As such, this discussion is really about the nature and goodness of the Christ we worship. Do we actually worship the same Christ?  Do we all worship the One who makes us more than conquerors, and demands a holiness we can only achieve with His help?^[1] Is this Christ unwilling or unable to help us conquer our most innate sins from our Adamic nature, or do we imagine a Christ that lowers the bar to tolerate sins that we are unable to conquer in a self-help type of sanctification?

In the same-sex attraction (SSA) / Revoice debate, some believe celibacy to be an adequate response to continuing homosexual desire in a Christian’s life – merely avoiding a consummating sexual act. In the larger discussion, focus often centers on the nature of the desire – its strength, prominence, frequency, intensity, or if the person “identifies” by the desire, i.e., calling themselves a “gay Christian’” etc. All these are complex matters even the person with SSA desire may not be able to accurately evaluate in themselves, never mind a church pulpit / presbytery candidates committee. In my estimation this over-complicates the discussion which Scripture ultimately makes quite simple:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28, ESV).

Christ doesn’t focus on the nuances of the desire. Rather, He shocked His audience, teaching that the existence of the desire itself is the heart equivalent of the sinful sexual act.  “You have heard it said” is Christ’s explanation that the teaching they’ve received from the scribes and Pharisees falls short of adequately communicating how the holiness of God is violated by both the acts and desires of man. Clearly, the adulterous act is sinful, but the lustful desire is also sinful to a holy God. The mere avoidance of the act does not meet a holy God’s standard; the forbidden desire is just as sinful as the act.

In the Garden, we recall divine condemnation not merely in partaking of the forbidden fruit, but also in the underlying, initial desire for it – that “it was good to look on and desirable for food.” Thus, in the SSA debate, “celibacy” for not committing a physical sexual act itself does not absolve the sinner. The existence of lustful desire invalidates any claims of celibacy.

This raises the question of if, when and how desire actually becomes sin. The concept reaches well back into the Old Testament, in the tenth commandment against covetousness.  This is the “desire” component of the prohibited act of stealing. Refraining from stealing my neighbor’s Porsche is not enough – I am also to abstain from coveting it.  It is okay to purchase a Porsche of my own, but to have a lustful desire for the one owned by my neighbor (to include the Porsche dealer) is sin.  The scriptural commentary on the commandment is key:

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s” (Ex. 20:17, ESV).

Their ownership of “anything” makes the item off limits to my covetousness. My neighbor’s body is their property, given to them by God, with which they are to serve and honor the Lord. In effect, the Creator God who owns their body, has granted them tenancy – possession of it and our lusting for it is a sinful violation of God’s law. Engaging in the sexual physical act would compound the initial sin of my lustful desire – and in fact be a separate, secondary sin.

The 6^th commandment has a similar dual composition – the act vs. the heart attitude / desire:

“You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13, ESV).

Westminster Larger Catechism 136 asks and answers:

Q. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

This application of sin beyond the murderous act into the realm of attitude/desire as a separate sinful act also comes ultimately from Christ’s correction of the inadequate teaching of his day:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” (Matt. 5:21-24, ESV).

Certainly, the act of murder is forbidden. But so is the attitude of being angry at a brother without cause, or calling him (mentally or audibly) a fool, even apart from the murderous act. David’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba was preceded by the sin of looking on her to lust. And his sin of murdering Uriah was preceded by the sin of denigrating him as an obstacle to be moved out of the way.

In all this we see scriptural proof that obedience cannot be claimed in merely avoiding the act of murder, or stealing, or adultery / homosexuality. Engaging in the heart desire even prior to the physical act is itself a separate sin. Celibacy cannot be claimed by those who desire the forbidden fruit, EVEN IF they never commit the outward act to partake of it.

Only with this basis can we rightly understand, think through and debate SSA, or Revoices/Greg Johnson’s [2] claim to celibacy, and particularly whether such individuals are “above reproach” (Titus 1:7). In a sense, it is both helpful and less than ideal that one man (TE Greg Johnson) has become the face and voice of the SSA defense and advocacy.  It is less than ideal to single out one person as if they are the whole of the problem, or to conduct what appears to be a witch hunt of that individual.  Yet it is helpful to have a single voice that clearly communicates their ideas and effectively has made himself its spokesman (through interviews with secular and religious news organizations, and writing a book being promoted and sold through both secular and religious retailers) Let’s read some of Dr. Johnson’s/Revoices’ statements, first:

• In an interview with Christianity Today, Dr. Johnson explains the supposed experts on the subject “[have] yet to identify a single instance in which SSA has disappeared. While sexuality has a degree of fluidity in some people, the real change for me has not been in my sexual orientation, but in my life orientation. Jesus has rescued me.“ Dr. Johnson objects to those who “…minimize the ongoing reality of sexual orientation that in practice seldom changes. Jesus hasn’t made me straight. But he covers my shame.” [3]
• “There is another approach to homosexuality which would be healthier both for the church and the gay believers and which could be a very significant witness to the world. This approach requires a double repentance, a repentance by both the church and its gay membership. First it would require professing Christians which are gay both to [acknowledge] their orientation openly and to obey the Bible’s clear injunction to turn away from the active homosexual lifestyle…Second it would require the church to accept honor and nurture non-practicing gay believers in its membership, and ordain these for positions of leadership for [This] …  would be a profound witness to the world concerning the power of the Gospel to free the church from homophobia and the homosexual from guilt and bondage.”  [4] (Regarding this view of double repentance, read a review of this notion at “What Greg Johnson Won’t Tell You About ‘Double Repentance’”.)
• “I’m a gay, celibate pastor of a conservative church. And while you might be forgiven for assuming that my willing celibacy and lifetime of sexual sobriety might make me acceptable in such conservative religious spaces, it’s not always so. I’ve been investigated by church authorities, both formally and informally, because of my sexual orientation. When I look at Jesus, I know he sees me as I am. He sees my failings. And as he looks on me, his face is filled with tenderness and compassion. “  [5]
• From Revoice’s website and mission statement: “To support and encourage gay, lesbian, bisexual and other same sex attracted Christians … So that all the church might be empowered to live in Gospel unity while observing the historic Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality” including “transparency about one’s orientation….” ^[6]

From these articles and interviews we can draw the following conclusions about Revoices / Dr. Johnson’s views regarding the sinfulness of the SSA desire:

1. Johnson envisions a church membership comprised not merely of those who used to be gay/SSA but made up of those who presently consider themselves to continue to be such. He specifies a “celibacy” of repentance and change from homosexual acts, but views the continuing SSA desires as permissible for church members in good standing. We would ask Dr. Johnson why Jesus “covers” and he feels “shame” for a desire that is not sinful and that he allows as a continuing presence in the church.
2. Johnson views himself as continuing to be a gay, SSA pastor, and persisting in that orientation, with its ongoing desires. Regarding those in ordained church office, he holds that they are not required to mortify homosexual desires but only to remain celibate from homosexual acts, in what appears to be an uneasy co-existence with those homosexual desires.
3. Johnson believes it is necessary for the church to repent of its “sin of homophobia,” and actively and intentionally train and ordain individuals for ministry and leadership in the church who continue in their homosexual orientation. He sees this as a powerful witness to the world, through what is effectively a change from and lowering of God’s holy standards revealed in Scripture.
4. Revoice sees its mission to help and support those in church membership who continue to hold to a “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered orientation, and to be openly transparent about it,” that is, without the need to mortify their orientation.

Let’s step away from critique of an individual, or even an organization, to the ideas/theology in view.  While we are glad for Dr. Johnson’s comments on mortifying the sinful sexual acts, Scripture makes it clear the desires which God has forbidden is themselves sinful acts. While lust, covetousness and unrighteous anger have lesser consequence than adultery, theft and murder, all of them are sinful to a holy God. And to a holy God, homosexual desires are sinful, not just homosexual acts.

Note Christ’s application of the relationship of murder and sinful anger:

So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift (Matt 5: 23).

Be it congregant or minister, if we know we have violated God’s holiness with sinful anger, covetousness or lust, God prefers that we repent before Him and the person we sinned against ABOVE our acts of worship. And this means any participation in corporate worship, the Table of communion, and for ministers, the preaching of a sermon to the congregation.

The implications of this view of the holiness of God are important and far reaching. First, all of God’s people, ministers and members, need to humbly stand before the scrutiny of God’s Word to understand His standard for sexual integrity, that it includes both the body and the heart. Second, we must understand there is a very fine line between temptation to sin and actual sin – that the desire for things forbidden by God is sin itself.  James 1 speaks to the razor-thin line:

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.    But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.  Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers (James 1:13-16).

The deceptive nature of sin and temptation is undeniable. God isn’t the source of our temptation – it is itself a corruption with which God cannot be associated. The difference between the lure and enticement of temptation and its “conception” (sinful desire) which always results in a sinful “birth” (sinful act) may well be beyond human ability to split hairs. The wisest course of action if to kill forbidden desires – heterosexual or homosexual – at the moment we become aware of them.

While homosexual desire is a double rebellion against both special and natural revelation, God regards it as an abomination in a way He does not with adultery / fornication. The point of personal holiness is to evaluate ourselves. I offer the following as my personal journey that might help.

