Rev. Sterling Brown, Rev. Dr. G. Carlton (Carl) Moore Jr., & Rev. Joseph Yerger
There are five questions which are addressed in this position paper:
- Is a person who identifies themselves by any sin, attributing to themselves a “sinful identity” (or claiming a particular sin as their “identity”) and thereby being actively engaged in sin?
- Is such self-identification an implicit refusal to repent of their past/present sins and therefore sinful?
- If such a self-identification is sinfully unrepentant, then is such a self-identification an automatic dis-qualifier for holding church office?
- Is a homosexual orientation and attraction naturally sinful?
- What role does the command of celibacy in singleness play in the life of a person who struggles with homosexual attractions and desires?
New Identity
Scripture plainly teaches that every human person is a sinner (1 Kings 8:46; Isa 53:6; Rom 3:23; WCF 6.4-6); apart from Jesus Christ, there are no righteous persons (Ps 14:1, 53:1, 143:2; Rom 3:10). Therefore, every Christian person ought to recognize, acknowledge, and confess that he or she is a sinner (James 3:2;1 John 1:8), and should, therefore, also regularly confess and repent of his or her sins (1 Kings 846-50; Job 42:5-6; Ps. 7:12; Ez. 18:30; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30; Rev 2:5; WCF 15.1, 2, 6).
Scripture also plainly teaches that while there are degrees of severity to sin (1 John 5:16-17; WLC 150), all sins are deserving of the ultimate sanction, that is, both physical and spiritual death (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:56; WCF 15.4). Furthermore, sinful transgressions are not limited merely to our actions, but sinful transgressions also include our concupiscent desires, thoughts, intentions, and even our willful inaction (Ex. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:1-21; Matt 5:27-30; Luke 10:32).
Yet God, in His gracious mercy and love, chooses to save some by rescuing them from the just penalty which is due to them, on account of their sin (John 3:16; Eph. 2:8-10). These He both justifies (Rom. 3:24; 1 Cor. 6:11; Gal. 2:16) and sanctifies (John 17:19; 1 Cor. 1:2, 6:11; Heb. 10:10), cleansing them from the stain of their former sins (Ps. 51:7; Isa. 1:16-18; Acts 22:16). God’s chosen people, as a whole, are called to be a holy priesthood (Ex.19:6; 1 Peter 2:4-10), ministering before the LORD on behalf of the world.
Scripture also plainly teaches that when we are called, redeemed, regenerated, and sanctified (Rom. 8:28-30; WCF 11.1), our whole selves are being transformed as we are being conformed to the image of Christ, the image of the invisible God (2 Cor. 3:18, 4:4; Col. 1:15; WCF 13), by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12:2), and our receipt of hearts of flesh (Ez. 11:19-20).
Therefore, Scripture teaches that following our regeneration we are no longer what or who we once were: we are new creations (2 Cor. 5:17); we have become saints, redeemed sinners, saved by God’s grace alone, through our God given faith in Christ Jesus, as revealed in the Old and New Testaments. Thus the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian church,
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:9-11 ESV).
This means that now we are no longer known and identified by our prior sins and sinfulness (Ps. 103:11-12), but should instead be known only by our new identity “in Christ” (Rom 12:5; 1 Cor. 1:30, 3:1, 4:10, 15:18-22), For example, Paul says, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Cor. 5:17 ESV).
Since our past transgressions and sinful identities have, by God’ grace, now been removed from us, we ought not use our newly received freedom to gladly return to them (Prv. 26:11; 2 Peter 2:20-22).We ought not resume and continue in the same sinfulness and wickedness as we were in the past, expecting God to still forgive us (Rom 6:1-15); we have been redeemed by Jesus Christ. Intentionally returning or remaining in our sin is contrary to faith and repentance.
Although there are many different “identities” which persons today can claim, and while a Christian person’s primary identity should be “in Christ”—there are many identities which can be accepted and subordinated to Christ: for example, mother/father, sister/brother, ethnic/national, or other relational identifiers (such as: a Steelers fan, a Red Sox fan, a Marine, a Republican/Democrat, an American, or even a botanist); none of these are inherently sinful (although any or all of the above may become sinful when emphasized to the point of idolatry, elevating them above Christ).
