On Super Sins

Is Homosexual desire fundamentally different than all other sinful desires?

This is the question at the heart of our current issue. It was not the presenting question two years ago when these conversations began.^[1] It wasn’t a question I expected to ever be talking about when I joined the denomination seventeen years ago. But it is likely the single most important question in determining where someone lands on the various proposals before us this summer.

Is same-sex desire, or attraction, a super sin? Is homosexuality a sinful category elevated from other categories of sin, requiring that those facing temptation be treated fundamentally differently than those in the process of mortifying other sinful desires or behaviors, to the point that if it is NOT treated differently, the purity of the church will be compromised?

Homosexuality as Super Sin

This is the explicit position of the leadership of the group advocating for the “red line” amendment to the EPC’s book of government and opposing the AIC’s report. On a recent video call, their main presenter said that homosexuality is a special kind of sin which leads to any temptation toward it being disqualifying in and of itself.^[2] The objections to the AIC report and the push behind the alternate “red line” amendment seem to be wholly identified with this belief.

If this position, homosexual temptation being above and beyond all other temptation, is so endemic on one side of this debate, then what passages, ideas, or moorings are used to commend this idea? That homosexual desire is a super sin, fundamentally unlike other sinful desires in mortification and christian maturity? The argument seems to come down to the idea that homosexuality is an “unnatural” sin and therefore worse than other sins. I’ll do my best here to share the source of those arguments as well as to comment upon them.

Romans 1:26-27 – “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

The argument here is that these “dishonorable passions” are same sex lust and sexual activity, unmortified and embraced, further called “contrary to nature” later in the passage. I think that largely makes sense and I have no issues with that reading of the passage.^[3]

The obvious follow up question should be; in discussing these unnatural desires, is Paul describing a category of sin or a single super sin? And I think the natural reading of Romans 1 as a whole chapter certainly tends toward a description of a category of sin rather than a specific super sin. I’d encourage you to read the whole chapter for yourself. Right now. Reading the Bible is always good.^[4] Done? Okay.

Paul proclaims the power of the gospel in verses 16-17. Then in verse 18, he sets the theme for chapters 1-3. He says there that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men”. He goes on to focus on sin as the suppressing of divine truth, that our hearts make us blind to reality. Sin makes us stupid. He says this is seen in idolatry, treating nature as if it is God and it is seen in homosexual actions, when our blindness makes us lose sight of God’s truth and the natural functioning of the world as well.

Does Paul place his condemnation for this sin above and beyond his condemnation of the dozens of other specific sins and categories of sin found in the surrounding verses? So far as I can tell, no, he doesn’t. Paul uses the same word translated “dishonorable” for himself in II Corinthians 11:21, as a description of his own actions in Corinth (albeit a sarcastic description). Likewise, the New Testament’s other use of “natural” in describing behavior does not show that “natural” is automatically praiseworthy when in II Peter 2:12, the apostle describes opponents as “irrational animals, creatures of [nature]”. None of the specific words used to describe these homosexual sins is entirely unique to them. I can find no textual evidence within the passage itself for the “unnatural” and “dishonorable” sins of Romans 1:26-27 to be greater and more serious than all of the other sins of which the bible makes us aware.

Do not hear me wrong. This IS sin that Paul is describing. Scripture allows for no compromise there, and neither does any party in our denominational struggles. But is it a sin superior to all other sins in its corruptive effects in a way that should lead to it being elevated above other sins? I do not see evidence thereof in this passage. While all of the sins named in Romans 1:18-32 are very bad, Paul neither distinguishes homosexuality as being extra bad relative to the other sins in that text nor presents homosexual desire and behavior as the bottom of a downward progression of moral decline.^[5]

Westminster Larger Catechism 139 – What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks; impudent or light behavior; immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life; undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancing, stage plays; all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.

The argument I’ve heard here is that sodomy (homosexuality) is the same as the “all unnatural lusts” listed after it, that it was the intention of the Westminster Divines to connect the two. The rationale being that there are separate scripture proofs for the other individual items in the initial sin list, but only one footnote for both sodomy and unnatural lusts.

