What Are We Talking About?

What is love? No, I’m not setting you up for a reference to the popular 90s dance song of the same name. I’m pointing out the importance of definitions. Much of our culture defines love as good feelings, sexual intimacy, or emotional connectedness. But as Christians, we’d say that all of these have some element of truth to them, but that alone they are wholly inadequate in trying to define a broad picture of love. Tim Keller once wrote, “Love is never primarily defined in the Bible as a feeling. At its foundation love is at least a commitment and a promise.” How we define love is profoundly important for having conversations about love.

The same is true for the current conversations and debates in my denomination (EPC) regarding the nature of sin, and specifically homosexuality. I’ve personally witnessed much confusion when one elder uses a term to mean “X” but another uses it to mean “X and Y”. So in this post, as I begin a weeks-long look at this debate, both our commonalities and places of division, I think it is important to set some definitions. And perhaps most basic in this conversation is simply, when one speaks of homosexuality, what are we talking about? I see four main categories, two of which we are (in my experience) largely agreed upon, and two of which are the real source of our differences.

Action and Lust – Homosexual action is defined in the very term, sexual behavior acted out with a person of the same sex as oneself. Homosexual lust would be looking at or fantasizing about a member of the opposite sex in a way to make them the object of sexual fantasies or imaginations. Jesus connects these two, lust and action, together in Matthew 5:28, “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

In all the conversations in our denomination, I believe we are united both that this is a part of what we mean in using the word “homosexual” and that it is a sin to be wholly rejected in the Christian life. Unlike many mainline denominations of the past, we have no division upon this point, and praise the Lord for that level of unity, we should not take it for granted! The universal testimony of our denomination’s current position paper on human sexuality, scripture, the Westminster standards, and orthodox church history is that we should plainly condemn as sinful any and all sexual activity between members of the same sex.^[1]

Identity – The second now is moving into more difficult to define terrain. What does it mean to embrace a homosexual identity? While I won’t try for an exhaustive definition in this brief treatment, we would likely say that homosexual identity means making indwelling sinful desires (and actions if applicable) a part of how we define ourselves, an element in what makes me, me.^[2]

While “identity” is a secular, expressive individualist category and not a biblical one, making this conversation somewhat more difficult, I do believe our different groups in the current debate would all be united in saying that a belief about homosexual desire that “this is who God made me and there’s nothing wrong with it” would be unacceptable for a mature Christian. It is incumbent upon all of us to reject our sinful nature. To mortify indwelling sin. To resist the flesh, rather than to glorify or accept it. I think that in defining “identifying as homosexual” as an embrace of same sex attraction and acceptance of it as a good or morally neutral part of who I am, we would again find ourselves entirely and categorically opposed as a denomination.^[3]

Desire – Our third category would be evidenced in a candidate who eschews sexual activity with members of the same sex (or anyone to whom they are not in covenant communion through a one man/one woman marriage), and who rejects a homosexual identity. Yet, who experiences an ongoing or regular pattern of experiencing sexual desire toward members of the same sex.^[4] These desires, being a product of our sinful nature and the corruption thereof, are “truly and properly sinful.”^[5]

There would be no division amongst us on the issue of these desires being sinful. Any sexual desires outside of God’s design for marriage are sinful. This is a clear implication and focus of the Reformed doctrine of concupiscence. Our division upon the issue would be whether these sinful desires are disqualifying from church office, as opposed to any and all other sinful desires; whether one who takes steps to confess, repent, and mortify and show steady growth can be considered for ordination.

Attraction – Our final category and the one in which I believe our disagreement finds its strongest expression. While we might have varied emphases or semantic differences, I think we can largely agree to the following definition. Homosexual attraction is when the “that’s an attractive person” signal in a person’s brain is triggered by individuals of the same sex, rather than of the opposite sex. When they are tempted to lust^[6], to feel sexual attraction toward someone who is not their spouse, it is a member of the same sex rather than the opposite sex.^[7] This would be an inherent weakness to a specific type of external temptation, but not necessarily a corresponding acceptance or embrace of that temptation.

Where is the Divide?

I believe that a significant part of our divide comes with whether we see the above as three categories or four. With the question of whether it is really possible to separate desire and attraction in the human experience.

In conversations with many folks who are discontent with the AIC recommendations, it seems to me that there is an underlying assumption that lust and attraction are explicitly intertwined to the degree that someone who experiences attraction MUST then regularly give in to lust as well. Or, that the attraction urge, if homosexual in nature, is inherently and truly sin in a way that my heterosexual attraction urge is not, even if directed toward someone to whom I am not married.^[8] While an aspiration toward holiness is praiseworthy and to be pursued by all of us as Christians, and one that I believe we all share, we must also be wary to maintain a genuine pursuit of God’s word, and not to fall into a devotion to our own pragmatic rules.

As we launch together into this conversation and these disagreements, my urging would be for us all to work out the consequences of our answers to these questions in a practical way. If you are walking down the street and your brain says, “they’re really good looking” when it sees a member of the opposite sex, and you acknowledge that reality and move on with your life, did you just sin? I’d argue, not necessarily. You may have noted the beauty of another individual, perhaps even experiencing a biological attraction to them, but you disciplined your heart and mind, took every thought captive,^[9] and went on with your life. But, if we were to continue looking in a lascivious way, or allow a thought turning that person into a sexual object in our mind, well now we have certainly sinned in lusting after them, a sin born from our “evil desires”.^[10]

While I believe we would find ourselves divided on the question of the inherent sinfulness of “same-sex attraction”, I believe that some of that division is a question of whether we divide “desire” and “attraction”. For those who do see this divide, who see attraction as a personal weakness to a specific external temptation, weakness does not mean you always lose, and weaknesses can be strengthened. They would likely say that it is possible to be attracted without sinning so long as one rightly and truly takes captive their thoughts in pursuing Christ and His Kingdom. For those who see no divide between “desire” and “attraction”, then they will come to a different conclusion. This is certainly a part of our differences as a denomination at this time. Though, in my personal experience, lengthy in-person conversations can often help us to work out each other’s definitions and often reach a place of mutual understanding and even agreement on the topic.

The fundamental divide between attraction and lust, between temptation and “actual transgressions” as WCF 6.4 puts it, is a crucial theological matter for Christians. Maintaining that it is possible to be tempted without sinning is critical for many reasons.

Hebrews 4:15 tells us that Jesus, “in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” If attraction and external temptation always equaled lust or sinful desire, we’d be in serious theological trouble in regards to Christ’s sinlessness. I Corinthians 10:13 says, “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” If temptation or attraction always equals sin, then is God failing to provide a way for escape? On a practical note, if attraction and temptation always equaled lust, I’d submit that none of us would be fit for ordination.

So then, what role do our attractions, our temptations, play in our holiness, our qualification for office within the church? Elders on both sides of this debate would agree that same-sex desire, desire that contains a sexual component targeted at members of the same-sex, is a product of the fall and of our sinful natures. That it is a disordered product of our sinful flesh. The AIC’s proposed position paper revisions would say that these desires remain “truly and properly sin”. Upon this our standards and the scriptures agree and we are undivided.

If the categories above hold true. If we are united on homosexual actions, lusts, and identity.^[11] If we agree on the “truly sinful” nature of disordered desires. Then the core dividing questions may be these…

1. Is there something uniquely evil about homosexual desire, temptation, or attraction that makes them more heinous than heterosexual desire, temptation, or attraction toward someone who is not my spouse? More heinous than any other external temptation or internal sinful desire?
2. If so, does that heightened sinfulness lead automatically to disqualification from church office?

The Plumbline-endorsed “Red Line” overture would place same-sex attraction and desire both in an elevated place of sinfulness with no explicit equals in our book of government, utterly disqualifying for office, unlike other desires or attractions. But does that elevation have justification in scripture or our confession? We’ll dive into that question in the next articles.

1. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, I Cor. 6:9-10 ↑

2. I Cor. 6:11, Gen. 1:27, II Cor. 5:17, Gal. 2:20 ↑

3. There may be more differences of opinion around the nuances of the issue. What about the individual who says “I’m homosexual” not to embrace but to reject that sinful predisposition, for instance. But I do not believe these “how to be wise in this area” differences necessarily flow from a fundamental difference on the root issue of identifying good as evil or evil as good. ↑

4. Matt. 5:28, Col. 3:5, Job 31:1, Proverbs 6:25, I Thess. 4:3-5 ↑

5. WCF 6.5 and the AIC’s proposed revision to the Position Paper on Human Sexuality ↑

6. We have already discussed lust itself under the category of action and lust. I am not describing an embraced lust or even an internal temptation arising from internal desire, but rather an external temptation. ↑

7. I John 2:15-17, I Cor. 10:13 ↑

8. We will deal with the question of whether homosexual actions, identity, lust, and/or attraction belong to a category of “super sins” in a later article. ↑

9. II Cor. 10:5 ↑

10. Col. 3:5 ↑

11. Definitions are always a struggle, but using the suggested set above I do believe we have unity across the vast majority of elders. ↑