Paul’s list of examples in 1 Corinthians 6 is surely not an all-inclusive list, but each of his examples should be viewed as sub-identities subsumed under the core identity of the “natural man” (1 Cor. 2:14), because they are not only descriptive of a person, but they also define who a person is: characterizing them by and through the flesh. Thieves are considered untrustworthy. Drunkards are foolish and undependable. Swindlers will gladly lie, cheat, and steal. Such persons are thereby defined by their “identity” and all other persons, knowing this identity will react and respond to them appropriately. So, a further consequence of Paul’s statement “And such were some of you” is that the Christian also becomes a “clean slate” when their old, sinful identity of the “natural man” is removed by the Holy Spirit through their sanctification, and what is added is a new identity in Christ, that is, the “spiritual man” according to 1 Cor. 2:15. Any person who identifies him or herself by their sin should be considered unrepentant; they are denying this work of the Holy Spirit, and they are not seeing their sin as being “filthy and hateful” (WCF 15.2). Paul also plainly teaches us that while even Christian persons— that is, sinners redeemed by Christ—will still continue to sin, they do not do so by their willful intention and desire, but do so in conflict against the remaining sin nature. Paul says, in Rom.7:19-20, “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.” Scripture commands us and encourages us to always mortify our sin and sinful nature, and to never give in to them according to Col. 3:5.
We acknowledge and confess that Christians can and will still fall into sin, even serious and willful sin, yet through contriteness and earnest repentance they can and will still be forgiven and restored to a right relationship with the LORD.
Leaders within the Church have always been held to a higher standard than the laity, the “mere Christian” person (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6-7; James 3:1). Sadly, even Elders of the church remain subject to temptation, and although some have stumbled and fallen, they also still have hope for restoration (EPC BoO 9-3, 9-4.B, 9-7, 9-9, 9-13 and EPC BoD, 1-2 B, 1-10; 1-4; 1-5; 1-6).
- A Teaching Elder caught in adultery, can and would be rightly removed from office for his immorality, yet with time and earnest repentance he might one day be restored and allowed to serve once again, as a testament to God’s forgiveness and merciful grace. However, such a person seeking restoration would not rightly name themselves an “adulterous Christian.” Although they have committed the sin of adultery (and thus became an adulterer), if they repent, then they are to be forgiven and to be restored; the guilt of and identification with their transgression is removed.
- Similarly, we would not permit a Teaching Elder who identifies themselves as an “alcoholic Christian” or a “drug using Christian” to remain in office; yet we might permit those who are repentant and sober to be restored back to office if they have demonstrated sufficient maturation and advancement in sanctification.
- Similarly, we would not permit a Teaching Elder who is convicted of a felony and sentenced to prison to remain in office, yet once their sentence had been completed and upon sufficient evidence of contriteness and repentance, they could (depending upon the criminal offense) be restored, no longer being known as a “felonious Christian”.
Finally, in each of those examples, while that person’s salvation in Christ would not necessarily be questioned— unless they were adamantly unrepentant— the present state of their sanctification would be, and they would be justly deserving of such sanctions (for correction in grace with the hope and goal of eventual restoration), because they would have failed, as ordained officers of the Church, to remain “above reproach” (Titus 1:6).
Therefore, we conclude that any person who chooses to self-identity by and with their sin (any sin), is also willfully choosing to engage in sin (2 Cor. 6:14-16), and is choosing to remain in a state of unrepentance. Such a person who self-identifies with their sin is disqualified and ineligible to hold ordained church office.
Sexual Orientation and Identity
Regarding the issue of sexual orientation: “Is a person’s sexual orientation, as an enduring pattern of attraction, morally neutral?” According to Scripture, sexual desires are never morally neutral which is why the seventh commandment governs all issues related to sex. The Reformed tradition understands that God explicitly teaches that the issue of sex is a moral issue, not neutral, as taught in the seventh commandment (WLC 137-139). This understanding is something that the historic, orthodox Christian faith (both the Reformed and the Roman Catholic traditions[1]) has always affirmed.
