The Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) recently came out with an ad-interim report on sexuality. This report has received positive feedback for the most part from within the PCA.
Kevin DeYoung, an influential minister of the PCA involved with The Gospel Coalition (TGC), was part of the committee. He was recently interviewed on the podcast The Mortification of Spin. Co-hosts Todd Pruitt and Carl Trueman praise the study as being very well done and navigating a hot-button issue well.
I know many people are in agreement with this report. For those of you who have been following my blog posts, you'll know that I myself am LGBT+ affirming, so naturally I disagree with my denomination's stance on this matter.
To many people in the PCA, this will just be another report given by the church speaking to a controversial issue, and it looks like it's just affirming things that the PCA has historically stood for.
However, when I read this report, I noticed some statements made that struck me as deeply concerning. Some are concerning, of course, because of how the statements misunderstand our LGBT+ brothers and sisters in Christ, but others are concerning because they are theologically shady at best and perhaps entirely theologically erroneous and - dare I say it - not in line with reformed theology.
I know people personally who have grown up in the PCA who identify as being part of the LGBT+ community. They read this report as speaking to them. I myself read this report and couldn't help but feel a sense of sickening dread.
I have many beloved friends and family who may be in agreement with some of what is in this report, but I hope I can highlight for you things that are concerning for me, both from a biblical perspective and a personal perspective.
The Motivation Behind this Report
This report did not come out of nowhere. I've been following the overtures that come up got the PCA's General Assembly (GA) for a few years now out of interest. I like knowing what's going on in the denomination as a whole.
This committee was brought together in reaction against the Revoice conference and in part by a speech made by a PCA minister at the GA.
Let me provide a quote from the Revoice website detailing their mission:
"To support and encourage gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other same-sex attracted Christians—as well as those who love them—so that all in the Church might be empowered to live in gospel unity while observing the historic Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality."
This is not a group of LGBT+ affirming people. Why, then, did their conference provoke such a strong reaction?
So strong that some ministers even said they were going to leave the PCA altogether?
"The Scripture is clear. We must never tolerate evil, wickedness, perversion or any unclean practice in our personal lives or in the church. The PCA has failed to discipline a PCA Teaching Elder who has publicly called himself 'gay' and received a rousing ovation for the speech he gave at last year’s General Assembly. Don’t gloss over this confession. Let it sink into your mind. This pastor is affirming an identity contrary to what the Scriptures say a true believer is—a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). So the PCA now has at least one pastor who professes to be a homosexual. And then ask yourself this question—why has his Presbytery not disciplined him? Will he be allowed to continue as a pastor in the PCA? I cannot and will not tolerate that probability." - Al Baker (quote taken from link above).
I can't help but feel that the word "homosexual" is a horrible word. It reminds me of the words white Americans crafted during the times of slavery to refer to male versus female people with dark skin, as though they weren't even human but some entirely different species. There are homo sapiens and then there are homosexuals. We'd never call people heterosexuals. It's dehumanizing and demeaning.
I read this article and I can feel the venom and disgust in the tone when this minister speaks of this other PCA minister who is "a homosexual". He must be disciplined.
Why? What's he doing? His name is Greg Johnson, for those who don't know. He is our brother in Christ, and I am so very sorry he has been subject to people speaking of him so awfully.
He calls himself gay, and while affirming a very traditional reading of the bible, he speaks of his experiences as a gay man growing up in the church. He spoke at the PCA GA in 2019 about how he lives a celibate life out of his love for Jesus, dies to himself daily, and calls himself "gay".
For that he must be disciplined.
Todd Pruitt in 2018 wrote about his concerns:
"But as I have stated before, along with many others, the trouble with Revoice is the content. What Revoice proposes is a departure from what Christians have historically believed about key doctrines and their ethical implications. Revoice represents a theology and ethic which, if allowed to take root in the PCA, will lead us into great and grievous errors."
Essentially, the problem is that people who are part of Revoice and people like Johnson use labels like "gay" when talking about themselves.
Perhaps most concerning to onlookers, though, is that those at Revoice do not consider their sexual orientation as something that can necessarily be changed.
"The Revoice Conference, as anticipated from the purpose statement and plenary session synopsis, consistently presented same-sex attraction as an inconvenient desire beyond the power of the Gospel of grace to eradicate, and in fact, unnecessary to eradicate. It must simply be handled. The unmistakable proposal in Revoice is that same-sex attraction is a syndrome to be strategically managed. That is not God’s voice. To be clear same-sex attraction is not a syndrome to be managed. It is a sinful desire to be mortified. God’s voice is clear. His grace is greater than any and all of our sin. His grace not only provides an atonement to remove the guilt and shame of sin, but also empowers the forgiven believer to kill the practice and desire for sin before it kills you." - Harry Reeder, Senior Pastor of Briarwood Presbyterian Church.
The biggest problem is why aren't these people who are experiencing sinful desire actively trying to mortify their sins?
Why does it seem like some of them are saying they're always going to be gay?
The fact that an elder in the PCA openly referred to himself as gay (despite not even being affirming like myself) was absolutely scandalous. Instead, he should refer to himself as being "SSA" or "same-sex attracted".
Here is my first point of concern:
This report was made due to a knee-jerk reaction against a conference of LGBT+ Christians who aren't even affirming and who uphold a traditional reading of Scripture.
The rhetoric used by those at Revoice was concerning, though, and was perceived as being dangerous. This was reflected in the multiple overtures that called for the PCA to take a stronger and firmer stance on the matter of gender and sexuality.
This makes me question the heart going behind the report.
Is this really about being able to better shepherd people or is this about "taking a stand against the gay agenda"?
"In my view, the pro-Greg Johnson and pro-Missouri Presbytery group were actually the winners with the publication of this Document." - Larry Ball, retired PCA minister.
All this talk of "winners" and losers and the overall fear-laden language makes me think this is precisely about taking a stand, lest the PCA end up waving the rainbow flag.
That's not a concern for either biblical authority or of shepherding.
This is about the culture war.
The Goal of this Report
The goals of the PCA's report are stated in the preamble. The report had one broad task and two specific tasks:
Broadly, "... to study the topic of human sexuality with particular attention to the issues of homosexuality, same-sex attraction, and transgenderism and prepare a report.
Specifically, to:
Help pastors and sessions shepherd congregants who are dealing with same-sex attraction.
Articulate and defend a Biblical understanding of homosexuality, same-sex attraction, and transgenderism in the context of a culture that denies that understanding.
From the start, the "Biblical understanding" is assumed.
Also from the start, we are already speaking of "issues", not people.
Some readers may read this sentence and think I'm borrowing rhetoric from shady places. In fact, something that Todd Pruitt and Carl Trueman in their interview with Kevin DeYoung praise about the PCA report is how removed it is from all the "rhetoric" that surrounds these conversations.
I'm trying to drive the point home, though, because I think we forget that people in the LGBT+ community aren't just people out there in "the culture". The problem isn't "liberal theology" creeping into our churches. The problem isn't that we need to make our stances stronger to further set ourselves apart from "the culture".
We have gay and trans people sitting right next to us in church.
If we start by primarily treating "... congregants who are dealing with same-sex attractions" as being under this umbrella of "the issues of homosexuality, same-sex attraction, and transgenderism", we're going to fall into the problem of prescribing a "correct Christian ideology" to what is not primarily an ideological problem.
We run the risk of coming up with unhelpful "solutions" (just make sure your ideology is correct and everything will fall into place) to something real a person is experiencing.
This is dismissive of the many LGBT+ people who are members of the PCA.
All we're doing is further driving the same stake into the ground that we've always had. We're not re-examining Scripture here to make sure we're right about this. We're not learning more about the reality of what people in the LGBT+ community speak about experiencing. In light of this, how can we apply Scripture correctly?
Since one of the tasks of this report was to study human sexuality and gender, I would hope attention is paid to members of the LGBT+ community and their experiences so we can better understand what's going on. When the PCA has had study committees looking at the topic of abuse, for example, or sexual assault, they'll often try and seek out members of the PCA who have had experiences with that.
I would hope that such an enriched understanding paired with a good understanding of Scripture would help to guide the church on this matter.
So yes. The report was taken out of the "rhetoric" of these conversations. But in this case, is that a good thing?
Are we just assuming we already know enough to start applying Scripture in what is an authoritative report defining the PCA's stance on these things?
I am all for examining our beliefs in light of Scripture and using Scripture for guidance. This was not that. The report was made assuming we were already correct.
The goal of helping pastors and sessions come alongside their LGBT+ congregants is good. However, does this report accomplish this purpose?
After reading it, I can say confidently it does not.
Little to no attention was given to "shepherding" so much as the articulating and defending a "Biblical understanding" that is not being examined, but assumed and defended in the face of "the culture".
Not to mention the report almost entirely focuses on gay Christians.
Very little to no attention goes to people who are trans (we got maybe a few sentences). This is such a tragedy. Indeed, hardly any time is spent on even coming up with or defending a "correct Christian view" on the matter at all.
Most concerning, there is no goal stated to help pastors shepherd congregants who are trans.
From the beginning, the report is quite lopsided.
Theological Error in the Report
Since the report was formed as a backlash against the Revoice conference, its focus on people who are gay is understandable.
Given the controversy and the concerns that ministers in the PCA and ministers in other reformed Presbyterian denominations looking in such as the OPC were bringing up, it is also no surprise to see just how much attention went into making statements about desire, "concupiscence", and temptation.
Here are a couple things the report brings out (I will be taking these points directly out of the report itself):
Our fallen desires are in themselves sinful. The desire for an illicit end is in itself an illicit desire.
Desires that arise in us apart from conscious act of the will are still sin. These desires are idolatrous and sinful.
There are different kinds of temptations. Some are morally neutral and God gives them to us. Others come from within ourselves, and these God never gives us.
We can make "substantial progress" in the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. Therefore, the believer who struggles with [________] should see the regenerate nature increasingly overcome the remaining corruption of the flesh.
I see a couple things wrong here. I absolutely want to address how this is a fundamental misunderstanding of people who are gay and trans, but I also feel like I need to address the theological shadiness here before moving on.
For the record, I know and respect many of the names on this report. It was crafted by extremely smart and well-educated men who I consider my brothers, and I am not trying to catch them in a trap or something.
I do want to share my concern that some of the statements they make, when being applied as they are, are theologically shady at best and potentially theologically erroneous.
"God never gives people bad things." Or does he?
In the PCA's report in sexuality, it states that the temptations that come from within ourselves are things God never gives us. It cites James to say this.
James writes that God himself does not tempt anyone, true (in a letter written in a particular context, I might add).
Yet James never states these are things God doesn't give us.
God does create people who are tempted. He is sovereign over all things. At least, this is something you assume to be true if you are traditionally reformed, and the PCA is a traditionally reformed denomination.
In the Scriptures, we aren't told God never gives people something if it's bad. Even morally bad.
This idea that because a desire is morally illicit as opposed to morally neutral somehow means God “never gives” them to people is inconsistent with some pretty basic theological positions the PCA holds. (I mean, just think of Pharaoh in the Old Testament, or how God uses people and their evil for his good purposes all throughout Scripture.)
I know some readers may find Calvinism reprehensible, but I'm mentioning it precisely because of more essential things the PCA has believed historically.
I myself am still quite traditionally reformed, but I do have many friends and loved ones who are not and who are sincere followers of Jesus, and I love all of you. I understand you may have some disagreements with some of the finer points I might bring up, and that is fine. Anyways -
The statements concerning temptation and sanctification strike me as strangely Prosperity-gospel-esque in application, because if God "never gives" these to you, you then must have some agency over it even if you feel like you don't. So just continue to be faithful and you'll start seeing some improvement. At least if you're really saved. Right?
I am not trying to argue here that those in the LGBT+ community have morally illicit desires. I disagree, of course. I mainly wanted to point out some internal inconsistencies I was seeing.
I actually think that the report went this direction is telling. It exposes some of the motives behind its creation.
I know that a huge reason they wanted to make a statement on temptation was because of the Revoice controversy. However, I think in an effort to "tighten up" against this scandalous idea that on the whole, sexual orientation isn't something that changes, an important biblical truth was compromised.
We don't always know why God gives one person one thing and another person something else.
We do not fully know why God lets people do bad things. We don't fully comprehend why good people are afflicted in this life by evil and suffering. We don't know why God "... sends the rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matt. 5:45)." The ways of God are too wonderful for us, too high, and they are mysterious to us. It's as it says in Romans:
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
“Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
“Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?”
For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen. - Romans 11:33-36 (NIV).
If you are traditionally reformed, though, the one thing you do know is that he is sovereign over all things.
So why are we stating here that we know God "never gives" people... a gay sexual orientation?
I think we can draw wisdom from something else we know God is sovereign over in the Scriptures, though:
Suffering.
Horrible things happen to people in Scripture. People are captured and made slaves. People are raped. People are killed.
It's so awful and we find ourselves wondering how a good God could ever allow it.
The book that most directly addresses this problem of suffering is the book of Job.
In the book of Job, we see a blameless man in God's eyes be afflicted with so much pain and suffering.
Recall how Job cries out to God in such agony. His friends all tell him he must be experiencing this because he is in sin:
"Consider now: Who, being innocent, has ever perished? Where were the upright ever destroyed? As I observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it. At they breath of God they are destroyed; at the blast of his anger they perish." - Job 4:7-9 (NIV).
Yet Job doesn't buy that. He knows that is not true. In fact, amazingly at one point in the story Job says in the face of his friends and in spite of all his suffering:
"How long will you torment me and crush me with words? Ten times now you have reproached me; shamelessly you attack me...
Have pity on me, my friends, have pity, for the hand of God has struck me. Why do you pursue me as God does? Will you never get enough of my flesh? Oh that my words were recorded, that they were written on a scroll, that they were inscribed with an iron tool on led, engraved in rock forever! I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes - I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!
If you say, 'How we will hound him, since the root of trouble lies in him', you should fear the sword yourselves; for wrath will bring punishment by the sword, and then you will know that there is judgment." - Job 19:1, 21-29 (NIV).
Now, Job does get angry at God, and he wants to know why God is doing this to him. He wants to know the reason behind his suffering. He actually asks God to show up and personally tell him why he is suffering.
And here is what's amazing:
God answers Job. He does not say, "Here is why I allow you to suffer." Instead he asks, "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundations?" He shows Job the intricacy and wonder of creation, and asks Job if he feels he can uphold justice in such a world as God ultimately does. We can't see it clearly and we cannot always comprehend the ways of God - we're only people, after all.
It seems like God is rebuking Job, and Job responds to God's words with humility.
Yet curiously, at the end of the book, God tells Job's friends to ask Job to make a burnt offering on their behalf. God says, "My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has" (vs. 8). Then God blesses Job.
I think the book of Job provides us such great wisdom in how the church can come alongside the LGBT+ community.
Also it shows us how this idea that people who don't have a straight sexual orientation are somehow outside of the sovereignty of God in this one aspect of their lives... it's just not how the bible speaks of things like this.
Not only that, though.
These are a group of people who are suffering. Even if you have a more traditional interpretation of Scripture, you can easily see and know that these are a small, minority group of people who are suffering. Despite the "accepting culture" (though it's not as accepting as you would think), often when they come out to their loved ones and in their churches, they are treated as somehow being perverted and wrong. They go from being beloved children of God to being problematic "issues" to be dealt with.
This report is not only saying that their desires are shameful and sinful, but that these desires aren't in any way from God. They are from... themselves? Maybe it's their parents fault (there is no legitimate study that backs this view, for the record)? Can it be blamed on trauma? But surely whatever it is, it is "never from God".
We are essentially saying, "The root of trouble lies in them," just like Job's friends said of him.
Yet in the story of Job, we know that Job is blameless in God's eyes.
And so are we all, as God's children.
A backwards theology of sanctification
That those in the body of Christ should seek to live in a way fitting of being a member of that body is pretty much a point of unanimous agreement in the church.
In the report's statement concerning sanctification, this is upheld. However, there is some theological shadiness in the application which exposes a backwards understanding.
The statement says:
"Through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, we can make substantial progress in the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord (Rom. 6:14-19; Heb. 12:14; 1 John 4:4; WCF 13.1)."
Then it states:
"The believer who struggles with same-sex attraction should expect to see the regenerate nature increasingly overcome the remaining corruption of the flesh..."
Of course it qualifies all of these statements, saying that this progress might be slow and uneven and stating that:
"...sanctification in one's sexual life cannot be reduced to attraction to persons of the opposite sex (though some persons may experience movement in this direction), but rather involves growing in grace and perfecting holiness in the fear of God (WCF 13.3)."
So what are the problematic things I am seeing here?
When the statement peaks of how as believers, we can make substantial progress "in the practice of true holiness", it is borrowing language from the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF).
The WCF in chapter 13 is speaking of how in Scripture, we are told that as people in Christ, we will be sanctified. This is something of which we can be sure. In the Scriptures, this is supposed to give us hope and point us to the wonderful things the Holy Spirit is working in us. It is not supposed to hang over our head in such a way that we doubt our salvation.
Consider this passage:
May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it." - 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (NIV).
Here we can see how Paul is speaking of sanctification not as a, "Prove you are improving and being sanctified or you're not saved," kind of thing, but as a, "God will be faithful and sanctify you," thing.
In the section of the WCF being referenced, it is by being "...strengthened in all saving graces" that is the thing without which "no [person] shall see the Lord". That might seem like a small detail, but it isn't.
Consider 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. It is a commonly abused passage. It reads:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor malakoi nor arsenkoitai nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV).
Paul is not saying in his letter to the church in Corinth that people who do these particular things will not inherit the kingdom of God. He is saying, this is who you were before Christ.
As Christians, even though we still sin, we are washed, sanctified, and justified by Jesus and by the Holy Spirit.
These lists in Scripture shouldn't be read to say if you do [X] thing, you are barred from the kingdom of God, so watch it. It's saying in Jesus, we are a new people. We have a new inheritance, and it's a beautiful one.
The WCF is hearkening back to this truth we see in Scripture in section 13. That is why in the WCF it says, "They, who are once effectually called..." It is saying those who have been saved by grace through faith are further sanctified. It is the "saving graces" without which no [person] will see the Lord - not the believer's ability to show visible signs of improvement for onlookers.
In the report on sexuality, however, that is not what is being emphasized. It is the making of substantial progress being spoken of as the thing "without which no [person] will see the Lord" here. I am quite sure, knowing the names of those on the committee, that this is not a conclusion they would want drawn from the report.
It is because of the point that they are trying to draw out from it concerning this particular matter, once again, that is causing the theological shadiness we see here.
The report says a believer who experiences same-sex attraction should expect to see a change in their nature, essentially (though they say it may be slow). A change that cannot be reduced to but by implication includes their sexual orientation.
So not only is the report saying "same-sex attraction" is an inherently sinful desire that is never given to someone by God, but a believer should also expect to make substantial improvement "without which no [person] shall see the Lord".
This is the emphasis I am reading in the report. I do not find this to be good application of Scripture.
I know that for our LGBT+ siblings in Christ, it will be incredibly burdensome.
An Incredible Burden
Here I want to address some of the ways this report fundamentally misunderstands our LGBT+ brothers and sisters in Christ.
What about our trans brothers and sisters?
It saddened me so much to see the very, very little the report had to say about our trans brothers and sisters. In fact, here was all it really had to say in entirety:
As a God of order and design, God opposes the confusion of man as woman and woman as man (1 Cor. 11:14-15). While situations involving such confusion can be heartbreaking and complex, men and women should be helped to live in accordance with their biological sex. Nevertheless, we ought to minister compassionately to those who are sincerely confused and disturbed by their internal sense of gender identity (Gal. 3:1; 2 Tim. 2:24-26). We recognize that the effects of the Fall extend to the corruption of our whole nature (WSC 18), which may include how we think of our own gender and sexuality.
As someone who has people close to me who I love dearly and are trans, reading this made me sad and angry. Not because I disagree with what is said - which I do - but because of just how little time they spent to understand people who are trans.
If they had, they would have spent so much more time on the subject and so much more care.
Their Scripture references are confusing. 1 Cor. 11:14-15 is when Paul is speaking of how "nature" or physis (a Greek word which also refers to custom) teaches that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but for a woman it is her glory. It's taken entirely out of its context. Of course when looking at "nature", it is a bit strange to imply men's hair naturally doesn't grow longer than a woman's. You can see how this disregards the fact that Paul is speaking of the customs of the day. It disregards the entire context of 1 Corinthians 11 (we're talking about what men and women should do when they pray and prophecy) and the larger context of the entire letter.
I would have expected them to cite Genesis 1 or that verse people will sometimes use from Leviticus, where while I still would have disagreed, I would have understood why those verses were being used.
I think what is happening here is the implementation of an Aristotelian philosophical framework where we assume that because men and women have a different telos which we can discern by looking at nature, they morally must not do anything that goes against that telos. That is probably why 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 is being cited, because of how Paul says, "Does not nature teach you..." However, Paul in his letters to the church is constantly rooting people's identity and purpose not in an Aristotelian idea of nature, but in the person of Christ.
It's quite honestly an odd verse to use to support the position they are taking in this report.
Then it is applying such Scripture to the experiences of trans individuals without so much as an explanation, except to point to God's "order" and "design" (which goes undefined).
The report concludes that because of what we read in 1 Corinthians 11 (?), God therefore opposes "the confusion" of a man as a woman and vice versa. And they conclude that men and women should be "helped" to live in accordance with their biological sex (whatever that means).
I have written about the church's response to our trans siblings in Christ, and all I can do is to point you back to that post. Needless to say:
We must be very careful here. We cannot casually make claims like this without knowing what it is we are talking about. As someone experienced in mental health, I have yet to meet a trans individual where "helping" them to live in accordance with their biological sex would have been anything less than catastrophically destructive. I'm not just saying that, either. This is what is reflected in the scholarly literature we have on the subject. This is not simply a matter of me giving anecdotal evidence or stating my opinion.
This is not to say there is only one option for trans individuals. The experience of every trans individual is different and the choices they make vary accordingly. I'll also note that not everyone who experiences that dissonance between their visible biological sex and their mind will necessarily adopt a trans identity.
No one approach is best for every person, and for me I leave that decision in their hands.
This leads me to point out the biggest problem:
The report proposes a narrow option. There is only one truly biblical option. And yet -
This report does not offer ways as to how a trans person can be "helped" to supposedly"live in accordance" (?) with their biological sex.
You cannot make such a claim that they must do so and then not give guidance on a matter where the stakes are so high. By doing so you are placing a burden on a group of people who are experiencing suffering and not providing any help.
I think of the clients I have worked with and the people that I love. I think of the damage this would have caused. How do I help my trans client who is suicidal and dealing with depression stemming from this dissonance between their visible biological sex and the "invisible" conception of gender identity (which also has biological components) they have in their mind by using this metric? How do I say, "You must live in accordance with how God has made you," when they would rightly point out that God made them with this dissonance they feel and they have no control over it? How do I then mitigate the horrifyingly high risks of self-harm and suicide?
Please, please read these things for yourself and speak and learn from people who are trans. Please tread carefully. How can we appropriately apply Scripture when we do not know what we're talking about?
People's sexual orientation, on the whole, does not change.
This report stated and assumed that someone who is gay, if they are saved, will experience sanctification. It assumes there's going to be some kind of change in this area of their lives. Maybe they'll experience less "same-sex attraction" over the course of their lives. Maybe they'll become straight. Maybe not. But they should see and expect change.
This was something I had hoped we had learned in light of the shutting down of Exodus International. How many times do we have to watch ex-gay leaders flip flop from saying, "People's orientation can change!" to apologizing and talking about the intense pressure they felt to believe that lie to realize that the "pray it away" and "you should expect change" approach does not work? Have we not learned our lesson from the many prominent Christian married couples where one spouse comes out and says, "The truth is I'm gay and it hasn't changed"?
When I grew up, I remember seeing Alan Chamber's picture on the cover of World magazine. I remember how he inspired so many people. He seemed so solid. He would say, "The opposite of homosexuality isn't heterosexuality, it's holiness." Which seemed so great. Yet he also was an inspirational picture of how a man could go from gay to being married to a woman and having kids.
He now, years later, is apologetic for this. He himself still identifies as being gay. And he states confidently that no one can change their sexual orientation. It just doesn't happen.
I'm going to link to a video of Justin Lee doing a talk at Baylor university. In this talk, starting at about the 7:50 minute mark going to about the 19:00 minute mark, he does a fantastic job of talking about the history of the ex-gay movement and how it's proven time and again that it doesn't work. He talks about his own experiences with the ex-gay movement. Please do watch it.
Justin Lee speaks of how often people still believe in these ex-gay groups and movements or at least the idea behind them.
He says:
"... They will point to somebody and say, 'I know this person's testimony, they wrote a book', or, 'I heard them speak and I know they've become straight', and what I don't say to them is I know that person, and I know they're not straight, but it's not my place to tell you that."
The PCA report does not outright say it is pro these ex-gay movements. But it does affirm, just like Exodus International used to say, that "change is possible".
This feels so Prosperity-gospel to me. Have faith and God will sanctify you if you are truly a believer. What a terrible burden to place on someone when we know sexual orientation for the vast, vast majority of people does not and will not change.
"Same-sex attraction" is not about sex
This is another thing that the PCA report assumes. It states in the section on desire:
The desire for an illicit end—whether in sexual desire for a person of the same sex or in sexual desire disconnected from the context of Biblical marriage—is itself an illicit desire. Therefore, the experience of same-sex attraction is not morally neutral; the attraction is an expression of original or indwelling sin that must be repented of and put to death (Rom. 8:13).
"Same-sex attraction" is not a very accurate description of the sorts of desires someone who is gay has. It reduces this to being all about sex. You picture in your head someone who sees someone of their same sex waltzing down the beach in a swimsuit and that person struggling with lust.
This is not the situation. Problematically for those who are gay in the church is that their longing for intimacy and affection and love - well, that is something they experience towards those of their same sex. But reducing it to being primarily a sexual drive thing is inaccurate.
The desire for intimacy, affection, and love - those are all good things. These are not fundamentally selfish desires, and no one would call such things lustful, because they aren't. This is a normal healthy part of being human.
I'm straight, and my desire for my husband when we were dating was absolutely not something that could be reduced to sexual attraction. It is the same for people who are gay. It's also funny to me that the report says sexual desire disconnected from biblical marriage is illicit, because, well... what straight person did not also have that healthy human desire prior to getting married?
The report says, though, that the desires a gay person experiences are inherently morally illicit and sinful. What a terrible burden. To say that their longing for intimacy, affection, and love is altogether perverted and twisted and wrong - and never from God. And where can we even get that from Scripture?
I cannot fathom the shame this will bring to our LGBT+ brothers and sisters.
Coming Soon...
I think that many of my readers are interested to know the Scriptural basis I see for gay marriage. In my next post, I want to focus on showing through Scripture that yes - two gay people marrying can indeed be a picture of Christ and the Church. Thank you as always for taking the time to read all of this. Also know that I am always and ever willing to dialogue about these things, and I welcome all questions and comments.
Additional Note 12/07/2020:
I want to clarify since there has been some confusion that I do not think every desire we have is "good" just because it is innate. I merely wanted to point out that I thought it odd the report emphasized how same-sex attraction "never comes from God".