The Presbyterian Church in
Ireland and Sodomy
(The following
article was copied, with permission, from the Covenant
Protestant Reformed Church (Ballymena, Northern Ireland)
Web Site)
Introduction
The Presbyterian Church in
Ireland (PCI) at her 2007 General Assembly (GA)
adopted guidelines on how to offer "pastoral
care" to homosexuals within her ranks. The
guidelines were adopted after ineffectual
opposition from the conservatives. A motion to
send the report to presbyteries for their
consideration was defeated by 168 votes to 163.
This report will now be published by the PCI's
General Assembly.
A Significant Number of
Homosexuals
In 2006, the GA adopted a
motion requesting the Social Issues Panel of
"The Board of Social Witness" to "prepare
guidelines to help the Church develop more
sensitive pastoral care" to homosexuals. This
request was made "recognising homophobic
attitudes within Church and society." The PCI’s
concern over "homophobic attitudes" is
particularly acute because of the number of
homosexuals in her membership.
Former PCI moderator, Rev.
Ken Newell believes that about 3% of the PCI
denomination are homosexual. Why does he assume
this? Because government research estimates that
3% of the UK population are homosexual!
Therefore, Newell reasons, there are probably
"around 9,000 whose sexual orientation is
homosexual" in the PCI, whose nominal membership
is about 300,000 souls. (However, the 2007 GA
reported the PCI's membership at 262,000.) Are
Irish Presbyterians aware of the large number of
homosexuals in their church? According to Rev.
Newell, there are homosexual Presbyterian
ministers! He states that of the 9,000 or so
sodomites in the PCI "some will be ministers,
elders, committee members, Bible class and
Sunday school teachers." Rev. Newell states that
homosexuals are "involved" in every ministry of
the PCI and in every other area of Irish
Presbyterian church life. Missionaries too?
These homosexuals, claims the former moderator,
are people of faith, people who love the church,
part of "[our] faith family," and therefore they
need to be "cherished" (Newsletter, 9
June, 2006). Do you hear that, Presbyterian
church member? You are supposed to "cherish"
homosexuals as members of your spiritual family
and church!
What a damning indictment of
the PCI and its preaching and discipline! Surely
if a church preaches against a sin and
disciplines those who practice that sin, then
the incidence of that sin will be dramatically
lower than that of the world. Clearly, Rev.
Newell, an older minister and former moderator
and member of various PCI boards over the last
few decades, does not think that this is the
case. Either he does not believe that "the
gospel of Christ ... is the power of God unto
salvation" empowering believers to break with
their sins (Rom. 1:16) or he is admitting that
whatever it is that comes from PCI pulpits it is
not the powerful gospel of Christ. Either way
the Presbyterian Church in Ireland stands
condemned. The obvious explanation of the
deplorable incidence of homosexuals in the PCI
is that already this sin is not being
faithfully preached against and those practising
it are not disciplined.
Pandering to the Feelings of
Sinners While Sidelining Scripture
The 2007 report takes the
wrong approach and therefore reaches the wrong
conclusions. The panel does not exegete Holy
Scripture and allow that to determine their
approach because that was not their "remit"
(1.3; subsequent paragraphing from the report).
Instead, the panel’s remit was to make "direct
contact with homosexual people," to listen to
their stories, and then to seek to address how
the church can provide them with "pastoral
care," making them feel more welcome and
comfortable in the PCI. Thus the feelings of
homosexuals—not so much God’s Word—determine the
PCI’s attitude to homosexuality. But how can a
person be "pastored" without using the Bible?
Pastoral care without Scripture is not the
calling of the church of Jesus Christ; such is
mere social work or psychology. Christ’s sheep
are to be pastored with His rod and staff, not
with sociology and psychology (Ps. 23:4).
Moreover, impenitent homosexuals are not
Christ's sheep (I Cor. 6:9-11), and a
denomination which seeks to treat them as sheep
is not acting as Christ's church.
The report relates "Bob’s
story" (2.3), a young man who claims that, when
he "discovered" that he was attracted to other
men, his church was not supportive. Bob "needed
someone to listen to [him] without judgment,"
though he professes to be a "Christian who loves
God and His Word but [he is] also gay" (2.3).
A homosexual may think
that he needs to be heard without judgment (from
God's Word), but he is mistaken. A homosexual
needs to hear God's truth and repent. He needs
to cease making excuses ("I didn’t choose it to
be so. It just was;" 2.3) and submit to Christ’s
word. He needs to be shown that God demands that
he repent and believe the gospel. Believing the
gospel, he must ask God to give him grace to
turn from the "vile affections" of sodomy (Rom.
