10 comments

1. Genuinely, as a layman, trying to understand this issue. Would we object to a pastor who acknowledged sometimes feeling attracted to a woman other than his wife? Now we would expect he would not act on this impulse and pursue sanctification and holiness. On the other hand, I am not so sure many churches would be interested in calling a pastor who identified as a “celibate adulterer”.

   Reply ↓

   • Kirk,

     Your last sentence gets to an important point.

     There has been a movement afoot for sometime to normalize and even to celebrate same-sex attraction. This movement refers to itself as “Side B.” The leader of this movement in P&R circles is Greg Johnson, pastor of Memorial Presbyterian Church in St Louis. Memorial left the PCA after the PCA decided that it would not accept the views advocated at the “Revoice” conference and by Johnson.

     There are a number of issues here and it takes a bit to untangle them. Among these are questions surrounding identity (e.g., may one characterize oneself as a same-sex attracted or celibate adulterer-Christian?), how Scripture views homosexuality and same-sex attraction, the standards for admission to special office (e.g., minister) in the church and other questions.

     Check out the resource page on these issues.

     Reply ↓

     • What I appreciate in the EPCs response was that they made clear someone should not identify themself with this or use terms like “gay Christian”. As I read through the updates and pastoral report they gave I was firmly impressed by how they held to biblical truth but did so graciously.

       As WC 151 states a sin of deed is always worse than a sin of thought. “Celibate luster” would be a better comparison. Would we allow a pastor who struggled with lust in the past, has mortified it, and continues to mortify it during his ministry? I know plenty of pastors who have this testimony.

       Reply ↓

       • Ben,

         Greg Johnson says that he hasn’t mortified this sin. He has celebrated it as an essential part of his identity. Is Memorial Pres not on its way into the EPC? Isn’t that the point of the overture?

         Have you read and watched what Johnson (along with other advocates of Side B) said over the years?

         Reply ↓

         • Yes I’ve read and watched Johnson and kept up with revoice and all that came along with it.

           I know Johnson requested to join the EPC. Have you heard they will allow him? (I ask because according to this pastoral letter and the updates they made they would not. As the chair pointed out they adopted a view identical to the PCA. Again unless you have other information I doubt 1. Johnson would still seek to join EPC 2. EPC would approve receiving

         • Ben,

           I hope you are right.

         • I am an ordained minister in the EPC (Alleghenies Presbytery) who was present at the GA and voted in favor of the AIC’s recommendations. I would urge everyone to read those documents carefully: https://epconnect.org/2026-committee-report-interim-committee-on-same-sex-attraction-and-ordination-standards/

           As I read the documents, there does not appear to be any wiggle room for Greg Johnson to come into the EPC, unless he were to repudiate much of his writings and his work with Revoice. If he comes before the Midwest Presbytery’s ministerial committee, he would have “some ‘splainin’ to do,” to put it mildly. He would have to explain how his views on SSA and “gay Christian” identity have changed, to the satisfaction of the MinCom and the presbytery.

           Many of those who opposed to the AIC documents wanted the committee members or some in the National Leadership Team to give assurances that GJ would never come into the EPC. But that was not the mandate of the AIC, nor can the NLT or the General Assembly preemptively exclude any specific person from ministry. That is the purview of the presbyteries, applying the guidance adopted by the GA. It would have been improper for the AIC to have written a report that comments on a specific person.

         • Benj,

           Thank you for this. As an outsider who once hoped that the EPC was moving closer to NAPARC but who has watched the EPC drift closer toward the PCUSA (e.g., re the ordination of females) I would be pleasantly surprised if Johnson and Memorial were not admitted. I hope that you’re right.

       • Ben, I don’t believe the paper holds that clear stance on the term “gay Christian” as strongly as you believe. I was there too, and am a TE in the EPC. Here is the wording:
         “However, in our culture, the term “gay” is normally understood as affirming or engaging in homosexual practice. Although the term “gay” may refer to more than sexual activities and attractions to
         persons of the same sex, it does not communicate less than that. It is sinful to intentionally approve of sin and missionally foolish to invite that misunderstanding. Our identity is in Christ as his new creation, and we should not inadvertently communicate to the world that Jesus approves of
         sin. It is inappropriate to use terminology, including “gay Christian”, that welcomes confusion from the church and world.”

         1. It says the use of the title is “inappropriate.” Is inappropriate the same as sinful? If, not what’s the difference? Off so, why not simply say sinful? Why not have stronger language there? I believe the answer is in my second concern.
         2. It says it is inappropriate to use “gay Christian” in a way that welcomes confusion from the world. In other words, one can still use the term “gay Christian” so long as it doesn’t cause confusion with the world.

         I land with R Scott Clark on this: the only group that I have seen pitching this as strengthening biblical standards is the EPC. I’ve yet to see any outside organization feel the same. Which means, we are at best not clear, as worst, drifting.

         Reply ↓

   • Kirk, definitions matter here.

     I’m the reporter who spent much of a decade dealing with the Rev. Jim Lucas controversy in the Christian Reformed Church. I covered his “coming out” speech at Calvin College, the controversies at synod and in many classes, the ongoing fights in Classis Grand Rapids East over his ministerial credentials, and finally, the decision by Classis Grand Rapids East, one of the most liberal classes in the entire denomination, to allow his ordination to lapse due to failure to receive a call. That was a “politically correct” way to avoid the real issue.

     In more recent years, I have watched with alarm and concern as too many of the people who made the right choices in the 1990s with Lucas started to waffle and even to apologize for their earlier choices. It’s a fair question whether those people changed their views, or whether back in the 1990s they recognized the political realities and decided not to risk losing the women’s ordination fight by giving ammunition to conservatives. Many, including me, said the hermeneutics being used in the CRC to defend women’s ordination would lead to homosexual ordination. Did the people who let Lucas’ ordination lapse decide to push the homosexual issue after many conservatives left and the liberals who remained (wrongly) thought they had the votes to push further?

     The CRC example needs to be considered as we look at the parallels in the PCA and the EPC. As some have said, history may not also repeat, but it rhymes.

     I saw the hard way how conservatives who understand the totality of depravity, and who want to recognize that sin is serious and does have its own pulls and attractions against which we all must fight, got co-opted and confused by the question of ordaining a non-practicing celibate homosexual. Yes, we all do sin. But we need to ask serious questions about a nonpracticing gay minister that go beyond “you aren’t doing it.” We need to ask many questions about what he’s doing to fight a temptation that, by God’s grace, most of us don’t face, and those who DO face that temptation need significant pastoral care and counseling.

     There’s an additional issue I didn’t deal with back in the 1990s, but I would today. Clinical evidence is now clear that a high percentage of male and female homosexuals were sexually abused as children. Not all, but it’s way beyond the baseline. When a person comes to us with this particular issue, we need to be aware that we may be dealing with a sexual abuse victim, and respond accordingly.

     When the Jim Lucas controversy broke out, I got hammered by both sides for saying we need to deal with Lucas in Christian compassion (particularly early on when his views weren’t yet well-known, and he may not himself have been clear on some of his positions), but not compromise on the clear teaching that homosexuality is incompatible with the Christian faith. This isn’t something on which churches can compromise. Not only is the Bible crystal clear on the issue, the book of Romans teaches that homosexuality is a curse by God upon cultures that have forsaken him. It’s a particularly serious sin and the church has good reason to be particularly careful how we handle it.

     During the CRC controversy on this issue, there were people who accused conservatives of having a less-than-Reformed view of sin, accusing conservatives of taking a “victorious Christian living” view which is closer to Wesleyan or charismatic views of perfectionism. Most of those accusations were wrong, but given the politicization of homosexuality in the broader culture, and the fact that too many CRC conservatives were getting their Christian teaching from televangelists and broad evangelicalism because too many CRC churches were avoiding controversial issues, the “perfectionism” accusation probably was in some cases true, or at least fair.

     Bottom line: There is a huge difference between ordaining a man who acknowledges he has a seriously sinful temptation which he knows he must fight against, and which he is fighting against, and a person who does not view his sin with the seriousness that Scripture views it.

     The public writings and statements of Lucas and of Johnson do not appear to be those of men who acknowledge their sin, acknowledge the seriousness of their sin, and who struggle against it.

     We also need to deal with the very real practical problems of ordaining a person who struggles with a serious sin that is highly controversial in today’s world. Very, very, very few conservative churches are willing to call such a man. Those churches which are willing to call such a man tend to be theologically loose in other areas, not just this one.

     There may be some rare and unusual cases of a nonpracticing homosexual who does acknowledge the depth of his sin and could be ordained, despite not seeing his romantic attractions changed to women. Perhaps working in an ex-gay ministry, or serving in an academic ministry of some sort.

     But that’s a better argument for ordaining a man as an elder who has spent many years in specialized Christian counseling work than it is for ordaining him as a pastor.

     The role of an ordained minister is more than just being a counselor for people troubled with specific sins. Yes, that’s part of the work, but only part.

     Given the uproar in the church world, and the broader culture, it’s hard for me to imagine a godly Reformed man who has these temptations who would seek ordination to the pastorate. There are so many other options available for him as a layman that, in nearly all cases, it’s probably better for the peace of the church not to go down that road.

     Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.