The AIC has offered no historical witnesses for its cavalier interpretation of Scripture and the Confession and Catechisms; it is because there are no witnesses. For the AIC to suggest that 17th Century Puritans who wrote the Westminster Standards would approve of celibate homosexual ordination is false and preposterous, and they must surely know it.

Should the EPC ordain celibate homosexuals? Instead of resolving this issue, the AIC report has created confusion, discord, and division. Despite mountains of feedback imploring them to align this report with Scripture and our doctrinal and constitution standards, the AIC has given us a report that opens the door to celibate homosexual ordination. For this reason, we recommend that the report be rejected in all its parts: the revised Position Paper on Human Sexuality, the revised Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality, and the recommended Book of Government amendments.

If the AIC Report is adopted, the EPC will be headed down the path of compromise on homosexuality that has led to the ruin of all the mainline Protestant denominations. Instead of compromise and confusion, the church needs to speak clearly and say “no” to any form of homosexual ordination.

In good conscience, faithfulness to Christ, and obedience to Scripture, we urge you to vote down the AIC report. Below, we offer seven reasons why the AIC report should be rejected:

1. The AIC Report Rejects the Use of Biblical Language

Instead of using Biblical terms for homosexuality such as sodomy, unnatural desire, and dishonorable passions, the AIC report uses the term “Same-Sex Attraction” which comes not from the Bible but from our contemporary culture. The AIC report attempts to distinguish homosexuality from same-sex attraction. However, the Bible recognizes no such distinction. For the AIC to claim that same-sex attraction and homosexuality are not the same thing is deceptive, and invents a distinction that is not valid biblically, confessionally or legally. Instead of using clear Biblical language, the AIC report resorts to false and misleading euphemisms. Once you substitute the word “homosexual” for “same-sex attraction,” the AIC report is exposed as unbiblical and unorthodox.

The AIC employs similar verbal sleight of hand by using phrases such as “latent propensity” and “proclivity” to argue that same sex attraction is not sin. The Bible makes no room for such sophistry. All desire for sexual relations outside of biblical marriage is sin and immoral according to Scripture. Sexual lusts and acts are equally sinful in Jesus’ ethic (Matthew 5:27-30). When we use unbiblical language, it leads to unbiblical conclusions, as we see with the AIC report.

2. The AIC Report Misinterprets Romans 1:26-27

Romans 1:26-27 is the most clear and transparent passage on homosexuality in the entire Bible. The gay Christian movement has been trying to explain away these verses for 50 years, and it is tragic to observe the AIC also attempting to do this.

The Westminster Larger Catechism asserts that “sodomy and all unnatural lusts” are sins forbidden in the seventh commandment (L.C. Q. 139). The Biblical proof texts for “sodomy and all unnatural lusts” are Romans 1:24 and 26-27, and Leviticus 20:15-16. Clearly, in the minds of the Westminster Divines “unnatural lusts” only refers to both homosexual lusts and bestiality. This is undoubtedly the case, since the language of “contrary to nature” (i.e., “unnatural”) comes directly from Romans 1:26. And yet, the AIC claims that “unnatural” refers to all the sins listed in Romans Chapter 1. In this misinterpretation, the AIC is going against 2,000 years of Biblical scholarship and orthodox belief.

3. The AIC Report Violates the Westminster Larger Catechism

The AIC argues that all sins are equal, that homosexuality is no more evil than other sins. However, this is contradicted in the Westminster Standards. The Westminster Larger Catechism addresses this issue in L.C.Q. 150:

“Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?”

Answer:

“All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.”

The following question (L.Q.151) addresses aggravations which make some sins more evil in the sight of God. One aggravation is “from the nature and quality of the offence” and under this category the catechism has a list of offenses including those “against the light of nature” (L.C.Q.151.3). The lone proof text for “against the light of nature” is Romans 1:26-27—homosexuality. In other words, homosexuality is a heinous sin.

Homosexual lusts are more grievous than heterosexual lusts because they violate God’s created order. God has ordained only one expression of sexual desire and that is between married men and women. Homosexuality is not only evil and immoral, but contrary to God’s design for creation. And yet, the AIC report makes no reference to L.C.Q. 151 anywhere in its report.

Apparently, the AIC was not interested in what the constitution has to say about homosexuality when it would prevent the goal of ordaining celibate homosexuals. While heterosexual desire has the capacity to be stewarded faithfully; same sex desires can never be stewarded faithfully; homosexual desire is always grievous sin and never has any godly purpose.

4. The AIC Report Distorts the Doctrine of Sanctification

The Westminster Confession chapter 13 contains this climatic final paragraph:

“Although the old nature temporarily wins battles in this warfare, the continual strengthening of the sanctifying Spirit of Christ enables the regenerate nature in each believer to overcome. And so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” (WCF. 13.3)

Growing in grace by the sanctifying Spirit of Christ would be an expectation of anyone aspiring to be a Deacon, Ruling Elder, or Teaching Elder in a Presbyterian congregation. How could a professing Christian claiming a gay identity and/or ongoing unnatural sexual desires claim to be experiencing “true wholeness through the freeing, renewing grace of God in Jesus Christ”? Christ indeed sets us free, which is what the new birth is all about. A Christian brother or sister with continuing struggles in understanding their sexuality biblically is not suitable to be a Deacon, Elder, or Pastor. Members of our Christian family with persistent sexual confusion need love and discipleship, not the recklessness of ordination for leadership.

Read More