I don’t know if I fully accept that rationale. But let’s say that I did. I must again ask, what evidence is there that the divines are placing “unnatural lusts” above and beyond the other sins prohibited in this question of the larger catechism? By my count there are, at minimum, thirty other sins listed in this answer^[6], and I don’t see any evidence of them being raised above each other. Once again, I agree wholeheartedly that homosexual desire is a product of original sin and is itself rightly described AS sinful. But yet again, I find no evidence that is a super sin in being uniquely disqualifying above and beyond any other sinful desire.

Jude 6-7 and Genesis 6:1-2, 4

Jude 6-7 – “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

Genesis 6:1-2, 4 – “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose… The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”

This one is perhaps the most odd of the three places from which I’ve seen the “super sin” idea argued. But let’s take a look. The argument I’ve heard here is that since Jude 6 and 7 are back to back, Jude is linking the fall of the demons in verse 6 to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah in verse 7 (homosexuality), which then links back to a specific reading of Genesis 6:1-2 that the “sons of God” are demons who take on physical bodies and have sex with mortal women. And then all that ties together to say that homosexuality is as bad as the revolt of the demons. I warned you that this was the odd one.

The last two, I think, had a strong note of reality and sensibility, with one key component missing that the “red line” advocates presume; the elevation of homosexual desire as being worse than other sinful desires and uniquely disqualifying. Here, I personally do not see the same merit in this particular argument. For one, “unnatural desire” in the ESV translation of Jude^[7] (the obvious reason to see a connection between this passage and Romans 1) isn’t actually connected to the Greek wording used in Romans 1.^[8] In fact, this is giving the translator’s “sense” of the meaning rather than the literal translation. The more literal translation would be that Sodom and Gommorrah pursued or desired “different flesh”. Is this homosexuality, yes, I think it likely is!^[9] Is it a tie in to the Romans passage and “unnatural” sin in somehow elevating homosexuality above other sins? Again, it seems not. The connection to Genesis 6 is based on a specific reading of the passage that (so far as I can tell) is not the majority position in the Reformed world.^[10] I simply can’t find reasoning here to assume a super sin view of homosexuality rather than a “sin” view.

If Not Here, Where?

I want to be as fair as possible in these articles and not misrepresent an argument. So where possible, I’m going to go even beyond the arguments I’ve heard and try to think of other plausible arguments for a “red line” position on this issue. And so I will suggest one other place that I think it is wise to look to for possible guidance on the idea of different levels of sin.

Westminster Larger Catechism 150-151

Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?

A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

I think we find in this question and answer some good guidance, a place to start. The divines clearly state that not all sins are equally heinous. So let’s look at these “aggravations” and consider if Westminster, though not explicitly doing so, is intimating a higher level of sin for homosexuality. Let’s read on.

Q. 151. What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?

A. Sins receive their aggravations,

1. From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.

2. From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them or any other, and the common good of all or many.

3. From the nature and quality of the offence: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but break forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.

4. From circumstances of time and place: if on the Lord’s day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.

An argument could indeed be made that “light of nature” in point #3 could connect back to homosexual sex and lust. I don’t see it as a slam dunk, but I can definitely see the argument. But once again, there is no note in the catechism that this one aggravation is greater than the dozens of others listed. Should I be disqualified from ministry if I sin on the Sabbath? In front of others? Against an authority figure? Because I have been guilty of all of these things.

All of these are true and real “aggravations”, all of them show the seriousness of my sin. But I do not find an elevation to a special category or degree here that would explain the idea that same-sex desire is uniquely disqualifying above and beyond other sinful desires. The “red line” overture seems to assume that being tempted or vulnerable to a more heinous sin either makes that temptation or vulnerability itself sin, or that the experience of that temptation/vulnerability to sin, in and of itself, is disqualifying. I do not see a convincing argument in this catechism question, or the other scriptures and questions examined previously, for that particular step in the logical train required to automatically disqualify candidates.

So why DOES the catechism give us a list of aggravating factors for the heinousness of sin? If it is not creating a hierarchy of sins to publish a schedule of different consequences or types of repentance required, then why discuss these aggravations in the first place? I believe the clear answer is to bring us to repentance, to disallow us from believing our own sins to be unworthy of comparison to those of others. II Corinthians 7:10 says, “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret,”^[11] There is no sign in the catechism that this list of aggravations should encourage us to stack and “power rank” sins to discover who is the worst or who is and is not qualified for ordination, there simply is not evidence of that purpose anywhere in the Standards. The aggravations should create in us a godly grief that produces repentance and leads to salvation. Whether my sin aggravates one or two or all of those listed by the divines, the end goal of repentance remains.

Where Do We Stand?

After examining the arguments for a special degree of sinfulness requiring automatic disqualification from ministry in homosexual desire or temptation, I personally do not find convincing and sufficient rationale for the “red line” conclusion.

Homosexual desires are clearly born out of our sinful nature and are, in the language of WCF 6.4-5, actually sinful. Homosexual action is sin from which all must flee and repent. Yet, I do not see in any of these passages and selections of the WLC reasoning that these sins are categorically different from other sins to the point of requiring automatic disqualification. And I cannot help but feel that in labeling them as such, the super sins over there, that we would risk falling into the trap of the loudly praying Pharisee in Jesus’ parable. “Lord, I thank you that I am not like that man, a homosexual.” I feel my own temptation to rest in the hope that I am better than others, “sinning in the right direction.” Yet, cliched though it may be, I find that the ground is level at the foot of the cross.

When our culture denies the sinfulness of a specific sin, such as it often does for homosexuality today, I believe that the biblical answer is not to proclaim that to be the worst possible sin, so awful that it is to be condemned above all others. It is to rightly declare it to be well and truly sin, in need of mortification and repentance, to maintain a clear and biblical witness without either exaggeration or denial of the depth of sin. We need not go beyond what scripture teaches to defend scripture. The bible doesn’t need our help in that regard.

1. More on this in an upcoming article about how the debate has changed over the course of those two years. ↑

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW9eYYjHED4&t=5289s ↑

3. I would add, and this will become a continuing theme, the description of these things is more action-oriented than our current denominational attraction vs. lust debate. There are constant action verbs, not references to temptation alone. As I learned in a seminary class on “The Church and Homosexuality”, taught by a professor who is now one of the more prominent red-line supporters, the NT word for homosexuality is not an orientation or attraction word, it is an action word. “Men who have sex with men” would be the literal translation. ↑

4. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=ESV ↑

5. Many thanks to TE Mike Farley for helping me think through the exegesis of Romans 1 and for allowing me to use a couple of sentences from his work on the same question to help express my conclusion. ↑

6. This includes, “lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancing, stage plays” which would be connected to pornography today. I’m never going to miss a chance to note that in a country where 2/3rds of 16-24 year old men use pornography regularly and now more than 1/3rd of 16-24 year old women do the same, we are going to have pages and pages of content on people struggling with SSA but almost nothing in our BOG or MVC handbook about pornography. ↑

7. Here in Jude 7 – ἕτερος ΣΑΡ́Ξ ↑

8. In Romans 1 – ἀτῑμία and ΠᾸΡΆ φύσις ↑

9. Some who have taken the “fallen angels having sex with women” view of Genesis 6 have actually argued that Jude 7 is referring to humans lusting after the fallen angels, so homosexuality being the focus of Jude 7 is actually not a universal interpretation within evangelicalism. ↑

10. Oddly, this point was used in the “open letter” before the 44th GA in support of the NRP ascending overture which will be the focus of a later article. In my notes on the letter at the time I wrote… “At one point the letter says, “The HONEST student of scripture is FORCED to conclude,” [emphasis mine] about a point dependent on the idea of Genesis 6:2 being about women having literal sexual relations with demons. That’s certainly a legitimate interpretation! But it’s only one amongst a few different theories accepted as possible by conservative OT scholars. It wasn’t the one pointed to as most likely in my OT course at RTS and I don’t think anyone is questioning their theologically conservative bona fides. So apparently I’m not “an honest student of scripture” in the eyes of this letter since that’s not the interpretation of that passage I favor. I’m “thoroughly compromised by the world” because I dare to espouse a different view on one of the least agreed-upon passages of scripture. ↑

11. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%207%3A10&version=ESV ↑