“Now I realized that I was in grave error. “Side B” is not good for the Church. Our doctrinal standards do not allow for Revoice’s stance towards so-called “LGBTQ” issues. The PCA should not leave room for the “Side B” position, for it is not in accord with sound doctrine. I am sorry that I thought otherwise, and I wholeheartedly repent before all of you and ask for your forgiveness.”

Its been almost 6 years and as many rounds of Overtures since the first Revoice Conference marking the official “coming out” of Side-B Gay Christianity within the PCA.  During that time, those of us seeking to push-back on this harmful ideology have been called “southern moralistic pietists” on social media and characterized in USA Today and Yahoo by a PCA Pastor as “a couple thousand mostly older white, churchgoing, Southern, heterosexual religious conservatives with children and grandchildren and seersucker suits.”
Rhetoric and smear campaigns not withstanding, many good things have happened in the PCA with regard to these issues since they first reared their head back in 2018.  The Nashville Statement was declared Biblically Faithful in 2019.  The AIC Report on Human Sexuality passed in 2021. The Church and pastor who brought this controversy to the PCA left the denomination in 2022.  Overtures to amend the Book of Church Order regarding this issue were passed in 2022 and 2023, the last of which will be ratified at the 2024 General Assembly. Also, in somewhat related news, a Statement by the PCA regarding transgenderism which calls on the US and State governments to put an end to chemical and surgical gender reassignment surgeries has been sent out by the Stated Clerks of the denomination and the individual presbyteries to government agencies.
Yet, after all of this, just this past week (Feb. 2024), there are PCA pastors questioning what Side-B is on X.com as well as attacking Rosaria Butterfield for condemning Revoice and Side-B publicly as noted in this article. For instance, multiple Officers in the PCA questioned if Butterfield actually still agrees with the Nashville Statement to which she is a signatory. This, despite that her comments are perfectly in-line with the Nashville Statement. Other TEs took to ad hominem attacks such as:
I considered RB sus after reader her first book. When you go from where she was before her conversion to becoming an advocate of exclusive psalmody, you’re dealing with a person who apparently can only live in the extremes. (here)
Read More
Related Posts:

The question, in the end, comes down to whether homosexual temptation is more powerful than Christ or whether Christ is more powerful than homosexual temptation. As Savior, Christ is mightier than our internal temptations. Therefore, if we counsel same-sex attracted people into believing that they may never be rid of homosexual temptation in this life, we have diminished the power of the Cross.

