As the culture celebrates that which should be suppressed, and kids are encouraged to explore hints of desires that were once easily corrected through both social stigma and proper understanding of desire as it relates to sexuality, we can expect more people to identify as other than “straight”+ their biological gender. In the end, it’s a disordering of the order of creation, a destruction of society,  and an attempt to dethrone God.  

Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.—Romans 1:32
“George, what are you afraid of if Gay Marriage is legalized? Its not like people will become gay.  People don’t choose to be gay.”  That was an oft-repeated point in the time leading up to the Obergefell decision.  In the years since, we have seen homosexuality go from merely tolerated to Gay Marriage being legalized, corporations tripping over themselves to cash-in, school books celebrating it and kids encouraged to explore it, dragshows for children, and now the Presidential Declaration that June is Pride month.
In the midst of all of this, I have heard repeated concerns from parents with stories of gender and sexual confusion running rampant in their children’s middle schools. One friend in North Carolina told me that in the public school where his daughter goes that 50% of the girls identify as other than straight-female.  A friend in Florida laments how all the middle school girls have girlfriends.   One man in a Christian Facebook group asked for prayer because his daughter who is struggling to make friends came home and told him that she is bisexual because a popular girl in her class came up and spoke to her and she became flush. Naturally, this to her meant she must be gay, because that’s what she’s hearing in school. It can’t be that she was just glad to be noticed.
Are these stories just anecdotal?  Or is something going on? And why is this phenomenon heavily weighted toward adolescent girls?   Abigail Shrier, who is not a Christian, explored an aspect of this in her 2020 book entitled Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze that is Seducing Our Daughters.  Her observations are heartbreaking, the statistics are telling, and what is happening is nothing short of child abuse.
And while 50% may be difficult to believe, the statistics do bear out a huge increase in youth identifying as something other than heterosexual + their biological gender.  In reporting on this phenomenon, US News cited a study showing that 17.8% of girls between ages 15-17 identify as other than heterosexual.  Nearly 18%! This compared to a much lower 6% for boys.  When both genders are taken together, that is an overall 41% increase in just 5 years!  A Christianity Today piece cites a recent Barna Study that shows that “Teenagers in Gen Z are at least TWICE as likely as American adults to identify as LGBT.”  That’s a 100% increase between current teenagers and adults.
It is common for social scientists to explain this phenomenon in this way:
…we cannot be certain if this represents a true increase of this magnitude, or if it reflects at least in part, greater comfort by teens with acknowledging a non-heterosexual identity on an anonymous questionnaire…—Dr. Andrew Adesman
It is reasonable that this explains some of the increase, but 41% over 5 years, and 100% increase over adults?  Not likely.
What’s this have to do with the Moral Law?
This is where Calvin’s Institutes, Book II helps us out.  Calvin explains that while Christians are saved by Grace through faith there is still validity to the Moral Law of God.  In that, he gives his “3 uses of the law”:

It is a Mirror – It shows us that we don’t live up to God’s standard.
It Restrains Evil in Society – Civil Law is modeled after the moral law.
It shows us what is pleasing to God and encourages us to walk in that manner by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

While there has been much controversy over the 3rd use of the Law being abandoned among Christians, we are seeing the same happen with the 2nd use of the Law.   This has even occurred among Christians who have bought into the lie that gay marriage should be allowed because we aren’t a Christian nation.  We are supposed to after-all have a separation between the Church and State, so the argument goes.
Read More
Related Posts:

When will the postmodern conception of language cease to be tolerated in the PCA? Words don’t get to mean what one wants them to mean.  The doctrines in Scripture or our Constitution or AIC Reports don’t get to be so nuanced until they mean the opposite of what they intend.  The law of non-contradiction might not hold for Derrida, and maybe not in the PCA anymore, but it does to our Lord.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word with With God, and the Word Was God. – John 1:1
God is not a God of confusion but of peace. – 1 Corinthians 14:33
Much ink, um, keystrokes has been typed regarding the source of the divide in the PCA.    We have been told by Progressives (in the Bryan Chapell sense of the term) that we are just misunderstanding each other and that we actually agree.  All of these never-ending disagreements are actually agreements.   We supposedly agree on what the Westminster Standards mean as well as the AIC Report on Human Sexuality and the one on Women in Ministry also.  We supposedly agree to follow the BCO.  That does of course depend on what you mean by the word “agree.”
We don’t even agree on what words mean, let alone complex systems of doctrine or AIC reports that simply provide guidance.  The two wings of the PCA are completely divided on women deacons, women preachers, human sexuality as it relates to identity, appropriate missional posture, Revoice, CRT, Side B Gay Christianity,  and clarity of speech.  You object?  It all depends on what one means by preaching, deacon, corporate worship, and every other word in this article.
This whole thing is reminiscent of when Bill Clinton uttered the brilliant words “it depends on what the meaning of the word is is” nearly 25 years ago.  It would be funny if it weren’t so serious. Playing fast and loose with words and clarity in our Lord’s Church is no laughing matter.  Quite frankly it’s sad.
How long before “Let your yes be yes and your no be no” becomes “well that depends on what you mean by yes and no. In one sense it is yes and in another sense it is no.?”  Brothers and sisters, sadly, we are already there.
It is Pharisaical Legalism at Its Core
Seeing the letter of the law in our Standards, the BCO, AIC Reports, and Scripture itself then looking for ways  to do what one wants to do is Pharisaical legalism.  It is legalistic to look for workarounds, loopholes, and wiggle room to do mission.  No amount of law or guidance will prevent a legalist from pursuing these things. No language will either.
It is Pharisaical legalism to put women in the roll of Deacon with the only difference being that hands were not laid on her and then say she is not a Ordained Deacon.[1]
It is Pharisaical legalism to not have the office of deacon at all, but to have another made up board of men and women doing everything the diaconate is supposed to do.[2]
It is Pharisaical legalism to have women teaching and/or preaching assembled Christians but say that she didn’t teach or preach because it wasn’t at a Worship Service or we didn’t call it a sermon, but rather she exhorted at a study.[3]
It is Pharisaical legalism to host a Transvestite Celebration on property that is owned by the church through a ministry run by church leadership/members but say it was separate from the Church because the building it was held in was “decommissioned” and the organization that runs the ministry is separate from the Church.
It is Pharisaical legalism to plant non-PCA churches or start para-church ministries that are overseen by PCA churches, officers, and members that do all the things we aren’t allowed to do.
It is Pharisaical legalism to look at the AIC Report on Human Sexuality and say we agree with it, but then ignore all that it advises against because it doesn’t say “shall not” or “shall,” thereby justifying the wholesale use of what the spirit of the report calls unwise and must be rejected.
Read More

Let us pray that God sends His Spirit to reveal the truth about His Son to Jordan Peterson.  He is no doubt a brilliant thinker and a needed voice in the public sphere where reason and logic are so often lacking. However, my hope is that Christians who are enamored with his articulate reasoning regarding modern day social issues and family values aren’t so captivated that they can’t rightly discern his error regarding Christ and Christianity.

My fascination with Jordan Peterson goes back a few years now. Here are my impressions of what he believes about Christianity based on my exposure to his videos and his book, 12 Rules for Life.  See links throughout the article for sources that inform that is article.
Jordan Peterson is a Clinical Psychologist and a prominent University Professor (Harvard University and University of Toronto) who has risen to prominence due to his public stand against political correctness, the use of genderless pronouns, and his interview regarding the gender pay gap.  That coupled with his Science-based Conservative leaning views around marriage, family, and personal responsibility has made him a darling among Politically Conservative Evangelicals.  He considers himself a Christian and the subject of God and his beliefs comes up in many of his interviews.
While I’m not here to cast aspersion on Peterson, a brilliant thinker who I love listening to,  I am pointing out that his unorthodox views about Jesus lead to a radically different understanding of how a Christian is made right with God and therefor how a Christian lives.
Peterson isn’t sure if Jesus rose from the dead.  He only believes His Spirit lives on in as much as “spirit” refers to continuing influence, saying “it’s had a massive effect across time.”  When asked about the Divinity of Christ, he questions what is meant by Divine. Peterson defines the Logos as divine, but then defines divine as “of ultimately transcendent value” and that “it’s associated with Death and Rebirth.”  We see in all of this, that the words “spirit,” ”logos,”  and “divine” don’t refer to a personal deity but rather to ultimate ideas.
In Peterson’s varying descriptions of Christ throughout his videos he jumps from ancient heresy to ancient heresy, the content of which is beyond the scope of this post.  But suffice it to say, he questions the Orthodox views of the Trinitarian formulas for God as well as the two natures in one person of Christ.  The impact of denying the Calcedonian formulations regarding Christ in this way is manifold.
Peterson talks about people increasingly embodying the Logos, holding up Buddha and Christ as those who have.  For Peterson, the implication for the Christian Life is that one can reach this higher plane of spiritual reality through suffering and seeking “the light,” although as he admits this is obviously near impossible.  In this scheme Jesus Christ is an example of what to become.  To Peterson, who believes Jesus is a historical figure, that is less important than what he symbolizes, the process of taking up one’s cross, suffering, death, and rebirth.   His 12 Rules for Life provide great life tips and advice, but repackages Christianity into a works based system for “salvation” (a process by which through suffering and hard work one more and more improves their life thereby embodying the Logos) which is absent of the essential Christian concept of Grace.
Note: His book is not meant to be Theology, but a Self-Help guide. In that it is very good.  It is a great book that is needed.  However, it does delve into Theology and Scripture quite a bit, and in that it easily can devolve into a works-based system.
As a clinical Psychologist, Peterson’s theology is heavily influenced by Carl Jung who he readily references in many interviews.  It is Jung’s archetypes that forms the basis for Peterson’s insights (some of them very good)  and classes on Genesis and Exodus.
Read More

This will Set a New Standard by Which to Amend the BCO for Every Cultural Issue. Rebuttal: Almost every year the BCO is amended so that we are guided and aided in our practice as new issues with it present themselves.  These changes directly affect and guide the practice of the church. We have entered a new phase in American Christianity where the dominant worldview of the country no longer fits with a Biblical Worldview. In these changing times, it is conceivable that we will have to further clarify things in our BCO that were once taken for granted.  We must realize the times that we are in and adapt our processes to them as we always have.

It is not the intent of this article to redo the work of brothers in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) who have already defended Overture 23 and 37 on Biblical, Theological, Practical, Pastoral, and Semantic grounds.  Here are some resources to help in that regard.

I’d like to more pointedly address the objections to the Overtures on the basis that some claim they don’t belong in our Book of Church Order (BCO) and they would set a precedent that we haven’t seen before.  While this is not a critique of David Coffin’s article, many of these objections do appear there. For a line-by-line analysis of the Coffin article, see Pastor Aldo Leon’s Video.
Here are rebuttals to 8 common objections to the Overtures that say they Don’t Belong in our  BCO:
Objection 1: This is not the type of thing we put in the BCO.  The BCO is for Procedures for the governance of the Church.
Rebuttal: This does set procedures for the Governance of the Church.  But in as much this sets forth what we believe about Identity and Same-Sex Attraction (SSA), we have done this before in areas that require clarity, emphasis, or are absent from the Westminster Standards.

Defining The Office of Deacon and specifying it is only open to Men. (BCO 9, 9-3)
Defining What Marriage is and that it is only for 1 man & 1 woman. (59-3)
Saying that Women or Men can be Assistants to the Deacons. (9-7)

Objection 2: Our Constitution shouldn’t go beyond what Scripture Says are the Qualifications for Ordination
Rebuttal: BCO 21-4c sets the standards for Ordination and we do in fact further define, assess, and determine what to test men for Ordination.
For example, 1 Timothy 3 & Titus 1 say that a man must be “able to teach/give instruction.”  We don’t solely leave that up to the Presbyteries to determine.  It is the BCO which tells Presbyteries HOW men must be trained (Seminary or other approved method) and WHAT must be tested. Scripture doesn’t tell us that a man must have an Master’s Degree or that he must show proficiency in areas like Church History and in the Biblical Languages.  Yet, those things are in the BCO.
We NOW need guidance on how to test and hold a men accountable to the Scriptural area of their Christian Maturity, Character, Communication, and Godliness with regard to a pressing societal issue that is redefining the Worldview of everything in our culture.  These Overtures do that. Additionally, they aren’t limited to SSA but also highlight the issues of addiction, abuse, racism, and financial mismanagement.
Objection 3: This Kind of Language is too Confusing & Subjective to Have in the BCO
Rebuttal: Overture 37 says “must not be known by reputation.”  This is Biblical, Pauline, and not at all confusing. Unless of course, we are willing to say we don’t understand what Scripture means when it says that a man must be “above reproach” and “well thought of by outsiders” in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. (Overture 23’s use of “profess an identity” is taken up in Objection 6.)
Additionally, the BCO has this type of language that is left for good and reasonable men to ascertain what it means given our shared commitments.  If those shared commitments can’t guide us in the application of these Overtures, then we are hopeless in these areas which already exist as well:
16-3 – “everyone admitted to an office should be sound in the faith, and his life be according to godliness.”
18-2 – “consisting of testimonials regarding his Christian character”
9-3 – “shall be chosen men of spiritual character, honest repute, exemplary lives, brotherly spirit, warm sympathies, and sound judgment.”
21-4 c – ““Trials for Ordination shall consist of: his acquaintance with experiential religion, especially his personal character and family management.”
Objection 4: This will Set a New Standard by Which to Amend the BCO for Every Cultural Issue.
Rebuttal: Almost every year the BCO is amended so that we are guided and aided in our practice as new issues with it present themselves.  These changes directly affect and guide the practice of the church.
We have entered a new phase in American Christianity where the dominant worldview of the country no longer fits with a Biblical Worldview. In these changing times, it is conceivable that we will have to further clarify things in our BCO that were once taken for granted.  We must realize the times that we are in and adapt our processes to them as we always have.
Objection 5: We have the AIC Report , we don’t Need them in the BCO
Rebuttal: The AIC report has no constitutional authority. We have already seen how it has been used to justify practices that it condemns because it allows for selective exceptions in practice.  That’s all some need to justify the wholesale use of the exception.  To some men the exception is the rule.  Adding them to the BCO will at least make the rule the rule.
Objection 6: We don’t Put Psycho-Sociological Language in the BCO.
Rebuttal: While rare, that’s not exactly true.  The BCO uses the word “feels” multiple times in places you would expect to see more objective words such as “reasons,” “determines,” or ‘believes.”  In 41-2 for instance, cases can be referred where the lower court “feels” the need for guidance.  Why does it not say “determines” or “believes they need guidance” or “reasons that it is wise that they receive guidance.”
Psychological or Psycho-Sociological language is the spirit of the day and it doesn’t seem to be abating.  Do we really believe that speaking of how a person “identifies” is any more socio-psychological than speaking of how a person or body “feels” about an issue?
Additionally, it is just the nature of documents to have the flavor of when they are written. The Westminster Standards have many clarifications that seem odd to our current contexts, until we realize the theological battles they were dealing with in their day which required that clarity.  When we read those sections we understand why they are there.
Objection 7: This type of change should be added to the Westminster Standards not the BCO.
Rebuttal: While rare, I have heard this.  First, the BCO is rightly where the Church defines how we test and ordain men.  Additionally, The Westminster Standards are documents that are a shared by many denominations. It would make no sense for the PCA to change them , thereby giving us a version unique to us. Further, the precedent has been set, that we don’t do that.  We didn’t add our understanding of Deacons to the WCF, but we put it in the BCO.
Objection 8: This won’t fix or change anything regarding the problems that people are seeing in the PCA.
Rebuttal: That may or may not be true.  But Officers in Christ’s Church are called to more than this type of argument based on pragmatism.
Conclusion
The Overtures are in line with the AIC Report on Human Sexuality. In as much as this issue is serious enough to warrant a Study Committee and Report, it is all the more important that these principles be placed in our Constitution.
More Reading:

George Sayour is Senior Pastor of Meadowview Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Lexington, NC. This article is used with permission.

You hear of how Jesus, comes from the line of David and Jesse and Boaz (remember the Ruth story) and Judah and Jacob and Isaac and Abraham back in time to Noah, and back further all the way to Adam, and then you hear that Last verse, and it hits you!
Have you ever read over or skipped the genealogies in the Scriptures?  It’s easy to do. I just read Luke 3 this morning (as part of the Reading Plan I developed for 2022), and it ends with the Genealogy of Christ…and for some reason I was captivated, and I got excited as I started hearing the names…then I got to the last verse, and I was so touched (even though I knew it was coming).  Do you know what I’m talking about? If not, don’t cheat by going there now. Read on.
I think the fact that I read the Whole Chapter, and didn’t just read the Genealogy helped me to get into the story.
I heard about John the Baptist, and I was transported into the time, and his calling Israel to repentance after such a dry spiritual dry spell in the land.  And then came the expectation of the people regarding this wild man in the wilderness.—“Is He the one?!”
Read More

Yes, Mary knew that she would bear the long foretold Messiah who would be called God’s Son and she consented to it.  And she obviously knew it was a miracle to conceive without having been physical with a man (Luke 2:26-38).  And she obviously knew Jesus had the power to perform miracles before anyone else knew (John 2). Yes, she was told that.  It didn’t stop her from being human, with real amazement at what she was seeing in her son Jesus.

There’s such a great lesson and reflection for us each year in the song “Mary Did You Know.”
Mary, did you knowthat your Baby Boy would one day walk on water?Mary, did you knowthat your Baby Boy would save our sons and daughters?Did you knowthat your Baby Boy has come to make you new?This Child that you delivered will soon deliver you.-“Mary Did you Know,” verse 1
This song that makes the rounds every Christmas for the last 30 years has increased in prominence since the Pentatonix covered it in 2014, garnering 270 million views on YouTube (video below). It brings hope and joy to so many. It helps us to see Jesus in the incarnation clearly. And yet, wherever there is a Christian finding joy and increasing faith, there are Christians who want to rob them of that joy.
It happens with Bible Verses such as Jeremiah 29:11 or Philippians 4:13 (which I’ll address in a later article), and it happens in music. To be sure and clear, any taking of Scripture out of context, is a misuse of Scripture.  And any song that is trying to teach Doctrine, should be doctrinally sound. And anything sung in worship should be true and clear, God Glorifying, and Christ exalting.
But is “Mary Did You Know” trying to teach Doctrine? Or is it a reflection of a human heart amazed at the awe of God that is put into art. What’s the issue you say?  Well, people say Mary Did Know, so this song is Doctrinally incorrect.
Really?  How is that? What makes it “the most biblically illiterate Christmas Tune?”   It doesn’t say Mary didn’t know. It doesn’t say that Mary is singing this song or asking the question. It doesn’t even imply that.
How do you know it isn’t the questions her friends asked her after Jesus rose from the dead? How do you know this wasn’t asked of Mary dozens, even hundreds of times during the next 20 or more years of her life?
“Mary Did You Know” isn’t a statement on what Mary knew or didn’t know. It isn’t even the statement of someone who is biblically illiterate. It is a reflection on the Incarnation, that God became Man, and the magnificence of it!  And how humans process the unbelievable!  Could anyone really have known, pondered, or understood that? It’s a way to consider, what Mary did or did not know (and most of the questions in the song she did not know).
Did Peter know?
It would be like asking the Apostles, actually people probably did ask the Apostles, “Peter did you know that Jesus would be handed over to the authorities? Peter did you know that your best friend and master would be crucified?  Peter did you know he’d be buried and rise again in 3 days?  Peter did you know that your best friend was God?”
Did he? Yes (to all but the last). He, they, were told at least 3 times specifically (Matthew 16:21, 20:19, 26:22) and many more times he eluded to it. And so, armed with this foreknowledge, forewarning, promise from Christ, why would Peter deny Christ? Why would the apostles be surprised that Christ had risen again (John 20:25), why would they doubt even while they were looking at his resurrected body (Matthew 28:16)?
Did Peter know?  He did…and he didn’t.  And whatever he knew about Christ being the Messiah (Matthew 16), he obviously didn’t have full understanding.
Read More
Listen to a version of Mary Did you Know?

On Claiming Sin Identities: “To juxtapose identities rooted in sinful desires alongside the term “Christian” is inconsistent with Biblical language and undermines the spiritual reality that we are new creations in Christ… we name our sins but are not named by them.” (2 Cor. 5:17). (AIC HS #9).

“Article 7 says it is a Sin to Adopt a Homosexual Self-Conception.”– PCA Pastor Greg Johnson
This statement very clearly explains the PCA’s position with regard to Homosexuality. In this quote PCA Pastor Greg Johnson explains what the Nashville Statement Article 7 means.  The Nashville Statement is the most concise PCA position on homosexuality. It is not the intent of this article to reconcile anything that Greg Johnson has said or written with this statement.
The purpose of this article is for my people. These are answers to questions that I am being asked by the people in the congregation where I serve due to the public nature of things in the news regarding the PCA. This is not to imply that this is the worst sin, or even worse than other sexual sin, nor is it the totality of PCA teaching or positions on Human Sexuality, a Biblical Sexual Ethic, Marriage and Family. It is needed, as the PCA AIC Report says because “this is the very place where the world is attacking the Church in our culture.” THE PCA AIC report is the most in-depth explanation of our beliefs on these topics. The Nashville Statement is the most concise.
So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. –Romans 6:11
It is important to say up front that nobody in the PCA is attempting to say that Gay Marriage or Homosexual sex is anything but Sin. Nobody in the PCA is trying to ordain “practicing gay pastors.”  It is also important to say that there is hope in the Gospel for people with every sin struggle.  This is not somehow the one sin that God hates worse than any other. Christ says to everyone of us “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” (Mark 8:34)
The PCA position on Human Sexuality, Marriage, Gender, and the family derives from Scripture. The teachings are consolidated and explained in our Constitution and other approved documents where Scripture is referenced extensively.
The PCA Constitution  

Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF)
Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms (WLC, WSC)
Book of Church Order (BCO)

Documents Declared Biblically Faithful by the PCA.

PCA AIC Human Sexuality Report (AIC) (Approved 2021)
Nashville Statement (NS) (Approved 2019)

5 Summary Statements of the PCA’s Teachings on Homosexuality

Homosexual Sex, Lust, Desires, and Inclination is Sin (WCF 6, WLC 18, 25, 139, NS 2, AIC #4-6– entire report)
Marriage is only between 1 man & 1 woman. (WCF 24, BCO 59-3, NS 1, AIC #1)
Sex is only allowed within the bounds of Biblical Marriage (WCF 24, NS 2, AIC #1)
There are only 2 Genders (NS 3-7, AIC #2)
No language should be used to claim a Homosexual Self-Conception.   (NS 7, AIC #9-10 & AIC Biblical Perspectives Section)

12  Clarifying & Supporting Statements from Our Documents
 1) On Being
“We deny that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.” (NS #7)
PCA Pastor Greg Johnson explains that “Article 7 says it is a Sin to Adopt a Homosexual Self-Conception.”
2) The Seriousness of THIS Sin
“As the natural family is a fundamental unit of human society and is the normal means of care and nurture, all sins which threaten, undermine, or marginalize it are both spiritually dangerous and detrimental to human flourishing.” (AIC, p 4)
3) On the experience of Same-Sex Attraction
“the experience of same-sex attraction is not morally neutral; the attraction is an expression of original or indwelling sin that must be repented of and put to death (Rom. 8:13). (AIC HS #4 – Desire)
4) On Orientation Language
“However, insofar as the term orientation carries with it a set of assumptions about the nature of that experience that is unbiblical (e.g., overemphasized rigidity, its normativity, etc.), then the terminology may require qualification or even rejection in some circumstances.” (AIC HS, p. 31)
Read The Joy Robbing False Hope of Side B Gay Christianity
5) On Being Predisposed to Any Sin
“This corruption of nature, during this life, does 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.” (WCF, Ch 6)
 6) On Unwanted Desires
“…impure thoughts and desires arising in us prior to and apart from a conscious act of the will are still sin.” (AIC HS #5 – Concupiscence)
7) On Claiming Sin Identities
“To juxtapose identities rooted in sinful desires alongside the term “Christian” is inconsistent with Biblical language and undermines the spiritual reality that we are new creations in Christ… we name our sins but are not named by them.” (2 Cor. 5:17). (AIC HS #9 – Identity)
 8) On Sinful Identity Markers
“it is still inappropriate to juxtapose this sinful desire, or any other sinful desire, as an identity marker alongside our identity as new creations in Christ.” (AIC HS #10 – Language)
9) On Clinging to Old Adam Identities
“We are best served in our sanctification by looking forward to our new creation selves, which will be fully purified from sinful desire, rather than by looking backwards to our Adamic, fallen selves.” (AIC HS, p28)
10) On Sanctification
“The goal is not just consistent fleeing from, and regular resistance to, temptation, but the diminishment and even the end of the occurrences of sinful desires through the reordering of the loves of one’s heart toward Christ.” (AIC HS #7 – Sanctification)
11) On Our Union & Identity in Christ
“Christians ought to understand themselves, define themselves, and describe themselves in light of their union with Christ and their identity as regenerate, justified, holy children of God (Rom. 6:5-11; 1 Cor. 6:15-20; Eph. 2:1-10).” (AIC HS #9 – Identity)
12) On Repentance, Hope, Rejoicing
“We affirm that the entire life of the believer is one of repentance… Nevertheless, as we call ourselves to the evangelical grace of repentance (WCF 15.1), we see many reasons for rejoicing (Phil 4:1)… Most importantly, we give thanks for the gospel that can save and transform the worst of sinners – older brothers and younger brothers, tax collectors and Pharisees, insiders and outsiders. We rejoice in ten thousand spiritual blessings that are ours when we turn from sin by the power of the Spirit, trust in the promises of God, and rest upon Christ along for justification, sanctification, and eternal life.” (AIC HS #12 – Hope and Repentance)
Again, for a full understanding of these issues, please read the PCA AIC Report and the Nashville Statement.  THE PCA AIC report is the most in depth explanation of our beliefs on these topics. The Nashville Statement is the most concise. Links above.
And finally, a concluding warning and a beautiful thought:
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. -1 Corinthians 6:9-11
What About the Overtures?  Check out these resources

Here is the summary video from the Class we did at Meadowview on the PCA’s AIC Report on Human Sexuality.
George is Senior Pastor of Meadowview Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Lexington, NC. This article is used with permission.

It is hopeless and joy-robbing to tell someone this is who you are, just don’t do this. To a “gay person” telling them NOT to live out who they are at the core of what they believe their existence is, is to tell them not to be human. It’s irrational. It’s hopeless. It’s incoherent to them.  That is soul crushing and joy robbing and amounts to legalism. As if Christ simply wants us to behave and doesn’t care about a heart change.   And it’s unbiblical.  The Scriptures know of no core category of personhood based on sexual desire.

Note: We as a Church need to readily admit that people who have identified as gay or admitted that they struggle with Same-Sex Attraction (SSA) have been mistreated in horrendous ways in and by the Church.  As a Christian, that grieves me. My intent in writing this article is not to add to that hurt but to provide clarity.  In that,  I write this out of a heart of love for the many people I know and am friends with who experience this struggle.  There is real hope in the Gospel of Jesus Christ for people with this struggle.  However, Side B Gay Christianity is not the answer. 
For most people Side-B Gay Christianity (also Side-B Christianity) is a new term, and it is one that should be shocking and concerning.  That a “brand” of Christianity would be categorized based on sexuality is antithetical to what Christianity is.[1]  But to those of us familiar with these debates it comes as no surprise at all.  Once a group creates another category of personhood and being, it is only natural to apply that grid to all of life and every other societal structure.
What is Side B Gay Christianity?
As succinctly as possible, I’ll briefly and loosely define two terms.
Side-A Gay Christianity, observing that there was very little success in people actually changing “orientation,” teaches that it is permissible and good for “gay people” to be in same-sex marriages and therefore sexual relationships because that is who they are. They view the Scripture’s prohibitions on homosexual behavior [2] not to apply to committed same-sex relationships.
Side-B Gay Christianity, recognizing that Side-A is not faithful to the Scriptures, says that while “being gay” or having a “gay orientation,” is a valid category of personhood and identity, Scripture clearly forbids the acting out of those desires. They advocate for a “gay but celibate” way of life.
So what is the Problem?
On the surface the Side-B option seems to be a good. They do after all uphold the Biblical Sexual ethic as sex being limited to 1 man and 1 woman within the bounds of marriage. That’s good, right?  Well, in a legalistic way, yes.  But that isn’t the whole story.  The Side-B position has a false view of anthropology (man) and ontology (being) and this often leads to a false eschatology (end times view of our glorification). In that, this is a Theological issue.
While there are a range of troubling and sinful beliefs that fall under the Side-B umbrella [3], one thing is consistent. Sexuality becomes a category of personhood and being.  It’s as if they have created a 3rd type of human. There are straight natural born males and straight natural born females and then LGBTQ humans.  Or perhaps they have 2 categories of personhood straight people and LGBTQ people.  Really that doesn’t adequately express it and indeed nothing can which is why there is no end to the gender-sexuality combinations in society and psychology.
Read More

[1] Rev. Albert Mohler highlights the issues with Side-B Gay Christianity and Revoice Theology
[2] Bible Verses Prohibiting Homosexual Behavior: Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10
[3] Here is an article highlighting in a positive light the troubling beliefs of Side B Gay Christianity, including it being a gift,  a God-given identity, aiding being able to see beauty, providing a beneficial outlook on aesthetics, culture, and worldview, its own community, and aiding in spiritual (romantic yet celibate) relationships among other things.