The question, in the end, comes down to whether homosexual temptation is more powerful than Christ or whether Christ is more powerful than homosexual temptation. As Savior, Christ is mightier than our internal temptations. Therefore, if we counsel same-sex attracted people into believing that they may never be rid of homosexual temptation in this life, we have diminished the power of the Cross.

With the rising influence of Christian organizations in America that exist to cater to “sexual minorities” in the church, there has been much confusion among reformed evangelicals regarding temptation and desire, specifically as it relates to same-sex attraction. Confessional Presbyterian denominations are not exempt. The Presbyterian Church in America, at present, is on a collision course with Revoice theology and is inundated with debates surrounding homosexual identity and whether men who profess to be “same-sex attracted” can be admitted to ordained office.
Pastor Tom Buck, one of the framers of the Social Justice and Gospel Statement, has said that Living Out, founded by Sam Allberry, is “more dangerous than Revoice.” Even so, the OPC Committee on Christian Education has recommended Sam Allberry’s book Is God Anti-Gay? as a “[S]ound, uncompromising and winsome guide to give someone who struggles with the issue of homosexuality theoretically, or someone who struggles with same-sex attraction personally…” No doubt there is wide disagreement on the topic of sexual ethics within reformed evangelicalism.
The PCA’s Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality, authored by Kevin DeYoung, Bryan Chapell, et al. is still perhaps the most rigorous, clarifying, and helpful resource dealing with these issues from a biblical, Reformed theological, and confessional standpoint. However, the average layperson (and most elders) won’t be sitting down to read sixty pages written by a Presbyterian committee.
Advertisement
Therefore, as one who has served in the Australian PCA, American PCA, OPC, and now the ARPC, I have put together answers to six of the most frequent questions I tend to get from laity in Presbyterian circles who, as it pertains to same-sex attraction, genuinely have queries about the meaning of temptation, desire, sin, etc., and are also interested in learning a tad bit from the Reformed faith on these issues. Of course, there are numerous other interrelated points and clarifications that could also be addressed here, but the intention and aim of this piece is conciseness. To that end, I hope it is useful.
How can temptation be sinful when Jesus himself was tempted?
It depends on what is meant by “temptation.” Reformed theology has always maintained that temptation has a legitimate internal/external distinction. Internal temptation, which is the desire to sin, arises from the corruption of nature and is, therefore, inherently sinful (James 1:14). On the other hand, external temptation, so long as it remains external, is not inherently sinful (James 1:2).
In Hebrews 4:15, when it says Jesus was “tempted as we are, yet without sin,” it is highlighting the reality that he was never tempted internally with first motions drawn from a sin nature, despite the realities of his full humanity (e.g.s., hungering, thirsting, etc.). In other words, Jesus’ temptations were entirely external as he was not born in original sin. We, on the other hand, are born in sin (Psalm 51:5). Therefore, if we claim that our internal temptations to sin are not sinful, we can deceive ourselves (1 John 1:8).
Does Reformed theology draw an internal/external distinction as it relates to sin?
It does. Westminster Confession 6.5, for instance, states the following: “This corruption of nature, during this life, doth 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.”
N.B., that the corruption of nature is itself sin and all the motions of this corruption are sin. As Christians, we are called not only to mortify the motions of our corruption but also the nature of our corruption. On the one side, the corruption of nature includes all internal inclinations to sin (James 1:14), whether through thought, impulse, temptation, attraction, affection, or desire. On the other side, the external motions of that corruption include all sin deeds committed outwardly (James 1:15), arising from inward sinfulness.
In addition, Herman Bavinck, in his Reformed Ethics, provides this helpful comment on Institutes 3.3.10:
Advertisement
Calvin articulates the Reformed position well: ‘But between Augustine and us we can see that there is this difference of opinion: while he concedes that believers, as long as they dwell in mortal bodies, are so bound by inordinate desires (concupiscentiis) that they are unable not to desire inordinately, yet he dare not call this disease ‘sin.’ Content to designate it with the term ‘weakness,’ he teaches that it becomes sin only when either act or consent follows the conceiving or apprehension of it, that is, when the will yields to the first strong inclination. We, on the other hand, deem it sin when a man is tickled by any desire at all against the law of God. Indeed, we label ‘sin’ that very depravity which begets in us desires of this sort.’
Briefly, what does the PCA Report on Human Sexuality say about desire and temptation?
The Report, which aptly comports with the Confession’s teaching on this matter, states the following:
We affirm that impure thoughts and desires arising in us prior to and apart from a conscious act of the will are still sin. We reject the Roman Catholic understanding of concupiscence whereby disordered desires that afflict us due to the Fall do not become sin without a consenting act of the will. These desires within us are not mere weaknesses or inclinations to sin but are themselves idolatrous and sinful. (p. 8)
The Report’s statement on temptation is helpful also. It describes internal temptations as “morally illicit desires” and external temptations as “morally neutral trials” (p. 9). The entire Report, which I highly commend, can be read here.
Isn’t “heterosexual desire” and “homosexual desire” essentially the same thing?
The short answer is no. Heterosexual desire can be and must be rightly directed, otherwise it is sin. Homosexual desire, on the other hand, cannot ever be rightly directed and is, therefore, always sinful. Thus, it’s not a 1:1 ratio. The former is a sin against God’s moral order (Matt. 5:28), while the latter is a sin against both God’s moral and natural orders (Jude 1:7). Other sexual desires that go against God’s natural order would include pedophilic desire, bestial desire, and incestuous desire (Exo. 22:19; Lev. 18:6; Deut. 27:21).
But isn’t all sin equal in God’s sight?
All sin, no doubt, is deserving of eternal punishment for the mere fact that sin is itself a transgression of God’s law. However, not all sin is “equal.” In fact, Larger Catechism 150 states the following:

Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?
All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous, but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

Furthermore, according to Larger Catechism 151, one aggravation that makes a sin more heinous than others is if it’s “against the light of nature.” The prooftext offered is Romans 1:26-27:
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Should we tell Christians who experience homosexual temptation that they won’t be rid of it in this life?
Despite our many advances in sanctification, there will always be an enormous abyss between our holiness now and our holiness in glory. However, death is not the alpha point of transformative holiness in Christ. Transformation begins at regeneration (Titus 3:5) and progressively continues through the sanctifying power of the Spirit in time and space (Gal. 5:16; Phil. 1:6) — even to the degree that particular internal temptations can be overcome in this life.
Jesus is in the business of redeeming the whole person from the debilitation of sin. As our Sanctifier, he progressively conforms us to his image not just by reorienting our external acts but also our internal thoughts, impulses, predispositions, temptations, attractions, affections, desires, longings, hopes, and faith.
The question, in the end, comes down to whether homosexual temptation is more powerful than Christ or whether Christ is more powerful than homosexual temptation. As Savior, Christ is mightier than our internal temptations. Therefore, if we counsel same-sex attracted people into believing that they may never be rid of homosexual temptation in this life, we have diminished the power of the Cross.
Andrew George is a Minister in the Associate Presbyterian Church (ARP). This article is used with permission.

The five major characters of “All Creatures” are each a finely-honed individual. None of them are perfect; all of them have flaws; they all fight realistic battles. Though the show is not a Christian show in explicit form, it overlaps significantly with a Christian vision of life in a fallen world. In fact, I think “All Creatures” presents this vision more honestly than Christians sometimes do.

The updated PBS Masterpiece show “All Creatures Great and Small” is the best show on television. I know some of you out there agree. That’s not to pigeonhole you; “All Creatures” may be produced by Masterpiece, but it has fans from across the demographic spectrum. It’s not solely for older types; it’s not merely for families; it’s not only for Anglophiles. It’s for everyone, and it has an audience to match.
“All Creatures” is popular because, in the simplest terms, it is a beautifully made show. (You can buy whole seasons here.) The pacing is measured. The cinematography is lovely. The script doesn’t waste a word. The music is first-rate, and a good bit better than a normal score for a TV show. The plots are compelling, but not uncontained, so the younger family members can stay in the room. The scenes of care for animals remind us that every creature is God-made, no matter how tiny or ordinary.
