It is tragic to observe the AIC using the tactics of gay Christian writers who have attempted to explain away Romans 1:26,27 since the 1970s. Paul’s assertion that homosexual lust and acts are uniquely “against nature” is manifestly evident in Romans 1:26,27. Those claiming to be evangelicals with a high view of Scripture must not attempt this theological subterfuge. It is senseless to reject the historic teaching of the Church on homosexuality in an attempt to justify celibate homosexual ordination. This has been the strategy of mainline churches. We cannot accept this Biblical misrepresentation. The AIC report is based on suppressing the clear Scriptural and constitutional (L.C.) teaching on homosexuality including homosexual desires. We must vote against the AIC report.

At a meeting of Presbytery of the West, a member of the Ad Interim Committee (AIC) on same sex attraction and ordination offered a critique of the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest (PNW) overture. Some refer to this overture as the “Red Line Overture” referencing the Red Line Statement signed by over three hundred REs and TEs who oppose the ordination of same-sex attracted persons (celibate homosexuals) to church office. The PNW overture was adopted by additional presbyteries and supported by hundreds of TEs and REs throughout the EPC. I am among the supporters of the PNW overture because it is biblically and confessionally faithful.

 Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest Overture (Adopted by four Presbyteries):

“Therefore, persons eligible for church office shall conform in heart, mind, and conduct to God’s design for human sexuality, embracing with gratitude the calling of either chastity in singleness or fidelity within marriage between one man and one woman. Those who profess, persist in, or identify with (unnatural desires or affections contrary to God’s created order and condemned by Scripture as against nature) are disqualified from holding office in Christ’s church.

Footnote: See Romans 1:26,27 on desires contrary to God’s created order, Genesis 1,2 on the creation of male and female. Westminster Larger Catechism question 139 on the moral duties of Christians and the proper ordering of affections.

We are grateful to the AIC member for publicly commenting on the PNW Overture, because it brings clarity to the confusion many have had trying to understand the AIC report. The confusion is rooted in the AIC’s use of Biblical and confessional language, then contradicting itself by supporting celibate homosexual ordination in the EPC. Now, with the final AIC report in hand we know clearly that the AIC is indeed backing celibate homosexual ordination, and with public comments by AIC members we can finally discern the AIC’s rationale behind their unbiblical position.

The AIC presenter at the Presbytery of the West remarked that the PNW overture “oversteps the Biblical and confessional bounds.” In actuality, the opposite is true — the PNW overture is faithful to Scripture and the Westminster Standards. It is the AIC report’s support for celibate homosexual ordination that doesn’t align with what Scripture teaches about homosexuality (same sex attraction) nor what the Larger Catechism asserts about homosexuality being a more heinous unnatural sin.

Scripture and the Larger Catechism on Homosexuality

What Scripture teaches is always the beginning point in theological controversy among Presbyterians who take the Bible seriously. WCF 1.10 asserts:

“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”¹

When it comes to interpreting Scripture the WCF gives us this rule:

“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” (WCF 1.9).

The principles above from WCF 1.9,10 are important for looking at what Scripture teaches about homosexuality. There are many passages in Scripture which speak to the perversion of homosexuality and God’s judgment upon it (Genesis 19; Judges 19; Leviticus 18, 20; Romans 1; 1 Corinthians 6; 1 Timothy 1). The Biblical text that speaks most clearly of homosexuality is Romans 1:26,27:

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.” (ESV)

Same-sex lusts/sexual acts are rebellion against the Creator, specifically described as a man or woman exchanging natural relations for unnatural relations. St. Paul speaks of this as “dishonorable passion” that is “contrary to nature.” Homosexuality is singled out as unnatural in Romans 1. No other sins in the long vice list in Romans chapter 1 are referred to as unnatural.

The 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 1:24,26,27 and Leviticus 20:15,16. The pairing of these proof texts demonstrates that in the minds of the Westminster Divines “unnatural lusts” refers to both homosexual lusts and bestiality. This is clearly the case, since the language of “contrary to nature” (i.e., “unnatural”) comes directly from Romans 1:26.

There is a second place where the Larger Catechism addresses homosexuality as against nature.

L.C.Q. 150: “Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?”

1. “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 the aggravations which make some sins more heinous 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.

Twice in the Larger Catechism (L.C.Q. 139, 151) the Westminster Divines cite Romans 1:26, 27 using the unique unnatural/against nature category for homosexuality. The language of “unnatural lusts” (L.C.Q. 139) and “against the light of nature” (L.C.Q.151) comes directly from the Romans 1 passage’s use of the phrase “contrary to nature.” This is the habit of the Westminster Divines who use Biblical phrases repeatedly in the confession and catechisms.

AIC Rejects the Teaching of the Larger Catechism

It appears that the AIC disagrees with what the Larger Catechism says about homosexuality being “unnatural lusts” and “against the light of nature.” In the Presbytery of the West AIC presentation, this statement was made against the PNW overture:

“We feel like using the terms unnatural desires or affections is constitutionally novel. The term unnatural is absent from the Book of Order and its single confessional reference is in Westminster Larger Catechism 138. And in 139 where it talks about commandment seven where it says, “adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy and all unnatural desires.” So for us this word created a couple of problems. First, it introduces a category of sin into the Constitution that is not defined here or elsewhere in our constitutional work. And second, unnatural lust in our catechism (WLC 139) is something that is in addition to sodomy. If you look at it sodomy is homosexuality. So, the unnatural is something in addition to that. It’s not descriptive of sodomy itself. Or it serves as a comprehensive description of all the sins that violate the seventh commandment. So either it’s an addition to, or unnatural means everything that is listed which includes heterosexual sins as well.”

These comments are telling because they expose the AIC’s unwillingness to accept the Church’s historic understanding of Romans 1:26,27 and the L.C.’s use of this text. Romans 1:26,27 clearly equates homosexuality with “unnatural desires or affections.” This is the very point St. Paul is making — homosexual passions and acts are contrary to nature, that is, opposing the way God created men and women for each other sexually. The description of homosexuality as against nature is so transparent in Romans 1:26, 27 that L.C. Q. 139 and 151 cite the text as a proof for the assertions that homosexuality is an “unnatural lust” and “against the light of nature.” If one wants certainty on understanding the intent of the words used in the Larger Catechism, look at the Scripture texts the Westminster Divines reference! “Unnatural lust” and “against the light of nature” are defined by what Romans 1:26,27 teaches. The AIC’s assertions that

1. using the terms “unnatural desires or affections” is constitutionally novel,
2. doing so introduces an undefined category of sin, and
3. “unnatural lust” in the L.C.Q. 139 is not referring to sodomy (homosexuality)

are undisputably false. The novelty is what is being asserted by the AIC!

The peculiarity of the AIC’s dismissal of homosexual passions as uniquely “unnatural desires” is glaring when one compares it with the views of the Church Fathers, Reformers, and Reformed theologians who have commented on Romans 1:26,27 over the centuries. The term “unnatural” always referred uniquely to homosexuality in historical writers because this is explicitly what Romans 1:26,27 declares in Paul’s argument. Below is a sampling of the orthodox understanding of “unnatural” in Romans 1 — note the comments about same sex desires/lusts/passions and same sex acts.

Read More