Maybe we should vote no? Reason #7

Reason #7 to vote no on Overtures 23 and 37: If an Officer or Candidate is committed to the Scriptures and the Confession’s ethics for sexuality, then how they self-identify or the language they use should be considered a matter of conscience. 

The controversy over how someone self-identifies and whether they use the term gay Christian can be compared to the New Testament example of whether Christians were allowed to eat meat offered to idols. I realize that many would disagree with this equivalence, but the comparison is very clarifying.

In the first century, many believed the subject of meat offered to idols was a gospel issue. Jewish Christians often believed that to eat meat offered to idols was to commune and participate with demons (1 Corinthians 10:14-23). Even though Paul agreed with that in this passage, elsewhere Paul said that eating in an idol’s temple was not wrong as long as it did not make a weaker-conscienced brother sin (1 Corinthians 8:5-13). This means that there were times when Paul said it was okay, and other times when he said it was not okay.

The resolution of this apparent discrepancy is that Paul affirmed the principle of conscience. People should follow the conviction of their conscience, even if their conscience was not informed to full maturity (Romans 14:5).

Some Gentile Christians believed that Jesus was the revelation of the one true God, and they could freely eat meat offered to idols because pagan gods were in fact not gods at all. They believed Christians were free in Christ to eat everything to the glory of God. Paul agreed with their conviction. It was the most biblically mature assessment of the situation.

But Paul also disagreed with a mature Christian’s flaunting of their freedom in front of others whose consciences were bothered by the practice. Instead, Paul affirmed that they needed to act in love, championing the consciences of the people who he described as “weak” (Romans 15:1). Paul also expressed his own conviction that if his behavior hurt relationships within the family of God, he would never eat meat again.

Paul’s most thorough treatment of this conflict is found in Romans 14:1—15:7. The summary is that Paul calls both sides of the conflict to love and take responsibility for the faith and consciences of the people you disagree with. We are to believe the best in other believers. We are to live as though the other’s faith in Christ matters more than the argument over which we disagree.

There are two questions that Paul asks in Romans 14 that also question us today. These two questions put us in the right spot to engage in this discussion about self-identity and language. First, Romans 14:4:

Romans 14:4  Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Both sides report to Jesus. And Jesus will make people on both sides stand. In this dispute over whether someone should be honest about the fact that they experience non-straight attractions, neither side is denying the absolute lordship of Jesus. Jesus is lord of both, and Jesus will make both stand before the Father. We cannot judge the other, lest we find ourselves opposing Jesus, who has already justified them and will vindicate them.

The second question is in Romans 14:10-12:

Romans 14:10-12  ¹⁰ Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; ¹¹ for it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."  ¹² So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Don’t you know that God is going to judge you on the last day based on how you treat your brothers in God’s family? This is consistent with Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46). If you condemn your brother, you will be judged.

In this discussion, we should not exclude the other side. Doing so would exclude people that Jesus loves. As a church, we should affirm the right of both positions as allowable. But the BCO changes recommended by Overtures 23 and 37 exclude people that Jesus does not want to exclude, we should reject these BCO changes. This doesn’t mean that we should stop talking about faithfulness and accountability in this area for all of our Officers. Instead we should engage in fellowship and conversations with each other to ensure that we are honoring each other and helping each other walk in faithfulness to our shared standard of righteousness in the area of sexuality.

Here are my posts that go further into the reasons to vote no on the PCA Overtures:
A Vision
Reason #1
Reason #2
Reason #3
Reason #4
Reason #5
Reason #6
Reason #7

Maybe we should vote no? Reason #6

Reason #6 to vote no on Overtures 23 and 37:  Both sides of this argument are striving for biblical faithfulness, and therefore both sides of the argument should be allowed to stay in the PCA.

The BCO changes in Overtures 23 and 37 seek to prevent and remove Officers if they are publicly known to experience same sex attraction. People against and in favor of these changes are fully committed to the Bible’s teaching on sex. Both sides of this argument believe that sex is designed by God to be experienced in male + female marriage. Both sides of this argument believe that all sexual activity and sexual fulfillment outside of marriage (in thought, word, and deed) is against God’s design at creation and should be resisted, avoided, and repented of. Both sides want to have Officers who are honest and holy in their walk with Jesus and in their leadership of the church.

The changes to BCO 16 from Overture 23 and to BCO 21 and 24 from Overture 37 address the issues of identity, self-profession, and reputation of Officers and Candidates for Office. Both sides of this debate have biblical reasons for their positions, and both are prioritizing different elements of biblical teaching to make their case. The question is whether the PCA should have ordained men who are known publicly as being committed to Jesus and refraining from all sex outside of man + woman marriage, but who experience romantic attraction to other men (even though they do not act upon those attractions).

To vote yes on the Overtures is to say that Officers cannot self-identify or be publicly known as experiencing same sex attraction. The overtures list three reasons for saying these men are not qualified.

1. These men are accused of denying the sinfulness of fallen desires.
2. These men are accused of denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification.
3. These men are accused of failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions.

These are serious accusations. If these accusations are true, then there is certainly biblical grounds for concern about the strength and/or content of the faith of these men, especially as officers. But are these accusations true or fair?

These overtures accuse all men who experience same sex attractions, even if they are committed to Jesus and refrain from all sex outside of man + woman marriage. But they go farther that simply accusing. These overtures actually condemn every one of these men. This goes too far. It is appropriate to ask questions of sexuality to ensure their being faithful. But it is not appropriate to convict them as guilty simply because they are being honest about their temptations, especially when they are committed to the same standard of faithfulness that all our straight Officers have taken.

For this reason alone, the BCO changes recommended by Overtures 23 and 37 should be rejected. We need to ensure accountability for all our Officers, but a blanket condemnation without trial is not appropriate, as these BCO changes would install.

What motivates those who oppose these overtures? Many want these men ordained in the PCA for at least two reasons:

1. These men should not have to hide this part of their lives. Every Officer in the church needs accountability, encouragement, support, and challenge. These are essential parts of biblical fellowship. These are essential for every Officer, whether the Officer experiences same-sex temptation or hetero-sexual temptation. All officers need this kind of robust fellowship to keep sexual sin from reigning over them. It is not safe for any Officer of the church to be alone with any sin. No one against these overtures denies the sinfulness of all sex outside of man + woman marriage. No one against these overtures denies the reality and hope of progressive sanctification. No one against these overtures is failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over sin in all its forms. Rejecting these BCO changes is motivated by a desire to allow all Officers to be able to be honest about this part of their story, so that they can experience the blessing of fellowship in the body of Christ. These BCO changes will have the effect of driving Officers into isolation, because as long as they are not “known by reputation” or “self-profess” they are not disqualified. This is a dangerous precedent to set.
   
   
2. The PCA is uniquely gifted to clearly proclaim to the church and to the world that if you are not straight, if you experience any sexual attractions that do not line up with God’s creation design for married, one man + one woman sex, you can still become a Christian, you can still be a Christian, and if you are faithful to Jesus you can serve and even lead in His church. The PCA is uniquely gifted with theological nuance that can differentiate between someone’s sexual attractions and their sin. The PCA has the theological sophistication to differentiate between the brokenness of the Fall and battle against temptation. The PCA has the theological sophistication to separate temptation from the sin of giving in to that temptation. We offer hope and the gospel promise of fruitfulness and maturity for our brothers and sisters who are called to singleness. We offer hope and the gospel promise of fruitfulness and maturity for all who follow Jesus in a mixed-orientation man + woman marriage. We want to have mature non-straight men as pastors as examples to the flock that faithfulness to Jesus is possible and that abundant life often includes extreme denial. By rejecting these overtures, the PCA would be powerfully demonstrating that our sexual attractions are not the basis of our identity. Our faith in Christ is the core of our identity. Whether someone is straight or not, if they are committed to Jesus and have the mature character and gifts required for an officer, then they can lead and serve in the church. It is ironic that the way for us to affirm that our identity is in Christ is by being MORE open about our celibate same-sex attracted heroes of the faith, NOT BEING LESS open. We are first and most importantly children of the living God. Having men as Officers in the church who experience same sex attraction but who are committed to celibacy or are committed to be faithful to a woman in marriage... this will show the non-straight Christians in our churches and the non-straight non-Christians in our communities that Jesus welcomes them and calls them to a life of grace and holiness. Having same-sex attracted leaders in the church demonstrates that this life following Jesus is abundant.

The concerns for policing the faithfulness of Officers and Candidates who experience same-sex attraction go way too far in these BCO changes. The blanket judgment rendered without inquiry is not consistent with gospel community, or with the weakness-laden reputations of the Apostles themselves (see reason #2 above). 

Instead, the PCA has an opportunity to honor those who are faithful to Jesus by becoming eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12). We can instead give these brothers the support and encouragement they need for their sacrificial obedience to Jesus. We can allow them to be honest about this part of their stories.

For these reasons, we should reject the BCO changes recommended by Overtures 23 and 37. 

Here are my posts that go further into the reasons to vote no on the PCA Overtures:
A Vision
Reason #1
Reason #2
Reason #3
Reason #4
Reason #5
Reason #6
Reason #7

Maybe we should vote no? Reason #5

Reason #5 to vote no on Overtures 23 and 37:  The term “Gentile” in the New Testament shows that it is okay to use the phrase “gay Christian” because the Apostles (inspired by God) used an adjective for Christians that often meant “sexually immoral, sinful, and far from God.”

First, there are passages that make it clear that “Gentile” was a derogatory name, describing someone whose lifestyle was offensive to God. It was a dirty word because of the lifestyles that characterized the Gentiles who lived apart from the gospel.

Matthew 18:17  If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

 

Galatians 2:15  We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners.

 

Ephesians 4:17-19  ¹⁷ Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds.  ¹⁸ They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.  ¹⁹ They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.

 

Ephesians 2:11-12  ¹¹ Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--  ¹² remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

 

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5  ³ For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality;  ⁴ that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor,  ⁵ not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God.

 

1 Peter 4:3-4  ³ For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry.  ⁴ With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you.

It is abundantly clear that Jesus, Paul, and Peter used the term Gentile to describe people whose lives were sinful and debauched. They were cut off from the life of God.

Second, there are passages that demonstrated the shocking reality that the Gentiles believed and were receiving the blessings of salvation:

Acts 10:45-48  ⁴⁵ And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.  ⁴⁶ For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,  ⁴⁷ "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"  ⁴⁸ And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

 

Acts 11:1-3 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.  ² So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying,  ³ "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them."

 

Acts 11:18  When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life."

 

Acts 15:19-20  ¹⁹ Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,  ²⁰ but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

 

Romans 9:30  What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;

These descriptions are so powerful because when the Gentiles became Christians, they didn’t stop being referred to as Gentiles! The term Gentile, which at one time only referred to people who were lost in sin and without hope, this term took on a second meaning, referring to people who had left that lifestyle and were now committed to Jesus and to following His laws.

This is exactly what the gay Christians who are officers in the PCA have done! These Pastors, Elders, and Deacons have renounced their sin and they have given themselves to Jesus as Lord and Savior. These have put their entire lives, including their sexuality, at the feet of Jesus. They have committed themselves to serve and follow Jesus in every area of their lives, especially with their sexuality.

Can't we note that in some ways, their commitment to Jesus is even more costly?  They have committed either to celibacy, or to commit to loving and serving the needs of one woman in a mixed orientation marriage.

Third and finally, there are passages that make it clear that “Gentile Christians” have equal status with Jewish Christians in the church.

 

Romans 3:29-30  ²⁹ Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,  ³⁰ since God is one-- who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

Since the New Testament does not have a problem using the term Gentile to describe Christians who have been changed by the gospel, then we have a biblical precedent for using the term gay to describe people who experience temptations or have a past lifestyle that is associated with this kind of sin.

Therefore, we should reject the BCO changes recommended by Overtures 23 and 37 because they contradict the New Testament’s example and standard.

Here are my posts that go further into the reasons to vote no on the PCA Overtures:
A Vision
Reason #1
Reason #2
Reason #3
Reason #4
Reason #5
Reason #6
Reason #7

Maybe we should vote no? Reason #4

Reason #4 to vote no on Overtures 23 and 37:  When Tim Keller and Kevin DeYoung presented the Study Committee Report, it was said, that it would be unbiblical and against our Confessional Standards to discipline someone for using the language of “gay Christian.”

Tim Keller and Kevin DeYoung presented their overview of the report at General Assembly. They are different voices in our denomination. In their presentation they said it would be unbiblical and against our confessional standards to discipline someone for using the language of “gay Christian.” Here is the quote from their presentation: 

All 7 members of the committee agreed. That first part of the statement 10 is pretty strong. It’s really saying, pastorally we really strongly advise against calling yourself a Gay Christian. But the “Nevertheless” is trying to get across the fact that you’re going beyond the Confession, and probably the Bible to take an English word and then say, “We’re going to discipline you over that, [over] that use of that [word].” We’re trying to say that people use these words differently. Their intentions are different. And therefore, what we really ought to do is we ought to use our pastoral tools to try to work with people rather than to simply say, “On the basis of the Confession, on the basis of the Bible, we can tell you you’re sinning by using that word.” We said, “No, we can’t go that far.” Some people will want to do that, and this is one of the things that will probably be debated. But I really think that statement 9 and 10 hit that balance pretty well because it’s really pretty unmistakable:  as a denomination, if you adopt this, we’re saying, “No. Pastorally, we’re really advising against that.”

It’s vital to understand the rationale of users of this term. We cannot discipline them without violating the Confession and the Bible itself, according to the authors of the study report itself.

Therefore, we should reject the BCO changes recommended by Overtures 23 and 37 because they violate the intention of the authors of the Study Committee Report. 

Here are my posts that go further into the reasons to vote no on the PCA Overtures:
A Vision
Reason #1
Reason #2
Reason #3
Reason #4
Reason #5
Reason #6
Reason #7

Maybe we should vote no? Reason #3

Reason #3 to vote no on Overtures 23 and 37:  The Study Committee Report on Human Sexuality Explicitly states that “the issue of terminology is more likely a matter for shepherding in wisdom, and not in and of itself grounds for discipline.” 