Another related question set before the church is this: “Is homosexual orientation as an enduring pattern of attraction a sin or not?” Related to this: “Is a heterosexual desire also a sin or not?” Too often in the church we have unconditionally assumed heterosexuality to be a universal moral good, while homosexuality is a moral evil, declaring that God’s design of the heterosexuality is normative, while homosexuality is a sinful deviation from God’s design.
An example of this thinking comes from the “Reparative Therapy” paradigm. The principal goal of all Reparative Therapy, whether promoted by secular agents or Christian counselors, is for the person who is struggling with homosexual desires to replace them with heterosexual desires. Joseph Nicolosi, a leading therapist in the Reparative Therapy movement, makes the case that “As shame is slowly diminished in therapy and the same-sex attracted man grows in self-awareness and self-assertion, he should gradually begin to find within himself a natural heterosexual response.”[2]
Therefore, the question which our present culture forces upon us is this: “Is heterosexuality a normative desire?” and “Is homosexuality also an equally normative desire?” Many Christians will affirm the former and reject the latter. But this is not the case, biblically speaking. Both heterosexual desires (outside the context of marriage between one man and one woman) and homosexual desires are sinful. These desires are called “lust” in Scripture, and both considered being sin, along with their related activities (1 Peter 4:2-3; 2 Peter 2:18).
Jesus says in Matthew 5:27-28, “You have heard it said ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ but I say to you, that everyone who looks upon a woman to lust for her has committed adultery.” Jesus is connecting the seventh commandment (which explicitly covers behavior and implicitly covers desires) to the tenth commandment (which explicitly covers desires). The sinfulness of sin is not merely a matter of our behavior or actions, but sin is also a matter of our desires and will, whether we intend them or not (Rom. 7:17-20). The tenth commandment condemns both the intentional and unintentional sinful desire of “covetousness” (WLC # 147-148). Whether a person chooses to have these desires or not is irrelevant; it’s irrelevant because the Mosaic law required sacrifices to atone for sins which were also unchosen and unintentional (Lev 4:1-35; Heb. 9:7). Jesus was addressing the pre-behavioral sin of sexual desire, the sinful longing for a woman who is not one’s wife. Jesus is very clear in this context, that heterosexual desires are sinful lusts outside the boundary of marriage.
What is the difference between a morally normative desire (the heterosexual attraction between a man and his wife) and a morally deviant desire (the lustful attraction for a person who is not one’s spouse)?
- Some contend that the difference between a normative and deviant desire is the intensity of the desire, but that is not biblical. They might suggest that, on the one hand, a slight and passing sexual desire and attraction for another man’s wife is normative, while, on the other hand, an intense longing and sexual desire or attraction for another man’s wife is deviant. Yet Jesus neither condones a “slight and passing desire” nor an “intense and longing desire”.
- Others contend that the difference between a normative and deviant desire is the intentionality or “chosenness” of the desire. Yet according to Leviticus 4:1-5:13, Scripture makes it clear that our intentionality is irrelevant.
What differentiates a normative desire or attraction from a deviant desire or attraction? This takes us to the objective domain of ethics. The verb used in Matthew 5:28 is ἐπιθυμέω, meaning to desire or lust. According to Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich (BDAG), the noun ἐπιθυμία may refer to either a normative desire for a good thing or a deviant desire for a bad thing. Proverbs 10:24 states that the “desires of the righteous will be granted,” where in the Septuagint, the noun ἐπιθυμία refers to a normative desire. In Matthew 5:28 ἐπιθυμία refers to a deviant desire, demonstrating that using only a lexical definition of ἐπιθυμία is insufficient to distinguish a normative desire from a deviant desire. Both verb and noun are multivalent, describing a range of normative desires to deviant desires. It’s the objective ethical component of ἐπιθυμία that defines the nature of desires. Ἐπιθυμία is translated as: desire, longing, cravings; in Mark 4:19, Luke 22:15, Phil. 1:23, 1 Thess. 2:17, and Rev. 18:14 because the objects of said desires are all normative, morally neutral, and positive. In contradistinction, ἐπιθυμία is translated as craving or lust in Rom. 7:7, Col. 3:5, James 1:14, and 2 Peter 1:4, because each object of desire is morally deviant.
Therefore, what separates normative sexual desires from deviant sexual desires is the object of attraction. The sinfulness of our desires is not defined by the intensity or the intentionality of desire, but by the object of our desires. An illicit desire is defined by its attraction for something forbidden or unnatural (e.g., Ex. 20:17); therefore applying to both homosexual and heterosexual desires.
Homosexual orientation/ identity/desire is always illicit because the object of said desire is always forbidden. Heterosexual desires are morally lawful only within the context of marriage between one man and one woman, because the object of desire is permissible and countenanced by God in His moral law (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:4-6). The object of any other heterosexual desire is always forbidden, denominated in Scripture as the sin of adultery, fornication, etc. Therefore, outside of the biblical context of marriage, all heterosexual and homosexual desires are lust as taught in Matt 5:27-28.
This takes us to the subjective domain of ethics. Not only is there the objective component to the domain of ethics, but there is also the subjective domain of ethics, that is, the nature of temptation within the heart. Hebrews 4:15 tells us that Jesus was tempted, “tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.” This does not mean that Jesus faced each and every trial in the same way that each and every one of us faces temptation. Our temptations come from within us, from the sinful nature of our flesh (James 1:13-15), while the temptations that Jesus faced, which are common to humanity, were sourced and located from outside of Himself (Matt 4:1-11).
This means that Jesus experienced human temptation up through the cross. The Greek verb πειράζω means “to tempt” or “to test”. The context is clear in Hebrews, that God the Father did not permit the temptation of Jesus, regarding His passive obedience, but Jesus was tested within the context of His active obedience (to succeed where Adam first failed). The author of Hebrews means that no aspect of Jesus’ testing involved an internal desire to sin (Heb. 2:18; 4:15). Jesus had no subjective “orientation,” disposition, or proclivity to sin. Jesus experienced the external pressure and strain of sin, but not an internal stress and/or tension to sin. That becomes the key difference between our temptations and Jesus’ temptations. Jesus was tempted by sin. Man is tempted to sin! The former is normative because this was the God-ordained nature of man’s testing before the fall in a prelapsarian world; the latter is deviant because this is the nature of man’s temptation after the fall in a postlapsarian world. Jesus had no original sin; He did not suffer from the corrupted Adamic nature; we, however, in our natural, sinful state as children of Adam are totally and radically corrupt!
James 1:13-15 describes the subjective etiology of sinful temptations. When James argues that God never tempts man to sin, he’s talking about the subjective domain, not objective domain: the temptation to sin, not the temptation/testing by sin. God tests man with the external pressure and strain of sin, but James is clear that God does not tempt man with the internal stress and tension and dissonance to sin. This noetic and affective dissonance is manifested as the subjective longing found in one’s own evil desires for that which objectively is forbidden by God. Sinful temptation comes from the very depths and heart of the sinful nature of man: that is, the radically corrupted totality of man, both body and soul— which traditionally has been called concupiscence or lustful desire.
Jesus’ temptation was only external, while Man’s temptations are both external (our attraction for sinful objects) and internal (our concupiscent enticements and unnatural, disordered desires). We desire forbidden objects because our desires are concupiscent, our orientation is disordered; therefore, in this sense, our temptations are themselves sinful. So the question is this: “Is same-sex orientation/ attraction/desire sinful?”
- If a Christian person, who struggles against their same-sex, sexual orientation and attraction, views a person of the same sex and only apprehends them as being an objectively beautiful person, then that should not be considered sin. The same goes for a Christian person who struggles with opposite-sex, sexual attraction, views a person of the opposite sex and only apprehends him/her as being objectively beautiful then that should not be considered a sin.
- However, in either case, if their external apprehension conforms itself to the sinful patterns of sexual attraction and desire, then both the homosexual and heterosexual person have lusted, and have therefore sinned.
