The A.I.C of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church drafted a preliminary report for the GA on the intersection of Same-Sex-Attraction (SSA) and Ordination Standards. The A.I.C concluded that candidates for ordination with SSA, “may be considered for church office.” Did the A.I.C come to a biblical conclusion? Let me offer an outline of my argument. It’s an outline of an essay I’m currently researching and writing in light of John Owen’s Mortification of Sin!
also Click to access: https://presbyterianplumbline.org/a-red-line-on-ordination-and-same-sex-attraction-in-the-epc/
Syllogism: let me begin my argument with a Categorical Syllogism
1. Premise 1 (Major/General): All elders shall be above reproach according to 1 Tim 3:2.
2. Premise 2 (Minor/Specific): Men with vile affections are not above reproach according to Romans 1:26.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, men with vile affections shall not be elders contrary to the A.I.C report.
Like with all arguments, they must be both valid and sound. The above argument is unquestionably valid. The syllogism’s conclusion is logically deduced from both the major and minor premises. The argument is valid because it follows the pattern of a “modus ponens” syllogism in propositional logic.
The question remaining is this: is this argument sound? In propositional logic an argument is sound if, and only if, the premises are true. The major premise affirms that one of the qualifications for the office of elder in 1Timothy 3:2 is “being above reproach.” The minor premise asserts that men with vile affections are categorically and unequivocally unqualified because vile affections are by definition shamefully wicked, degrading, and disgusting passions according to Romans 1:26. In context the vile affections Paul is describing are homosexual desires, that is sexual attraction for the same sex. Paul describes homosexuality as sins against nature. He includes in this not only the behavior of homosexuality but also the affections and desires. Paul is saying that SSA is inherently vile, obscene, wicked, degrading, disgusting, and dishonorable. Instead of being above reproach such a man with vile affection is full of reproach! This means SSA disqualifies a man from the office of eldership because in both Titus and 1Timothy, Paul teaches that a church officer’s character (which includes in part one’s desires and affections) must be honorable and above reproach, not dishonorable, nor degrading, nor disgusting, nor vile, nor obscene. Therefore both the major and minor premises are true and the argument is both valid and sound! From the lesser to the greater, if Paul disqualified men who were members in the local church who were polygamists from leadership because each man was not a “husband of one wife,” then Paul most certainly disqualifies men who struggle with the vile affection of Same Sex Attraction because vile and obscene affections are not above reproach!
In conclusion, since all elders must be above reproach, and since men with vile affections are not above reproach (but are a cause for reproach), therefore men with vile affections shall not be officers. This means men and women struggling with SSA shall not be considered for church office! This is not an area of gray because Scripture is clear, categorical, and unequivocal that SSA disqualifies a candidate for ordination! Those earnestly struggling to mortify their SSA must be loved and respected and received by the church with compassion. However, they must not and cannot be considered for leadership in the church!
Respectfully, my hope is the A.I.C will reconsider their unbiblical conclusion! If not, ordaining candidates with SSA will open up a floodgate of iniquity!
Reverend G Carl Moore 