PCC - Body, Mind and Soul - Study Guide on Human Sexuality: a Critique and an Invitation

The following was originally posted in 2016.   Though outdated, I believe it remains relevant.  

Someone recently brought to my attention developments in the Presbyterian Church of Canada (PCC).  As that denomination heads into its 2016 General Assembly they have decided that this will "be a year of study and prayer regarding human sexuality" [see the Moderators letter here and the follow up here].  In anticipation of the discussion and decisions to be made at the Assembly congregations have been asked to study together a document titled Body, Mind and soul - Study Guide on Human Sexuality. 

I have read through the document and found nothing that surprised me.  The authors of this document are simply repeating arguments already made [Brownson, for example, is quoted often].  Nonetheless, I would like to offer a brief critique of their work followed by an invitation to believers in the PCC.  


Critique

Rather than present an exhaustive review, I have decided instead to offer a critique of some of what I read in the document.  Other men have dealt thoroughly with the subject of same-sex orientation and marriage.  At the close of this section I will recommend further reading for those who would like a more robust answer to the scholarship of men like Brownson.

A. First, the Listening Circles Group Guidelines.  I found this section odd.  It is odd, of course, because it is a-biblical.  Consider the following.  First, group members are encouraged to author their story because the world needs to hear it.  On the contrary, the Bible maintains that our boast is in the cross of Jesus (Galatians 6:14).  Our message is Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2), and so we preach not ourselves (2 Corinthians 4:5).  

Furthermore members are told not to fix; not to right wrongs.  Certainly in those efforts we should be called to gentleness and humility, but notice how opposite the spirit of their approach is to the Word of God.  God urges us not to hate our neighbour but to love him (Leviticus 19:17-18).  This love is then defined like this: "thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him."   In other words, right the wrong.  As the Proverb says "Better is open rebuke than hidden love (27:5)." 

Worse, members are told to suspend judgment.  While I would agree that we must be careful of condemnation, and while we must be sure that our judgments are fair judgments, to suspend judgment is to stop thinking.  How do you do that?  Perhaps the authors simply mean that we should wait until we have all the information before reaching a conclusion.  Ordinarily this is a sound and biblical approach to interpersonal matters.  When accusations are made, for example, it is wise to gather facts before rushing to judgment (John 7:51).  But on matters of truth and when God has spoken so very plainly suspending judgment is akin to suspending obedience.  

Finally, members are urged to love the questions themselves.  They are to "Trust the questions to guide you toward loving first what you do not altogether understand."  The authors of this document are driven, then, by necessity to reference a poet.  Why?  Because the Bible offers another kind of advice.   It is the truth - the answer (!), in other words - that will set you free (John 8:32).  The Church is not described as a place where people gather to love what they do not understand.  It is called the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

B. Second, much is said about the need for prayer. I am always encouraging the congregation at Faith Presbyterian Church to pray, but there are occasions when prayer is neither commendable nor acceptable.  Joshua was once found praying, and God came to him with a question: "And the LORD said unto Joshua, Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face?  Israel hath sinned... (Joshua 7:10-11)."  There was sin in the camp that needed attention.  In other words, this was no time for prayer.  It was a time rather for repentance.  We don't need to ask guidance when God has made His will known.  It is stubbornness and rebellion that leads a man to get down on his knees when God has told him to act.  Though I love to see my children pray, I would not be pleased to find them asking God's advice on the matter when I have told them to clean their rooms.  There is no need to ask God's advice when God has already spoken.  We do not honour when we ask Him to reveal His mind and will on the matter of homosexuality when He has already done so.

C.  Third, the document speaks of "Minding the Gap".  Here it is admitted that there is a gap between the when and where of the Bible and the when and where of the culture in which we find ourselves. Cultural norms have shifted, the language has changed and a great deal is different about the time in which we live.  All of this is true; which is why it is important to understand the reason the reformers insisted so adamantly that the Scripture is our only and sufficient rule of doctrine and practice.  Their rationale was simple: God wrote it.  God is eternal and unchanging.  God is all knowing and all wise.  When He gave us the Bible He knew what He was doing.  If we believe the Bible we are not surprised by shifting norms and standards in society.  God predicted it.  It is His standard that does not change.  So if there is a gap - which I believe there is - it doesn't need minding.   

D. Fourth, Historical Context.  The authors write, "we all read the Bible based on who we are and what our place in the world is. For example, an Aboriginal Canadian living in a rural part of the country will read the Bible differently than a business person living in a condo in an urban centre. A single mother or father may interpret the Bible differently than a senior who never had children. A Christian living in 1880 would have read the Bible differently than a Christian in 1980 or one living in 2015. How we understand the Bible includes educational, economic, cultural and social factors."

Though this section didn't surprise it was deeply disturbing.  Our forefathers believed in the perspicuity of Scripture.  They believed it could be understood (2 Timothy 3:15), and nowhere did they suggest (nor does the Bible suggest) that understanding will be informed by historical context.  If there is bias in reading the Bible it is sinful not normative.  The irony of the claims in this section is that they fail to recognize the church's consensus over generations.  Through reading the Bible in a variety of contexts and in a variety of generations believing men have largely reached the same conclusions.  What a hopeless perspective on the Bible to imagine it will always be read through a cultural lens; and to suppose that bias cannot help but inform our understanding.  Its hopeless, but happily it isn't true.  History proves otherwise and the Scripture itself insists otherwise.  

E. Fifth, in the section titled 'Historical Context' the document speaks of shifting gender roles.  According to the authors "It goes without saying that gender roles in society shift over time."  I would simply offer that if Scripture is the standard then those roles needn't change.  They have changed and may, indeed, continue to change as a consequence of sin.  These changes, however, need not reflect on the Bible.  God has spoken on the matter of gender roles.  What a given culture thinks is irrelevant.

F. Sixth, in a section on The Texture and Movement of Scripture the authors actually suggest that Scripture truly (not apparently) contradicts itself at times.  How do they possibly hold to the inspiration of Scripture if Scripture can contradict itself?  Either God is its author or He is not.  God does not contradict Himself.  Here more than anywhere else the authors of this document betray themselves.  Throughout this study guide they claim to be driven by a concern to be faithful to the Bible.  They are - or so they claim - not merely following the dictates of the contemporary world.  They insist, rather, that they see themselves under the authority of the Bible.  The fact is men do contradict themselves as they contradict each other because men are fallible.  If the Bible is a collection of writings penned merely by fallen men, if the Bible is errant and fallible then it is not only the traditionalists who have a problem.  If it contradicts itself the liberals, too, have a massive problem.  Why bother with any of it?  Who decides which sections of Scripture remain viable?  Why not simply abandon the Bible wholesale and join a secular humanist organization?  Yet, these authors want to go on believing in the deity, the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus... because a Bible - which they believe contradicts itself - tells them so.  Is it possible that the writers are simply choosing a fiction they like best?  Is it possible that while they are uncertain of any of it, they have come to like some of it?  And so they reform and continue to reform in the direction of their own choosing.

I have plenty of books written by men who not only contradict their own writings but also the writings of others.  These books are useful but they are not my rule of faith and conduct.  They are not authoritative.  Any value they have is directly related to their faithfulness to the Word of God.  Because it is His, the Bible is trustworthy and authoritative.  Indeed, because it is His, I can use Scripture to interpret Scripture.  

G. Seventh, the guide speaks of an Interpretive Principle of Love.  "Any interpretation of the Bible that does not lead to love and to the building up of the body of Christ should be critically re-evaluated."  The problem with this principle is that it does not first answer what love is.  Though the authors quote the words of Jesus (Matthew 22) who called us to love God and love our neighbour, they fail to acknowledge that love - according to Jesus - is obedience to the commandments (John 14:6; 15:6).  A man might tell himself his adulterous relationship is loving, and he might insist that your rebukes are not edifying to him or the church.  Rather, you are denying him the joy of following his heart.  He says he loves this other woman. Why can't he be allowed to follow his heart? Why can't he be true to himself?  Why must these two be torn apart?  How does the break-up of their relationship edify and build up the church?  Now this man may go on about love as long as he likes, but we know and do not hesitate to tell him that what he is doing is not loving no matter what he claims, because the Bible says it isn't.  The interpretive principle of love may not be a bad idea so long as love is defined by the Bible.            

H.  Eighth, in the second major section of this paper the authors tackle the seven passages that expressly deal with homosexuality.  It frustrating to see the same few works referenced again and again when those works have been so roundly and consistently refuted.   See, for example, The Same-Sex Controversy (by James White) and Can You Be Gay and Christian? (by Michael Brown).  It is particularly frustrating to read the same shoddy treatment of the "holiness code." Over and again the document references the same few men while ignoring the wide scholarship that offers a more faithful reading.

I will not here attempt to deal exhaustively with those seven passages.  I would encourage you instead to read James White's book.  Instead I will make a few brief comments.

1. First, it is maintained that "Scholars on both sides of the debate around full inclusion of homosexual persons agree that there can be no direct parallels drawn between the kind of sexual activity referred to there and the committed love between two persons of the same gender in our modern context."  At this point the authors reference a scholar from the 'other side': Stanley Grenz.  Ironically, those who consider themselves on 'the other side' do not usually include Grenz in their ranks.  His is a compromised position.  The notion that scholars on both sides of the debate are agreed on the application of Sodom and Gomorrah to the modern context is not only false, it is dishonest.  For the other side I would recommend Robert Gagon, James White, Michael Brown and Kevin DeYoung among others.
2. Second, much is made of the apparent ambiguity in the Greek word 'arsenokoites' (ἀρσενοκοίτης) used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.  It isn't so ambiguous.  Like other New Testament authors Paul referenced the Septuagint, which was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.  Jesus also referenced the Septuagint.  Note the Septuagint's rendering of Leviticus 18:22 when transliterated to English as explained by James White: "meta arsenos (arsenos - male) ou koimethese koiten (koiten - to lie sexually, have intercourse) gunaikos."  Note, next, the Septuagint's rendering of Leviticus 20:13: "hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos" (italics are mine).  As any reader can see and as James White explains, "The term 'homosexual' in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is made up of these two terms, arsenos and koiten - hence, arsenokoites.  As a compound word it is clearly referring to male intercourse."  So, where is the ambiguity?
3. Third, it is suggested that the "holiness code" (of Leviticus 17-26) has to do with ritual purity and therefore ceases to be binding under the new covenant.  Indeed, there are parts of that Code that are part of the ceremonial law.  They are shadows (as Paul called them) and are no longer necessary now that we have the substance (Christ).  The authors of this document reason, as do others holding their position, that since some of that Code is no longer binding none of it is binding.  What, then, of the prohibition against bestiality (Leviticus 18:23)?   The prohibition against bestiality isn't repeated anywhere in the New Testament.  An Old Testament (indeed a holiness code) prohibition is followed by silence in the New.  Are we to understand, then, that bestiality is permissible under the New Covenant?   Thankfully no one follows that logic. We all understand that even within that section  of Scripture there is a distinction between what is ceremonial and what is moral.  For more see James White in The Same-Sex Controversy.       

I. Ninth, a fictional story is told of a family.  Generally the reason for stories like these is to appeal to the emotions of the reader.  I found the following excerpt very telling.  The daughter will later reveal that she is gay, and the parents will struggle with how best to respond.  Significantly, this excerpt reveals no such angst: "“Dad,” the son would say, “what if I brought home a girl who was Muslim and wore a hijab (a head covering) and said we were in love?” “Well, we would welcome her and try to get to know her and appreciate her perspective,” came the response. After all, the Bible says that in Christ there is no longer male and female, Jew or Greek, slave or free (Galatians 3)."

I hope it is obvious at this point that the authors of this document who are pleading for the Church to embrace gay marriage and gay ministers had already strayed very far from the faith before they tackled gay marriage.  We saw earlier that their doctrine of Scripture is seriously flawed.  Here we see that their doctrine of salvation and even their definition of truth is confused.  Galatians 3 has nothing to do with a boy dating a Muslim girl.  If we are to believe the authors of the Study Guide his parents are prepared to welcome her and appreciate her perspective because there is now no Jew or Greek.  In Galatians the apostle is actually speaking about salvation by grace alone through faith alone.  He's saying, nothing else figures in to the calculation.  Nothing else counts.  We are saved not on the basis of our merits, our ethnic background, or anything else we bring.  We are saved rather by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.  Paul is speaking of the fact that Gentiles also have access to God in Christ.  The middle wall of partition (between Jew and Gentile/Greek) has been taken down.  But this same apostle also said "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?  and what communion hath light with darkness (2 Corinthians 6:14)?"  Moreover, the Bible insists "Neither is there salvation in any other: for their is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12)."  I find it hard to comprehend how this bizarre response of these fictional Christian parents to their son is seen as a given.  Observe the biblical illiteracy and the doctrinal confusion permeating the whole of this document.  It is through this lens of the Bible, of God and of salvation that these authors write.  Is it any wonder that they would move to affirm the LGBT community?        .     

J. Tenth, a definition of sin is offered.  Needless to say it isn't the Biblical one.  Sin according to the Bible is transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).  The law - incidentally - says homosexual orientation and activity are sinful.  

K. Eleventh, a flow chart is presented.  It is titled Tracing Different Pathways (see page 46). It begins with a question: "Is homosexuality orientation a sin?"  The PCC has already answered that question in the negative.  Should the reader, however, answer in the affirmative the chart ends. What is interesting is how the chart offers a way for members in the PCC on different sides of the issue to reach the same conclusion, so long as they agree that homosexuality as an orientation is not a sin.  Here's how it works.  First the question, "Is homosexual activity a sin?" If you answer no and you answer next that a practicing homosexual should be ordained then you have concluded that "God redeems, calls and gifts homosexual and heterosexual persons for ordained ministry in the PCC. In sexual relationships, both heterosexual and homosexual persons are called to a “private life that becomes [Christ’s] gospel,” including mutual, faithful, loving and committed relationships"."  No surprise there.  

Here is the surprise... If you answer that 'yes' homosexual activity is a sin and you next answer that it is a sin not greater than any other sin then you can allow for a minister to be ordained because (according to the document) "Maintaining the understanding that homosexual activity is not what God originally intended for humanity, this position also recognizes that all human sexuality is sinful in some way. “Everyone’s sexuality is good-yet-fallen and needs to come under the discipline of covenant” (Gushee, 12). God’s grace is for all “good yet fallen” people."  [I have to confess I don't understand what is meant by good yet fallen people.  Jesus said only God is good (Luke 18:19)]  

So now those in the PCC who believe homosexual activity is sinful can arrive at the same conclusion as those who believe it isn't, that "God redeems, calls and gifts homosexual and heterosexual persons for ordained ministry in the PCC. In sexual relationships, both heterosexual and homosexual persons are called to a “private life that becomes [Christ’s] gospel."  Convenient!  I realize, of course, that this reasoning is coming from a liberal mindset but it is astonishing all the same!  They're saying, in effect, that whether homosexual activity is sinful or not is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter.  Why?  Because we all sin, we all need the grace of God, and homosexuality - after all - is a sin like any other.  Where is their mistake?   It isn't only that God differentiates one sin from other.  There are, indeed, degrees of sinfulness (Matthew 10:15; 11:22, 24) and some are more heinous in the eyes of God than others.  Which, incidentally, is why we react with much greater outrage over the sin of pedophilia (for example) than we do the sin of lying.  

Their mistake, more significantly, is their failure to acknowledge the place of repentance.  Each and every sin makes us worthy of condemnation.  Once we break any law we have become lawbreakers; which is why we all need grace.  In that sense there is no difference.  But the authors don't explain why the Bible says "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat (1 Corinthians 5:11).  They don't account for texts that speak of the judgment that comes to the dog that returns to its own vomit (2 Peter 2:22), nor do they acknowledge texts which declare, "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him... By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.  For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous (1 John 3:6, 5:2-3).  Nothing is said about the standard for elders (in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1) or the warning from Jesus: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven (Matthew 7:21)."  

The document is right in recognizing our need of grace, but it fails to acknowledge the fact that grace of God (according to the Bible) makes a man a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17; Ezekiel 36:26-27)whose mind, will and affections are changed.  Salvation is freely offered to those who respond to the offer in faith and repentance.  The gospel does indeed announce rescue, but it is a rescue (a deliverance) from sin.  

L. Twelth, the document speaks about building on the work of others.  To do so the authors begin in 1969.  I would suggest that they would have done well to go back further.  They might have begun in 1875 when the PCC was founded.  They could have gone still further back to 1646 to the Westminster Assembly and its Confession of Faith.  Sadly, this document pays no need to the Presbyterian forefathers of past generations, and while they may claim to build on the work of others they are really only building on the compromise of a generation that paid no heed to its predecessors.     

M. Finally, the authors recommend Listening to our Neighbours.  So, they cite the Anglican Church of Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Mennonite Church Canada and the United Church.  

It is strange (but surely not accidental) that the authors when considering the Reformed, Luther and Mennonite churches chose to include only the most liberal strands of each denomination.  They didn't consult the Lutheran Church of Canada nor did they consult the Evangelical Mennonites or the United Reformed or Canadian Reformed or Free Reformed.  Sadly, they didn't consider any other Presbyterian Church.  They might have looked at the Presbyterian Church in America or the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.  They could have considered the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church or the Free Church or the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.  Their choices were deliberately selective and (I believe) deceptive.                

Conclusion 

As I admitted from the start, this isn't meant to be an exhaustive review.  I have only been able to offer a brief critique, but my hope and prayer is that my brothers and sisters in the PCC might be aided by what I have offered here.  I hope that you see what is being attempted by this document.  Though purporting to be biblical it isn't.  Though they plead fair-mindedness, they are neither fair nor honest.  Do consider doing further reading, but please also consider the invitation included below.  


Invitation

I suspect there are numbers of believers in the PCC and you are grieving at the changes taking place in your churches.  Though you may not have studied theology in school, you can read your Bible well enough to know that homosexuality is sinful.  The document you have studied is simply an evasion.  It pretends to be faithful to the Bible but is faithful only to the proclivity of the man-centered culture in which it is immersed. 

So what do you do?  You have held on for a long time.  Perhaps it is your love for the unity of the Church or your commitment to the church that was your parents' and grandparents'.  But you've seen a lot of changes over the years, and you patiently put up with it all hoping you were doing the right thing.  Now you are facing a shift you never thought you'd see.  Its time to leave.  Amos (3:3) asks, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"  Paul (citing Isaiah) pleads "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you... (2 Corinthians 6:17)"  Remember that the Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).  When a denomination no longer stands for the truth, when error is countenanced and the watchmen refuse to sound the alarm it is time to leave.  As Malachi put it "the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts (2:7)."  Sadly, what was said of the leaders in his day could be said of the leaders in the PCC: "But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law... (2:8)"  

Out of love for our Lord Jesus and love for the lost we must speak the truth in love.  The affirming stance of Body, Mind and Soul and the shift taking place in the PCC may tickle the ears of LGBT and LGBT affirming community but it will not help.  It is speaking peace where there is no peace (Jeremiah 6:14); and though it may ease the conscience temporarily it will prove eternally ruinous.  It is neither hatred nor homophobia that motivates us to call the LGBT community to repentance.  Rather it is the constraining and compelling love of Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:14).  We are sinners saved by grace, which means we can identify with the LGBT community.  In a sense they are not unique.  As we have found grace they need grace, and the Bible assures us that where sin abounds grace much more abounds.  This is the hope in which every Christian rejoices: not what we have done but what Jesus has done.  Nonetheless, it needs to be remembered that the grace of God brings rescue from sin.  God makes us new, so that the Bible can say "and such were some of you [including adulterers and homosexuals] but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)."

So where do you go?  I once found myself facing a decision much like yours, but I didn't know where to go.  I found that stage difficult.  Since then I have learned that there are actually a number of possibilities; and it will, of course, depend in part on where you live.  I hope you will be encouraged with the discovery that there are other Presbyterian denominations who share the same background as you do, but who are still holding firm to the standard of God's Word.  

I would invite you to make your stand for the truth.  Leave the Presbyterian Church of Canada and find a faithful church.