Since homosexuality and its other related practices are clearly defined as sin in Scripture— (Lev 18:22, 20:13; Deut. 22:5; Rom 1:26-28; 1 Cor. 6:9 [both ἀρσενοκοίτης and μαλακός]; 1 Timothy 1:10), and just as the emotional thoughts of anger and hatred against another person is morally equated with the act of murder (Matt 5:21-22)— so too the orientation and inclination and proclivity towards homosexuality is morally sinful, designated as lust (2 Peter 2:9-10). Furthermore, considering the hierarchy of sin— where sexual desire within God’s order is good, as between one man and one women united within the covenant of marriage (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:4-6), and where sexual desire outside of the bounds of marriage is adulterous, being sinful yet also natural (Ex 20:14, 17; Lev 20:10)— sexual desires and practices outside of God’s natural order become sinful abomination (Lev 18:22), and is therefore a worse transgression.
Many of the unfortunate problems surrounding this discussion revolve around the definition of terms and phrases like homosexual orientation. How should we understand and define these terms and phrases? Since these terms and phrases are extra-biblical (while many of the concepts are referenced in Scripture) we must first engage with and understand how the culture defines these extra-biblical terms, in their extra-biblical sources, and then relate them to the appropriate biblical terms. The American Psychological Association (APA) defines same-sex orientation as:
Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attraction to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.[3]
They also indicate that sexual orientation “ranges along a continuum: from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex, to exclusive attraction of the same sex.” The APA defines sexual orientation as being constitutive of both same-sex sexual attractions/desires (including patterns of emotional and/or romantic attractions/desires) and a person’s identification with those same-sex sexual attractions and desires. This definition of orientation includes a person’s identification as a homosexual: as in being Gay or a Lesbian, as well their homosexual practice, whether or not it is active or passive. Therefore, according to the APA’s definition, a homosexual orientation should be considered sinful because it involves an affirmation of a person’s same-sex, sexual attractions and desires, along with the concomitant emotional and romantic attractions, regardless of a person’s sexual activity.
Our primary and ultimate identification as Christians is our being “in Christ”. We are identified and known by the covenant formula of grace which states “I will be your God, and you shall be my people,” (Gen 17:7; Ex 6:7; Lev 26:12; Jer. 7:23; 2 Cor. 6:16; Rev 21:7). We have been adopted into the family of God (John 1:12-13), therefore, our principal and core identification is our union and communion with Christ.
However, we do accept and acknowledge other penultimate identifiers as being appropriate and useful for Christians; these are ordinarily “relational identifiers”. We may also rightly identify ourselves as sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, fathers and mothers, wives and husbands, or as Americans, Republicans or Democrats, Ohioans or Virginians or Floridians, or as doctors or lawyers or pastors— all because these identifiers define who we are in relation to others and inform how we should relate to other people. Meanwhile, our identity “in Christ”, not only defines our relationship to one another as Christians but most importantly, it defines our relationship to the Lord GOD (John 14:13-14, 16:23-27; Rom 6:11, 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 1:2, 1:31-31, ch. 15; Gal 2:20, 3:25-29; Eph. 4:32).
However the common identifiers associated with the “LGBTQ community” are not appropriate identification markers for Christians because they are, by nature, sinful identification markers. We conclude that pre-behavioral sin—that is, homosexual orientation, attractions, desires, or identity—is at the root of same-sex, sexual behaviors and practices which are its fruit.
Gay Christian/Christianity and Celibacy in Singleness
Regarding the question of a person who chooses to self-identify as a “gay Christian” and following the norms of practice relating to “identity”; such a label, by default, connects a person to the four-fold aspect of LGBTQI+: practices, lifestyles, orientation/attraction, and advocacy movements. Although such a person may not be actively engaged in all four elements, unless they clearly declare otherwise, they are positively identifying themselves with all four (at a minimum, they are expressing a positive sympathy for, or with, each element).
Therefore, even a person who is committed to celibacy and forswears all homosexual practice, and verbally acknowledges the sinfulness of homosexuality, and yet continues to self-identify and/or use the description “gay Christian”—that person is still identifying him or herself with said practice and lifestyle, although they are not actively engaging in it. They are tacitly endorsing and/or affirming sin, which should further disqualify them from holding church office.
Yet, there is a difference between the command to celibacy in singleness for the Christian, on the one hand, and the call to celibacy in singleness, on the other hand. Concerning the former, if you have a burning sexual desire, then you are to get married so that that person will not be tempted into πορνείας (sexual immorality of any kind in thought or action which includes homosexual immorality). Concerning the latter, Paul addresses those whom have been given the gift of continence in their calling to celibacy in singleness. Paul addresses the latter by saying, “Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am” (1 Corinthians 7:6-8).
To be single is a gift from God. Paul makes that clear as he refers to his singleness and the singleness of others as the χάρισμα ἐκ θεοῦ (gift from God). It is not produced by the flesh rather it is a divine gift and calling for the Christian individual. What is the purpose of the gift and call of celibacy to singleness? Paul tells us:
I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).
The purpose of the gift of singleness from God is so that your attentions will not be divided with trying to please a wife or a husband. It is not as though one can’t serve the Lord while being married; we see that in 1 Timothy 3 concerning the office of pastors and deacons, but those who are married must spend time taking care of their family.
This call of celibacy to singleness carries no desire to be with anyone in the bond of marriage. The person who has this gift only desires to live in holiness, while serving the Lord which works its way in serving God’s people. Nowhere in Scripture do we find God telling someone to be single because they desire to be with the same sex. This demonstrates that the same-sex, sexually attracted Christian does not have the calling to celibacy in singleness, but the command to celibacy in singleness which is worked out in holy matrimony as God commands. As Paul teaches, if that desire is there then God’s commandment to the Church is this: “But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:9). When Paul refers to self-control he is not limiting self-control to sexual behavior, but also desires. To be self-controlled in the Greek is ἐγκρατεύονται; it means to keep one’s emotions, impulses, or desires under control, to abstain in thought and deed.[4] Paul is saying that if a person cannot get their desires under control (by virtue of not having the calling and gift of continence) then they do not have the gift of celibacy in singleness; they should seek marriage with the opposite sex.
Also, professing, celibate, and single Christians who struggle with same-sex, sexual attraction and who claim that said attraction is a “thorn in the flesh” is a subject that needs clarification. Some Christians who struggle with homosexual attractions and desires would say that their homosexual temptations are a thorn in the flesh they must bear. After all, Paul had a thorn in the flesh that God did not deliver him from. In response to this, the thorn in the flesh given by God to His people is never sinful (e.g., inordinate desires that goes against God’s design in Romans 1:21-32). The nature of thorns in the flesh given by God are always that of trials, never that of temptations to sin or sin itself. Thorns in the flesh are external tests, not internal temptations to sin as noted above.
There can be no shades of gray concerning sin, even though there is a hierarchy of sinfulness. Something is either sin/sinful or it is not. As James says,
This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 Jn. 1:5-7 ESV).
Therefore, there is no room for us to equivocate as Christians, but to be clear and categorical and unequivocal and unambiguous. This position paper affirms that all of those who identify or describe or distinguish or differentiate, etc., themselves by involvement in unrepentant sins of homosexual practice, attraction, desire, inclination, or orientation, etc., (or according to any sin, whether it be in their past or present) are willingly and belligerently involved in unrepentant sin. Such are reasonable and biblical grounds for disqualification from ordination to Church office, and are also grounds for the defrocking of any previously ordained officer of the church upon the charge of immorality per the EPC Book of Order and Book of Discipline 1-10.
In short…
- WE AFFIRM that the historical and the Reformed understanding of sin and sinfulness (being defined as: action/inaction and also including inclination, desire, and intention [WCF 6.4-5]), is an “essential of the faith” and an essential to the Reformed tradition of which we Presbyterians are a part. This is not an area where we find allowance for liberty as a non-essential concern, because of the clear biblical warrant taught by Jesus particularly in Matthew 5:19-30.
- WE DENY the view of concupiscence as taught by the Roman Catholic church (including all others who limit the biblical definition of sin to activity alone), that “Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins” (CotCC, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 9, #2515).
[1]. Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2331-2400.
[2]. Joseph J. Nicolosi, Shame and Attachment Loss: The Practical Work of Reparative Therapy (Downers: Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), 324.
[3]. Taken from “Understanding Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality” from the American Psychology Association, 2008, https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation.
[4]. BDAG, 274.
Reverend G Carl Moore 