“Insofar as such persons display the requisite Christian maturity, we do not consider this sin (same sex attraction) struggle automatically to disqualify someone for leadership in the church (1 Cor. 6:9-11, 1 Tim. 3:1-7, Titus 1:6-9; 2 Pet. 1:3-11).”
From the PCA Ad-Interim Committee on Human Sexuality
Regarding those who identify as gay Christians and deal with same-sex attraction
In some PCA church in America someone is going to hear from the pulpit…
“‘Hi … I’m Rev. Pete. I’m your new Pastor. I am a gay Christian but don’t worry, I’m celibate in this sin struggle that finds me physically attracted to men.'” Now, let us turn to the text this morning. In Gen. 19, we find …”
From having skimmed over this report, I must admit that overall it is not as bad as I might have expected. However, this statement quoted above is a poison pill for the whole document and if the committee’s work is one day adopted without excising the above finding the PCA is toast.
You see, if the PCA, eventually adopts this report has opened up a Pandora’s box by way of principle. The principle they are allowing is that as long as one struggles against sexual sin it does not matter the nature of the sin. For example, per this principle one can easily envision a time when some new PCA committee in the future releases a report that says,
“Insofar as such persons display the requisite Christian maturity, we do not consider this sin (sexual attraction to farm animals) struggle automatically to disqualify someone for leadership in the church (1 Cor. 6:9-11, 1 Tim. 3:1-7, Titus 1:6-9; 2 Pet. 1:3-11).”
“Insofar as such persons display the requisite Christian maturity, we do not consider this sin (sexual attraction to little boys and girls) struggle automatically to disqualify someone for leadership in the church (1 Cor. 6:9-11, 1 Tim. 3:1-7, Titus 1:6-9; 2 Pet. 1:3-11).”
Now, some might protests that, “what you’re talking about could never happen. No Church is ever going to allow a Pastor in the pulpit who is sexually attracted to cows or children.” And 35 years ago people would have said that, “what you’re talking about could never happen. No Church denomination is ever going to allow celibate sodomites into the pulpit.”
Yet here we are.
With this one section in the committee report every perversity you can possible imagine has had the door open to it as long as a candidate for leadership can say, “I’m struggling against this sin.”
There is another point that needs to be mentioned here. You will notice the study committee continues to use the word “gay,” even spending several paragraphs studying its belly-button about the usage of the word “gay.” Yet, there is not one occurrence of the word “sodomite.” I would insist that this is significant.
The idea of sodomy has, over the decades, gone through a metamorphosis in people’s minds and with that metamorphosis the word used to define the act and condition has changed. In the days of n Magnus Hirschfeld a battle was started to decriminalize sodomy and one of the effects was to introduce and mainline a new word for sodomy. That word was homosexuality. “Homosexuality” softened the sharp edges that existed in people’s minds when they heard the word “sodomite.” Over the course of time though even “homosexual” began to be laden with negative connotations and so a word was seized on that heretofore had positive connotations and was applied to the sodomite community. That word, as people now know, is “Gay.” “Gay,” became perhaps one of the most famous enantionymy words ever created. (A enantionymy is a Janus – [two faced]) word, which is to say it is a word with multiple meanings (senses) of which one of the meanings is the reverse of another meaning.) So, “gay,” can mean “lighthearted and carefree,” or “gay” can used to describe a man who is engaged in some of the most perverse and foul behavior imaginable. By seizing on the word “gay” as a word to replace “homosexual” (which had previously replaced “sodomite”) the sodomite community successfully sanitized as normative the whole disgusting and sick behavior resulting in the mainstreaming of the whole condition.
Now, we find in this report the Church continuing to sanitize the word. The committee could have named sodomy as sodomy but instead decided to go with “gay” while at the same time giving us sentence upon sentence showing how self-reflective the committee was in using the wrong word (Gay).
All of the above doesn’t even begin to deal with the qualifications for the office of Elder as seen in 1st Timothy 3 and Titus 1 which includes the idea of an Elder being above reproach? If someone is tempted to have carnal knowledge with another man how can that someone be above reproach?
If this committee report is adopted with the very first italicized quote that we opened with it matters very little what else the committee says. That is the very definition of a poison pill.