The only biblically consistent way to speak of “sexual orientation” is to recognize that sexual desires and behaviors do occur in deep and persistent patterns. These patterns may be so deep as to feel natural. But the same is true of other sins: it is “natural” for us sinners to be proud, greedy, angry, and so on. None of these sins, however, are “natural” in the sense that that they are normal and right behaviors for humans.

“Sexual orientation” refers to an innate, unchangeable trait that makes it natural and normal for someone to engage in certain sexual practices. The term functions as both an explanation and a defense of homosexuality:
Explanation: People naturally seek sexual unions that fit their orientation. Those with a “heterosexual orientation” will naturally seek sexual union with a person of the opposite sex, while those with a “homosexual orientation” will seek sexual union with a person of the same sex.
Defense: Orientation is an innate and unchangeable trait, like height or skin color, and therefore outside the realm of moral evaluation.
However, the idea of sexual orientation fails in both respects. To take the second point first, let’s grant the (unproven) claim that there are certain biological correlations with homosexual behavior. It does not follow from this that homosexual behavior cannot be evaluated morally. The reason for this is that there are biological correlations to many human behaviors that are clearly subject to moral evaluation. For instance, men are much more likely to commit murder than women. This does not mean that a moral criticism of murder is sexist. Nor does it mean that “men are murderers” because of some innate and unchangeable trait. Human behavior is complicated, and biology is one factor.
Second, the notion of “sexual orientation” fails as an explanation of homosexuality. Unlike height, skin color, or sex, sexual orientation is not observable. It can only be discerned by observing a person’s behaviors and statements. It is therefore at least possible that “orientation” is a concept developed to justify certain sexual behaviors, rather than a real explanation of them. That possibility was already there in the early days of gay and lesbian ideology, but it has emerged as a distinct probability as LGBTQ+ ideology has evolved.
Let me explain what I mean. Consider the phenomenon of “bisexuality” (the “B” in the expanding acronym). Is this an orientation in its own right, or does it describe someone who moves back and forth between two orientations? Such questions are even murkier when “gender-fluid,” “non-binary,” “trans,” “queer,” and various other identities are thrown into the mix. No longer are we talking about an innate, unchangeable trait that makes certain sexual behaviors natural. Rather, we are talking about completely decoupling any evaluation of sexual behavior from innate natural traits.
Read More

Membership through baptism includes the privilege to warnings that are to precede ever being placed outside the church, which presupposes de facto member-status in the church. But what about unbaptized adult members of the church? How can one who has never been received into the church ever be placed outside the church for not “embracing Christ and thus possessing personally all benefits of the covenant”?

The PCA Book of Church Order (BCO) teaches that children of professing believers are members of the visible church and, therefore, are entitled to baptism. Indeed, per BCO 56-1 baptism should not be unnecessarily delayed!
However, what the BCO does not teach is that a refusal to baptize one’s covenant child is great sin that entails a cutting off from the assembly. But should it? Should the BCO teach that to deny baptism to a covenant child is to deny a covenant child non-communing membership in the visible church? Or, is the BCO correct that children can remain unbaptized yet members of the visible church? In other words, in the face of pastoral oversight and instruction, should a parent’s refusal of the covenant entitlement of Christian baptism be met with the denial of the child’s covenant-keeping status? That is the principle beginning with Abraham, then dramatically punctuated through Zipporah’s intervention unto the saving of Moses’ life. (Genesis 17:14; Exodus 4:24-26)
BCO, a halfway covenant?
Does the BCO offer a half-way covenant that divides non-communing members into two classes?
A baptized child is to be distinguished from the world and considered a member of Christ’s body unless covenant incongruity is manifested either in delinquency of doctrine or manner of life. In other words, baptized children are to be given the judgment of charity with respect to their covenant standing in the church. In a word, Christian baptism is in the name of the triune God, by which the Lord himself places his name upon a covenant child.
The BCO teaches that an unbaptized covenant child remains a member of the visible church even without an intention of a believing parent to have his or her child received into membership through the sign of covenant membership. Consequently, it’s hard to understand how the BCO does not divide child membership in the visible church between non-received members and received members.
By implication, has the visible church become something other than a manifestation of members united by one faith and one baptism?
The halves and the halves not:
It would seem that two classes of covenant children are established by BCO 57-1, whereby non-communing members include not only (a) unbaptized children born of a member, but (b) especially those presented for baptism. Yet per BCO 56-4(g) it is not by birthright but baptism that children are “received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world… and united with believers.” Therefore, not all members are actually received into the church as members of Christ’s body.
Trying to make sense of things:
PCA ecclesiology distinguishes unbaptized child-members of the visible church from first class child-members who by baptism are especially members of the church; been received into her bosom; been distinguished from the world; and united to believers.
Put negatively and perhaps more strikingly, by implication the BCO teaches there are true members of the visible church – even adult members – who are “federally holy” yet not especially members of the visible church because they have not been received into her bosom and been distinguished from the world by being united to other believers in baptism.
Questions, implications:
What is it to be a visible member of the church while outside her bosom? What covenantal standing is there for non-bosom members who aren’t “especially” members of Christ’s church (because they have not been distinguished from the world, having not been united to other members of the church in Christian baptism)?
Has the BCO blurred the spiritual meaning of church membership, possibly by downplaying the theological significance of the sacrament when it comes to Baptist theology? At the very least, to be united to other members of Christ’s body is to be united to Christ in baptism. (In passing let it be noted that consistent Baptists will not be offended by the exclusion of their children from church membership for they do not consider their own children members of the visible church, otherwise Baptists would dedicate their children in baptism.)
Further ramifications, a reductio of sorts:
The practice of trying to maintain a two tiered membership for children leads to further difficulties with respect to non-baptized members upon coming to an age of discretion.
BCO 6-1 teaches that “children of believers are, through the covenant and by right of birth, non-communing members of the church. Hence they are entitled to Baptism, and to the pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the church, with a view to their embracing Christ and thus possessing personally all benefits of the covenant.” (emphasis mine) The reference to instruction and in particular to government can suggest entitlement to the discipline of the church. Perhaps BCO 6-1 presupposes baptism has been administered (given that it’s an entitlement), especially in light of BCO 6-3.
Read More
Related Posts:

We can celebrate the coming of Jesus, because in him alone we find the light that frees us from the darkness of sin. We find the light that breaks into the darkness of our lives and hearts, changing and drawing us out of darkness into a relationship with the Light Giver. 

The Christmas season is a time when we often celebrate family, friends, joy, life, and all the good things we have. There is much for which to be thankful, and appreciation and enjoyment of these things is good. Yet, it is also easy to forget that Jesus came into the world without many of these things.
Jesus was not born into a festive family home ablaze with lights, the aromas of good food, and the joyful sounds of music and festivities. The buildup to his birth didn’t include lights, caroling, or cookie parties. Rather, Jesus came into the world where animals were kept. His earthly father was a carpenter; his mother was a young girl—one who was suspected of having sexual relations before marriage, and not with her husband to be. His first visitors were lowly shepherds and Eastern wise men. And yet, despite the differences, here are three reasons why it is perfectly fitting for us to celebrate Jesus’ birth joyously with overflowing hearts of gratitude:
1. Jesus takes our place before God’s judgment seat.
We all hate being judged by others, especially when our faults, sins, and transgressions are pointed out and we will suffer some hard consequence. Imagine a courtroom setting where God as the judge is passing just judgement on your sins. God is perfectly righteous, good, and just—and we are not. In fact, sin pervades even the nicest things we try to do.
Because God is just he must judge sinners. For our sin we must suffer eternal separation from the goodness of God and only experience his wrath against sin. This is our just condemnation if we try to stand alone and on our own merits before God.
Yet, God is also good, merciful, loving, and kind, and he promised a Savior who would willingly suffer for us in our stead. The righteous Judge sent his only begotten Son to take the punishment that we deserved, so that we could have forgiveness of our sins and a righteous standing before the good Judge.
Jesus willingly undertook this sacrifice because of his love for his Father and his love for us. Thus, we should rejoice exceedingly because the birth of Jesus was a major step toward God’s fulfillment of his promise to send a Savior who would take our place of judgment and give us the righteousness we need to stand blameless before the God of the universe.
Read More