This last point is important. “All Creatures” is, at base, a study in enchanted realism. It portrays the difficulties of real life, that is, but with hope, humor, an eye to beauty, and a sense of the grandeur of the ordinary. It shows us that the “big life” is bound up with the small things, not what is flashy or exciting (most days).
Beyond this, there are two strengths of “All Creatures” that stand out to me. In what follows, I will unfold them, making reference to ministry and the Christian life as I go.
First, the Beauty of Care as a Craft
“All Creatures” is, at base, a study of craft—the craft of animal care. The practitioners are Siegfried Farnon, James Herriott, and Tristan Farnon. To varying degrees of experience, these men care for creatures with kindness, subtlety, and personal investment. They dress like gentlemen; they carry themselves with dignity; yet they readily put on their high boots, wade into mud, and help birth a young calf after many hours of exhausting effort.
These veterinarians have a craft of care. In this way, they remind me of pastors—at least, pastors as they are called to be. Siegried and James in particular bring a balance of technical knowledge, informed wisdom, a gentle touch, and a firm backbone to their vocation. They do not help animals to draw a paycheck. They genuinely love helping animals, and so they approach their daily work as if it is a privilege to do.
This mindset speaks in a profound way to the character of a congregational shepherd. Pastors should not be men who merely like to preach on Sunday morning, and make all the big decisions, and get thanked by church members. Pastors should exercise a craft of care. They should genuinely like the work of shepherding souls. If they don’t, they should leave the ministry, finding a job that better suits them.
That sobering word aside, we need a recovery of the pastoral vocation today. We need men who, in serving as elders, apply technical knowledge, informed wisdom, a gentle touch, and a firm backbone to their task. We need men to see the work of shepherding not as a job, but as a craft. The pastoral vocation is invested with great dignity and great importance. We need men who tenderly care for the sheep, and men who guard the flock.
I’ll say one final word here. It is particularly rich to watch Siegfried do his work. He is excellent at his job. He sets a high bar for his associates. He attacks his duties with alacrity. He pursues excellence in all that he does. Yet when it comes time to handle a troubled animal, jittery and jumpy, he slows things down. He quietly soothes the frightened creature, relaxing it until he can administer the care it needs.
This too is a crucial part of pastoral work. Pastors must be those who calm the sheep, enabling them to recover calmness and, in due course, a God-centered perspective on their trials. Beyond pastoring, tenderness is what men must minister throughout their life. As husbands, we must listen well to our wives, offering understanding in troubled situations. As fathers, we must draw near to our children, holding them in our arms, hearing them out, calming them in love. The world is cold, but our embrace is warm.
We need men who are tough, to be sure. But in equal measure, we need men who are tender. There is no daylight between these two essential qualities of men; we follow the Savior, after all, who perfectly blended and embodied them (Matthew 18:2-5; John 2:13-17). It is his strength, and equally his tender love, that will soon heal the world, leaving it so restored, so reconstituted, so eschatologically perfect that no one will be able to un-heal it.
Second, the Beauty of Relational Perseverance
There is a second major strength that I find in “All Creatures”: its portrait of persevering commitment. The characters in the show each have their faults, challenges, struggles, and sins. There are various plot devices and twists in each episode, but navigating the fallen humanity of each character makes up the central drama of the show.
In my needfully humble judgment, this is what makes “All Creatures” the best show on television.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Specific strengths I appreciate about the book: Clary explains how men and women flourish when they live according to God’s good design. This is insightful: “Men are prone to certain vices that are curbed by social relations with women. … Women have the power to help men become the best version of themselves. … Women have a different power than men. A woman’s presence can catalyze male virtue and direct his masculine strength toward her desires. Put simply, masculine virtue can flourish under feminine influence because masculine strength was given for the protection and provision of a woman. Men tend to be at their best when their masculine energy, strength, and independence is channeled for the benefit of the women (and children) who are depending on them” (pp. 227–28).

The author of a new book on human sexuality knows what time it is in our culture. Michael Clary, lead pastor of Christ the King Church in Cincinnati, Ohio, is the author of God’s Good Design: A Biblical, Theological, and Practical Guide to Human Sexuality (Ann Arbor, MI: Reformation Zion, 2023).
Clary’s Thesis
Clary’s thesis is that God’s design for sex is true, good, and beautiful. Embracing God’s design should delight you, not frighten you.
What is actually frightening is how the world has twisted God’s design by means of Gnosticism (which undergirds the modern idea that a person’s sex and gender may be different), feminism and androgyny (which pressure women to try to act like men), contraception (which encourages casual sex by separating marriage, sex, and childbearing), so-called gay marriage (which reduces marriage to a legal sex contract), and transgenderism (which is the offspring of feminism that is now devouring its mother). “The sexual revolution is like a runaway train that has no breaks” (p. 17). Next up: pedophilia, polygamy, polyamory, and bestiality.
Clary’s Argument
Clary develops his thesis in eleven chapters:
1. The human household is a copy of the cosmic household of God the Father. God reveals himself in Scripture as masculine: “The Bible never describes God’s being with feminine language. God may do things that seem more feminine, but God’s being is never described that way” (p. 34, italics original). “Headship is masculine,” and it’s good for both men and women (p. 38).
2. God beautifully designed men to have male bodies with masculine souls and a masculine nature, and he beautifully designed women to have female bodies with feminine souls and a feminine nature. A woman is a potential mother—physically and expressed in other ways.
3. Stereotypes recognize patterns, and it is wise to recognize that men and women are different. Men are better equipped to lead and provide and protect, and women are better equipped to help and nurture and refine. That doesn’t mean that men don’t help or nurture or refine or that women don’t lead or provide or protect. It simply recognizes that men are better at structuring society and that women are better at domesticating and beautifying. It’s in their DNA. For example, a woman’s “entire body is designed for and oriented towards reproduction. Her brain, hormones, joints, bones, cardiovascular system, immune system, breasts, and reproductive organs are all designed for the bearing and nurturing of children” (pp. 74–75).
4. Modern industrial households are very different from older agrarian ones. In Bible times, a household consisted of several generations living together who worked together within a community. A husband and wife worked as a team with the man tending toward outward “forming” tasks (like subduing the earth) and the woman tending toward inward “filling” tasks (like child-bearing and managing a household, which was no small job). Men can relate to others in the household in four ways—as sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers. And women can relate as daughters, sisters, wives, and mothers.
5. The way men and women sin and express virtue are not identical. Men sin and express virtue as men, and women sin and express virtue as women. The world (and even some Christians) encourages men to behave in more characteristically feminine ways and encourages women to behave in more characteristically masculine ways. “For example, strong-willed, independent, truth-oriented, and direct-speaking men are often considered arrogant, whereas passive, compliant, and egalitarian men are considered more Christlike” (p. 107). Masculine virtue includes courage, and feminine virtue includes giving life. Masculine vice includes exaggerating masculinity (e.g., using strength to oppress others) and diminishing masculinity (e.g., failing to use strength properly and instead being passive and effeminate). Feminine vice includes exaggerating femininity (e.g., using sexual desirability to manipulate men, immodesty, playing the victim) and diminishing femininity (e.g., grasping for power, lesbianism).
6. Pursuing a common mission is what holds a household together and makes it productive. People in the industrial world typically think of work as something you do away from home, which is a place to retreat and relax. Before the industrial revolution, the household and work were inseparable. We shouldn’t idealize the past as if the Amish way is the godly way, but “it is arrogant to regard the modern world as more advanced, liberated, and enlightened than previous generations” (p. 148).
7. Fathers are critically important to the health of a home. According to modern sociological studies, “The single biggest indicator of adult success is growing up with an intact family” (p. 166). A boy becomes a father by maturing in strength, leadership, courage, and wisdom and by marrying a virtuous woman who will help him accomplish his mission.
8. Our culture conditions us to devalue motherhood and to more highly value a woman who pursues a successful career outside the home. Feminists “asserted that the key to overturning the oppressive family structure was to dismantle marriage, separate sex from procreation, and promote sex as recreation” (p. 194). But nature is a stubborn thing. God designed women to instinctively want to be a mother—physically and metaphorically. That’s why struggles with infertility can be so crushing for a woman. Homemaking is a list of chores that you can outsource, but mothering requires a mother’s nurturing presence. A woman may work outside the home, but home should be her primary domain.
Read More
Related Posts: