A Step Up, but Not a Step Forward: Thoughts on the PCA Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality

Being a Christian same-sex attracted man who submits to what is often called the traditional sexual ethic (that sex should be reserved for marriage between one man and one woman for life, and that celibacy is equally valid and beautiful), I have often found the conversation about faith and sexuality in theologically conservative denominations like the PCA to be a bit of a roller-coaster ride. Safety and support for sexual minorities varies widely from church to church (indeed, varies even within in each church), and it seems every few months there is another statement about sexuality, sexual ethics, sexual minorities, sexual identity language, etc. which calls for engagement. Whether or not the statements themselves are solid is always up for debate, but the debate itself is invariably painful.

The PCA’s Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality was one such statement which has affected me greatly, as an MDiv student at Covenant Theological Seminary (PCA). I hope that by offering my own thoughts and engaging in a public way, I might further the conversation about the report, not only in regards to the theology it presents, but also in how it might practically affect sexual minorities on the ground. I must say, while the report is unequivocally a step up from the Nashville Statement, I hesitate to say it constitutes a step forward for the PCA. I am concerned especially about some points of language regarding 1) the conflation of “same-sex attraction,” “same-sex sexual attraction,” and “being gay” 2) the possibility of, and hope for, orientation change, and 3) the use, and consequences for the use, of sexual identity language.

Attraction and Sexual Attraction

As is unfortunately typical for much of the conversation about faith and sexuality, the report unintentionally conflates the categories of same-sex attraction and same-sex sexual attraction (as well as reduces “being gay” to experiencing same-sex sexual attraction), confusing conflations which allow for much misunderstanding. An especially clear case of this:

At the very least, the term [“gay Christian”] normally communicates the presence and approval of same-sex sexual attraction as morally neutral or morally praiseworthy. Even if “gay,” for some Christians, simply means “same-sex attraction,” it is still inappropriate to juxtapose this sinful desire, or any other sinful desire, as an identity marker alongside our identity as new creations in Christ (p. 12:6–10, italics mine).

Notice all the words that seem to be interchangeable above: “same-sex sexual attraction,” “same-sex attraction,” and “gay,” importantly, but also “attraction” and “desire”. The conflations continue throughout, as in:

Where we have mistreated those who struggle with same-sex attraction, or with any other sinful desires, we call ourselves to repentance (p. 12:37–39, italics mine).

There is a very important sense in which pastoral care for Christians experiencing attraction to the same sex is, at an essential level, the same as for any other believer who is struggling with sin in our fallen world (p. 24:14–16, italics mine).

Because the experience of sexual minorities is such that we are not only sexually attracted to the same sex, but are also relationally attracted to the same sex in many morally neutral or even good ways (emotionally, aesthetically, physically-but-non-sexually, etc.), this imprecision is imprudent. Additionally, words like “gay” have a cultural dimension — expressing a connection to the culture created by a broader community of sexual minorities that demands nuanced engagement, not categorical dismissal — which is not adequately addressed in the report.

The conflation of these categories might very well be used to guide sexual minorities to mortify morally neutral or good attraction and desire for the same sex that may be properly fulfilled in friendship, as well as morally neutral or good cultural identification with “gay culture”. (For more on this last point, I would suggest the breakout session I gave at the 2019 Revoice Conference on Queer culture, missiology, and contextualization.)

Orientation Change

Other phrases in the report seem to hold space for ex-gay theology (a sexual prosperity gospel), opening the door for a kind of lifelong orientation change effort for sexual minorities, with heterosexuality as the goal. For example:

The aim of sanctification in one’s sexual life cannot be reduced to attraction to persons of the opposite sex (though some persons may experience movement in this direction), but rather involves growing in grace and perfecting holiness in the fear of God (p. 10:29–31, italics mine).

There is the claim that sanctification in one’s sexual life cannot be reduced to opposite-sex attraction, and for this I am grateful. But unfortunately, the language is ambiguous enough that sanctification might still be understood to necessarily include growth in opposite-sex attraction. The report goes on to claim that this change in same-sex attraction is important for sexual minorities to be open to, hope for, and pursue, even if it does not come:

Someone with homosexual attraction ought not close himself or herself off to the pursuit of, and hope of, real change in those attractions, even if that change is incomplete and mixed (p. 22:38–40, italics mine).

One might make the case that the word “change” here is meant only to refer to a reduction in same-sex sexual desires; the report does come out against explicit ex-gay theology (and again, I am grateful). But the language is again ambiguous, and identifies sanctification with growth in opposite-sex attraction. Consider this passage that appears later:

The error of some Christian approaches to same-sex sexual desire has been to tie faithfulness to the elimination of homosexual temptation (or even the development of heterosexual desire) as though if Christians really did enough therapy, had enough faith, or repented sufficiently, God would deliver them in some final and complete way, changing their orientation. This perspective reflects a sort of over-realized eschatology — a view that what we will be finally and fully in the new creation will be realized in that way in the present life (p. 25:11–16, italics mine).

Intentionally or not, this identifies deliverance with heterosexuality, and communicates that the eschatological redeemed humanity will be characterized by opposite-sex attraction. Although the report claims “the telos of sanctification” should be understood as “Christlikeness, not heterosexuality (p. 25:43–26:1, italics mine), the above passage implies that the glorified state is a heterosexual one — as though experiencing such attraction outside of marriage were not also an example of concupiscence and therefore “truly and properly sin” and “something to be rejected and mortified,” as the report later makes clear:

Any time Christians experience sexual attraction whose fulfillment would be sin, they should recognize such attraction as something to be rejected and mortified. This is true for all believers, regardless of whether those attractions are to the same sex or the opposite sex (p. 27:32–35).

Jesus makes clear that in the resurrection, human beings “neither marry nor are given in marriage,” which suggests that human marriage will be done away with entirely (cf. Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30). This means homosexuality, as well as heterosexuality, will not be our eschatological reality, and growth in opposite-sex sexual attraction does not constitute a movement toward our future glorious state. Therefore, expectations of orientation change from homosexual to heterosexual do not represent an over-realized eschatology, but a critically flawed one.

Sexual Identity Language

The report also contains serious ambiguities regarding sexual identity language and the potential consequences for its use, which may affect membership and ordination for sexual minorities. For example:

Churches should be gentle, patient, and intentional with believers who call themselves “gay Christians,” encouraging them, as part of the process of sanctification, to leave behind identification language rooted in sinful desires, to live chaste lives, to refrain from entering into temptation, and to mortify their sinful desires (p. 12:15–19, italics mine).

The assumption is that sanctification for the believer will necessarily include dropping sexual identity language, and implies that using such language is evidence of spiritual immaturity.

The report helpfully mentions that the word “gay” (which stubbornly remains in the center of these debates) cannot always be reduced to sexual attraction, in a three-part discussion of biblical identity (ontological, phenomenological, and teleological, p. 26–27). However, it must be noted that, perhaps surprisingly and contrary to the claims of the report, “gay” does not even necessarily denote sexual attraction: my asexual friends (with no sexual attraction) still identify as “gay” to indicate that they are primarily relationally drawn to the same sex in a way they are not drawn to the opposite sex. I myself tend to think of the word “gay” as referring just as much to a relationality or sensibility (which means it may have ontological, phenomenological, and teleological components). Suffice it to say, an examination of the benefits and drawbacks of the use of sexual identity language requires more nuance than the report provides.

Even when the report seems to attempt to claim that use of such language should not result in discipline, ambiguity abounds:

In practical and plain terms, the issue of terminology is more likely a matter for shepherding in wisdom, and not in and of itself grounds for discipline (p. 30:37–39, italics mine).

There is quite a difference between saying sexual identity language is more likely a matter of wisdom (allowing that it may yet be more than a matter of wisdom) and saying it is just a matter of wisdom. There is a substantial difference between saying the use of sexual identity language is not in and of itself grounds for discipline (allowing that it might be grounds for discipline in certain circumstances) and saying it is simply not grounds for discipline.

Along with the suggestion that sexual minorities may be made so by sexual abuse (as in, “…the presence of same-sex attraction is often owing to many factors, which always include our own sin nature and may include being sinned against in the past,” p. 9:2–4), all the elements of ex-gay theology can be found in the report, albeit in a subtler form.

…

To conclude: in PCA churches which are already sympathetic and safe for sexual minorities, the report may not pose any significant issues. But in churches which are unsympathetic and unsafe, sexual minorities may be directed to mortify positive aspects of their relationality or culture, or to consider orientation change a necessary part of the rubric for evaluating their own spiritual growth. Additionally, the use of sexual identity language and unwillingness to pursue growth in opposite-sex attraction may be considered as indicative of spiritual immaturity, and membership or ordination may be denied on those grounds. The emotional, physical, and spiritual health of sexual minorities in those spaces may be seriously compromised.

I long for the PCA to become a denomination in which sexual minorities can not just survive, but thrive as full members of the body of Christ. I hope that these points will be addressed before the PCA votes on whether or not to approve of the report at the next General Assembly.