Presbyterians, Celibate Gay Ordination, and the Westminster Standards

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:

1. 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].
2. These new insights were to be interpretive tools for reevaluating biblical texts historically understood to condemn homosexuality.
3. Based upon these “scientific” studies, the category of homosexual orientation was accepted as a fixed human experience that need not be transformed.
4. Next, it was concluded that one can be a homosexual and a church member.
5. A celibate homosexual can be ordained as a church officer.
6. Homosexuality may be expressed sexually in a loving, committed relationship, therefore sexually active homosexuals may be ordained to office.
7. This loving committed homosexual relationship can be celebrated in the covenant of “marriage.”
8. 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]

Westminster Standards

In 1967, the UPCUSA had adopted a Book of Confessions in which the Westminster Confession was joined by a catalog of historically Reformed Confessions, including the recent Confession of 1967.  And revised ordination vows in 1967 weakened confessional subscription significantly. The PCA (1973) and EPC (1981), on the other hand, returned to traditional Presbyterian confessional subscription to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms when they were established. Thus, it is a legitimate question to ask: What do these confessional documents have to say about homosexuality?

Some may assume that the writers of seventeenth-century Christian documents must not have understood the phenomena of homosexuality in ways relevant to the modern church. Yet, contrary to modern ideas about the ignorance of centuries past, Christians of earlier generations were very familiar with homosexuality and understood it rather well. The Westminster Divines were indeed aware of these things in English society, even among the clergy. One case of a homosexual minister shows up in a book by John White, a member of Parliament, and of the Westminster Assembly. The book is a catalogue of numerous “scandalous and malignant” priests that Parliament ejected from their pulpits. One entry mentions a John Wilson, Vicar of Arlington in the County of Sussex, who “is sequestred, for that he in most beastly manner, divers times attempted to commit buggery [sodomy]…and hath openly affirmed that Buggery is no sinne.”[15]

In this section, we will explore the teaching of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms which touch on subjects related to the issue of homosexuality.  Special attention will be given to objections raised by those who support celibate homosexuals in pastoral ministry, and the answers offered to those objections by the Westminster Divines.

The Moral Law

When Jesus warned about the scribes and Pharisees who add burdens (Matt.23:4), he was referring to the extrabiblical rabbinic tradition of the Pharisees who added oppressive obligations upon the people. This was not a reference to God’s moral law which requires obedience from his people in both Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church (Matt. 5:19, Jn. 14:15). We love God by keeping his commandments, which are not a burden (1 Jn. 5:3).

The Reformed tradition following Calvin emphasized the importance of God’s moral law for the Christian. The Westminster Divines, who had to deal with antinomians in their day, reiterated the importance of the moral law in the life of believers:

The moral law, however, does pertain to everyone, saved and unsaved, forever, not just with respect to its content but also in relationship to the authority of God, the Creator, who gave it.  In the gospel Christ does not in any way remove this obligation, but rather strengthens it…. None of these uses of the law is contrary to the grace of the gospel. They rather beautifully comply with it, because the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do voluntarily and cheerfully what the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done. (WCF 19.5,7).[16]

According to the Westminster Standards, God’s moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, implicitly forbids homosexual desires and acts as sinful. Larger Catechism Question 139: What particular sins does the seventh commandment forbid? Answer: “In addition to failing to do what is required, the seventh commandment forbids: adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural desires; all impure imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and inclinations; …” The Scripture proof texts include Lev. 20:15-16 and Rom.1:24, 26, 27.

To encourage a Christ follower to abandon a former life of unnatural desires or impure inclinations is adding no burden to the Gospel. This is Gospel obedience to God’s law which is the new freedom believers have in Christ. Knowing the truth will set one free (Jn. 8:32).

Concupiscence

Often the subject of concupiscence (involuntary disordered desires) arises in discussions of homosexual desires. How one understood concupiscence was a major difference between Roman Catholics and the sixteenth-century Reformers. The Roman view was summarized in the Catholic Catechism: “Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself a fault, inclines man to commit sins.”[17] The Reformers rejected this assertion that the disordered inclinations passed down to humanity after the Fall were not actually sinful. Here the Reformers disagreed with Augustine who spoke of inordinate desires (concupiscentiis) not as “sin” but a “weakness.” Calvin responded: “We, on the other hand, deem it sin when man is tickled by any desire at all against the law of God. Indeed, we label ‘sin’ that very depravity which begets in us desires of this sort. We accordingly teach that in the saints, until they are divested of mortal bodies, there is always sin; for in their flesh there resides that depravity of inordinate desiring which contends against righteousness.”[18]

The Westminster Confession, following the Reformed tradition, teaches that the corrupt nature passed down to believers as a result of the Fall is itself sinful and all the desires that issue from that fallen nature are likewise sinful: “During life on earth this corrupt nature remains in those who are regenerated, and, although it is pardoned and deadened in Christ, yet it and all its impulses are truly and properly sinful. Every sin, both original and actual, transgresses the righteous law of God and brings guilt on the sinner.”(WCF 6.5,6)  Sinful concupiscence is common to all. Same-sex attraction is not a sin-free weakness; it is properly sinful.

Sanctification 

The Reformed view of sanctification, while acknowledging an ongoing battle with sin, unequivocally asserts the believer’s victory in overcoming sin. Cited below, in its entirety, is the chapter “Sanctification” from the Westminster Confession (13.1-3):

1. Those who are effectually called and regenerated have a new heart and a new spirit created in them. They are additionally sanctified, actually and personally, by the power of Christ’s death and resurrection and by his word and Spirit dwelling in them. The power of sin ruling over the whole body is destroyed, and the desires of the old self are more and more weakened and killed. At the same time the ability to practice true holiness, without which no one will see the Lord, is brought to life and strengthened by all the saving graces.

2. This sanctification works in the whole person, but not completely or perfectly in this life. The old sinful nature retains some of its control in body, mind, and spirit. And so a continual and irreconcilable war goes on in every believer. The old nature tries to get its way in opposition to the Spirit, and the Spirit fights to assert its authority over the flesh.

3. Although the old nature temporarily wins battles in this warfare, the continual strengthening of the sanctifying Spirit of Christ enables the regenerate nature in each believer to overcome. And so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

It is clear from this chapter of the Westminster Confession that any professing believer claiming a homosexual identity or a fixed homosexual orientation would be confused about the doctrine of sanctification. But, some advocates of celibate gay ordination claim that God does not promise sexual orientation change.[19] On the contrary, the transforming grace of Christ does in fact reorient one from all kinds of sinful desires and practices in their old manner of life; homosexuality is not excluded as a special category that God has not promised to change. If a person cannot bear witness to the reality of life transformation, they are not yet a mature follower of Christ, therefore would not qualify for church office. The standard for church officers is higher than those of church membership.

As a former lesbian, Presbyterian Rosaria Butterfield explains why any profession of homosexual identity or orientation for someone born again is specious:

Homosexuality may be part of my biography but it is not part of my new nature. God commands born-again Christians, those who are a ‘new creation [because] the old has passed away” (2 Cor. 5:17), to ‘put off’ our old self and ‘put on’ our new self (Eph.4:22-24). Once born again, I can never see homosexuality as part of my essence or nature, because I am a new creation by God’s regeneration.[20]

While a new believer with a homosexual background would need to be discipled in understanding the new life in Christ, it would not be acceptable for a Presbyterian church officer to hold a view that is contrary to the Reformed view of sanctification in the Christian life as outlined in the Westminster Confession.

Some Sins are More Heinous

The Gay Christian movement appeals to scientific research on homosexuality and personal experience as the litmus test for interpreting reality rather than submitting to the biblical teaching of all men and women being created in the imago Dei and designed for each other sexually (Gen. 1,2). As we have seen, Reformed views of sanctification indicate that believers with homosexual backgrounds are able by God’s transforming grace to lean into affirming God’s design in nature and forsake the ontological realities argument of pagan societies and the Gay Christian movement. Turning one’s back on the self-deception of a fixed homosexual orientation must be a priority for those redeemed in Christ. To in any way encourage a believer to continue in his or her self-perception of being same-sex attracted would be pastoral malpractice. Only what is true is ultimately pastoral. This is imperative because homosexuality is especially heinous in the sight of God. Christ followers hate what God hates.

Some advocates of celibate gay ordination argue that heterosexuality is just as sinful as homosexuality.[21] This view is unbiblical. The Westminster Larger Catechism states that some sins are more heinous than others. Q. 150: “Are all sins equally evil in themselves and in the eyes of God? A. All sins are not equally evil; in the eyes of God, some of them are more evil in themselves and others because of the harm that results from them.” Q. 151 adds: “What sins are more evil because of the harm that results from them?”  The answer offers three categories where the harm is greater: “From those who commit sins…From those sinned against… From the nature and quality of the sin.” The Scripture proof texts for the “nature and quality of the sin” category are Prov. 6: 30-35 and Is. 3:9. These texts mention adultery and the sin of Sodom. Among the list of sins in this section is sin against the “light of nature” with Rom.1:26-27 as the sole biblical reference.[22]

It is noteworthy that the Westminster Standards were not original in stating that some sins are more heinous than others. One of the most thorough theological discussions of “sins contrary to nature” in the late Middle Ages was offered by St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274). Aquinas agreed with Augustine, and numerous other Church Fathers, that the crime against nature was a heinous sin that violated God’s natural order for procreation.[23]  Aquinas wrote that homosexuality,

… is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called the unnatural vice. This may happen … by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the vice of sodomy….^[24] Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is the gravest of all…. in sins contrary to nature, whereby the very order of nature is violated, an injury is done to God, the Author of nature....[25]

In his commentary on Romans 1, Aquinas observed, “It should be noted that the apostle very reasonably considers the vices against nature, which are the worst carnal sins, as punishments for idolatry….”[26]

The Westminster Larger Catechism followed both Scripture and tradition when it declared that some sins are more heinous than others, and homosexuality was in a unique category as unnatural sexual sin. While it may be popular among evangelical believers to claim “all sins are equal in God’s sight,” this is not biblical. Some may even suggest that homosexual sin is no worse than heterosexual sin. This is likewise not biblical. The consequences of some sins are more severe than others, and some sins incur a greater judgment among men and in the sight of God. Sexual sins are a more heinous category of sin according to Scripture (1 Cor.6:18-20). Homosexuality is singled out as humankind’s ultimate rebellion against the creator’s design in nature (Romans 1). The heinous nature of homosexual desires would indicate that only heterosexual persons could potentially qualify for church office.

Conclusion

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.

Those supportive of having celibate homosexual clergy in Presbyterian churches should remember that there were two things that the UPCUSA did beginning in the 1970s which initiated the long journey to ordaining practicing homosexuals: 1) affirming a gay Christian identity, and 2) ordaining celibate homosexuals. Those who appeal to the missional mandate to reach the gay community should remember that the UPCUSA in its 1978 homosexuality paper used the missional argument to support the ordination of celibate homosexuals. The mainline Presbyterians forgot that only what is true, is ultimately missional. The UPCUSA missional argument failed miserably, and ended up with the church ordaining “self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons.”

Of course, some of our Christian brothers and sisters have ongoing struggles with homosexual desire just as heterosexual believers may struggle with ungodly sexual desires. All believers battle sinful desires – that is not the question. The question concerns a person who continually struggles with homosexual desires and views himself as gay. Should a gay person be in a Presbyterian pulpit? What the Westminster Confession teaches would preclude a person who claims to be a celibate same-sex attracted believer from being a Presbyterian church officer.

Sorrowfully, there are pastors in the PCA and the EPC who apparently believe having a same-sex attracted celibate minister in their denomination is lawful. Our Presbyterian ancestors would be appalled that this question is even being asked. This is not a nuanced topic that needs further study. Presbyterians have been doing study papers on homosexuality for almost 50 years. We don’t need more study, we need courage – the courage to stand firm on what the Presbyterian church has believed and taught for four centuries about homosexuality. This issue will unfortunately continue to divide evangelical congregations and denominations, but it should not divide confessional Presbyterians who by ordination vows have committed themselves to uphold the Reformed teaching found in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.

[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.

[15] John White, The First Century of Scandalous, Malignant Priests, Made and Admitted into Benefices by Prelates (London: George Miller, 1643), 1,2.

[16] All citation from the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger Catechism are taken from The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms in Modern English, (Evangelical Presbyterian Church, First Edition, 2004) unless otherwise noted.

[17] Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 2515.

[18] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), III.3.10.

[19] For example, Greg Johnson, commenting on 1 Cor. 6, writes: “God was not promising orientation change.” Johnson, Still Time to Care, 144.

[20] Rosaria Butterfield, Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway), 80.

[21] Johnson, Still Time to Care, 139, 140. Butterfield’s rebuttal to Johnson: “Is heterosexuality as ‘fallen’ as homosexuality? The biblical answer is no. But Greg Johnson in his book Still Time to Care, advocates an unbiblical response. He believes that heterosexuality is as fallen in its very nature as homosexuality…. Johnson confuses here pattern with practice. When the Bible regards heterosexuality as procreative and homosexuality as barren, that refers to its practice’s logical consequences. Thus, heterosexuality is natural in pattern and practice, and homosexuality is unnatural and perverse in both. Can one use the gift of heterosexuality in a sinful way? Of course. That a practice may be stewarded sinfully does not change the reality that this pattern is natural and good. Because Johnson rejects the natural and good pattern of heterosexuality, he believes that there is no point or hope in striving for it.” Butterfield, Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age, 70-82.

[22] This prooftext for LC 153 is found in the original version of the Westminster Larger Catechism adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1648.

[23] For an overview of the Church Fathers, medieval writers and Reformers on homosexuality, see S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams, Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 27-89.

[24] Summa Theologica, 2.2.154.11,1,819 in St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, Complete English Edition in Five Volumes, trans. Fathers of the Dominican Province, vol. 4 (Christian Classics, 1981).

[25] Summa Theologica, 2.2.154.11,1,820.

[26] Saint Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans, trans. Fr. Larcher, vol. 37, chapter 1, lecture 8 (The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012), 52,53.