The Study Committee Report does not allow for the exclusion of people who use the term “gay Christian.” Nor does it exclude people who do not want to use the term “gay Christian.” Parts of the report argue against using the term as unwise. The report recognizes that different people use the adjective gay in different ways for different purposes. It concludes by saying that both groups of people are to be allowed in the PCA. On page 30 it says: 

In view of the twin dangers of misunderstanding and syncretism, we believe it is generally unwise to use the language of gay Christian. Given this conclusion, how should we respond to fellow believers in our churches who may use such language? First, we ought not start from the assumption that they are being unfaithful or living in active rebellion to God. Rather, in the context of established relationships, pastors and leaders in the church ought to ask questions and seek to understand each individual’s story. Why do they use that language? Have they thought through the relative benefits and dangers? Noting the range of possible meanings of terms like gay and gay Christian, we would do well to seek understanding before imparting advice. In practical and plain terms, the issue of terminology is more likely a matter for shepherding in wisdom, and not in and of itself grounds for discipline.

The BCO changes recommended by Overtures 23 and 37 ought to be rejected because they violate the Study Committee Report. 

Here are my posts that go further into the reasons to vote no on the PCA Overtures:
A Vision
Reason #1
Reason #2
Reason #3
Reason #4
Reason #5
Reason #6
Reason #7

Maybe we should vote no? Reason #2

Reason #2 to vote no on Overtures 23 and 37:  The argument to remove officers who are honest about their temptations contradicts the New Testament. 

The New Testament is clear that the past and present experience of its most faithful leaders includes struggles that may embarrass many. The New Testament has made public the past and ongoing struggles of its most mature leaders.

The Apostle Paul:

Romans 7:

     ⁷ I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." ⁸ But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness.

     ⁹ I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

     ¹⁰ The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. ¹¹ For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

     ¹⁴ For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. ¹⁵ For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.¹⁶ Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. ¹⁷ So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. ¹⁸ For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. ¹⁹ For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.

     ²⁰ Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

     ²¹ So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. ²² For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, ²³ but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. ²⁴ Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

     ²⁵ Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

 

1 Timothy 1

     ¹² I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, ¹³ though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, ¹⁴ and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. ¹⁵ The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. ¹⁶ But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.

 

The Apostle Peter:

Matthew 16

     ²² And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, "Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you." ²³ But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."

 

Matthew 26

     ⁴⁰ And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter, "So, could you not watch with me one hour? ⁴¹ Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

 

     ⁶⁹ Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came up to him and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean." ⁷⁰ But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you mean." ⁷¹ And when he went out to the entrance, another servant girl saw him, and she said to the bystanders, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth." ⁷² And again he denied it with an oath: "I do not know the man." ⁷³ After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you." ⁷⁴ Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know the man." And immediately the rooster crowed. ⁷⁵ And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, "Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly.

 

Galatians 2

     ¹¹ But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹² For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. ¹³ And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

The BCO changes in overtures 23 and 37 should be voted down because they go against the New Testament standard of honesty about the struggles of its leaders. To disqualify Officers of the PCA for being honest about the nature of their temptations is to go beyond the New Testament’s teaching and example. 

These changes will have the effect of pushing pastors who experience many forms of temptation into isolation and away from accountability. It will result in more moral failures among pastors who desperately need the freedom to be honest about the temptation that they experience. 

God inspired the New Testament to be written with its leaders’ failures forever recorded. This highlighted the grace of God in the gospel as the foundation and entrance and source of strength for all who follow Jesus. Non straight pastors, elders, and deacons communicate that God's grace welcomes non-straight men and women. It calls them to repent and follow Jesus. And it offers them a hard path that is filled with good works for them to walk in. 

Here are my posts that go further into the reasons to vote no on the PCA Overtures:
A Vision
Reason #1
Reason #2
Reason #3
Reason #4
Reason #5
Reason #6
Reason #7

Maybe we should vote no? Reason #1

Reason #1 to vote no on Overtures 23 and 37:  There is complete unity in the PCA about what Jesus teaches about sexual ethics. 

Every officer (TE, RE, and Deacon) agrees that all sex outside of a marriage between one man and one woman is against Scripture and against God’s design for human flourishing. Every officer agrees that lust is adultery in the heart (Matthew 5:28), it is sin, and it should be repented of.

Every officer (no matter their sexual desires or temptations) agrees that the life that Jesus calls all Christians to live is one of sexual holiness. The will of God for all believers is our sanctification, that we all abstain from sexual immorality; that each of us know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5). All the officers in the PCA who experience same sex attraction believe this. This is a black and white issue in Scripture and in the Westminster Standards.

The BCO changes from Overture 23 and 37 should be rejected because they go beyond this Scriptural standard and they impose a standard of language-policing that is guilty of legalism. It is fine for someone to determine for themselves that they do not want to share the kinds of temptation they experience. But it is not acceptable for one person to disqualify another because he chooses to be honest about the kind of temptation he experiences, ESPECIALLY when the temptation is surrendered to Jesus and not acted upon.

The love of Jesus is powerful enough so that we don't have to split over this. We should welcome each other in the family of God and celebrate the work that God is doing through each of us.

Here are my posts that go further into the reasons to vote no on the PCA Overtures:
A Vision
Reason #1
Reason #2
Reason #3
Reason #4
Reason #5
Reason #6
Reason #7

Maybe we should vote no? A Vision for what could be

The PCA has been presented with changes to our Book of Church Order that would disqualify men from serving as officers in the church if they identify as gay or same sex attracted, or if they are publicly known to be gay or same sex attracted. I think that this is the opposite of what is best for the church today. I will give a number of reasons in following posts, but here I would like to articulate what I think would be best for the PCA and for all churches that love Jesus and are committed to follow the Bible's prohibitions of all sex outside of a man + woman marriage.

I would like to see churches full of men and women who have honored Jesus as Lord and are obeying Him with their sexual desires. I would like to see churches full of men and woman who limit their sexual behavior because they decide to love Jesus more than they love the pleasures of sex. I would love to see gay and straight single people abstaining from sexual activity entirely because they have committed their lives to obey the God who became man and lived a celibate life of enormous sacrifice. I would love to see married people in man + woman marriages abstaining from all forms of sexual activity outside of their own marriages because they have been faithfully loved by the God who became man and gave His life in sacrificial love for His church. 

In our day, this is a big ask. It is difficult for all singles--gay and straight--to follow Jesus and the Bible's teachings on sexuality and sexual activity. It's also difficult for all married people to do the same--to keep unstained by the sexualized culture that surrounds us. As we begin to describe what we want for our non-straight family members, and what we want to invite our non-straight neighbors into, it's really important that we acknowledge how widespread straight sexual sin is in our world, and often in the church. It is really easy for straight people to pontificate on these matters in ways that feel hypocritical, because very often the church does not police is straight members with even 10% of the intensity that it policies non-straight people. 

I have had countless conversations with non-straight people. Many who love Jesus, many who don't. I have had the joy of watching non-straight people come to our church and experience Jesus and the gospel and their lives have changed as they've been brought into community. But then, when the subject of homosexuality comes up, they have walked away. It breaks my heart.

The biggest apologetic that I know of today is being able to point non-straight people to other non-straight people who are following Jesus and have made Him Lord over their sexuality. The testimony of someone who understands the sacrifice required and is making the sacrifice is enormously helpful. 

I would like to see churches full of people who identify as gay as an honest expression of the nature of the temptations they experience. I would like their testimony that yes, this is how they find themselves attracted, but they are committed to obeying Jesus instead of those attractions. I believe that these people, and their honesty, are an incredible source of hope for our non-straight neighbors, who would be encouraged to say, "Jesus isn't crazy. This is possible. Knowing these people shows me proof of this." Non-straight believers would also be an incredible source of joy and strength for our non-straight brothers and sisters in the church, who would be encouraged to say, "I'm not alone here. Maybe I can be more open about my own struggles with sexual sin and find deeper community and experience of the gospel in being known."

I would also like to see churches full of people who experience homosexual desires and temptations, but who do not identify as gay because for them sexuality is not (maybe is no longer?) a very important part of their identity. These are people who may continue to experience homosexual desires and temptations, but do not feel dominated by those desires and temptations to the point where they are important for that person to bring up. 

I would like to see churches full of these two kinds of Christians. I think that both of them are supernatural examples of God's grace and strength, and of the power of the gospel to believe and to live a life of sacrificial denial. I think that anyone today who isn't straight, but commits to Jesus and submits their sexuality to His lordship in obedience is a superhero that should be celebrated as the gospel miracle that he or she is. 

I believe that one of the most powerful ways that we can reach more of our non-straight neighbors is by honoring and celebrating our non-straight pastors, elders, and deacons. These are men who have sacrificed an enormous part of their feelings and desires. They are denying themselves something that no one today except for Jesus is calling for. If they choose to be publicly known as gay, then we should be thankful that their presence will encourage many of our non-straight neighbors that there is hope for them. Their presence will also encourage many of our straight brothers and sisters that our non-straight neighbors have a place of hope in our church, so they can more easily be invited. Instead of removing these men from office, I believe we should honor them and be excited that in them we have God's miraculous, gracious proof that there is something better than what the world is offering. 

For those non-straight men who are officers and who are not publicly known as gay, we should be thankful for them as well, because there are also many non-straight men and women who want to leave their gay identities behind, as part of their pre-Christian lives. The better we are able to honor those whose sexuality is known, the better we'll ensure that we provide safe harbor for those who aren't known--so they'll be sure that they have a place to go and are not isolated if they struggle. 

To remove officers from the church for being honest about this area of their lives I believe creates a culture where at least this one kind of struggle is not allowed. That forces people back into the closet and hurts our ability to be an open door to the world that we are trying to reach. 

