If homosexual desire is a form of “unnatural” desire, then it must be addressed as such. The church must decide whether it will accept or reject it as compatible with ordained office. A verdict must be rendered.

The current discussion surrounding ordination and same-sex attraction has largely been framed in terms of degree. How much homosexual desire is too much? At what point does temptation become disqualifying? Is there a tolerable level of struggle that may be present in a candidate for office? And how might we discern that level?

This framing, however, asks the wrong question. The issue before us is not one of degree, but of kind. The question cannot be “How much homosexual desire is compatible with ordination?” But rather, “Is homosexual desire compatible with ordination?” This is not a dial to be calibrated but a verdict to be rendered.

The Problem with a “Dial” Approach

The Ad Interim Committee (AIC) report has attempted to address homosexual desire and ordination by distinguishing between various levels:

1. Desires that lead to sinful behavior.
2. Desires that lead to lustful temptations.
3. Desires that are present but are not repented of.
4. Desires that are present but are repented of.

In doing so, the AIC rightly excludes certain levels of temptation as incompatible with ordination. Yet it stops short of excluding homosexual desire altogether. The report allows for candidates currently experiencing homosexual desires so long as this desire is resisted and repented of. But why have they drawn the line there? Why not require our candidates for ordination to be completely free of homosexual sin?

Ostensibly, the committee is concerned that requiring complete freedom from homosexual sin is demanding a kind of perfection that we do not require in other areas of the Christian life. And this apparent concern is understandable. Our Reformed theology rightly affirms the ongoing struggle with sin even in the most mature of believers. Sanctification is progressive and life-long. Even the apostle Paul in Romans 7 speaks of his continuing battle against sin.

On the surface, then, the AIC’s caution seems wise. To require the total absence of homosexual desire appears to set the bar too high. If we require the complete absence of sin in one area, what will keep us from requiring it in other areas of life as well?

But this reasoning depends entirely on the assumption that all sinful desires belong to the same category. As such sins differ only in intensity, not in kind.

However, that is clearly not the case with homosexual sin — and the AIC knows it.

A Question of Kind, Not Degree

Scripture and our Confessional standards give us reason to distinguish between types of sin, not merely their severity (WLC 150,151). In Romans 1:24–27, homosexual desire and behavior are described as “against nature.” This is not merely another example in a list of sins. It is presented as a particularly vivid expression of rebellion against God as Creator. Similarly, Jude 7 speaks of sexual immorality that pursues what is “unnatural.” The language is not incidental. It highlights a violation of the created order itself.

The Westminster Larger Catechism, in Question 139, follows this Biblical pattern by grouping “sodomy” and “unnatural lusts” together, drawing on these very texts. What unites these sins is not simply their intensity, but their character. By their very kind they transgress the boundaries established in creation.

This category of unnatural lusts includes sexual desire and behavior in the following categories:

• Man with man (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 7)
• Woman with woman (Romans 1:26)
• Human with animal (Leviticus 18:23 and 20:15–16; Exodus 22:19; Deuteronomy 27:21)

Each represents a departure from the created design of one man and one woman. These are not distortions of a natural end; they are rejections of that end altogether. And are completely antithetical to God’s created design. It is to go after flesh that is not fit to proper created order nor purposes. As such they represent the height of disobedience against God as Creator. This is what makes them “unnatural.”

Read More