As I tried to understand why this PCA ruling bothered me so much, the thing that came back to me over and over again was the concept of original sin. We inherit a sin nature that prevents us from being able to bridge the gap between us and God in our own strength. That sin nature is not a permanent part of our identity, but it remains with us throughout our earthly lives. How God deals with the sin nature varies by each person. As we see with Paul, our "body of death" becomes a consistent struggle during our lives once we are saved.
As I said, on the surface, it seems that the PCA ruling is simply being deliberate and precise when it comes to dealing with our depraved sin nature. They can say that referring to our "body of death" as our identity is theologically incorrect. I get that and I can see where they're coming from. The ruling, however, goes beyond that.
I don't see this precision in the Bible. How can Paul say, "It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost." (1 Tim 1:15) We Reformed people cheer Paul's honesty and humility here, but what Paul is doing is stating an identity. A few verses before, he says what he was - blasphemer, persecutor and violent aggressor.
I think the basis of the concern is normalizing specific identities. This is concerning because the church has compartmentalized effects of sin that are okay and those that are not. Talking about original sin.
Statements one could make about results of original sin:
I'm blind. PCA would probably accept this statement, even though the blindness is part of the original sin, and presumably the bodies we receive when glorified are not blind.
I have Down Syndrome. Again, okay because it is part of original sin, and a characteristic that has physical basis.
I have ADHD. Okay, we're now starting to get into the gray area as far as Reformed beliefs go. There is pretty good evidence that ADHD is innate, but because it is now a struggle of self-control, which is a spiritual fruit, there might be concern.
I am attracted to ... (non-normal attraction). Again, this could be a result of original sin, but if ADHD is gray, we've now crossed the line. Even though self-control is a spiritual fruit, and thus, lacking self-control would be fairly categorized as sinful, this must clearly be wrong.
The difficulty I have is that all of these are fixed in the resurrection, or through some other miraculous means. They can be managed, they can be accommodated, but we don't have the expectation, in this life, that God is going to remove these burdens from us.
My conclusion, then, is that ADHD and SSA can be innate characteristics, just like blindness or genetic diseases, that are a result of original sin, but the PCA wants to refuse that. They want to deny that innate characteristics can lead us to sin, which is a denial of Total Depravity. Total Depravity says that we are born predisposed to sin. Calling out our sinful predisposition is not a "sin identity", but recognizing our depraved condition under the Fall.
Conversely, when the PCA claims that ordained leadership cannot have a sin identity, they are asking leaders and those who aspire to be leaders to cover up their depravity. They will even refuse to recognize the implications of this. Modesty is moot because no true Christian would have a fleshly struggle with women's bodies (despite the fact that the church calls this a universal male struggle). Sigh.
10 comments:
It comes down to "a policed thought life for thee, but not for me."
These authoritarian institutions calling themselves churches just get worse and worse. If you want to love people in any semblance of Jesus's way, it's not tolerable to be in these places.
They don't know what true righteousness and justice are, because they measure themselves by themselves.
I can't find the quote, but some astute Christian said something to the effect of: "I no longer consider myself Evangelical. I grew up thinking that being Evangelical was adhering to a set of creeds and beliefs, but now I realize that Evangelical is a set of cultural norms, including male supremacy, white supremacy, rape culture and predefined political views. I can't, in good conscience, call myself Evangelical"
I concur. I hold to many, if not most, of the theological beliefs espoused by the Reformed and Evangelical faiths, but I do not accept the toxic and destructive culture they have created.
I think the PCA made a good choice in being willing to mark out sexual sin as sin, as against the open suggestion by some in the church that some of it isn't.
I'm not sure the church made a good choice in approving this overture as the best way to make its stand.
What I find most unhelpful is the looseness of the language in writing the term "same sex attraction" into the standards of the church. Your definition of the term seems to be roughly the same as what *I* would have thought was the definition: a predisposition to be tempted toward sexual gratification with others of the same sex. And if this is grounds for refusing to ordain, then there's a real problem.
Fortunately, the definition as apparently envisioned by many of the commissioners was a conscious eager desire for sexual gratification, not just a predisposition toward temptation. Unfortunately, I don't see that as anything like a precise (or even proper) definition of "attraction." If we need a term for "conscious eager desire for sexual gratification," then I think we already have a word for that: it's called lust. And it comes out as a sin no matter the sex of the person that the ordained man (or me) is directing it toward. We should be able to apply a standard of "we will not ordain anyone who lusts after someone other than his wife and then, instead of repenting and striving after repentance from this sin, insists on identifying it as an acceptable-because-inalienable part of his being." We could then treat this as a matter that is nothing new under the sun. (We could also replace lust with just about any other sin and keep the standard the same.) Why can't we just do that?
I can easily understand why the Side B folks wouldn't want that. What I have a lot more trouble understanding is, why doesn't the more orthodox camp seem to want that either? The answers seem to range pretty widely, from "the sin that the culture is trying to make respectable is same-sex lust ONLY, and the church needs to specifically call it out" to "same-sex lust is a sin against nature, while opposite-sex lust is not" all the way over to "the church hates gays and wants to drive them into hell, but it needs to protect unfaithful heterosexuals as much as possible." (I would expect that the last position is not verbally espoused by anyone, but I have too much experience with sanctimony and self-flattery to really believe it isn't true in practice in various times and places.)
None of these answers, nor any of the unmentioned ones in the ranges between them, seem very convincing to me as explanations for why THIS overture was the right way to affirm God's righteousness in his regulation of sex and sexual desires. Sloppy language makes for bad law, and I think I've heard a saying that involves both good intentions and something about a road to hell.
Looking on from the outside with an understanding of narcissism/ narcissistic authoritarians:
Authoritarians in charge of this organization enjoy a status(elder) that once achieved, is nearly impossible to lose. This status allows them power over others and access to good things. The narcissistic supply abounds to them in this position. Even though most of them don't really meet the Biblical qualifications for elder, they have codified ways to make their sins (greed, lust, domineering) acceptable/hidden and are quite comfortable with that. Most of them are woefully unqualified to guide anyone in anything other than being like them. They feel threatened by "same-sex attracted" men and don't want them in their ranks for various reasons. One being, that if men in their ranks have to be monitored as to how they are behaving in regards to their sexuality, it opens the door to all of the men having to monitor their sexual behavior. This is an icky, sticky situation for these "pure" leaders to find themselves in, because they hide behind sexuality being a taboo, private, and not open to scrutiny. (For example, if they routinely guilt their wives into sex, treating their wives like objects) Since they have subjugated one half of the church (women), while simultaneously depending on the free labor of this population to keep things running, they can't open any kind of door that challenges the status quo. To put it bluntly, if all the church really knew what these "Godly men" get up to behind closed doors, the way they talk about people, the secret addictions- so much of their narcissistic supply would just evaporate.
Adding same-sex attracted men into their ranks would be, frankly, just another temptation for them, and risk discussions around sexuality/power/responsibility/consent/thought life that they just cannot allow. And again, this is all because the rank they've attained is unassailable currently. It doesn't much matter how one gets in as long as they can present an acceptable exterior.
Sexual sin is already marked out as sin in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which the PCA follows. That's why I have a problem with the statement the PCA makes that somehow "Same-Sex Attraction" is different than other temptations that are part of our battle with the flesh. Culturally, it's accepted to say "I'm a red-blooded man", meaning that I struggle with lust towards women, but not "I'm same-sex attracted". Even though I would argue that "red-blooded man" suggests someone who does not see lust towards women as being something to mortify, whereas someone who says they are same-sex attracted may understand that as being a part of the flesh that will be sanctified away.
And this is why I think this law is not a general rejection of sexual sin, but a signal that a same-sex inclination (temptation, not action) is going to be deemed on its face worse than lust towards members of the opposite sex, which is specifically called out as sin.
And, I think it is also a difficult place culturally, because recognizing that having sinful "flesh" is not condemned in scripture puts me at odds with the conservative faction, yet saying that following through with a predisposition is sin in some cases puts me at odds with the other, because they would say that it should never be sinful to act out the way we were made.
I think there is a lot of truth in what you say, especially about the narcissistic supply. But, think about it slightly differently.
What if I create a straw man of the entire "woke" culture. That is, the culture that says that women shouldn't be raped, the culture that says that women shouldn't be treated as inferiors, the culture that says that leaders have a legal responsibility, or should have legal responsibility to defend the supposed inferiors.
So, instead of saying, "we refuse to protect those we deem inferior", it's a whole lot more politically expedient for the PCA to pick one mutually disagreeable aspect of woke culture (tolerance of LGBTQ+) and use that straw man to craft a statement that, on the surface says "we want to put a line in the sand on LGBTQ+", but deeper down says, "To all men in the good ole' boys club. We will continue to protect your domineering, narcissism and abuse, sexual or otherwise, and we will continue to undermine, harass and ignore your victims pleas for justice."
I think that is what is behind this statement, and, the entire "counter-cultural" wave in the NAPARC churches. They will not give up their abuse of the sheep without a fight.
I want to react to 2 parts of what you said:
1. "I would argue that 'red-blooded man' suggests someone who does not see lust towards women as being something to mortify, whereas someone who says they are same-sex attracted may understand that as being a part of the flesh that will be sanctified away."
That is pretty much how I would read it as well, but mostly because I think someone using the phrase "same-sex attracted" (as opposed to "gay") is more likely to recognize that the attraction is not wholesome and healthy. But because there is some slipperiness here, the term can ALSO be used by those who think the attraction is perfectly acceptable and nothing-to-worry-about-here. Hence my grave doubts about including the term in the BCO. If they were to include the term "red-blooded man" as well (or even instead), I would be likewise doubtful of its propriety.
2. "And, I think it is also a difficult place culturally, because recognizing that having sinful 'flesh' is not condemned in scripture puts me at odds with the conservative faction, yet saying that following through with a predisposition is sin in some cases puts me at odds with the other, because they would say that it should never be sinful to act out the way we were made."
The feeling of isolation is an unfortunate difficulty of trying to be nuanced and biblical in a culture (both within the church and outside of it) that is often bent on mutual antagonism, generalization, and overreaction. The partisans and tribalists on both sides end up suspicious of you. If this encouragement is any aid: keep up the good fight. I suspect that the isolation may actually be more apparent than real -- most of the loudmouths are tribal partisans, and maybe so too are too many people in the circles you've run in, but a lot of people really just aren't. But if that thought isn't very comforting, or if it's just wrong, know that the fight is still a good one, and your Father in heaven who sees it will strengthen to you carry it on and will reward you.
And to put my own spin on what you've said, knowing that there is a distinction to be made between a temptation to be resisted and a sin to be repented of is an important one that is getting glossed over on the conservative side (although, caveat, if you look at it through the infinite efficacy of Christ's death, I'm not sure it makes an ETERNAL difference whether you're pursuing resistance, repentance, or both, so long as your struggle is genuine and your pursuit is persistent). But then, even if you make that distinction, it still puts you at odds with the Side B and Side A folks, for whom same-sex attraction is ultimately a cause for neither resistance nor repentance (except, in the case of Side B, in the physical sense).
And you know what? If you're at odds with both camps, that's completely okay.
Thanks! That is helpful and encouraging.
I will go out on a limb and say also that I believe that part of the OT legal framework is that some sinful actions are more heinous than others. The WCF says this as well, but most NAPARC pastors seem to want to ignore. So, the basic highlights are purposeful vs. accidental, restitution vs. non-restitution, forced vs. consensual, levels of harm.
So, for example, cutting off someone else's arm (forced harm) is more heinous legally than cutting off your own (consensual harm).
All this to say that it bothers me that the church is single-mindedly focused on, at worst, consensual harm, while turning a blind eye to economic abuse, spiritual abuse, sexual abuse, racism and other forms of non-consensual harm.
I think it’s right they won’t give up abuse of the sheep without a fight. They are talking now of putting a definition on the books of abuse. Only when the definition surfaces will we see the motives more, but I suspect it will be a carefully-worded definition that makes abuse claims very hard to substantiate. The denomination seems to be the very center of many of their identities, and without that I wonder where they would find themselves with God. People who leave cults often experience a crisis of belief as they realize most of their beliefs were either never really beliefs (just going along to get along) or the beliefs changed, and they were back to formula with where they are in their personal faith. In any case, a brand new start as a Christian isn’t really a bad thing. If we’re in a bad place (heresy or cultish), a reset is probably a good thing.
Post a Comment