There is a position that when a man makes it public that he has homosexual desires to have sexual relations with other men, and he practices celibacy because he believes that change is possible (although unlikely), and because he mortifies this sin every day, and because he is of good character in every other way, then he is qualified to hold office in the PCA.

I recently contributed an article about the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) decision on the complaint against Missouri Presbytery (The Recent SJC Decision and Side B2 Homosexuality).  I believe I muddied the waters somewhat by stating the positions of others when some readers thought that those were actually my views. I apologize for that.
It’s time to be perfectly clear.  There are three positions on the status of those men who have made it public that are same-sex attracted (SSA),  that is, have homosexual desires to have sex with other men, but practice celibacy. Should they be allowed to hold an office in the PCA?
First, there is the position that when a man makes it public that he has homosexual desires to have sexual relations with other men, this automatically disqualifies him from holding office in the PCA.  Even though he practices celibacy, he is not qualified for the office of either elder or deacon. This sin is both an abomination to God and contrary to nature; therefore, he is not above reproach either with those inside the church or those outside the church.  Many of those who take this position regarding the ineligibility of such men to hold office in the PCA have already left the PCA, except for me and maybe a few other people.
Secondly, there is a position that when a man makes it public that he has homosexual desires to have sexual relations with other men, and yet he practices celibacy, this may disqualify him from holding office in the PCA.  If he remains celibate, but he believes that he was born this way and that there is no hope of change, then he is not qualified to hold office in the PCA.  These men most often believe their sin is no different than any other sin; for example, that of the lust that men have for women not their wives, a dry alcoholic, or the temptation to gamble. They may even believe that their condition is just like a person with a genetic disease.  A person with Down’s Syndrome cannot change his genetic inheritance, and neither can he.
Thirdly, there is a position that when a man makes it public that he has homosexual desires to have sexual relations with other men, and he practices celibacy because he believes that change is possible (although unlikely), and because he mortifies this sin every day, and because he is of good character in every other way, then he is qualified to hold office in the PCA (this is contrary to my view, but it is the position of most PCA elders).  Some of these men already hold office in the PCA, and they will continue to do so.  They are in good standing with either their own session or their own presbytery. Others like them will soon find a home in the PCA.  I call this man the third man.
The proposed changes to the BCO would allow for the third man to hold office in the PCA, after careful examination by his session or presbytery.  The PCA Study Committee on Human Sexuality states that there is nothing to prevent the third man from being eligible to hold office in the PCA. The recent Standing Judicial Commission decision made it legal for the third man to hold office in Missouri Presbytery.
There you have it. Pretty straight, I hope.  I would add one more thought.  The PCA is a little like the South during the Civil War which believed in states’ rights.  All local presbyteries and sessions have the right to determine their own membership. Regardless of the result of the proposed changes to the BCO, the conclusion of the PCA Study Committee, and the SJC decision, individual sessions and presbyteries will continue to apply the teaching of the Word of God and Westminster Standards to these issues, as they see fit!
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.

To be a Christian and to hold to Christian conviction about what is true about the nature and person of Jesus Christ, about human nature, and about the place of Christian conviction in the public square is to be more than out of step with the larger culture. It’s to be potentially at risk to some degree, something that Christians have faced since the beginning of the Church. It may very well be that we, too, will be forced to choose between our wellbeing in some sense and our convictions. 

Leaders of the early Church, both the Apostles and their disciples, wrote letters to churches facing difficult challenges. These epistles were to encourage and instruct, shoring up new believers against internal conflicts or creeping heresies and increasing persecution. 
I think of these letters whenever I think about what Jack Phillips has faced for over a decade now. After being harassed, mistreated, and maligned by Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission for not baking a cake for a same-sex wedding at a time when same-sex marriages did not exist in the state, Jack’s been targeted for harassment by a Denver lawyer for refusing to bake a cake celebrating gender confusion. Fearful that they would, once again, be smacked down by the Supreme Court for how they treated Jack, the state of Colorado had initially dropped their second case against Jack, based on a complaint filed by a man who presents as a woman. Early on, the transgender activist stated that he would not stop harassing Jack until either his (Jack’s) beliefs changed or Masterpiece Cakeshop was put out of business.  
A Colorado judge then allowed a civil case to proceed and, last week, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled against Jack Phillips and for the Denver lawyer, claiming that designing a cake to celebrate so-called gender change does not constitute speech. Jack, still represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, will appeal, and the case is likely headed back to the Supreme Court. 
To be a Christian and to hold to Christian conviction about what is true about the nature and person of Jesus Christ, about human nature, and about the place of Christian conviction in the public square is to be more than out of step with the larger culture. It’s to be potentially at risk to some degree, something that Christians have faced since the beginning of the Church. 
Read More
Related Posts:

If Jesus death hasn’t paid for anybody’s sin then his death was ultimately pointless. He is a failed saviour who was unable to save any of his people. When he said ‘it is finished’ on the cross, he may as well have said ‘I am finished’. Fortunately, the Bible tells us clearly enough that Jesus’ death has actually redeemed a people. Revelation 5:9-10 says Jesus’ blood has actually ransomed people from every tribe, tongue and nation. 1 John 2:2 tells us that Jesus’ death has actually paid for the sins of the whole world. ‘Whole world’ cannot mean every single person in the world regardless of repentance or belief in Jesus, not least as John himself has ruled that out. John’s usual use of ‘world’ tends to mean something like ‘all kinds of people’, Jews and every kind of Gentile. 

Of all the Five Points of Calvinism, none cause quite as much upset as Limited Atonement. It’s not the most helpfully named thing, which is aimed at saying the scope of the atonement is limited to the elect rather than all people in general, but it sounds like its saying its effects are limited which is why some prefer Particular Redemption or Definite Atonement. The doctrine is ultimately driving at the idea that Jesus died for particular people, as opposed to all people in general (particular redemption), and that the people Jesus intends to save are actually saved by his death on the cross (definite atonement) rather than just potentially saved by his death and then only actually saved upon their belief.
The issue concerning Limited Atonement is brought into sharp focus when we ask two simple questions: (1) did Jesus’ death actually pay for anybody’s sin; and, (2) did Jesus death actually save anyone? There are only three possible answers to these questions:

Jesus’ death paid for everybody’s sin and therefore saves everyone
Jesus’ death paid for nobody’s sin and therefore saves no one
Jesus’ death paid for particular people’s sin and therefore saves those particular people

Those who affirm option one fall for the heterodox doctrine of universalism. If Jesus has paid for everybody’s sin, God has nothing to hold against anybody; there is no further price to be paid and there is no condemnation for anybody. History’s greatest wrong’uns are all heading straight for Heaven on such a view. But the fact is, Jesus did not speak about the ‘outer darkness’ on the basis that nobody is going there. Matthew 8:11-12 fairly clearly rules out any possibility that everyone is saved and there are many other bible passages that make the matter clear. Jesus death did not pay for everybody’s sin and evidently all are not saved.
Option 2 is not a great deal better. If Jesus death hasn’t paid for anybody’s sin then his death was ultimately pointless. He is a failed saviour who was unable to save any of his people. When he said ‘it is finished’ on the cross, he may as well have said ‘I am finished’. Fortunately, the Bible tells us clearly enough that Jesus’ death has actually redeemed a people. Revelation 5:9-10 says Jesus’ blood has actually ransomed people from every tribe, tongue and nation. 1 John 2:2 tells us that Jesus’ death has actually paid for the sins of the whole world. Unless we want to fall back onto option one and argue everybody is saved, ‘whole world’ cannot mean every single person in the world regardless of repentance or belief in Jesus, not least as John himself has ruled that out.
Read More
Related Posts: