deny ordination to someone who promises sexual obedience despite their abiding desire for homosexual sex?
By contrast, the principal doctrine driving those who object to the AIC report is the Biblical doctrine of Creation. Very simply, those opposed to the AIC report and its recommendations affirm that all have sinned — but add this key truth: not all sin is the same. This is common sense. Stealing a bag of peanuts is not the same as premeditated murder. Citing Scripture, our own confessional standard (L.C.Q. 150) makes this abundantly clear:
“All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous.” (John 19:11; Ezekiel 8:6, 13, 15; 2 John 5:16; Psalm 78:17, 32, 56)
And while James teaches the salvation truth that if we break the law at any single point, we are guilty of violating the whole of the Law (James 2:10), the sanctification truth is that some sins are more costly and serious than others. Again, “not all violations of the law of God are equally heinous.”
How serious is homosexual desire? Leviticus 20:12-16 tells us, as does Romans 1:26-27, that homosexual thought and behavior are in a unique category of sin known as “unnatural.” What other sins are defined as “unnatural”? The list is short and dark. Homosexuality, incest, and bestiality.1 If you’re still wondering whether or not we can ordain those who are “same sex attracted,” what about the person attracted to sexual relations with his mother? Would we ordain the person who says, “I haven’t done it and promise I won’t, but I do want to have sex with my daughter.” I won’t even go to the sin of bestiality. If you think that we are treating the sin of homosexuality and homosexual desire differently, then you are correct. We are treating them differently because the Bible treats them differently. All sins are offensive to God, but the sin of sodomy is an abomination and a rejection of his created order.
So, how did we get here? By caving to the culture, yet again. The world around us decrees that if we will not ordain homosexuals (even celibate ones), then we must be hateful and homophobic. No, we’re not. We simply know how serious God is about His Creation, the ordering of His Creation, and the ordination standards of those who would serve Him. Those who struggle with homosexuality deserve our compassion, but they should not be ordained to church leadership.
Calling All Ruling Elders
Those who founded the EPC were both appreciative of and suspicious of teaching elders. That is why they established a rule of two ruling elders for every one teaching elder in the EPC.2 We teaching elders have the capacity to overthink things. We can fall in love with our own ideas and words.
Friends, there is nothing “nuanced” about the issue before us. There was no nuance in Sodom when God visited His wrath upon this very sin and its desire, raining down fire and burning sulfur. The Old Testament records two cataclysmic judgments: Sodom and Noah’s flood. In both instances God’s natural order was violated: “sons of God” (angels) with women prior to the Flood and men with men in Sodom.3 God is obviously quite serious about His Creation boundaries “of like kind”4 (Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24-25).
Yes, God visited other judgments in the Bible. Jerusalem fell. Twice. Battles were lost, and children died. But in each of those stories there was a path to redemption and renewal. But for Sodom, there was no second chance or path to redemption. Likewise, the Flood wiped out every living thing except for Noah and those with him in the ark. Let that sink in for a moment: The two most dramatic judgments in the Old Testament are reserved for those who violated God’s boundaries of “natural” sexual relations. Your gut is right. This is not rocket science. There are some lines that cannot be crossed.
Ruling elders, we need you now. Don’t just nod your head and swallow what the teaching elders around you may be selling. There’s a long, sad history of official “study papers” departing from the Bible. Now is the moment for you to think for yourself. That is why you’re here: to follow the dictates of your conscience. With that in mind, ask yourself these questions, “Does this sound right to me? Do I really think it’s a good idea to ordain someone who has an ongoing struggle with a desire for homosexual sex? Unnatural sex? Sodomy?” Is it not obvious that if you struggle with desires such as these you are welcome to the pews of the church to learn of saving and sanctifying grace, but you have no business in the pulpit or serving on the Session? Does any of this pass the smell test?
Who will decide this? The ruling elders will — that’s simple math. There are two of you for every one of us. And if you need the support of history, those of us who date back to the origins of the EPC would tell you that this entire discussion would infuriate (yes, infuriate) our officially recognized “Fathers of the Church” such as Bart Hess, Andy Jumper, Jim Van Dyke, and Ed Davis. Several of us were mentored by those men, and they were quite clear with us about their convictions. (I’ve put our names and contact information below so that you can reach out to us and learn the history lesson for yourself).5 They wrote the original EPC position paper on homosexuality. Why were they so concerned about the sin of homosexuality that they started the EPC? First, they knew the Bible. Second, they knew the Westminster Standards. Third, they knew church history and so they knew that Bible-believing churches have never knowingly ordained those who have an ongoing struggle with unnatural sex. Never ever.
So, ruling elders, this is your time. Come to General Assembly. Put an end to this nonsense. Rescue the EPC from herself. Pray. Speak up. Vote. Don’t be fooled by semantic subterfuge and deceptive language. Vote against the AIC report — every single part of it. And, while you’re at it, vote for the overture that would prohibit those who have ongoing homosexual desires from being ordained. Why? Because homosexual desire is a desire for sodomy. End of story.
____________________
1 Question 139 of the Westminster Larger Catechism condemns “sodomy, and all unnatural lusts” while citing both Romans 1 and Leviticus 20. The reference to sodomy in Romans 1 is obvious. In citing Leviticus 20 the Larger Catechism references those verses which list incest and bestiality alongside homosexuality. Each in their own way is unnatural, and each of these three sins merits the same punishment: death. The reality that each of these sins are listed alongside one another and the fact that they all merit the same consequence defines this unique and particularly troubling category of sin defined as “unnatural.”
2 Book of Government 19-2.A.4.
3 Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, p. 75. “Just as one form of copulation, (between angels and women) contributed to the earlier cataclysm of the great Flood in Genesis 6, so another form of unnatural sexual relations (between men) served as a key contributing factor in the cataclysmic destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.”
4 “Of like kind” establishes a simple truth: as God created, He did so according to His own divinely ordained order and boundaries. That order and those boundaries are fixed and immediately should call our attention to the particularly “heinous” sin (Question 150 of the Westminster Larger Catechism) of violating that natural order.
5 Ron DiNunzio was mentored by Bart Hess, Mark Jumper by his father Andy Jumper, Jim Rimmel by Ed Davis and Bart Hess, and Nate Atwood by Jim Van Dyke. You can contact us at [email protected]
Leave a Comment