If we compromise on the issue of same sex attraction and identifying with one’s sinful tendencies, it will not promote peace or unity. Rather, it will lead to churches leaving the EPC (some have left already). When biblical standards become ambiguous, it leads to the ruin and wreckage we have witnessed in the PC(USA) and other mainline denominations. Verbal ambiguity on this issue is not loving or charitable: it is the road to discord and division.

When God speaks, he doesn’t mumble. His Word is clear. His commands are not vague, ambivalent, or impossible to understand. As Jesus said, “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.” (Matthew 5:27).

Satan, on the other hand, loves ambiguity. The serpent, we’re told, was the most subtle of all the animals in the garden. The serpent took the clear command of God and twisted it beyond recognition: “Did God really say you should not eat from any tree in the garden? Well, if God said that, surely, he didn’t mean it!” Satan loves subtlety and nuance because it gives him room to maneuver and work mischief.

Currently, the EPC is seeking clarity. The question is whether a person who is celibate but identifies as homosexual and experiences ongoing homosexual desire should be ordained to ministry. This question caused four years of turmoil in the PCA and now it has come to us.

Unfortunately, the draft report written by the Ad Interim Committee on Same Sex Attraction provides no clear answer to this question. Instead of clarity, the report is cloudy. Instead of a clear standard for ordination, there is only pastoral guidance that carries no binding or constitutional authority. As written, the report provides plenty of wiggle room for presbyteries to ordain someone like Greg Johnson, who is the center and source of this controversy.

The General Assembly will not vote on the Ad Interim Committee’s report until next year. However, during a question-and-answer session at this year’s Assembly, commissioners voiced serious concern about the draft report and its recommendations. Comments and questions focused on four main issues.

Terminology

Although it discourages use of “gay Christian,” the draft report says this term could be a “useful, descriptive term in some settings.” Voicing concern, one commissioner said, “We don’t identify ourselves by our sin but by our identity in Christ.”

Bryan Rhodes, a TE from Gulf South Presbytery, questioned the use of “same sex attraction” to describe homosexual desire. Rhodes urged the AIC to substitute the term “unnatural desire” in keeping with the Bible and the Westminster Standards. “If persistent, unnatural temptation is not disqualifying, the question is why not?” asked Rhodes.

David Milroy, a TE from Presbytery of the Alleghenies, asked why the draft report avoided the language found in Question 139 of the Westminster Confession, which uses the terms “sodomy” and “unnatural lust.” Another commissioner expressed concern that the draft report says little about repentance.

No Clear Standard

The draft report includes a list of seven questions to be used by congregations and presbyteries when interviewing candidates who have disclosed that they experience same sex attraction. Candidates who demonstrate “godly responses to these and other questions … may be considered for church office.” The problem, however, is that there is no clear definition of what constitutes a godly response. As a result, approval of candidates becomes subjective and determined by each presbytery. This will inevitably lead to each presbytery having its own criteria for ordaining SSA candidates, or what is known as “local option.”

Read More