David H. Linden

A Response to the Rio Grande Presbytery AC’s Recommendation to Vote Against Overture 23

Written by David H. Linden |
Thursday, January 20, 2022
When we believe in the certainty of the Spirit changing us into the likeness of Christ in real progress of holiness, never absent in any believer, we must not assert that we are a big exception to the Spirit’s work – under the guise of the Spirit’s supposed right not to weaken sinful sexual desires of any kind. The cure for sin is now underway in every Christian. For a minister to say his sinful sexual desires are incurable sin is to diminish God’s powerful production of holiness in a Christian’s being and identity.

Our committee has recommended that the presbytery deny Overture 23. I urge us to affirm it. Below is the explanation by this committee to our presbytery. I respond to each sentence.
Attachment 6, Item 2
The Administrative Committee wrote up the following rationale for why we are proposing to deny the following two amendments:  We recommend that we deny Overture 23.
The Administrative Committee begins:
While we do believe that there needs to be more guardrails and accountability for men struggling with same-sex attraction, we believe that the language of the overture is ambiguous and unhelpful. On first reading, it seems that professing an identity (gay Christian, same sex attracted Christian, homosexual Christian) is the cause of undermining ones [sic] identity as a new creation in Christ.
I reply:  Affirming an identity contrary to the sanctifying work of the Lord should be seen as a limitation of the work of Christ as our sanctification (1 Corinthians 1:30). Just as we should never identify by saying, “I am of this world,” a Christian should not say, “I am a Christian, and I am a homosexual.” The two professions cannot co-exist harmoniously.
Those of us who react to this linkage of opposites, namely sin and salvation, question whether it would be acceptable to combine any other sinful desires with our identity in Christ. Many people admit that they hate their enemies. They may elaborate that this is their unshakable bent in life. It is what they are. Their hatred of their neighbor does not relent. If such a soul professes to be a Christian, he may have surges of anger, but a Christian should not say even in his struggle with his old sins that he is a hater of his enemies.
The Apostle Peter urges us to keep in mind that God’s divine power “has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, and that he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them [Christians] may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire … Whoever lacks these qualities [faith, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection, and love] has forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins” (drawn from 2 Peter 1:3-9). Homosexual desire is corruption in need of cleansing. Such desire may be part of whatever our former life was, but it cannot be, without change, the new life of a godly elder.
When we believe in the certainty of the Spirit changing us into the likeness of Christ in real progress of holiness, never absent in any believer, we must not assert that we are a big exception to the Spirit’s work – under the guise of the Spirit’s supposed right not to weaken sinful sexual desires of any kind. The cure for sin is now underway in every Christian. For a minister to say his sinful sexual desires are incurable sin is to diminish God’s powerful production of holiness in a Christian’s being and identity. It limits the Lord’s ministry to us. The Lord Jesus prayed:
I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world [or identified with it], just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.  And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. (John 17:15-19)
What the Lord Jesus pleaded for in his intercession is salvation begun. Ours is not a salvation that lacks implementation or delay until the last day. An elder must not be a public exception to the ongoing agenda of our holy God. No man should be recognized by us as walking with Christ when he claims to be a Christian who hates. In our day, some reduce the range of salvation with their contrary identities. These contradictions undermine our lovely identity as new creations in Christ. It would be an inconsistent testimony for a teaching elder to say, “I am still a hating Christian, but I do not act on it. It is an unsought feature of me which will remain with me until my Lord Jesus comes. Meanwhile I am in love with Jesus, and I follow him. I manage and mortify all my hating in costly obedience.”
The Admin. Committee again:
But the overture continues to add complexity in that it is not only identification statements but statements coupled with action ([a] denying the sinfulness of desires, [b] denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, [c] failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory).
Complexity is not evil. John Murray points out that God’s works are manifold in the original creation and even more so in the new. With that similarity, he proceeded to write of God’s overflowing abundance “in the application of redemption continuously and progressively until it reaches its consummation in the liberty of the glory of the children of God.”[1] All who ascribe to Westminster embrace complexity.
Understanding our identity in Christ must not be conflicted with error. Here is where the real confusion sets in: If we deny the sinfulness of sinful desire, we confuse what a Christian is, and thus identity is compromised. If we deny the reality and hope in this life of progressive sanctification, we have destroyed its richness. To deny Spirit-empowered victory is false teaching that allows those who adopt it to flounder in their sin, not knowing how rich the salvation we profess is. In this way, to one’s eternal peril, God’s great salvation is neglected! (Hebrews 2:3) The overture serves us by joining things which should not be separated.
Coffin asks a helpful question in this regard: “Are these three behaviors exhaustive of behaviors that will make the use of certain terms contradict identity with Christ?” Surely there are other ways to abandon our identities in Christ.
What is TE Coffin’s point? Are there other ways to contradict our identity in Christ? Of course there are! These three in the overture are current issues in the debate about Side B homosexuality. There are other ways to abandon our identities in Christ. No one in the PCA disputes that. Coffin’s question distracts.
If someone were to demonstrate that they were in fact fulfilling the latter obligations yet still using such terms, would they [sic] be qualified for ordained office? According to the amendment, yes.
If a candidate for office in the church [a] does not deny the sinfulness of same-sex attraction, and [b] claims a change of heart regarding his former sins, and [c] rejoices in the degree of ongoing deliverance from them, why should he then broadcast his former sins? Do we not all have sins about which we are now ashamed? (Romans 6:21) We confess our sins; we do not coddle them. Why would a godly candidate for ordination allow a non-Christian identity to mark himself as something he isn’t?  (Identities mark people). The Lord does not take away our shame while leaving in place the vexing sin that caused it. Our passports should agree with the citizenship we confess.
But, argument after argument on the floor of GA would argue the opposite. Mere identification with such terms would disqualify a candidate according to many arguments posed at the recent GA.
I do not know what arguments were made on the floor of the General Assembly in St. Louis. However, I stoutly disagree with my fellow minister, TE Coffin, that a candidate using such a descriptive term as “homosexual” for himself is a mere matter of words. If I term myself as a Hindu, such a term defines me. Our choice of terms is a conscious declaration. It ought to be consistent with our confession of Christ, our repudiation of the lusts of the flesh, and how we portray ourselves to the world. Pilgrims and Puritans eschew worldly language. Rational people avoid contradictions.
Furthermore, the complexity continues when you consider: how does one evaluate whether the three latter obligations are being fulfilled?
A presbytery makes judgments of the suitability of a candidate all the time when they follow Biblical qualifications in Scripture. How should a presbytery evaluate? Well, one way would be to pay attention to what a candidate says about himself. If he has some strange desire to beat his wife and admits it, he has helped a presbytery to move on to the next item on the agenda.
Is there not always, to some degree, a failure to live out these latter obligations? Are we always in step with denying our sinful desires when we are greedy or prideful?
Dr. Coffin is correct to point out that we always in some degree fail to live up to the virtues that should characterize us. Overture 23 does not have the role of comparing sins. Yes, other sins also disqualify. Would we ordain a man whose lifelong passion is to make money and that he daily craves it? Of course not. If he boasts of superior gifts, despises the poor, avoids people of other races or religion, when such defects become apparent, he should be disqualified. Overture 37 prompts presbyteries to inquire, and 23 calls for being above reproach. Professing homosexuals, no matter what words they use to speak of themselves, do not qualify; neither are they good examples, nor are they a letter from Christ written with the Spirit on the tablet of the heart (2 Corinthians 3:3).
While the amendment seeks to bring clarity to the ordained office, we are afraid it only brings confusion and muddies the waters it seeks to clarify.
Our Administrative Committee makes its feelings plain about this amendment to our Book of Church Order. I think the Overture is clear in some things we should reject when examining candidates. When the whole point of the overture is unwanted, one approach is to question its clarity, complexity, and helpfulness, and to present it as ambiguous. (A number of brothers in other presbyteries have viewed this overture as ambiguous.) The chief problem is that it is not to the liking of those who allow celibate gays into office. The PCA has recently become properly alarmed, and that is why the General Assembly has put this amendment before us.
Meanwhile, last month one of our ministers in good standing has come out with a book Still Time to Care (Zondervan) with the rainbow colors on the front of its jacket and on the back. The LGBTQ colors have even made it to the spine of the book. I have a number of pro-gay books. None of them have flown the colors the way this book does on its cover. This is bold and rather revealing. More are taking notice.
Because of my schedule, I do not know if I will have time before presbytery meets to interact with the Admin. Committee’s recommendation that the presbytery also deny Overture 37; I urge the members to vote to approve this overture.
David Linden is a retired Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America; he lives in Delaware.
[1] In Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pp 79, 80.

A Big PCA Correction by a Small Text

Written by David H. Linden |
Friday, November 19, 2021
Great reluctance exists in the PCA to embrace the simple truth that all of God’s people are being made holy in sexual desires, and that believing in this powerful grace is our duty. In this life, we have the covenanted hope of moving holiness in the direction of completion…To exclude such change in the category of sexual feelings is to say that Paul is wrong…“BUT our holiness has not been brought to completion!” I reply, “No one in the PCA says it has been or will be in this life.” We simply say with Paul that it is being completed. Bringing holiness to completion cannot mean that holiness is already complete. So let us stop reducing sanctification concerning sexual attraction to select persons, select sins, and a time later than the present.

One little text should settle the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) debate. When applied to Side B homosexuality, 2 Corinthians 7:1 speaks directly and with plainness. Here it is in 25 words:
Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God. 
Advocates of the current error esteem abstinence from overt sexual sin, yet they accept its unchanging influence in the heart and soul of celibate homosexuals. Greg Johnson said in a recent SemperRef article, The Gay Threat to the PCA, that for 31 years he has daily turned from homoeroticism to Jesus. In he said further: “I believe in mortifying indwelling sin and in progressive sanctification.”  This makes many of us in the PCA ask what effect progressive sanctification has on unchanging indwelling sin.
We also have TE Johnson’s word on a YouTube interview that his homoerotic orientation has “not shifted a millimeter.” [1]  He testifies often that he has never fulfilled his same sex desires. Yet this sinful tendency, which he admits is sinful, has lived in his heart undiminished for decades. Greg tells us that God has not changed his same-sex attraction. But did not the Lord say, “… The Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (Hebrews 12:6)? In other words, the Lord is active to develop his children into the image of Christ.
I write wondering how such claims can be made by a Christian role model with high office in the church when 2 Corinthians 7:1 speaks so directly of cleansing not only the body but also from defilement in our spirits. But let us begin where the text does.
Seeing we have these promises    This is a throwback to 2 Corinthians 6, where God promises to be our God, and declares that we are his people. In new covenant promises we are assured of the cleansing of our hearts, and of a soft heart in the place of the hard heart of an unregenerate person (Ezekiel 36; Jeremiah 31). Further, the Spirit writes his law on our hearts and produces real obedience to it in this life. When Paul said that we have these promises, he spoke of what supports a hefty transformation. We should believe these promises and expect this kind of change in persons who are called to be “ministers of a new covenant.” (2 Corinthians 3:6). Such change we must teach and exemplify.
Beloved    Paul expresses his love for the Corinthians in this epistle as vigorously as in any other letter, and here maybe even more so. In that church, and more precisely in that location, sexual sin was rampant. He speaks strongly of it in other writings, but in Corinth he battled it. And still he loved them – a vibrant evidence of his own transformed heart. Calling for their pursuit of holiness in 2 Corinthians 7:1 was just one more way that Paul loved them.
Let us cleanse ourselves    Usually, when sin is the topic, we think of the cleansing being done by the Lord. In regeneration he does the washing, as does the Word ever after.  Forgiveness is not a lonely gift; cleansing from all unrighteousness always accompanies confession in 1 John 1:9. Cleansing from every kind of sin is a wonderful promise. Our Confession rightly insists that sanctification is “throughout the whole man.” This includes our sexual nature and all our secret sins. We cannot really believe that there is the active work of the Spirit in our hearts if there is not a millimeter of progress, as in the case of Pastor Johnson. The Holy Spirit does better than that. Progressive sanctification has progress, or it is not progressing. Such an unbearable contradiction indicates either the Spirit’s failure – an impossible thing – or that salvation has not begun in that minister. Salvation absent would explain the absence of progress.
Paul calls on us to cleanse ourselves. His exhortation assumes realistic fear of the power of sin, and our need for confession and renouncing every form of our depravity. Sin snares; if we give it an inch, it will take a mile. So we, properly warned and authoritatively instructed, fight every dirty thought, every temptation, every source and opportunity of defilement, as we dutifully cleanse ourselves from it by resorting to the blood of our Savior. He can cleanse; he does; he will; and he will not mock us for our weakness. Through our Lord we find great grace at the throne with that name, because our great high priest has offered for us. We find not forgiveness alone, but grace to help even in our internal battles. This is just gospel, plain and simple. The cleansing is there, and we are to help ourselves to it by repentance, faith, and the means of grace.
Simply fighting our sins is not in itself terribly encouraging. Relishing the promises, works, and kindness of God comforts our hearts. The Lord said, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” (John 14:23).  This is a cheerful word indeed. But we must not forget that bringing holiness forward requires cleansing our defilements, even though such cleansing will take a lifetime, and awaits the Lord’s appearance to complete it. It is an enormous inconsistency to have praise for partial cleansing, while leaving in place the defilement of unlawful sexual feelings, as if offset by good behavior. In spite of this discrepancy, some Side B apologists consider celibate gays to be outstanding models of Christian discipline – models, please note, which report no progress. Under such fiction, a veneer of no-sexual-follow-through has under it a core of corruption. Peter urged souls to be purified by obedience to the truth so that love can proceed earnestly from a pure heart (1 Peter 1:22).
From every defilement    I am saddened to read that the Missouri Presbytery has adopted a novel distortion of the sovereignty of God the Spirit. (See here and here.) In contrast, we have these promises and are assured that we may be cleansed, and we may cleanse ourselves, and we must. Such sanctification goes on in every believer every day in some way whether we see it or not. So it is with alarm that we discover that God supposedly has some inscrutable and undisclosed right to leave a child of his to wallow in sexual sin, as he may chose. We are told of a divine choice not to sanctify, a divine right exercised now and then concerning some (or many, or most?) who suffer from same-sex attractions.  That is a mockery of genuine sanctification, because it has God breaking covenant. (That presbytery needs to repent.) Our cleansing is supposed to be from every defilement, not just most of them. No minister should broadcast that he has no change in his spiritual growth away from sinful sexuality, and then have his presbytery defend that defilement as the Lord’s secret prerogative in his particular case. We do not believe is some oh so special sin. Let us never overturn 2 Corinthians 7:1 by slogans which present God as unresponsive, such as the Lord’s failure when some seek to “pray the gay away.” Such arguments shock the angels, none of whom ever had a sin forgiven. They must now marvel at the patience of God while some in the PCA neglect cleansing grace and cleansing duty as they churn up justifications for sins not being weakened.
Defilement of body and spirit    We encounter an intractable contradiction in the Side B homosexual position. Its supporters drive a wedge into salvation from sin by hailing holiness in external life, while sinful sexual desires sit in the inner man as unchanged as ever. This partitioning of a Christian’s life disparages the wonderful work of the Holy Spirit whose primary strategy is to change the heart. They downgrade God’s promise to produce Christ’s likeness in us. They decline relevant new covenant promises, which are the foundation for cleansing ourselves from every defilement of spirit. Instead they offer a lesser cleansing which overlooks sexual sin in the human spirit. External holiness is not real holiness. Reducing promises by limiting their application is just old fashioned unbelief. God does not know how to break a promise, and we cannot teach him. If the Son sets us free, we do become free indeed (John 8:36).
Satan whispers that cleansing in our spirits is not needed, that sexual desire is unchangeable, and that only in behavior can cleansing be expected. Further that relief from it is so rare, we may give up hope and let it go for this life. After all, it is only an attraction, and God will fix it later, not now. Such teaching in the PCA is disgraceful.
In this context, it is indefensible to describe ministers as faithful who have not found any cleansing from this defilement. When a minister has a lifelong sexual appetite for another male we are not supposed to question whether he is a holy man. This is theological baloney. When no progress within is even claimed, the debate is over, or it should be.
Sin in the heart will emerge; it is not so weak as to have no effect on us. All the sins in us will find expression, but our Savior died to deliver us from our evil “inclinations,” no matter how much a part of us they may be. Meanwhile many men, who tried so hard to be just good Side B gays, succumb and become the husband (or wife) of some male partner. Sexual sin in the pressure cooker of the heart will find a way to get loose. 2Corinthians 7 teaches cleansing must reach into the inner man.
Bringing holiness to completion    Our view of the Christian life is so out of whack these days that if you say to some that personal cleansing of ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit is part and parcel of bringing holiness to completion now – they will wonder what you have been drinking. Words like perfectionism, the error of Wesley, and triumphalism will erupt. You will be told that you fail to account for remaining sin, and that your doctrine of sanctification is over-realized. Sentences like “cleanses us from all unrighteousness,” though resisted, will not be objected to when recognized as Scripture. What causes heartburn is the idea that every believer is being strengthened to some degree, and every sin is being weakened to some degree. Arguing for this essential element of reformed doctrine irritates the enablers of homosexuality in the pulpit.
Great reluctance exists in the PCA to embrace the simple truth that all of God’s people are being made holy in sexual desires, and that believing in this powerful grace is our duty. In this life, we have the covenanted hope of moving holiness in the direction of completion. This is just good Westminster and Biblical thinking. To exclude such change in the category of sexual feelings is to say that Paul is wrong. At this point fervent objection may rise, such as: “BUT our holiness has not been brought to completion!” I reply, “No one in the PCA says it has been or will be in this life.” We simply say with Paul that it is being completed. Bringing holiness to completion cannot mean that holiness is already complete. So let us stop reducing sanctification concerning sexual attraction to select persons, select sins, and a time later than the present. The same man who wrote 2 Corinthians 7:1 wrote, “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:23). That is not triumphalism; it is just Paul on the extent of our salvation.
In the fear of God    We should fear that a publicly proclaimed testimony of unmitigated sin (as in not “a millimeter” of improvement) contradicts salvation itself. The Lord warns, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me” (John 13:8). (Greg, you should pay attention to that verse.) To some he will say one day, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of iniquity.” God will not be mocked by anyone boasting of no change in any sin and getting away with it. We have a deficient fear of God. In our day, our majestic God has become a lightweight in our minds. But the Lord who made heaven and earth says, “… This is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word” (Isaiah 66:2). In the fear of our holy God, let us be about cleansing from all of our defilements. The verse is short but says much. Here again are these 25 words from the Lord: “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.”
David Linden is a retired Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America; he lives in Delaware.
[1] Rev. Johnson often speaks of a shift to heterosexual desires, and he can claim that in his case that that has not occurred. My point is that the desires he would change from are sinful desires and are current according to his own confession of a homoerotic inclination. It is not a sin when a man is not attracted to a women. It is evil for a man to be sexually attracted to another man.

Scroll to top
Refcast

FREE
VIEW