Here are my posts that go further into the reasons to vote no on the PCA Overtures:
A Vision
Reason #1
Reason #2
Reason #3
Reason #4
Reason #5
Reason #6
Reason #7

The Time Is Now: A Review of Greg Johnson's Still Time to Care

            Still Time to Care, by Greg Johnson shows us how Jesus is both the Lion and the Lamb. Greg presents the withering critiques of the Lion of Judah against those who have burdened and abused His people. He also presents the gentle care of the Lamb of God who offers grace and compassion to the bruised reeds among His people. Still Time to Care addresses the intersection of non-straight people, Jesus, the Bible, and the church. Greg explains what the Bible teaches about sex, marriage, attraction, and orientation. He also provides leadership for people and churches to shepherd straight and non-straight people with the gospel. In Still Time to Care, the Bible’s teachings on sexuality are “settings of silver,” and the applications of those teachings in a community of care are the “apples of gold” (Proverbs 25:11).

Still Time to Care is written in four parts. Part one is “The Paradigm of Care.” Here Greg demonstrates that the “ex-gay movement” has not been the church’s main posture toward the gay community. The ex-gay movement began 40 years ago and died in 2013. But, prior to the ex-gay movement, there were leading lights from across the broad range of the church who had a very different posture toward non-straight followers of Jesus. Greg quotes extensively from C.S. Lewis, Billy Graham, John Stott, and Francis Schaeffer, showing that each of them practiced and taught a Paradigm of Care. Nearly every Christian considers at least one of these four as a father in the faith. This Paradigm of Care manifested itself in compassion and patience and understanding toward Christians who experienced romantic attractions toward people of the same sex. These four were radically different from the ex-gay movement. They did not believe that a person's sexual orientation should be expected to change when someone committed to following Jesus. Greg shows that their posture and their practice was to be a deeply encouraging, “non-anxious presence” with non-straight people who were Christian, and with non-straight people who weren’t Christian. Their posture shows that the Paradigm of Care that Greg proposes in this book is not new. Greg's conclusions and pastoral approach are well-represented throughout the church. Still Time to Care is a call to return to the posture of a much healthier period of the church. This part of the book is powerful because many people don’t know that a significant portion of the church responded to non-straight people in this way.

Part two of the book describes the birth, history, and failure of the ex-gay movement. Greg describes the ex-gay movement as a Fall:  it’s a fall from the prior Paradigm of Care (Part 1) into what Greg calls the “Paradigm of Cure.” Prior to this Fall, the best of the church prioritized caring for people who follow Jesus and experience non-straight attractions. But the ex-gay movement changed it’s focus and prioritized curing people from their non-straight attractions. Here, Greg brings convicting exposure and clarity to the traumatizing damage that people suffered under this Paradigm of Cure. He also clearly exposes the inexcusable hypocrisy that characterized the ex-gay movement’s leaders. While he is critical because of the awful things done by the ex-gay movement, he also does acknowledge that some people experienced some positive things within it. Some non-straight Christians experienced vulnerable, honest community for the first time within the ex-gay movement, even if their attractions didn’t change.

But the majority of the ex-gay movement produced harm and abuse. It was guilty of heaping burdens on people that even its leaders weren’t able to bear. It was built upon the foundation of people with testimonies of “orientation transformation” that were untested. Leaders had little or no theological training, and most did not yet have proven character. These leaders had hands laid on them too soon. Their testimonies were platformed in front of a desperately hopeful community of non-straight people (and their despairing family members). These testimonies proved to be too simplistic and inauthentic. Audiences were left believing that orientation transformation was promised in the gospel and therefore should be expected. These testimonies in effect became a new law that produced 1) false hope that non-straight people could and should be “healed” of their non-straight attractions, or 2) condemnation for those who hadn’t experienced orientation transformation, because they didn’t believe enough or obey enough. It was similar to the way that people have felt condemned by ministries that teach that physical healing is available to any Christian who has enough faith. Greg’s analysis and critique is a warning to the church:  We should be wary against taking some peoples’ experience and universalizing them as the standard for everyone, especially when those experiences are untested.

Greg’s survey of the birth and death of the ex-gay movement also corrects another important misunderstanding in the church. Many Christians and non-Christians today believe that the church’s posture has always been ex-gay. Greg shows that this is not true. The view of the most prominent Protestant leaders was not ex-gay prior to the 1970’s. Greg’s paradigm of Care is not new. It’s a renewal of a time when the church’s response to non-straight believers was healthy.

In Part three of the book, Greg deals with the Bible’s teaching on sexuality. Greg’s analysis of the Bible is thorough and illuminating. He demonstrates that the Bible clearly teaches the traditional sexual ethic--sexual activity was designed by God for heterosexual marriage. He also demonstrates that taking the Bible seriously on sexuality also requires opposing the ministry perspectives and practices of the ex-gay church. You can humbly bow to the authority of Jesus expressed in the Bible while also rejecting ex-gay convictions. Greg explains what the Scriptures teach, and he applies it with love and care to people in the midst of ongoing struggle and confusion.

In Part four, Greg offers a path forward for individuals and the church. Here Greg describes how the church can remove the abusive thinking, practices, and culture of the ex-gay movement from the church. We can be free from the errors of the ex-gay movement, while still being faithful to biblical Christianity. The church can disciple people to maturity without making orientation change a requirement or an expectation.

This part ends with a chapter called “Celibacy and Hope.” Here Greg offers a path that will deeply minister to non-straight people and those who love them. This path includes a culture of acceptance and challenge that will help the church to minister to the non-straight community, and every other community that feels alienated by the church.

A debate has erupted within Greg’s (and my) denomination:  the Presbyterian Church in America. This debate is over whether pastors (or any follower of Jesus) should call themselves “gay Christians.” Some people want to remove any pastor from his ministry if he is publicly known to not be straight—even if he is committed to Jesus’ sexual ethic and is celibate. Greg paves the way for churches to welcome both sides of this debate. He believes God's family (and God's leaders) should include people who want to use this phrase and people who don’t. Greg’s view creates a church where both are worthy of honor and both are necessary for the church to be fully healthy. I hope that the PCA repents, and does not ratify its recent decision. I hope it embraces a position that embraces everyone who is committed to the way of Jesus, no matter what they call themselves.

Still Time to Care is a book for everyone—straight and non-straight, Christian and non-Christian. It is for anyone who wants to be a blessing to non-straight people. It is for anyone trying not to be guilty of the damage of the ex-gay movement.

This book is compelling, but what is more compelling than Greg’s book is Greg’s life. His testimony is beautifully told through the book. His humanity and the way he bears God’s image comes through as a demonstration of an indestructible life in Jesus. Greg has been committed to an extraordinarily costly obedience. He has taken up his cross to follow Jesus in a way that is heroic—especially in our day and age. Many people have rightly divided God’s word on the subject of sexuality, but in Greg’s life God’s word has become flesh. Anyone who knows him beholds the glory of Jesus shining through him. Our non-straight brothers and sisters who are committed to Jesus and His sexual ethic are super-heroes of the faith. They carry an incredible burden that is misunderstood by much of the church. They are ridiculed by the world for their commitment to celibacy. They deserve to be honored and followed. Many are qualified to lead and shepherd the church. There is still time to care for this community, and Greg’s book shows us how.

How We Got the Bible and Why We Can Trust It

INTRODUCTION

Some of you will be bored by this. But you need to either know this information or you need to know that this information exists—because your confidence in the bible is paramount in how you influence others. If you can know these things, you can speak with confidence to others about why you think the bible is trustworthy.

HERE’S WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
OLD TESTAMENT
God revealed Himself to people in history through actions and then through spoken word. Through oral tradition, people shared the stories of what God did with each other. This oral tradition has been shown to be incredibly accurate, especially in cultures before books and the information age.


God then revealed Himself to Moses to re-adopt the people of Israel as His family. Moses was called to mediate the adoption ceremony. This is what happened when he made the covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai.

God spoke directly to Moses, and then inspired Moses to write God’s acts and words, starting from Creation. Moses’ words were God’s word. 

Genesis – Deuteronomy were written during Moses life leading God’s people (at least the first edition was). These 5 books of Moses revealed where Israel came from and who Israel was as a nation specially chosen by God to bring His kingdom to the world. These books also gave Israel wisdom and direction to live in relationship with God—through worship and obedience, seeking forgiveness and covenant renewal when they failed.


Joshua – Esther are called historical books. These books of history are theologically driven, meaning that they tell the history of Israel from their entrance into the promised land, through the time of the kings, the exile, and their return from exile. While they report selective events from Israel’s history, they emphasize the covenant relationship that Israel had with God, that Israel broke, and they set the backdrop for God’s prophets.

Isaiah – Malachi are called the Prophets. Prophets were like God’s “covenant lawyers,” confronting people with their violations of their family relationship with God, warning them of the judgment that the covenant promised would befall them for unfaithfulness, and calling them to return to God. The prophets reveal a God of extravagant grace—a God who doesn’t delight in judgment, but whose heart breaks over judgment and who takes on the judgment Himself.

Job – Song of Solomon are called the Wisdom Books. These books govern Israel’s life in the land, they explain how life is designed to work in relationship with God.  These books show that in all of life, the key to successful living (as God defines success) is through knowing, worshiping, and obeying God.

The 39 books that make up what we now call the Old Testament were collected together and were the accepted as God's Holy Scriptures at the time of Jesus. When Jesus came to earth, He made it very clear how He felt about the Old Testament:
                Every jot and tittle will not pass away—Matt 5:17-21
                It all speaks of Him—Luke 24:27; John 5:39
                It’s authoritative—Matt 5:17-21
                It’s inspired by God—Mark 10:3-9
Jesus endorsed the Old Testament. This doesn’t necessarily answer the question of the authority of the Old Testament we have today, but this is what Jesus thought of the Old Testament of His day. In His life, Jesus ministered with God’s authority. His authority was equal and even superseded the authority of the Old Testament.

NEW TESTAMENT
In the midst of his ministry, Jesus appointed 12 apostles to represent Him. Jesus gave them His authority. These 12 preached with the authority of Jesus in Acts. Then the 12 wrote with the authority of Jesus in what became the books of the New Testament. The 12 were inspired to write the words of God (2Tim 3:16-17; 2Pet 1:19-20; 2Pet 3:15). The New Testament is the written version of the God’s final word. It’s the written version of the authority that Jesus Himself gave to the apostles. The New Testament was written by the apostles. The books that aren’t named after the 12 are written by their secretaries (through dictation). Luke was Paul’s secretary, Mark was Peter’s. James was the brother of Jesus, leader of the Jewish church.

THE LIST OF NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS
The apostles writings were accepted as the written authority of Jesus.
There were false teachers who were identified as such. Tools were given to identify them as such. Initially there was no controversy over which books belonged in the approved list. Actually, there wasn’t a published list of authoritative New Testament books until after someone had published a false list. This is because there was no need for a list when no one questioned the books that were accepted as having the authority of Jesus. Marcion, in 180AD tried to steer the church away from Jesus. He believed that the God presented in the Old Testament was different from the God of the New Testament. He believed the Old Testament God was wrath, while the New Testament God was a different God, a. NT—God was love. Marcion believed that the Old Testament wasn’t for the church. More than that, he also believed that most of the New Testament books weren’t inspired by God. Marcion published a list of New Testament books that he said were the written authority of Jesus. There were 10 of them. They were the letters of Paul + Luke’s gospel.

The church responded to Marcion’s list, not by determining which books were supposed to be in and which books were supposed to be out. Instead, the church responded to Marcion’s list by re-affirming the books that were already accepted by the church. It was the 27 books that we have now.


So roughly 2000 years ago, there was an accepted Old Testament and New Testament.

But that was 2000 years ago. We still need to ask and answer the question:  Do we have now what they had then?

TODAY:  THE OLD TESTAMENT WE HAVE
For the longest time the earliest copy of the Old Testament that we had was from 1054AD. That’s about 1500 years after the last book of the Old Testament was written. That's a big gap.

Scholars would defend the accuracy of this copy of the Old Testament by appealing to the painstaking process that copyists went through:  how exact they were, the strides they went through to check and recheck the copies, how they would burn the copies that had even one error. It’s actually very impressive. But still... come on—1500 years of the written telephone game? There’s no way 1500 years could yield anything that we could trust.

Then, in 1947, a shepherd was throwing rocks into a cave. He found what became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. This collection of scrolls had approximately 1000 documents—including copies of portions of the Old Testament from 200BC. That’s 200 only years after the last book of the Old Testament was written.

When these copies were compared with the copies from 1054AD, there was almost zero difference!

From https://www.probe.org/the-dead-sea-scrolls/  After years of careful study, it has been concluded that the Dead Sea Scrolls give substantial confirmation that our Old Testament has been accurately preserved. The scrolls were found to be almost identical with the Masoretic text (the copy from 1054AD). Hebrew Scholar Millar Burrows writes, “It is a matter of wonder that through something like one thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. As I said in my first article on the scroll, ‘Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition.'”{6} 

A significant comparison study was conducted with the Isaiah Scroll written around 100 B.C. that was found among the Dead Sea documents and the book of Isaiah found in the Masoretic text. After much research, scholars found that the two texts were practically identical. Most variants were minor spelling differences, and none affected the meaning of the text.

One of the most respected Old Testament scholars, the late Gleason Archer, examined the two Isaiah scrolls found in Cave 1 and wrote, “Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.”{7}

Despite the thousand year gap, scholars found the Masoretic Text and Dead Sea Scrolls to be nearly identical. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide valuable evidence that the Old Testament had been accurately and carefully preserved.

3. Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL.: Moody Press, 1985), 513-517. 
6. Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking Press, 1955), 304, quoted in Norman Geisler and William Nix, General Introduction to the Bible(Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 367.
7. Archer, 25. 

This means that Old Testament that we have today is an incredibly reliable copy of the original Old Testament.

TODAY:  THE NEW TESTAMENT WE HAVE
There is remarkable manuscript evidence. Thousands of manuscripts of the NT documents. We have more copies of the New Testament than any other historical book from the ancient world combined. It's not even close. If we are sure of anything we learn from ancient writings, we can be sure that the new Testament we have today is what was written by the followers of Jesus.

Plus, we don’t simply have an overwhelming number of copies of the New Testament, but we also have quotes of almost the whole New Testament in the literature that was written about the New Testament.

This means that the translations that we have today—they aren’t translations of translations of translations. Today we translate the OT directly from the Hebrew bible that Jesus affirmed. We translate the NT directly from the Greek in which it was written.

Seminaries teach Hebrew and Greek—so when I preach, I can translate the Hebrew and the Greek myself. I don’t mention this a lot in my sermons, but that’s because the English versions we use are fantastic translations.

The conclusion of all this is that the scientific data shows that Christians can trust the text of the Bible. The scientific data also shows that non-Christians should wrestle with its claims. It represents the authority of God on earth. Jesus believed the Old Testament came from God and represented His own authority through the New Testament. We all should humble ourselves and follow His authority.