With the rising influence of Christian organizations in America that exist to cater to “sexual minorities” in the church, there has been much confusion among reformed evangelicals regarding temptation and desire, specifically as it relates to same-sex attraction. Confessional Presbyterian denominations are not exempt. The Presbyterian Church in America, at present, is on a collision course with Revoice theology and is inundated with debates surrounding homosexual identity and whether men who profess to be “same-sex attracted” can be admitted to ordained office.
Pastor Tom Buck, one of the framers of the Social Justice and Gospel Statement, has said that Living Out, founded by Sam Allberry, is “more dangerous than Revoice.” Even so, the OPC Committee on Christian Education has recommended Sam Allberry’s book Is God Anti-Gay? as a “[S]ound, uncompromising and winsome guide to give someone who struggles with the issue of homosexuality theoretically, or someone who struggles with same-sex attraction personally…” No doubt there is wide disagreement on the topic of sexual ethics within reformed evangelicalism.
The PCA’s Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality, authored by Kevin DeYoung, Bryan Chapell, et al. is still perhaps the most rigorous, clarifying, and helpful resource dealing with these issues from a biblical, Reformed theological, and confessional standpoint. However, the average layperson (and most elders) won’t be sitting down to read sixty pages written by a Presbyterian committee.
Advertisement
Therefore, as one who has served in the Australian PCA, American PCA, OPC, and now the ARPC, I have put together answers to six of the most frequent questions I tend to get from laity in Presbyterian circles who, as it pertains to same-sex attraction, genuinely have queries about the meaning of temptation, desire, sin, etc., and are also interested in learning a tad bit from the Reformed faith on these issues. Of course, there are numerous other interrelated points and clarifications that could also be addressed here, but the intention and aim of this piece is conciseness. To that end, I hope it is useful.
How can temptation be sinful when Jesus himself was tempted?
It depends on what is meant by “temptation.” Reformed theology has always maintained that temptation has a legitimate internal/external distinction. Internal temptation, which is the desire to sin, arises from the corruption of nature and is, therefore, inherently sinful (James 1:14). On the other hand, external temptation, so long as it remains external, is not inherently sinful (James 1:2).
In Hebrews 4:15, when it says Jesus was “tempted as we are, yet without sin,” it is highlighting the reality that he was never tempted internally with first motions drawn from a sin nature, despite the realities of his full humanity (e.g.s., hungering, thirsting, etc.). In other words, Jesus’ temptations were entirely external as he was not born in original sin. We, on the other hand, are born in sin (Psalm 51:5). Therefore, if we claim that our internal temptations to sin are not sinful, we can deceive ourselves (1 John 1:8).
Does Reformed theology draw an internal/external distinction as it relates to sin?
It does. Westminster Confession 6.5, for instance, states the following: “This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.”
N.B., that the corruption of nature is itself sin and all the motions of this corruption are sin. As Christians, we are called not only to mortify the motions of our corruption but also the nature of our corruption. On the one side, the corruption of nature includes all internal inclinations to sin (James 1:14), whether through thought, impulse, temptation, attraction, affection, or desire. On the other side, the external motions of that corruption include all sin deeds committed outwardly (James 1:15), arising from inward sinfulness.
In addition, Herman Bavinck, in his Reformed Ethics, provides this helpful comment on Institutes 3.3.10:
Advertisement
Calvin articulates the Reformed position well: ‘But between Augustine and us we can see that there is this difference of opinion: while he concedes that believers, as long as they dwell in mortal bodies, are so bound by inordinate desires (concupiscentiis) that they are unable not to desire inordinately, yet he dare not call this disease ‘sin.’ Content to designate it with the term ‘weakness,’ he teaches that it becomes sin only when either act or consent follows the conceiving or apprehension of it, that is, when the will yields to the first strong inclination. We, on the other hand, deem it sin when a man is tickled by any desire at all against the law of God. Indeed, we label ‘sin’ that very depravity which begets in us desires of this sort.’
Briefly, what does the PCA Report on Human Sexuality say about desire and temptation?
The Report, which aptly comports with the Confession’s teaching on this matter, states the following:
We affirm that impure thoughts and desires arising in us prior to and apart from a conscious act of the will are still sin. We reject the Roman Catholic understanding of concupiscence whereby disordered desires that afflict us due to the Fall do not become sin without a consenting act of the will. These desires within us are not mere weaknesses or inclinations to sin but are themselves idolatrous and sinful. (p. 8)
The Report’s statement on temptation is helpful also. It describes internal temptations as “morally illicit desires” and external temptations as “morally neutral trials” (p. 9). The entire Report, which I highly commend, can be read here.
Isn’t “heterosexual desire” and “homosexual desire” essentially the same thing?
The short answer is no. Heterosexual desire can be and must be rightly directed, otherwise it is sin. Homosexual desire, on the other hand, cannot ever be rightly directed and is, therefore, always sinful. Thus, it’s not a 1:1 ratio. The former is a sin against God’s moral order (Matt. 5:28), while the latter is a sin against both God’s moral and natural orders (Jude 1:7). Other sexual desires that go against God’s natural order would include pedophilic desire, bestial desire, and incestuous desire (Exo. 22:19; Lev. 18:6; Deut. 27:21).
But isn’t all sin equal in God’s sight?
All sin, no doubt, is deserving of eternal punishment for the mere fact that sin is itself a transgression of God’s law. However, not all sin is “equal.” In fact, Larger Catechism 150 states the following:

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

Furthermore, according to Larger Catechism 151, one aggravation that makes a sin more heinous than others is if it’s “against the light of nature.” The prooftext offered is 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.
Should we tell Christians who experience homosexual temptation that they won’t be rid of it in this life?
Despite our many advances in sanctification, there will always be an enormous abyss between our holiness now and our holiness in glory. However, death is not the alpha point of transformative holiness in Christ. Transformation begins at regeneration (Titus 3:5) and progressively continues through the sanctifying power of the Spirit in time and space (Gal. 5:16; Phil. 1:6) — even to the degree that particular internal temptations can be overcome in this life.
Jesus is in the business of redeeming the whole person from the debilitation of sin. As our Sanctifier, he progressively conforms us to his image not just by reorienting our external acts but also our internal thoughts, impulses, predispositions, temptations, attractions, affections, desires, longings, hopes, and faith.
The question, in the end, comes down to whether homosexual temptation is more powerful than Christ or whether Christ is more powerful than homosexual temptation. As Savior, Christ is mightier than our internal temptations. Therefore, if we counsel same-sex attracted people into believing that they may never be rid of homosexual temptation in this life, we have diminished the power of the Cross.
Andrew George is a Minister in the Associate Presbyterian Church (ARP). This article is used with permission.

Researchers found that the changing religious landscape in America, sped up by the pandemic and enforced lockdowns, has led to the challenging times that pastors now face, causing more of them to think of changing churches or leaving the profession altogether.

As American pastors have grown increasingly discontent with their profession, more than half have seriously considered leaving pastoral ministry since 2020 for various reasons, a new study from the Hartford Institute for Religion Research suggests.
In “I’m Exhausted All the Time—Exploring the Factors Contributing to Growing Clergy Discontentment,” released as part of the Institute’s larger project “Exploring the Pandemic Impact on Congregations,” researchers surveyed a nationally representative group of 1,700 religious leaders in the fall of 2023 then compared the findings to responses provided by clergy and their congregations in earlier EPIC surveys.
“The further we are from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the more we observe larger percentages of clergy pondering alternatives to their present congregation, vocation, or both,” the research team led by Scott Thumma, professor of Sociology of Religion at Hartford International University for Religion and Peace and director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, stated in the report.
The data suggests that as of fall 2023, 53% of religious leaders have seriously considered leaving pastoral ministry at least once since 2020. This share is significantly higher than the 37% of pastors who reported in 2021 that they had similar thoughts since 2020.
About 44% of pastors also said they seriously considered leaving their congregations at least once since 2020. This is more than double the 21% of pastors who reported this sentiment in 2021.
“While there is some overlap in these two thoughts, it is not entirely the same group of leaders considering leaving both their current congregation and the ministry profession altogether. About a third of leaders report having both thoughts, a third have considered one or the other (11% consider only leaving their congregation and 20% consider only leaving the profession) and the final third have never considered leaving either,” researchers explained.
The growing discontent among pastors was described in the report as a “disconcerting” reality that implies “clergy are in the midst of a challenging time.”
The average clergyperson was described as a 59-year-old leader who had served in their position for a median of seven years and was 80% more likely to be white and male. Some 75% were employed full time, and 60% of them served solo rather than as part of a team of leaders.
While most pastors reported taking a day off during the week, only a few have taken a sabbatical in the last decade. About a third held paid employment beyond their ministry work, and this was found to be more common among pastors who served part time. Nevertheless, more than a quarter of full-time pastors reported additional employment.
In their efforts to explain the rising discontent among clergy, researchers examined questions of overall health and wellness among the leaders. They found that it did not appear that “a large percentage of clergy have suddenly become unwell or are suffering a dramatic emotional or spiritual disease and then thinking about leaving.”
Researchers found that the changing religious landscape in America, sped up by the pandemic and enforced lockdowns, has led to the challenging times that pastors now face, causing more of them to think of changing churches or leaving the profession altogether.
“The post-pandemic turnover has left our lay leadership depleted; people’s sense of connection and commitment is less than before; it’s hard to get people to do DIY church in the way that we did before; people seem to be more demanding of services. Plus — people’s doubt is at an all-time high. I’m spiritually exhausted from talking people back into faith — am I even doing them a favor?” one pastor in the study said.
Researchers pointed to the decades-long decline in in-person attendance and church membership numbers.
Read More
Related Posts: