…that for the PCA to allow its ministers to teach their own doctrine alongside of its official doctrine would be to lay the groundwork of its own destruction as a confessional denomination, the assertion of multiple doctrines serving to engender confusion and to allow the official position on many matters to be crowded out by the alternatives. For now, it is enough to see that this is another dubious attempt to shift the blame for the denomination’s present troubles away from that faction which is anxious to keep in step with the culture and to lay it at the feet of others who dare object to the said faction’s methods and desires.

Dr. David Cassidy, pastor of Spanish River Presbyterian in Florida, recently wrote an essay, “PCA at the Crossroads”, in which he denies there are any problems with disunity in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) save those caused by some people raising false alarms about “theological declension.” He denies that there are any progressives in the PCA and regards any suggestions to the contrary as slanderous. He exults in the PCA’s diversity of practice and asserts that good faith subscription is essential to the denomination’s continued effectiveness. In his first section he says:
Looking back, men like Kennedy Smartt, Frank Barker, Francis Schaeffer, James Kennedy . . . and many others were not only deeply Reformed but also broadly evangelical, and resistant to fundamentalist impulses.
Lay aside the dubious name dropping and note that claim that such men were “resistant to fundamentalist impulses.” Fundamentalism is a bête noire of progressives, and disparaging it is nearly the first thing that Cassidy does – yet he assures us that neither he nor anyone else in the PCA is progressive, this progressive rhetoric notwithstanding.
Regarding progressivism, Cassidy writes:
Using that word about fellow PCA ministers is an abuse of the language and little more than Humpty Dumpty verbicide.
And then continues, after a mistaken literary allusion:
This is all part of a wider project to redefine what “conservative” and “subscription” mean in order to reset the boundaries of what is allowable in PCA.
Note that Cassidy does what he accuses others of doing by redefining a word for polemic use. He thinks it unfair for others to call his faction progressives, but he is glad to intimate his opponents have “fundamentalist impulses.”
What Cassidy objects to is progressive being used in an absolute sense to describe both people who deny orthodox teaching as well as people like him. I concur that it is improper to use progressive to refer to a contemporary school of heterodoxy, and that it is further unfair, having done so, to then also use it to refer to PCA pastors such as Cassidy. The proper term for “Progressive Christianity” is heresy, there being nothing either progressive or truly Christian about it, the terms for its proponents, such things as false teachers or apostates. I do not accuse Cassidy of being that, which would indeed be slanderous. But I do say that he is a progressive in another sense.
Here’s why. Rather than describing one’s doctrine, comparative terms like conservative and progressive are best used to describe one’s disposition or impulses as they relate to those of others. A conservative is one who wants to do things now as they have been done in the past. That may be good or bad, depending on what he wishes to conserve. A progressive is one who wishes to keep abreast of change, and who wishes to alter things in order to influence the people with whom he deals. That may be good or bad, depending upon what is influencing him, whom he wishes to influence, and what changes he wants to make to do so. And, of course, one may be both, conservative about some matters and progressive about others, and each to a greater or lesser extent. Now I say that Cassidy and many others are progressive because their disposition is to look at society and to ponder whether our present practices might be hindering us from reaching its various constituent groups. I do not doubt his sincerity or good intentions, but I do say he is taking his cues from society at large and from his contemplations upon the PCA’s relation to it rather than from scripture alone.
Regarding Cassidy’s progressivism, one sees it in what he emphasizes. Contemporary society is obsessed with race, and he mentions it multiple times. He decries “the fertile soil of criticism for all who seek to address the very valid issue of how we bring the unchanging Gospel to an increasingly hostile secularized society and how we address racism in the Church.” In such a phrase he suggests that addressing racism is as urgently needed as evangelism – as if racism in the church is anywhere near as prevalent or severe as the rampant unbelief of our wider society. He further says that:
Racism has been a sinful reality in the church for years and it is an insufficient response to simply decry critical theory without adequately listening to and addressing the real concerns of minority communities in the church.
And again, caricaturing a hypothetical strict subscription PCA:
It could disparage other ethnicities and insist that anyone pointing out that such a practice is problematic is probably a Marxist.
Elsewhere he says he was “shocked” and “deeply grieved” when someone issued “a disdainful critique of ‘Korean Style Praying’ as being unbiblical.” Disdain is arrogant condescension, and if that is a fair description of what happened, such a tone was indeed wrong; but I do not concur that “these kinds of comments … must be rejected” with the vehemence he displays, for I can certainly see why someone would regard such a style of prayer as unscriptural in light of I Corinthians 14:26-40. Cassidy tacitly assumes the propriety of such prayer, and with it the impropriety of criticizing it in whatever manner (“maybe we should all be at the feet of our Korean brothers and sisters to learn how to pray”).
As for Cassidy’s deep concern with race matters as shown in such examples, I ask: is it a coincidence that a matter that weighs so heavily with Cassidy is also one with which our society is obsessed? Is it a coincidence that the anonymous agency heads’ “Statement on Heinous Killings” appeared in the middle of the George Floyd upheaval and that it used the language of many unbelieving political activists? I think not. Such a preoccupation with a contemporary social/political issue is a result of trying to keep abreast of cultural developments and looking to them to set one’s agenda and form one’s thinking – in short, the progressive temperament in action.
I said earlier that Cassidy does what he accuses others of doing in the case of polemic claims, and he does so in another matter as well. He accuses others of attempting “to redefine what ‘conservative’ and ‘subscription’ mean in order to reset the boundaries of what is allowable in the PCA,” and says this about the alleged attempt:
It is always done in nameless ways because naming names would open the door to the refutation of the false claims and remove the weapon of fear from the arsenal of those who want to stir people up and lead them deeper into a “Truly Reformed” cul-de-sac, something the PCA was never designed to be.
At no point in his 2,800-word essay does Cassidy name a single opponent, nor does he name the faction which he opposes: the closest he gets is implying somewhat his opponents’ position (strict subscription), and, in the statement above, their self-conception (“Truly Reformed”) – and yet he says it is his opponents who don’t name names. But note further that this man who accuses unnamed others of conspiring to redefine the meaning of subscription actually does that very thing himself. He writes:
Some argue for the right of Presbyteries to forbid a man to teach an exception that they’ve already judged to be an allowable exception. In my view, this is de facto strict subscription and it not only dangerously exalts the standards to the place where a minister’s conscience is needlessly bound by the action of Presbytery but also wrongly exalts the authority of Presbytery over the denomination as a whole.
Nothing in the Book of Church Order (BCO) either regards a minister as having any right to teach his exceptions or denies a presbytery the authority to forbid teaching exceptions. Past attempts to establish the right to teach exceptions, such as New Jersey Presbytery’s Overture 6 at the 31st General Assembly, have not been adopted. What Cassidy seeks to recast as “de facto strict subscription” is really good faith subscription as it is actually provided for by the BCO (21-4).
When he regards this as dangerously “exalting the standards” and binding consciences he is proceeding from a theory of polity that is not Presbyterian but Independent. Everyone who is in the PCA is bound by its government. One who regards his own conscience as a higher teaching authority than the presbytery or the denomination is doing the very thing that Presbyterian government – including an authoritative confession which one must subscribe – is intended to guard against. It is of the essence of the Presbyterian system that each individual presbyter is subordinate to the presbytery as a whole, and that what authority is in the church is distributed among a plurality of elders but may only be exercised by the relevant body of which they are a part (session, presbytery, general assembly) acting in unison as a corporate entity. When a man accepts ordination he swears to “approve of the form of government and discipline” of the PCA and to “promise subjection to [his] brethren” (21-5, Qs. 3-4). Inherent in doing so is surrendering somewhat his own freedom, including that of conscience, in the interest of good order and peace in service to the church.
Judging by what Cassidy says elsewhere (“I suspect the Westminster Divines themselves and our forefathers in the Reformation would be appalled… by this practice”), he might say this leaves us in the position of Rome by making the church instead of Christ (speaking through Scripture) the sole lord of the conscience. It is not so. No one is either obligated or entitled to ministry in the PCA, and by accepting ordination he freely accepts its conditions, including what is entailed in submitting to the discipline and government of the church as expressed in its courts and standards.[1] Unlike with Rome, one is free to go elsewhere anytime he wishes, and there are many other denominations in which Cassidy could labor whose views of polity align more nearly with his own. Also, he retains the right to lobby the church courts for a change that would make his exception into an accepted article, or which would otherwise allow it to be taught. There are means of redress for his complaint, and he has simply to use them rather than to rely upon arguments that proceed upon un-Presbyterian theories of polity.
Time will fail to consider more fully his other arguments, other elements of Presbyterian doctrine touching upon the relation of conscience to church government and the role of the church as the mediating agency through which Christ confers teaching authority and by which he governs its use, as well as the question of what the “good faith” in good faith subscription should entail (BCO 21.4e; 21-5, Q.2.). It would fail also to note that a denomination is only as good as its ministers and that a house divided against itself cannot stand (Matt. 12:25): i.e., that for the PCA to allow its ministers to teach their own doctrine alongside of its official doctrine would be to lay the groundwork of its own destruction as a confessional denomination, the assertion of multiple doctrines serving to engender confusion and to allow the official position on many matters to be crowded out by the alternatives. For now, it is enough to see that this is another dubious attempt to shift the blame for the denomination’s present troubles away from that faction which is anxious to keep in step with the culture and to lay it at the feet of others who dare object to the said faction’s methods and desires.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.

[1] This is so only in secondary or minor matters. A church that would require heresy to be taught or that would restrict the gospel is ipso facto a false church and has no authority, each minister being then bound to follow his conscience as guided by scripture rather than the direction of the apostate church.

There is much we can do to see that believers are grounded in biblical teaching on sex as they face contrary messages and confusion, not just out there “in the world,” but in too many churches and other ostensibly evangelical Christian settings. Overall, our sexual teaching and practice must be embedded within a rich tapestry of sound theology, not treated as a separate area. However, there is a desperate need to equip believers, young and old, with sound, focused biblical teaching on homosexuality, directed at the various lies and justifications that too many are currently assaulting God’s people with.

The last several decades have brought profound shifts in beliefs and practices about sexuality among Evangelical Protestants. These changes are abundantly evident in major national surveys. I have also experienced them on the “front lines” as an evangelical college professor teaching relevant topics in marriage and family classes since about 1987. When I began my academic career, traditional Christian teachings on sexuality were embraced by the majority of my evangelical students even if they often struggled, as I did, to live up to them. That no longer appears to be the case. In fact, these days, defending biblical sexual ethics in my Family class sometimes get me “pinged” as a “bigot” even by avowedly evangelical students.
This is surprising among people supposedly committed to the most conservative forms of Protestantism, who claim to base their doctrines and lifestyles upon the clear teachings of the Bible, and to live under the Lordship of Christ. After all, the simple biblical teaching that all sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman is sinful is hardly secret or subtle. Orthodox Christianity in all major branches has never seriously questioned this. And yet, among younger people especially, it has been quite a few years since biblical beliefs and practices have been the norm among evangelicals.
With regard to beliefs and practices pertaining to heterosexual sexual activity outside of marriage among religious youth, Mark Regnerus’s Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion In the Lives of American Teenagers (Oxford: 2007), though a bit dated now, is a fine introduction to this admittedly distressing topic. Within the last few years, I have documented these grim realities among professing evangelicals across a broad range of ages. I have done this in material presented through the Institute for Family Studies (IFS), large portions of my book Christian Marriage: A Comprehensive Introduction (Lexham Press: 2019), research on epidemic levels of cohabitation outside of wedlock among evangelicals published in the April 2021 issue of Christianity Today and in the IFS. And my soon-to-be released After the Revolution: Sex and the Single Evangelical (Lexham Press: 2022), delves into this topic in great detail. In it, I deal with a range of sexual practices and beliefs among evangelicals, comparing them to other religious groups and to those of no religious affiliation, using hard facts, comprehensive explanations, and church-based solutions grounded in Scripture and social science.
However, other than some statistical material in an article mainly focused on Roman Catholics I did for Crisis Magazine in May 2021, I have not tackled the issue of homosexual beliefs and practices among evangelicals in any depth. My reasoning for focusing far more on heterosexual sins among evangelicals is simple: it is a much bigger problem in the church. Moreover, churches, parents and young people that think that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is acceptable, or at least turn a blind eye to it, are not in any position to uphold biblical teachings on homosexuality. To accept the one while rejecting the other is hypocrisy that should and will be tossed back into our faces. When we cave on the one, we quickly retreat from orthodoxy on the other. We must deal with first things first. But now, here, I would like to look at beliefs about same-sex sexual relations, as well as practice and sexual orientation, among professing evangelicals.1
Here, I have categorized religious groups using a standard approach called RELTRAD. This uses denominational affiliation, separating those in evangelical Protestant denominations from those who are “Mainline” or in historically Black, Protestant churches. No approach is perfect, including RELTRAD. There are certainly unsaved, uncommitted people tied to evangelical denominations, and there are some fine Bible-believing, born-again Christians affiliated with mainline churches. But it is an adequate description for those people being served by evangelical pastors and leaders, magazines, universities, charitable institutions, and so on. 2
My modest goal in this article is to provide an adequate description. An article that details the plethora of causal forces, explores the thinking of those who claim to be both faithful followers of Christ and morally accepting of homosexuality, and sets forth some possible solutions, is beyond what I can do here. However, let me note that I do tackle those issues in After the Revolution: Sex and the Single Evangelical, and in the main, most of the forces, thought patterns, and solutions I address there seem to hold in confronting error in belief, confusion, and sinful practices in the area of homosexuality as well.
Let’s see what we can learn from these highly respected national surveys.
Beliefs About Same-Sex Sexual Relationships
That homosexual sexual activity could be viewed as morally acceptable by a significant portion of evangelicals, much less an emerging majority of them, is nothing short of astounding. Personal justifications for this position are thin if not ludicrous, but I do not have space to address them here.3 Suffice it to say that I am not surprised to find people in denominations that have long ago jettisoned a high view of Scripture finding ways to approve of homosexual practice. However, part of the very definition of “Evangelical Protestant” is the belief in the Bible’s ultimate authority in matters of doctrine and action—Sola Scriptura.
Nevertheless, the GSS documents a startling movement towards increasing moral acceptance of homosexual sex among evangelicals. Figures 1a and 1b below show the percentages agreeing that “sexual relations between two adults of the same sex” are “always wrong,” versus “not wrong at all,” among respondents from different religious groups.4
Figure 1a: Percentages Indicating That “Sexual Relations Between Two Adults of the Same Sex” Are “Always Wrong.” GSS, 1977–2018, by Religious Group
Figure 1b: Percentages Indicating That “Sexual Relations Between Two Adults of the Same Sex” Are “Not Wrong at All.” GSS, 1977–2018, by Religious Group

Although evangelicals are generally less accepting of homosexuality than other groups (with the exception of Black Protestants), the percentages affirming that homosexuality is “always wrong” have clearly declined, while those saying it is “not wrong at all” have increased dramatically. Moreover, this includes all ages from 18 through the very old. The picture changes a lot when we compare age groups. As Figure 2 shows, younger evangelicals are much more liberal. In fact, recently most of those 18 to 29 did not think homosexual relations were “always wrong,” and 4 in 10 said they were “not wrong at all.”
Figure 2: Percentages of Evangelicals Indicating That “Sexual Relations Between Two Adults of the Same Sex” Are “Always Wrong” versus “Not Wrong at All.” GSS, 1977–2018, by Age Group

On the other hand, we must consider degrees of religious commitment. One major element of this is attendance at weekly worship. As Figure 3 shows, in the GSS, differences in moral beliefs about homosexual activity among evangelicals differs dramatically by church attendance. Even so, among those who attend weekly or more, over 10 percent said this activity was “not wrong at all.” Among even those who do so one to three times per month, only about half said it was “always wrong.” It is distressing how bad things are even among those who are pretty regular in their attendance habits.
Figure 3: Percentages of Evangelicals Indicating That “Sexual Relations Between Two Adults of the Same Sex” Are “Always Wrong” versus “Not Wrong at All.” GSS, 2016 + 2018 Only, by Church Attendance

The NSFG enables us to focus on younger evangelicals in more detail. It also lets us explore not only the role of church attendance, but another key measure of religious commitment—how important religion is in their daily lives.
Read More
Related Posts:

Those Christians in the generation leading up to Constantine’s ascent appear not to have been strictly pacificist or “Anabaptist” (for lack of a more convenient term) in their politics. At risk of beating the same old drum, bits of information like this consistently underscore for me the value in studying the history of Christianity between the New Testament and, say, Augustine. Especially for modern Christians who feel alarm or simply aporia at the prospect of de-Christianization, there are helpful and sometimes surprising models to be considered in this era.

On a recent re-reading of Eusebius’ writings about the Great Persecution and the subsequent rule of Constantine, I was struck by how he records quite a few Christians working in the army and imperial administration decades before Constantine was running the show. Sometimes, for instance, it is alleged that the pre-Constantinian church flatly opposed participation in the military. That claim (or versions of it) was always oversimplifying matters, and one can spot it right in the sources themselves.
Take Ecclesiastical History 8.4 (and I shall describe, paraphrase, quote lightly from sources in rather than en bloc for brevity in this post). Eusebius suggests that “he who has taken power”—which I take to be the devil rather than the emperor—thought the best starting place to begin an attack on the church would be the army itself, which itself is a telling remark about where Christians were known to exist in the public sphere. “Very many” faithful Christian soldiers lost their status in the process, claims Eusebius, though here and there some were also killed for their constancy. When telling the stories of the martyrs he knew most personally, Eusebius marks out one such soldier named Seleucus, in the Martyrs of Palestine 11.26. Having already accepted punishment and discharge from the army, Seleucus then faced danger again by associating with the Christians of Caesarea, which led to his death. In general, however, this particular stroke against the Christian soldiery was moderate and not especially violent, comments Eusebius dryly.
In Ecclesiastical History 8.6, Eusebius also mentions one Dorotheus and others working in the imperial palace of Nicomedia, who were probably slaves. Further down, in 8.9, he notes the hitherto respected Philoromos, who sat as an imperial judge “with status and Roman honor” in Alexandria daily escorted by soldiers. In recompense for his unyielding Christianity, the empire had Philoromos condemned and beheaded. Likewise in 8.11, Eusebius goes so far as to claim that the complete population of an entire small town in Phrygia suffered burning en masse, including the imperial accountant on site and the local town officials, all of whom were Christians. Here too Eusebius mentions Adauktos, who came from a notable Italian family and had achieved status and served in imperial magistracies; at the time of his martyrdom, he was currently serving as a financial officer or comptroller general.
Read More
Related Posts: