We must not let the sincere desire to be gentle or pastoral with those who experience same-sex attraction force us to redefine systematic theological categories which would amount to a challenge of God’s wisdom and goodness as Creator. 

Until recently the doctrine of concupiscence received little attention in Reformed circles. Perhaps it was mentioned in passing during a systematics class in seminary, but until the first Revoice conference in 2018 few knew how to pronounce, much less define concupiscence. Since then however, the PCA has produced a helpful Ad-Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality (AIC) that unquestionably affirms, “thoughts and desires arising in us prior to and apart from a conscious act of the will are still sin.” The report continues, “We reject the Roman Catholic understanding of concupiscence whereby disordered desires that afflict us due to the Fall do not become sin without a consenting act of the will. These desires within us are not mere weaknesses or inclinations to sin but are themselves idolatrous and sinful.”¹ In this the members of the study committee make clear what the PCA believes concerning concupiscence—the attraction to sin is sin.

What is less clear, however, is what kind of sin it is. Should we understand concupiscence as an actual sin or as original sin only? I started asking this question after watching the video featuring Drs. Timothy Keller and Kevin DeYoung wherein they talked their way through the AIC study report. While the AIC report and the accompanying video are helpful overall, we should not agree with comments made by Dr. Keller from minutes 27:52 to 29:05 of the video. During this exchange, Dr. Keller posits that concupiscent desires that are contrary to nature are no more heinous than concupiscent desires that are according to nature. To be specific, Dr. Keller argued that a man sexually desiring a woman not his wife and a man sexually desiring another man are both “equally illicit, equally wrong.”² The question I asked myself immediately was, “How can that be? What about WSC Q.83? What about the qualitative difference between sins against nature and sins according to nature?” Dr. Keller’s comments thereafter brought the heart of the issue into sharper focus, “And we have to be very careful not to say, ‘Well, the desire for a man is unnatural desire, a woman is natural, so one of those is a more sinful desire than the other.’ This text is actually saying ‘no,’ that basically they’re both equally illicit, they’re both equally wrong, the capacity for sin is still wrong, it’s the original sin is what’s wrong with this and I think that’s very important, that we don’t create a little hierarchy inside.” Herein lies the issue—is concupiscence (i.e. unbidden sexual desire) a mere “capacity” or part of original sin and thereby exempted from degrees of heinousness, or is it an actual sin and can be more or less heinous? Though this might seem like hairsplitting, imprecision on this point leads to even greater problems further down the line as will be shown.³

Before addressing the matter of homosexual desire specifically, let me say now that both of the aforementioned desires are sinful. Sinful desires according to nature and sinful desires contrary to nature are both sin. Both justly deserve God’s wrath and curse, and require wholehearted repentance of the sinner. We all stand in need of the grace of God. Furthermore, neither natural or unnatural concupiscent desires are as heinous as physically engaging in the activity desired. Our Larger Catechism teaches that sins that “break forth in word and action” are more heinous than those that are only “conceived in the heart.”⁴ Such being the case, those who struggle with same-sex attraction should not be made to feel that those desires that arise prior to a conscious act of their will are as heinous as actively nursing those desires or engaging in sexual activity. As the AIC wisely says, “To feel a sinfully disordered sexual attraction (of any kind) is properly to be called sin—and all sin, ‘both original and actual’ earn God’s wrath (WCF 6:6)—but it is significantly less heinous (using the language of WLC 151) than any level of acting upon it in thought or deed. The point here is not to encourage those with homosexual attraction to become comfortable with or accepting of it. Rather, it is to counter the undue heaping of shame upon them as if the presence of homosexual attraction itself makes them the most heinous of sinners.”⁵ With this I wholeheartedly agree and echo the need to be compassionate and discerning in how we handle the doctrine of concupiscence. Sins externalized are always worse than those which remain internal and our manner of approach ought to reflect this truth.

We must not, however, let the sincere desire to be gentle or pastoral with those who experience same-sex attraction force us to redefine systematic theological categories which would amount to a challenge of God’s wisdom and goodness as Creator. In all our discussions surrounding sin and its heinousness, let us have a greater fear of offending Almighty God than of offending man. In order to understand whether concupiscence should be classed as an actual sin or original sin, we must first define them both.

Original Sin

The Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) teaches that original sin consists of three parts: the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want (lack) of original righteousness, and the corruption of our whole nature.⁶ This means that all those who are descended from Adam by ordinary generation are born with a guilty verdict over their heads by virtue of their federal head’s failure to keep the covenant of works. Adam’s guilt is imputed to all his posterity making them legally guilty before God.⁷ According to Thomas Vincent, the want of original righteousness includes, “1. Want of spiritual knowledge in the mind. 2. Want of inclination and power to do good; and want of all spiritual affections in the will and heart.”⁸ This means that fallen mankind is originally inclined toward evil whereas Adam, prior to his fall, was originally inclined toward righteousness. In addition to this inherited guilt and want of “perfect conformity of all the power and faculties of soul to the holy nature of God,” original sin means that we inherit corrupted natures from Adam.⁹ The extent of this corruption is universal meaning that it touches every part of our being and, consequently, everything proceeding therefrom (inclinations, volitions, thoughts, words, deeds, etc…) will be corrupted and displeasing to God.

Actual Sin

WSC Q.18 goes on to teach that the sinfulness of that estate wherein to man fell consists not only in his original sin but also in “all actual transgressions which proceed from it.” Actual transgressions are those sins which we commit against God in thought, word, and deed, whether intentionally or unintentionally.¹⁰ Actual sin is the fruit and original sin is the root. The reason these are called “actual” sins is because they are acts of the soul as opposed to the inherited, corrupted nature (i.e. original sin) that gives rise to those sinful acts. It is worth saying here that one must be careful not to equate “actual sin” with sin “acted out” or externalized. Actual sins do not need to be manifested in either word or deed for them to be considered actual. For example, consider Jesus’ teaching on lust in the Sermon on the Mount.¹¹ It was not just the outward act of committing adultery that was sinful, but even the look with lustful intent, which was born in the heart, was sinful. If it “proceeds from” original sin, whether internally or externally manifested, the language of our Standards teaches that it is an actual transgression. 

Read More