I’ve had comparatively few engagements with pornographic material – maybe a half dozen in my life and usually brief – the Holy Spirit strikes my heart, and I repent quickly of my foot slipping and my “missing the mark.” In contrast, sinful desires toward lust of scantily clad women in shrink-wrapped clothing that reveals every goose bump is pervasive – most every hour of every day. Were I to take Dr. Johnson’s / Revoices ideology above, I might consider myself “a lust-filled Christian whom Jesus has not changed…that I am simply “oriented” that way…that no one has identified any man in whom that lust has  “disappeared”…that Jesus sees me as I am…with my failings, and looks at me with tenderness and compassion.” Such a mindset is incompatible with mortifying sin.

Rather, I take a puritanical approach. If this view of the dual sinful desires and acts seems onerous and foreboding, I suppose that explains the difference between the Puritans self-image and ours. They viewed themselves as degenerate, corrupt and depraved except for Christ’s influence and control through regeneration, and by His Word and Spirit.  They acknowledged the sinful corruption of both desire and act as equally condemnable.  But in their writings and in my own experience, we find victory over this hourly, pervasive, sinful corrupt “orientation” is accomplished through a look at Christ’s glory and perfections, His sinless holiness, and an evaluation of the sewer water I drink in pursuing my lusts over the pure living water that Christ offers. How dare I hate Him who loved me while I was yet a sinner, from before the foundation of the world? Are we not more than conquerors over sin by the grace of Him who loved us? (Rom 8: 37). My sinful “orientation” does not define me unless I let it. It is not permissible / excusable simply because it has a powerful effect on my life. Christ can, will and does change me from my most innate sin into His glorious image – in time through sanctification and eternally in glorification. My role is minute-by-minute mortification of all forbidden desires.

As such, this discussion is really about the nature and goodness of the Christ we worship. Do we actually worship the same Christ?  Do we all worship the One who makes us more than conquerors, and demands a holiness we can only achieve with His help?[7] Is this Christ unwilling or unable to help us conquer our most innate sins from our Adamic nature, or do we imagine a Christ that lowers the bar to tolerate sins that we are unable to conquer in a self-help type of sanctification?

The application is simple, and two-fold. Firstly, I must evaluate myself and my sinful lusts in the light of God’s Word and His holiness. Married heterosexual pastors should keep the standard raised high, for all peoples, and not adopt or cater to the culture’s view of homosexual orientation. Rather, we must repent of our own sin, not create an arena of tolerance for others, for shortly we will shoe-horn our own sins into that same space – perhaps not through BCO amendments, but likely in our own hidden desires and eventually acts.

Secondly, these BCO amendments that have recently failed by not receiving two-thirds of the presbyteries, need to be incorporated into individual presbyteries standing rules. Interestingly, for all the claims of imperfect language in Overture 23 and 37, I’ve seen little effort by those who openly opposed them to perfect their language in amendments that would find acceptability in the PCA. Every overture I’ve ever proposed or voted for contained imperfect (i.e., human) language. We must reconsider and pass such amendments that will assist church courts in guiding the actions and desires of our ordained officers.  In effect, we must all choose today whom we serve: the gods our fathers served beyond Jordan or the Lord God Almighty, revealed in His holy Word.

Mark Kozak is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Providence Reformed PCA in Lavalette, WV.

[1] We find agreement with Dr. Johnson that sexual sin cannot be dealt with as an illness to which we apply a therapy, such as organizations like the Exodus Movement have suggested. Rather, we commend him and all our readers to view them as sin to be conquered by the power of the Good News of Jesus Christ.

[2]  Greg Johnson, lead pastor of Memorial Presbyterian Church (PCA) in St. Louis, is author of “Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality.”

[3]  Interview with Christianity Today Nov 2021. “I Used to Hide My Shame. Now I Take Shelter Under the Gospel.”   https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/may-web-only/greg-johnson-hide-shame-shelter-gospel-gay-teenager.html

[4]  Interview with Christianity Today, Sept 2021.  https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/october/lgbt-homosexual-identity-what-comes-after-ex-gay-movement.html

[5]  From a  USA Today article by Greg Johnson, reproduces by MSN.co,  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/im-a-gay-celibate-pastor-of-a-conservative-church-heres-a-trick-for-de-escalation/ar-AAS3qR2

[6]  Revoice Mission and Vision statement:   https://revoice.us/about/our-mission-and-vision/

[7] We find agreement with Dr. Johnson that sexual sin cannot be dealt with as an illness to which we apply a therapy, such as organizations like the Exodus Movement have suggested. Rather, we commend him and all our readers to view them as sin to be conquered by the power of the Good News of Jesus Christ.

[Editor’s note: One or more original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid; those links have been removed.]