Perhaps the most obvious corruption of our thought upon this point has been the substitution of “same sex attraction” for “lust.” …working off of Scripture’s framework, our constitution and ethical tradition know nothing of mere attraction, especially where it is conceived as a potential weakness or liability rather than as the sin of unnatural lust. It has long been known that he who controls the terms controls the debate. By substituting “same sex attraction” for “lust,” we are making the matter sound less desperate than it is. “We have some celibate elders who experience same sex attraction” sounds rather banal, especially in comparison to “some of our elders lust after other men.”

Previously I wrote that the constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) prohibits the ordination of men who experience unnatural lusts. There is more to be said upon the matter, for it is not merely a question of constitutionality but also one of prudence.

Let us be clear the type of man whom we are considering. We do not mean a man who breaks Leviticus 18:22 in deed, but one who experiences a recurring temptation to do so, acknowledges the deed as evil, and resists acting on such temptation. Following are several reasons why prudence commends refusing office to such men.

1. It would embroil the church in internal strife. From Revoice’s advent in 2018 until this year’s General Assembly, the PCA has seen strident disagreement on this question, with it taking up much time, and some individuals and churches leaving over what they deemed to be our ineffectiveness in addressing it. Any presbytery ordaining such a man as we are considering would renew six years of strife after only a few months respite. Surely, we all concur that strife was miserable. Why do something, then, that would renew it? It seemed sometimes as if the denomination would split, and we have only now achieved what appeared a desirable resolution. Shall any dare to renew the conflict? Does that fulfill one’s ordination vows to seek the church’s peace and purity? Is that the seeking to “do what is honorable in the sight of all” (Rom. 12:17) and the striving for peace with all (v. 18; Heb. 12:14) that Scripture commands? One of the British prime ministers once withdrew a proposed tax measure because of the enmity it provoked, and because he would not “lay on taxes at the price of blood.”[1] Shall a rascally politician excel us in prudence? Will any dare lay on ordination at the cost of driving more sheep and churches from our fold?
2. It hasn’t gone well in the past. Two ministers have met this description in our fold, Greg Johnson and Egon Middlemann. The former led his church out of our denomination and is currently the occasion of controversy in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. That denomination is studying whether he will be permitted to enter its ministry, with many opposed. Worse than embroiling two denominations in difficulty, his tenure among us saw his church use its property to host a play festival, Transluminate, which celebrated the denial of God’s ordained distinction of mankind into male and female, as well as mocked our faith.[2] As I argued before, that is apostasy as rank as that of the Israelites tolerating idols. The second case is tragic. Middlemann authored a report arguing the type of man we are discussing should be permitted ordination. Unbeknown to his peers, he experienced the lusts in view. He later acted on them and committed suicide. I do not say that proves he was a false teacher, and it is my hope that he was a sheep who stumbled badly but has yet received Christ’s grace. But even a charitable judgment must admit the matter ended badly and does not commend the ordination of men of like circumstances.
3. It entails normalization of the experience. If the last several years have demonstrated anything, it is that how common aberrant desires are depends upon how socially acceptable they are. The places where they are celebrated are the places where they are most common. The places where they are disapproved are the places where they are least common. The generations that grew up when they were deemed taboo are the least likely to experience them. Those that have come of age since they were normalized are vastly more likely to experience them. One need only consult any survey on the basis of age or geography to see this. Why would we think it would go any differently in the church than in society? To allow officers who experience this may be expected to increase the number who do so. It may also be expected to send the message that experiencing such things is common. And does not Scripture teach the same about this thing’s transmissibility? For it presents sin as a leaven (Gal. 5:9) that spreads rapidly and must be excised at its first appearance, lest it take over everything. Galatians 6:1 says, “brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you, too, be tempted.” Why would it recommend self-vigilance unless sin propagates itself by example and makes those who witness it more likely to be tempted with it themselves? Can we doubt, then, that making the experience of such lust publicly known in some of our officers will lead to more people being tempted with it? Would that not entail it being a stumbling block to some, especially novices or those who seek to repent of the committed transgression in view?
4. It formalizes the denial of shame. One of the first steps in normalizing any behavior is to remove the stigma of it. One cannot be publicly accepted as someone who has flaws if those faults are deemed shameful even to mention or think about. Now God says, “sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints” (Eph. 5:3, emphasis mine). How would we be obedient to that command if we accept men as officers who publicly report they experience the lust in question? That would be allowing impurity to be named among us, would it not? And how can such men lead us in not mentioning impurity when they themselves publicly report experiencing one of the worst kinds of it? Indeed, those who publicly admit the lust in question practically deny it is something to be ashamed of; for where one is truly ashamed of something, he does not mention it at all if he can help it. Yet these men not only declare it before the world, but do so with sufficient regularity and comfort as to imply there is no shame in it; to make it an important part of their reputations; and to imply it is no hindrance to godly living.
5. It introduces a new thing. If we ordain men given to unnatural lusts, they will have the distinction of being the first and only officers who are publicly known by their sin in general, and by persistent, un-eradicated sin in particular. We do not have any officers who are known because they experience a continued desire to practice sorcery, highway robbery, or idolatry. But then there are not movements to normalize the experience of such desires like there are to celebrate sexual perversions. This thing we are considering comes from without, as ideas from society penetrate the church. And where has that road led the other denominations that have walked it?
6. It proceeds upon and further propagates mistaken conceptions. At every point, the discussion of this matter has included worldly conceptions. We are asked to accept the concept of sexuality as a constituent part of man. Historically, sexuality referred to the physical fact of being “sexed” or distinguished into male and female. Now it refers to subjective feelings of desire, and they are regarded as being an integral part of one’s person. Or again, the concept of orientation is tacitly accepted, and with it the belief that desire is fixed and beyond one’s intentional control. It seems that every time one of the men in view speaks of his experience, he does so by saying that his aberrant desires have never changed, even over years; and often it is suggested that attempting to change them is pointless, unwise, counterproductive, or harmful. Hence, in probably the most notable case, Greg Johnson says it is mistaken to try to “cure” orientation, and that the church needs to shift to caring for men such as himself by accepting their orientation will probably never change. Perhaps the most obvious corruption of our thought upon this point has been the substitution of “same sex attraction” for “lust.” As I wrote before, I reiterate now: working off of Scripture’s framework, our constitution and ethical tradition know nothing of mere attraction, especially where it is conceived as a potential weakness or liability rather than as the sin of unnatural lust. It has long been known that he who controls the terms controls the debate. By substituting “same sex attraction” for “lust,” we are making the matter sound less desperate than it is. “We have some celibate elders who experience same sex attraction” sounds rather banal, especially in comparison to “some of our elders lust after other men.”
7. The continued experience of the sin in view calls into question how sanctified the men in view truly are. What other major sin is there about which one can say, “I feel a recurrent desire to do this that has never abated” and not be regarded as immature or lacking in progress in sanctification? If a man applied for ordination but said he felt a recurring desire to practice divination, sacrifice to idols, or engage in theft or violence, but that he recognized those things were sin and didn’t act on them, would we not tell him that we are glad that he recognizes them as sin and resists the temptation, but that he feels such desires at all and cannot be rid of them suggests that he is not yet fit to lead God’s people? Why make exception for sexual sin? Indeed, substitute other sexual sin and the absurdity becomes plain. Would it be acceptable to ordain a youth pastor who experiences pedophilic temptation? No. For even if he resisted it reliably and deprecated it, no young person would feel safe around him, nor would their parents, and such a charge would heighten his temptation. It would be, in brief, grossly imprudent and irresponsible, and not at all fair to the young sheep he is meant to serve.
8. We cannot say the temptation to this sin does not automatically disqualify, without saying the same of the other sins of Leviticus 18. If a refusal to act on the temptation is sufficient proof of holiness apart from killing the inner sin that produces the temptation, there is no reason we can object to men who experience recurring temptation to incest, polygamy with sisters, adultery, Molech worship, or bestiality. This is no reductio ad absurdum or hyperbole on my part. God says these things go together in Leviticus 18 (vv. 6-17, 18, 20, 21, and 23, respectively) and that “by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean” (v. 24). Social history also shows it. The Supreme Court mistakenly declared so-called same sex marriage legal in 2015. The next year, North Carolina caused an international furor by passing a law that said people must use bathrooms intended for their sex. The next year, an award-winning film, The Shape of Water, included bestiality. In these things the slippery slope is not a fallacy but an indisputable fact, and about the safest prediction of any stripe one can make. Only once separate internal and external purity, the lustful root and the outer fruit, in this matter, and there is no telling what other mischief the principle it involves will wreak. For if we say that an external holiness that refuses to act on inner temptations is sufficient, even where it is not abetted by a successful putting to death of the internal roots of the corresponding sins, then we are right back to the mistaken morality of the Pharisees that Christ condemned in the Sermon on the Mount. We are to take every thought captive to Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), and if a man has not done that in himself in matters of such importance as the experience of abominable lusts, how can we say he is fit to shepherd others?

Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks/Simpsonville (Greenville Co.), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation. 

[1] The Prime Ministers of Britain, 1721-1921, Charles Clive Bigham, p. 33.

[2] See for example the play “Transcodicil” at the hyperlink for Transluminate’s agenda.