Until the last 50 years, the Reformed tradition has been absolutely clear and consistent on the topic of homosexuality because the Bible is clear and consistent on homosexuality. Any Presbyterian denomination that ignores this biblical truth is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. What has tragically transpired in the mainline Presbyterian church shouts in contemporary ears. Presbyterians should beware of playing the fool again by being duped by worldly philosophies and the gay Christian movement that attempts to normalize homosexuality and change the mind of the church.
In recent years both the Presbyterian Church in America and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church have had to deal with the issue of a same-sex attracted ordained minister, and the question of whether or not that ordination is lawful. A celibate same-sex attracted Presbyterian minister, who openly declares a homosexual orientation that God has not promised to change,[1] is not something the conservative Presbyterian denominations have ever considered legitimate in the past. What has brought about this new openness to consider a question that was inconceivable just a few decades ago? Of course, the cultural pressure to accept gay orientation as normal is immense. Add to this the fact that evangelicals sometimes appear to be more concerned about how those outside the church perceive Christianity, than they are maintaining historic Christian positions on sexual sin. After all, some argue, the church must be driven by a missional stance towards the gay community.
There is tremendous pressure from within evangelical churches to compromise on the question of homosexuality. Some are convinced this is a nuanced discussion, and we must have compassion for same-sex attracted believers who may qualify for church leadership. Others reject the historic Christian perspective that pastors are to be sanctified examples to the flock who are above reproach. Instead, they argue that pastors are to be seen as fellow strugglers, openly sharing their deep-seated sinful desires/practices; ergo, an openly gay pastor would be more effective in outreach to the gay community. Concomitant with this is a perspective that all sins are equal in the sight of God, so why pick on homosexuals. Another influence is the antinomian tendency within evangelicalism which downplays the requirements of God’s moral law in the lives of believers, emphasizing God’s forgiving grace while minimizing God’s transforming grace.
Allowing celibate homosexuals in leadership positions is viewed as virtuous by progressives in the evangelical Presbyterian ranks. This novel perspective has stirred up significant turmoil in both the PCA and the EPC as many have been alarmed by this forsaking of historic Reformed views. While the progressive party views resistance to ordaining celibate homosexuals as fearful overreaction and judgmentalism, traditionalists believe that recognizing same-sex orientation/identity as legitimate for a believer is in itself unbiblical. Traditionalists would also affirm the higher standard for holiness required for the clergy, contending that ordaining a celibate homosexual to church office is both disobedient to Scripture and ecclesiastical recklessness. It is shortsighted thinking, according to traditionalists, to neglect the mainline history of how compromising with the gay Christian movement led eventually to full blown apostasy in the church.
This paper will review the mainline discussions of homosexuality in the 1970s which were the first steps in Presbyterians fully embracing queer theology. This movement toward the acceptance of everything homosexual began with missteps by mainline evangelicals. The second section will consider the Westminster Standards and what they may have to say about ordaining celibate homosexuals.
Presbyterians Study Homosexuality
When considering the current question of celibate homosexuals and ordination, it is useful to consider Presbyterian history on this issue. What can we learn from both the wisdom and mistakes of the past? To explore what history might teach us on this topic we must go back to the 1970s in the United Presbyterian Church in the USA. (the northern Presbyterian church before its 1983 merger with southern Presbyterians). The first major American Presbyterian study of homosexuality began in 1976, resulting in a major study paper in 1978.
In November 1975, the UPCUSA Presbytery of New York City, having an “avowed homosexual candidate” (Bill Silver) who had satisfactorily completed his trials for ordination with the exception of certain parts of the Form of Government [a candidate’s understanding of the import of the vows required for ordination, views within the confessional standards of the church, and commitment to professional ministry within the discipline of the church]. The overture asked for the General Assembly to appoint a special committee to give “definitive guidance” on how to apply these sections of the Form of Government to “a person who is an avowed homosexual.”[2]
A similar overture in March 1976 came from the Presbytery of the Palisades which had received a request from “an avowed homosexual” to be received as a candidate. It stated the need for General Assembly guidance “to determine the relationship between being an avowed homosexual and the necessary qualities of being ‘strong and worthy persons’…or the implications of avowed homosexuality on one’s spiritual and emotional qualifications.” The Palisades also asked for a special committee.[3]
The General Assembly in September of that year appointed nineteen members to serve on a task force to study homosexuality. They met seven times over the next two years, studied many articles in psychology and the social sciences, held four regional hearings, and debated interpretations of numerous biblical texts. During their deliberations, they interviewed candidate Bill Silver who related his personal experience of being homosexual, openly speaking of his “lover” and challenging the church on the “idolatry of heterosexuality.” When Richard Lovelace, professor of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, questioned Silver about “repentance,” Silver replied that he had learned to repent of trying to change his homosexuality.[4]
“Statement on the Ordination of Homosexuals” (1978)
The task force produced two study packets, including suggestions on how to host homosexuality information days in congregations. It concluded its work in January of 1978. The finished report included a background paper, a policy statement, and recommendations; there was also a minority report with recommendations. The majority report favored letting presbyteries make their own decisions about ordaining homosexuals; the minority report (written by 5 members) advised not ordaining practicing homosexuals. In May the General Assembly adopted the minority report. The adopted 1978 “Statement on the Ordination of Homosexuals: Policy Statement and Recommendations” welcomed gays and lesbians into church membership but “self-affirming, practicing homosexuals” were not eligible for ordination to church office. The Presbyterian Church in the United States (the Southern Presbyterian church) adopted a similar policy a year later. After the 1983 reunion of the northern and southern Presbyterians, the original 1978 policy remained in force in the PC(U.S.A.) into the 1990s.[5]
After ongoing debates in the 1980s on human sexuality, including homosexuality, in 1993 the weary Presbyterians decided to call a three-year voting moratorium on issues related to the ordination of gay and lesbian members to church office. In 1997, conservatives were able to gather enough ecclesiastical strength to push through an amendment to their constitution which required candidates for ordination “to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and woman, or chastity in singleness.” Liberals presented a substitute amendment requiring “fidelity and integrity in marriage or singleness” which deleted references to celibacy or defining marriage as a union of a man and woman. The substitute was defeated in 1998. Again, the next year there was a move to delete the “fidelity and chastity” clause in the constitution but it was defeated. In 2001 there was another attempt to remove the “fidelity and chastity” provision but it was once more defeated. It appeared traditional views were holding their ground, though each time the votes got closer as more pro-homosexual views gained traction.
Eventually a 2006 “Peace, Unity and Purity” task force, seeking middle ground in the ongoing homosexual debate, recommended allowing exceptions to the “fidelity and chastity” standard, which was endorsed by the church and opened the door to homosexual ordination. Again, in 2009 Presbyterians declined to modify the constitutional “fidelity and chastity” requirement for ordination, though the margin of victory by traditionalists was smaller than in the past. Finally, the “fidelity and chastity” constitutional language was jettisoned in July 2011 by a majority vote of the regional presbyteries. This paved the way for ordaining openly gay persons to the Presbyterian ministry which began with the October 2011 ordination of Scott Anderson to serve a congregation in Wisconsin.
The PC(U.S.A.) also continued to discuss blessing same-sex unions which had been practiced in some corners of the church though it was a violation of church polity. The Presbyterian General Assembly had thus far declined to approve gay marriage but the steady push of the pro-gay lobby within the church had been unrelenting. Finally, in June 2014, the Presbyterian General Assembly approved a policy allowing pastors to perform same-sex ceremonies in states where the practice is legal. The vote was 371 in the affirmative, and 238 opposed, a 61% margin of victory for pro-gay Presbyterians. An additional vote to change the definition of marriage to “two people” rather than “a woman and a man” passed by 71%.
Evangelicals had valiantly resisted these heterodox ideas for decades, arguing for historic Christian sexual ethics and traditional marriage, but by the summer of 2011 it was clear that the war was coming to an end. It had been a long and arduous journey – first welcoming practicing homosexuals into church membership, then allowing them to be church officers, and finally endorsing gay marriage. The PC(U.S.A.) was no longer interested in practicing the historic catholic faith of the Church, but preferred an updated version which would have looked unrecognizable to Presbyterians of earlier generations.
The mainline Presbyterian story of embracing homosexuality as a legitimate option for professing Christians is a case study of mainline capitulation to contemporary culture. All of this was under the purported pastoral umbrella of trying to do mission among an unreached people group – homosexuals. This mainline tale of the last 50 years demonstrates that a contemporized version of Christianity without the foundation of biblical truth-telling is an ecclesiastical house built upon the sand. That house has collapsed, and what is left is a ruin that has jettisoned historic Christian teaching about male and female, and replaced it with the new religion of queer sexual identities now baptized by the church.
The Process of Collapse
The Presbyterian capitulation on homosexuality came progressively, not all at once. Here’s the path as it unfolded:
- The recognition of insights from psychological and social studies on human sexuality [despite the fact that the theories emerging from these studies were diametrically opposed to the biblical account of man and woman created in the image of God, and for each other].
- These new insights were to be interpretive tools for reevaluating biblical texts historically understood to condemn homosexuality.
- Based upon these “scientific” studies, the category of homosexual orientation was accepted as a fixed human experience that need not be transformed.
- Next, it was concluded that one can be a homosexual and a church member.
- A celibate homosexual can be ordained as a church officer.
- Homosexuality may be expressed sexually in a loving, committed relationship, therefore sexually active homosexuals may be ordained to office.
- This loving committed homosexual relationship can be celebrated in the covenant of “marriage.”
- Any opposition to the church’s new enlightened views of homosexuality will not be tolerated among clergy. This final act of defiance against historic Christian views was approved by the PC (U.S.A.) General Assembly in summer 2024.[6]
This sequence of gradual steps began with a short-sighted pivotal step which determined the direction of the trajectory. The first misstep towards Presbyterians blessing same-sex marriages, was the 1978 uncritical acceptance of “scientific” studies that recognized same-sex attraction as a sexual “orientation.” In summing up the work of the task force, the Background Paper observed: “The task force quickly reached consensus that no biblical, theological, or constitutional bar exists to ordination of those homosexual persons who have accepted and committed themselves to a celibate lifestyle or who have been reoriented to a responsible heterosexual lifestyle…. In discussing the ordination of self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons, the task force has not been able to reach consensus. We have experienced sharp conflict.”[7]
The minority report, written by the conservatives, naively embraced homosexual identity, justifying this as a way to reach the homosexual community. The adopted minority report stated:
“The repentant homosexual person who finds the power of Christ redirecting his or her sexual desires toward a married heterosexual commitment, or finds God’s power to control his or her desires and to adopt a celibate lifestyle, can certainly be ordained, all other qualification being met. Indeed, such candidates must be welcomed and be free to share their full identity. Their experience of hatred and rejection may have given them a unique capacity for love and sensitivity as wounded healers among heterosexual Christians, and they may be incomparably equipped to extend the church’s outreach to the homosexual community.”
Evangelical Reflections in 1978
One member of the 1976-78 task force was Richard Lovelace, a professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Lovelace, a perpetual optimist, was steadfastly committed to ministry in the mainline church. In his book, Homosexuality and the Church (1978) he wrote that practicing gay leaders who are “professing Christians, both in the Metropolitan Community Church and mainline churches” should be called to repentance but not all of them should be written off as “purveyors of a counterfeit gospel.” He continued, “…we should regard some as Paul regarded the Corinthian Christians, as imperfectly sanctified but potentially useful members of the body of Christ.”[8] The reference to Corinth is puzzling given St. Paul’s exhortation “not to associate with sexually immoral people” and “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Cor. 5:9-13). Lovelace, would live to witness no repentance, but the mainline embrace of a false gospel of gay Christianity.[9]
Undoubtedly, the evangelicals writing the minority report were trying to find some place of unity with the liberal majority. So, they agreed with ordaining a person who identifies as homosexual, but celibate. When one is a member of a severely divided committee, the pressure to find some common ground is immense. Apparently, the evangelicals thought that compromise on homosexual identity could be a way forward. They also apparently thought that a minister who identifies as a homosexual might be more adept at doing evangelism to other homosexuals. They could not see the future, that once a Christian homosexual identity is normalized, revisionist readings of Scripture will begin and tolerating homosexual practice will logically follow. And they could not foresee how ordaining celibate homosexual clergy would eventually lead to allowing homosexuals to be “married” in the church.
The road to rebellion against what the Word of God says about homosexuality began with the 1978 study and its affirmation of homosexual orientation based upon the “scientific” studies in the background paper. The background paper opened with a large section under the heading of “Homosexuality: Psychotherapy and the Empirical Sciences” (pp.9-14). The second section was “Homosexuality and the Bible: A Re-examination.” Starting with the “science” and not Scripture is telling. Establishing that science affirms homosexual orientation/identity, then the paper turns to reinterpret the Bible in accordance with this new light.
The beginning of the descent into apostasy began with ordaining celibate homosexuals to the gospel ministry. One can observe the logic in the progression – one step led to another, then another, until finally the biblical idea of what it means to be male and female as God designed from creation is abandoned for perverse practice that Scripture condemns in no uncertain terms. But, note that it all started in an initial step away from biblical revelation, and adopting new definitions of male and female based upon the principles of this world, and not the Word of God. The idea of homosexual orientation/identity for believers has no grounding whatsoever in Holy Scripture. Once the foundation of the Genesis account of human creation as male and female was discarded, and the idea of homosexual orientation was introduced into Christian vocabulary, the nose of the camel was already in the tent.
Don Williams, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, was also a member of the UPCUSA 1976-78 task force. Out of that experience, he published the prophetic book The Bond That Breaks: Will Homosexuality Split the Church? (1978). Williams made these observations:
In evaluating homosexuality and its relationship to the Christian faith a crucial decision must be made about one’s starting point. Where does the evaluation begin? Do we start with God’s revelation of His divine will or with man’s observation of the human condition? … if we start with a personalist psychology, this will determine our outcome. The goal of man’s life will be humanistic – the development of his full potential. The thinking behind this is as follows: God has made us to be fulfilled persons, therefore whatever fulfills us is the will of God. If we start with God, however, His will determines our outcome. The goal of our life will be His glory rather than our own…. The Bible – God’s revelation of His will – must be our starting point. His truth and His means of human fulfillment do not always meet our expectations. Rather, we must let the revelation of God guide us in our observation of the world around us.[10]
For Williams, the first necessary step is turning to the teaching of Scripture. If a church starts elsewhere to try and understand homosexuality, it will lead to ruin:
The results of a ‘scientific’ evaluation of research data of homosexuality and a ‘scientific’ exegesis of the Bible tend toward relativism…. The new standard becomes psychological and spiritual health rather than the will of God…. Such a ‘scientific’ evaluation, however, is not objective. It bears its own presuppositions about reason, progress, and ‘objectivity.’ The ‘myth of modernity’ assumes that we have progressed beyond the Bible in our understanding of homosexuality. It also assumes that by the light of reason we can now fully understand God’s view of homosexuality. The ‘scientific evaluation’ however, is employed to make a biased case. Man created as male and female is overlooked as the Biblical presupposition for understanding homosexuality. That most homosexual persons cannot be changed is assumed rather than proven. Nature rather than revelation has the final word. The ground is now laid for the destruction of the church.[11]
Williams correctly highlighted that the key factor in determining one’s understanding of homosexuality correctly is one’s starting point – will the church begin with Holy Scripture or not? Rather than beginning with what the Bible says about homosexuality, the gay Christian movement appeals to personal experience, secular studies on homosexuality, and the “church’s failed attempt to cure homosexuality.” From the perspective of the Gay Christian movement, these extra-biblical sources provide the foundation for their assertion of unchangeable homosexual orientation.[12] This approach is right out of the secular gay playbook which elevates psychological studies on homosexuality and ridicules therapy (“conversion therapy”) as abusive attempts to “pray the gay away.”
It is noteworthy that in contrast to secular studies, Christian psychologists Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse reported positive results in their study with homosexual clients. Their clinical research has confirmed the possibility of substantive change for believers who seek it. Jones and Yarhouse observe, “Every secular study of change has shown some success rate and persons who testify to substantial healings by God are legion.”[13] The Gospel is transformative grace, and homosexual orientation is not a special category of sin where the Holy Spirit is impotent to transform sinful desires (2 Cor. 5:17).[14]
Donald Fortson III is Professor of Church History and Pastoral Theology Emeritus at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte.
[1]See Greg Johnson, Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2021), 144.
[2] The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Minutes, 1976, Part 1,169
[3] The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Minutes, 1976, Part 1, 191.
[4] For an overview of the task force’s work see: https://www.history.pcusa.org/blog/2018/10/upcusa-task-force-study-homosexuality
[5] “The Church and Homosexuality” in Minutes of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (New York: Office of the General Assembly, 1978).
[6] See https://www.pcusa.org/news/2024/7/3/after-significant-debate-assembly-approves-both-pa/. Robert Gagnon, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abington Press, 2001), on 4-8-24 posted on his blog: “I remember when the hypocritical cry of the Left was to ‘hear all the voices.’ That is until they gained the upper hand. Now it’s the tyranny of heresy and immorality. I knew it was never about tolerance, but many good people fell for it.”
[7] The Church and Homosexuality, which contained “The Background Paper of the Task Force to Study Homosexuality” and the “Policy Statement and Recommendations” was mailed out to all congregations, presbyteries, and synods at the conclusion of the 1978 GA. This paper is available online: https://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/_resolutions/church-and-homosexuality.pdf
[8] Richard Lovelace, Homosexuality and the Church (Old Tappan, NJ: Flemming H. Revel, 1978), 125,126.
[9] Richard Lovelace was a faithful servant of Christ. Lovelace’s commitment to renewal in the PC(U.S.A.) was influential in my entering the Presbyterian ministry. While I respected him deeply, he made a major mistake in supporting celibate homosexual ordination as something good for the Church; the end result, he could not foresee, would be the PC(U.S.A.) completely embracing queer theology.
[10] Don Williams, The Bond That Breaks: Will Homosexuality Split the Church? (Los Angeles: BIM, Inc., 1978), 108-110. As a PCUS seminary student I read Williams’ book my first year in seminary (1978) and recall wondering if I would see homosexual ordination in my lifetime. I could not even fathom the idea of Presbyterians endorsing gay marriage in the 70s. The train had left the station in 1978.
[11] Williams, The Bond That Breaks, 158,159.
[12] Greg Johnson claims that very few have ever transitioned from homosexual to heterosexual through any kind of therapy. He cites numerous secular studies in attempts to demonstrate his thesis. He cites positively studies which suggest that there may be a biological element in homosexual orientation. Johnson appears to favor the insights of secular psychology over the Biblical teaching of all human beings divinely created as heterosexuals. See Johnson, Still Time to Care, 144-147. How folks acquire a gay orientation is unknown in its fullness, but there is no evidence that one is born gay. There is a sexual continuum, and folks do move along that continuum, but Scripture is clear that God has made us male and female in his image. Christians live into that divine design despite what pagan society tells them.
[13] Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Ex-Gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 109.
[14] Johnson argues that the Jones and Yarhouse study is open to interpretation; he appears prejudiced against these research findings because it does not fit his personal narrative of fixed sexual attraction to men. Still Time to Care, 124-25.
Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.