Written by Kevin D. Gardner |
Wednesday, March 23, 2022
Christ came to save sinners, and He has surely accomplished what He set out to do. That salvation is not hypothetical; it is not contingent. It will not be undone when God realizes what big sinners we are.

If you were to survey people about why Jesus came to earth, you’d probably get a variety of answers. I did this very thing a few years ago with some high school kids when I was on staff with Young Life. They gave answers they’d heard from people at various times.
You can probably guess the answers they gave. Some people thought Jesus came to show us a better way to live. He came as an example of love, and He wanted to call us to a higher, more loving way of life. Others said He came to shine a light on the plight of the less fortunate. He came as a sort of social activist, to right the wrongs in society. Some said He came as a liberator, to free slaves and women and downtrodden people from their oppressors.
There may be a grain of truth to each of these views, but they tend to miss the clear teaching of Scripture in passages such as 1 Timothy 1:12–17:
I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
Why did Jesus come into the world? Paul tells us in verse 15: to save sinners. In this series on 1 Timothy 1:12–17, we’re looking at Paul’s paradigm of salvation, how it gives us the what, the how, and the why of salvation. We’ve previously covered the what of salvation, and in this installment, we’re going to look at the how.
Paul introduces this statement by calling it “trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance.” This statement summarizes the gospel in just a few words. And its applicability is immediately obvious. If you are a sinner, this statement has meaning for you. We need someone to save us. And Jesus came to do just that.
Read More

Throughout this time many in the PCA have publicly promoted Revoice while at the same time claiming that Side B does not exist within the denomination. They have said that rather than change our Constitution to address a non-existent issue that we should make use of the AIC Report on Human Sexuality because it gives us the tools to rightly address the issues we are facing.

It has been almost 5 years since the Revoice Side B Conference was born in the PCA. That first Revoice Conference (July 2018) featured speakers promoting the beauty of “queer treasure” and attendees cuddling, petting, and at least one walking around with a portion of his genitals hanging out of his shorts.  The PCA has been debating and seeking to deal with Side B (Gay) Christianity within the denomination ever since. Thankfully the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) of the PCA has denounced many of the teachings of Revoice. Still the debate persists.
Throughout this time many in the PCA have publicly promoted Revoice while at the same time claiming that Side B does not exist within the denomination. They have said that rather than change our Constitution to address a non-existent issue that we should make use of the AIC Report on Human Sexuality because it gives us the tools to rightly address the issues we are facing.
I agree that the AIC Report is a fine work on Biblical Sexuality with some great tools.  I taught a 12 week class with it that I commend to you.  However, the AIC Report has no Constitutional Authority and men have (not surprisingly) disagreed with what it allows and forbids.  Additionally, since it does not use the term Side B, how do we know what the AIC Report on Human Sexuality thinks about Side B Gay Christianity?
Dr. Tim Keller, one of the main authors of the AIC report explains that “the PCA’s Ad-Interim Committee on Human Sexuality considered this Side B view and clearly rejected it.”
The problem is in how one defines Side B.  One PCA Pastor on Twitter, based on a decades old conception of Side B, boldly states that “they agree same-sex sexual unions are out of bounds.  Under these terms, the PCA is & always has been Side B.”
Is that all that Side B is? Let’s attempt to define Side B and in so doing show that the least common denominator for Side B is more than abstaining from same-sex sexual unions.  Secondly, we’ll show evidence for how this definition is occurring in the PCA and has been allowed to occur. 
DEFINING SIDE B
I have defined Side-B in this way:
“Side B Gay Christianity… 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.”

*I was attacked for this definition and article until
Tim Keller offered his own definition:

“People attracted to the same sex, though remaining celibate
in obedience to the Bible,
still can call themselves ‘gay Christians’ and see their attraction as a part of their identity which should be acknowledged like one’s race or nationality….”

*This is the view that Keller says is rejected in the PCA AIC Report on Human Sexuality.
Dr. Greg Johnson, PCA Pastor and Side-B proponent in the PCA defines Side B this way:
“What makes someone Side B is simply

The rejection of homoerotic desire and practice
as sin, coupled with
The acknowledgement that a homosexual orientation is deeply rooted and unlikely to go away in this lifetime.”

Religion News, reporting on these issues, defines Side B this way:
(Side B is) “openly LGBTQ Christians who,

while embracing their sexual orientation,
also believe God designs sex and marriage
to occur exclusively between a man and a woman.”

Q Christian Fellowship, which took over the Organization that created the term Side B, defines it this way:
“Any theology which

affirm LGBTQ+ identities,
yet maintains that Christians should refrain from same-gender sex
for a variety of personal and/or theological reasons.”

You’ll notice how all of these definitions include MORE than simply “being attracted to the same-sex but being celibate because the Bible forbids it.” There is an identity component included in Side-B that in some sense is more than descriptive of the person’s experience.
This was an education for some in the PCA who thought Side B just meant that “same-sex sexual unions are out of bounds.”  As a matter of fact, it seems that PCA pastors are the only people who still affirm that limiting definition of Side B.  Perhaps they aren’t up on the debate or the community even as some of them exist within the community.
What About Rosaria and Becket?
Rosaria Butterfield and Becket Cook, Reformed Christians who have and do struggle with SSA, have written and spoken extensively on their journey and the dangers of the Side B position.
They both claim that this Side B ontological and anthropological error is what is going on in the PCA, Revoice, and Greg Johnson’s teaching.

Would we be so arrogant to think we know better than this sister and brother in Christ as to what Side B is and how that relates to the PCA?
When in an online dialogue with Greg Johnson about Side B, I asked him if Side B is simply that “same-sex sexual activity is immoral” why does Rosaria Butterfield reject it.  He responded:
“Rosaria rejects sexual orientation as a category. That’s what makes her different from Side B.”- Greg Johnson, November 30, 2021
By this statement alone we must reject the assertion by the uninformed that “Side B is just same-sex attracted but a commitment to the Biblical Sexual ethic.”  By Johnson’s own admission, a rejection of orientation as a category puts one outside of the Side B camp.  One thing to note is that Johnson doesn’t say what type of category it is.  Is it a category of experience? Personhood?  Being? Identity? He doesn’t say.
Thankfully, Rosaria tells us.  She explains the Side B that she Rejects:
“Sees sexual orientation as an accurate category of personhood (i.e., there is such a thing as a gay person – that gayness describes who someone actually is)…To the Side B Christian homosexuality is a sexuality – one of many.”
So, there you have it. Greg admits the difference is that Rosaria rejects sexual orientation as a category and Rosaria tells us that she rejects orientation as a category of personhood.
The issue here is one’s view of anthropology and is therefore theological in nature and not simply one’s use of language.
SIDE B IN THE PCA
Even though some claim “The PCA has always been Side B,” there are some who say that Side B isn’t happening in the PCA.  If that’s the case, why would Becket Cook and Rosaria Butterfield say it is?  According to  Keller, “there is not One PCA court– not one session, presbytery, or agency– that has ever endorsed Side B Christianity.” Those are carefully chosen words, but what type of “endorsement” is Keller asking for? Is he implying that Side B can’t be allowed to exist in the PCA unless an official body makes a public declaration they are on board with Side B? Let’s see if there is any evidence of the Side B that should be rejected in the PCA.
Members of Memorial Presbyterian Church Tell Us
Why would Dr. Nate Collins, a Member at Memorial PCA (the Church that Greg Johnson Pastors) and cofounder of Revoice, identify as “A Gay Man” while he is married to a woman and why would his Wife (Sara Collins) claim that what Keller says is rejected by the AIC Report regarding Side B is precisely what is going on at their Church?
Read More
Related Posts:

People instinctively go to church with the hope of being made to feel good through being there – and in the highest sense, that is absolutely right – but God’s way of getting us to that point also means facing up to what we hate about ourselves.

Public worship can all too easily feel lacklustre and mundane, not just for a congregation, but also for the one entrusted with leading it. This is not some new phenomenon. It has been a challenge for the church throughout its history. Indeed, it was at such a low point in the history of worship, in the time of Isaiah, that God told the people that the ‘worship’ they offered outwardly was contradicted by the attitude of their hearts inwardly. Far from being the ‘sweet smelling aroma’ of praise God intended it to be, it was a stench in his nostrils. God is not fooled by false worship, nor is he indifferent to it.
It is noteworthy that Isaiah himself knew something of what this was like in his own personal experience of God. He describes it in what is undoubtedly the defining chapter of his prophecy.
It relates to a particular experience he had in the temple – quite possibly in the context of worship. Isaiah was no stranger to the temple, or to the worship offered there. But what happened on this occasion was nothing less than a profound encounter with God in all his greatness. Its significance embedded itself on this man’s heart in a way that was to alter the entire course of his life and ministry. It was the fact that there, on that day, he was brought face to face with the majesty of God.
It came in the form of a vision. The fact that its backdrop was the temple is significant. Everything about that building was designed to point away from itself to the heavenly reality it represented (He 9.24). But in this supernatural encounter granted to Isaiah, the reality burst in upon his consciousness in a way he had never known before.
It is impossible to imagine what that must have been like. But if we think of someone who had grown up with a picture of the Philadelphia Eagles on their wall, but then got to meet the team in person is perhaps a pale reflection of it.
As never before Isaiah was gripped by the awesomeness of God – ‘upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple’ (Isa 6.1).
Read More