Considering the BCO Amendments on Sexuality

As a pastor I took vows to study the peace, purity and unity of the Church. The last few years have been tumultuous for the PCA, filled with misunderstandings, allegations and heated discussions online and in person. The peace, purity and unity have been disrupted. Fear of liberalism and/or compromise has led some people to leave PCA churches (and churches to leave the PCA). Visitors to our congregation have not stayed because of their fears, which I find unfounded. As a student of history, what I see in the PCA is a discussion of what the Bible means, not attempts to dismiss biblical authority which we actually find in denominations that become liberal. What began as controversy over the parachurch ministry named Revoice prompted discussion of whether men who experience SSA are fit candidates for office in the PCA. Let us be clear that this is the issue. The issue is whether experiencing SSA is a disqualifying sin in and of itself.

After discussions with a number of people on line I can’t really come to any other conclusion. The Side A and Side B language is not helpful. It is elusive when it comes to Side B. I often think I’m missing something. What I think I’m missing is that many (most? all?) associate Side B with identifying with their orientation as one of the most important things about them but choosing to be celibate because they are Christians (which would make Christ the most important, right?).

So you know where I am coming from, I don’t view all experiencing SSA as seeing that as their identity. Like all single individuals they are to be chaste whether that is temporary or permanent. The question I’m considering, or the lens I’m using, is does a person with unwanted SSA, who is putting such desires to death, qualified for gospel ministry as an church officer?

Before we answer this, let’s clarify some things to lay a foundation.

Our Standards

The theological standards of our denomination indicate that due to Adam’s sin we “became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.” (WCF, 6, 2) This is conveyed to us by ordinary generation since Adam was our covenant head. This original corruption is the source of our temptations and actual transgressions, as well as sickness (body) and suffering. We see here a distinction between sin original (corruption & temptation) and sin actual (transgressions). The ad Interim Study Report uses this language, and Rosaria Butterfield discusses this distinction in Openness Unhindered (pp. 73-75). This is further explained in paragraph 6 while also connects sin to the law of God. The corruption of nature remains in all who are regenerate. Our sin is pardoned and mortified, but it remains sin (6, 5).

SSA is a manifestation of this inherited corruption, which remains after conversion. One may continue to experience SSA as a manifestation of their remaining corruption. It remains sin yet is pardoned and is to be mortified (Romans 6-8). God may choose to fully deliver a person from any particular sin, including SSA, but we should not expect full deliverance until glorification because of the reality of indwelling sin.

From the chapter on Justification (11) we see that Christ has fully discharged the debt of all our sins (11.3), and God continues to forgive the sins of the justified such that we cannot fall from the state or status of justification (11.5). We may fall under his Fatherly displeasure when we do not humble ourselves and confess our sin.

The chapter on Sanctification (13) also notes the reality of our remaining corruption which may prevail at times, but that eventually the regenerated part prevails so we grow in grace (13.3). Our progress is like the stock market with ups and downs but trending up.

In the next chapter, on Saving Faith, we see that faith can have different degrees over time, is often assailed but gets the victory (14.3). Based on the following clause this would appear to be attainment of assurance rather than to an earthly event of victory in a particular temptation or the final victory in glorification.

“3. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may be often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory: growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.”

This remaining corruption is also addressed in the chapter on the Perseverance of the Saints (17.3). Due to this corruption, temptations external from us and the neglect of the means of grace, saints can and do fall into grievous sins. We can continue in those sins for a time and bring temporal judgments upon ourselves.

We see as well that the Assurance of Grace and Salvation can be shaken, diminished and intermitted by such grievous sins (18.4). Those who engage in same sex lust and activity should expect to have their assurance diminish. However, this also indicates that real, regenerate Christians can continue to experience all kinds of sinful temptations including SSA. We do believe in progressive sanctification, but we don’t assert that any given sin or sinful temptations will be completely removed from the saint until glorification. To argue for earthly deliverance from particular temptations is to have an over-realized eschatology and be out of step with our Confessional Standards. We grow in obedience despite the on-going presence of temptation.

Based on these theological commitments, I believe the Divines would affirm that our remaining corruption could continue to produce SSA temptations, and the saint may fall into same sex sin just like others fall into other sexual temptations and sins of various kinds including fits of anger, bearing false witness, greed, gluttony and failing to submit to legitimate authority. Regardless of the type of sexual temptations that flow from sin original, we are to mortify them. Regardless of the type of sexual sins actual we are to repent of them.

All candidates for ministry, and all officers, in the PCA though (hopefully) justified and being sanctified experience temptations of various strength flowing from their remaining corruption which are classified as sin. They also experience temptations from Satan and the world which are attractive to them due to their remaining corruption. All such men also do actually transgress at times in thought, word and deed. All candidates and officers do experience sexual temptations and transgress at times. Are we to think that only those who experience same sex temptations and transgressions (thoughts and words are in my view at the moment) are prohibited from ministry? Are we to disqualify people for temptations and not just for transgressions?

Our Recent History

Jim Pocta develops this in his recent blog post. The PCA is not an Affirming Denomination, one which affirms homosexuality and same sex marriage. Our General Assembly recently amended our Book of Worship and made that paragraph binding to clearly declare that marriage was between one man and one woman. We ruled out both same sex marriage and polygamy by this action. Is this the action of a liberal denomination? This vote was nearly unanimous.

“59-3. Marriage is only to be between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24, 25; Matt. 19:4-6, 1 Cor. 7:2), in accordance with the Word of God. Therefore, ministers in the Presbyterian Church in America who solemnize marriages shall only solemnize marriages between one man and one woman.”

Our denomination also received The Nashville Statement as biblically faithful in 2019. This, as well, is not the action of a liberal denomination. It is the action of a denomination that affirms the biblical standards of sexual morality. This also means that we generally understand that practicing homosexuals would and should be prohibited from office by Scripture and our Standards (like adulterers, drunkards, the greedy and more). Our question concerns those who are repentant and pursuing progressive sanctification (both mortification and vivification). Our standards indicate that repentance unto life includes both an understanding of the heinousness of our sin and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ Jesus along with an endeavor to new obedience (WSC, 87).  

The PCA ad interim study report noted:

“Insofar as such persons display the requisite Christian maturity, we do not consider this sin struggle automatically to disqualify someone for leadership in the church.”

This study report, which was approved at our last General Assembly, indicates that it does not automatically disqualify someone. It may if they do not display “requisite Christian maturity” which includes sufficient progress that they are not practicing homosexuals or pursuing improper same sex relationships that mimic marriage. The mature would be people who do not pursue their sinful desires.

Changes to BCO 16

Here is the proposed amendment:

16-4. Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character. Those who profess an identity (such as, but not limited to, “gay Christian,” “same sex attracted Christian,” “homosexual Christian,” or like terms) that undermines or contradicts their identity as new creations in Christ, either by denying the sinfulness of fallen desires (such as, but not limited to, same sex attraction), or by denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, or by failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions are not qualified for ordained office.

Points of agreement would include that officers must be above reproach and Christlike in character. I also agree that they, in keeping with WSC 87 they affirm the sinfulness of their sin and fallen desires. In the past we have not been clear in our discussions such that some are speaking of sin original and others sin actual causing unnecessary conflict rooted in confusion.

My points of disagreement begin with the use of identity language. Yes, we should not primarily be known for our sin. We should not generally call ourselves alcoholic Christians or Christian alcoholics. Neither should hold to shibboleths such that one can say “I am a Christian who struggles with alcoholism” but not another formulation such as “Christian alcoholic”. Such shibboleths inevitably lapse into legalism instead of seeking to understand what one means by their words.

More deeply there is a bigger problem with “identity language”. Scripture does address our identity in Christ, but as Carl Trueman notes in his recent book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, the cultural understanding of the self and identity has change profoundly to be psychological and therapeutic. Our Church constitution should not be culture bound in this way, capitulating to how our culture uses “identity”. Neither should it speak of “identity” in a biblical fashion without explaining the differences lest it lead to more confusion. We would be foolish to expect others to know what we mean. We actually are not clear as to what we mean by professing an identity.

Some have noted that in Hebrews 11 Rahab is still identified as the prostitute (the only person whose sin is mentioned in the fall of faith). Perhaps the point is that even a prostitute can express saving faith (and leave prostitution). What is interesting to me is that in Acts 23:6 Paul still says “I am a Pharisee” even though he didn’t live like one due to the gospel and mission. Was Paul wrong to “identify” himself with a group that largely rejected Christ and was actively trying to have him tried and killed?

A friend noted that this amendment is better than nothing. I disagree. We can do better. We must do better. The words themselves must be clear rather than needing articles explaining what it means which are not footnotes for future readers of the BCO. It should be fairly obvious when one reads it. It is not obvious to me what is meant.  

Perhaps something like this would be more clear:

“… consider themselves primarily as united to Christ, and dead to sin by faith such that they hate their sin and temptations, long to be delivered and pursue progressive sanctification by grace through faith.”

Views of the BCO

I see a deeper tension at work in our denomination in how we view the BCO. When I was in the ARP we joked it was called the FOG for a reason. It was purposely vague to allow for freedom. It was frustrating at times as I wanted greater clarity on some issues. Many in the PCA have a “Lutheran” approach to the BCO: if it doesn’t prohibit it we are free to do it. Many others have an RPW approach to the BCO: if it doesn’t permit it we can’t do it. This means there will be vastly different interpretations of this amendment based on the different approaches to the BCO found in the PCA. We can expect there to be conflict over these different interpretations. On a matter this important, we should be crystal clear so there isn’t such future conflict, not only between individuals but presbyteries.

Theological Tensions

I also dislike the use of “victory” instead of “obedience”. “Victory” adds an element that lacks clarity precisely because the term is unclear. It is often used in non-Reformed doctrines of sanctification such as forms of Christian perfectionism and Neil T. Anderson’s view that we do not have a sinful nature but only bad habits after regeneration.

Is this being used to express “victory” over a particular temptation one is experiencing, or “victory” such that one no longer experiences the temptation? Do you see the ambiguity introduced by “victory”? In our theological system, there is a remnant of sin in us all. We don’t get victory over the sinful nature, while we may gain a measure of victory over a particular temptation. This would mean that we no longer engage in immoral sexual activity, watch porn, get drunk etc. while we may still experience the temptation to engage in immoral sexual activity, watch porn or get drunk.

Another way to look at this is a theology of glory vs a theology of the cross. A theology of the cross recognizes our on-going struggles with suffering, sickness and sin (see James 5). In light of 2 Corinthians 12 we see that our prayers for these 3 “S”’s are often met with “my grace is sufficient for you”. God is more concerned with Paul’s humility than the thorn in his flesh (suffering). God’s power is made perfect in our weakness, whether it be suffering, sickness or sin. He prizes our humility and uses these natural and moral struggles to attain this goal. He uses surface sins to help us identify the root sin. For instance, Rosaria Butterfield in Confessions of an Unlikely Convert mentions that her root sins were pride and unbelief. These had to be dealt with or they would just produce a different sin than SSA. (I’d provide the reference but my book is MIA)

A theology of glory is focused on our triumph in the present, not simply in glorification. It stresses the removal of suffering, sickness and sin in our earthly lives. It sets people up to despair when God does not act according to our expectations. Our denomination seems to be torn, at a deeper level, by this tension between a theology of the cross and a theology of glory.

Changes to BCE 21 and 24

BCO 21-4 (and 24-1)

e. In the examination of the candidate’s personal character, the presbytery shall give specific attention to potentially notorious concerns, such as but not limited to relational sins, sexual immorality (including homosexuality, child sexual abuse, fornication, and pornography), addictions, abusive behavior, racism, and financial mismanagement. Careful attention m u s t be given to his practical struggle against sinful actions, as well as to persistent sinful desires. The candidate must give clear testimony of reliance upon his union with Christ and the benefits thereof by the Holy Spirit, depending on this work of grace to make progress over sin (Psalm 103:2-5, Romans 8:29) and to bear fruit (Psalm 1:3; Gal. 5:22-23). While imperfection will remain, he must not be known by reputation or self-profession according to his remaining sinfulness, but rather by the work of the Holy Spirit in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 6:9-11). In order to maintain discretion and protect the honor of the pastoral office, Presbyteries are encouraged to appoint a committee to conduct detailed examinations of these matters and to give prayerful support to candidates.

There are areas of agreement I have this these amendments. I am closer to voting to approve these changes than the one to BCO 16. We should examine personal character and pay attention to particular problems. Our presbytery committee asks men about their marriages (if there were any separations, how they resolve conflict), same sex attraction, drug and alcohol abuse and prior arrests. We need to know if there has been a child protective services investigation or other criminal investigation. I agree that this paragraph should include pornography, addictions, racism and financial mismanagement (a sign of greed).

Once again we have some vague, uncertain language in that “he must not be known by reputation or self-profession according to his remaining sinfulness”. Does this mean that since many of us know that TE Greg Johnson struggles with SSA he is disqualified from ministry? RE Jim Pocta has asked the same question about himself. Are we discouraging honesty about struggles with temptation?

I am not being facetious. A ruling elder in a previous pastorate never shared his struggles with SSA. He struggled alone. Eventually he left his wife and family for a man after being discovered engaging in anonymous sex in a park. I’ve had other friends and acquaintances secretly struggle for years until they “came out” often at the expense of a spouse and children. We’ll never know if it could have turned out differently had they gotten help. The uncertainty of how one’s temptations may be received will encourage others like them to go underground.

In our presbytery (AZ) our ordination team (which also handles transfers) handles these matters. This amendment would seem to establish another committee to handle these examinations. There is some hope and encouragement in that they offer prayerful support. I do remain uncomfortable with the less clear aspects of this amendment.

Conclusion

I want to go back to the beginning. I do not want flagrant sinners to be officers in Christ’s church. I recognize that all officers will struggle with temptation, and will transgress. Paul’s qualifications for office in 1 Timothy 3 list the transgressions that disqualify a man. He does not list temptations. I do not want otherwise qualified men to be disqualified by their temptations unless they consider those temptations to be good. Let’s be clear we are arguing about the same thing. Let our words and intentions be clear. Let’s be careful to understand the views of those with whom we disagree.