1:26), trusting that God can indeed deliver him
from this sin. The apostle Paul writes in I
Corinthians 6:9-11 that some of the members of
the church in that licentious city had been
homosexuals, but now they were "washed,"
"sanctified" and "justified" from such sins. The
grace of God grants repentance to the homosexual
(Acts 11:18), causing the homosexual to break
with his sin. The Westminster Confession
defines repentance thus:
An evangelical grace
[by which] a sinner, out of the sight
and sense, not only of the danger,
but also of the filthiness and
odiousness of his sins, as contrary
to the holy nature and righteous law of
God, and upon the apprehension of His
mercy in Christ to such as are penitent,
so grieves for and hates his sins,
as to turn from them all unto
God, purposing and endeavouring to walk
with Him in all the ways of His
commandments … it is of such necessity
to all sinners, that none may expect
pardon without it (15:1-3).
This is what is required
of the homosexual who would be a member of the
Christian church. Repent and bring forth fruit
worthy of repentance (Luke 3:8)! Show yourself
to be repentant by acknowledging the filthiness
and odiousness of your sins. Hate and grieve for
your sins. See them as God sees them and turn
from them. Live, by God’s grace, a new and holy
life! However, no such call is given by the PCI
report.
Instead, the report, after
listing examples of what it sees as "homophobia"
(a "lack of understanding, compassion and grace"
to those who reveal their homosexuality;" 2.8)
in the church, states, "there is a need to call
such attitudes sinful and for there to be
repentance on our part as a Church" (2.9;
italics mine). So, the PCI, by a majority vote
adopting this report, has confessed that it must
repent of its "homophobia" (2.9; 11.1).
Christians in the PCI, do you hear this? Your
church's highest assembly issues to you and your
congregation the (politically correct) command
to repent of any and all instances of
"homophobia," as defined in the 2007 report! Is
the PCI also going to call the estimated 9,000
homosexuals in the denomination to repentance?
The report does not issue this (biblical)
command. From reading the PCI report, one may
well conclude that calling homosexuals to repent
of their sin is "homophobic!"
The report offers
"understanding" and "compassion" to the
homosexual, but that just means acceptance and
tolerance of his sin. The report does not
present the gospel to the homosexual. By God’s
grace, he can be changed. The "vile affections"
(Rom. 1:26) of homosexuality can be overcome. By
the regenerating, cleansing, sanctifying power
of the Holy Spirit! And in no other way!
A Christian may not be
enslaved to lust ("Sin shall not have dominion
over you;" Rom. 6:14). Those who are in Christ
"have crucified the flesh with the affections
and lusts" (Gal. 5:24). They do not "fulfil the
lusts of the flesh" (Gal. 5:16). They do not use
their liberty as an "occasion to the flesh"
(Gal. 5:13). They hate the sins which come from
the old nature; they put off the old man with
his "deceitful lusts" (Eph. 4:22); and they
"mortify" their sinful members (Col. 3:5; Rom.
8:13). By the cross of Christ!
Believers do not define
themselves by their sins. A "gay Christian" is
as oxymoronic as a "Christian adulterer," an
"idolatrous Christian" or a "Christian thief"
(cf. I Cor. 6:9-11). If a person wants to define
himself as a Christian who struggles with his
lusts and desires, then he is in good company.
All Christians struggle with sinful desires,
motives and lusts (Rom. 7:15ff.; Gal. 5:17).
Some Christians are inclined to anger, others to
pride, others to sexual lust, others to greed,
etc., but they do not define themselves by these
sins, nor do they indulge them. Although the
struggle with sin is life-long, God promises the
believer victory over these sins. By the power
of His grace! Where is the power of God’s grace
in this report? How can there be such
power in this report. This power comes only
through the Holy Spirit who works exclusively
through the Word of God. The report barely
mentions Scripture. Therefore it is inevitable
that the result is a Christianity "having a form
of godliness but denying the power thereof;"
from such, the apostle continues, we must "turn
away" (II Tim. 3:5).
That Most Grievous Sin:
Homophobia!
The framers of this report
are terrified that they might be labelled
"homophobic"—there is apparently no worse sin
than this. This is a favourite scare tactic of
the homosexual lobby. One definition of
"homophobia" is "an irrational fear and
prejudice towards homosexual people and the
issue of homosexuality" (3.1). The panel prefer
Andrew Goddard’s definition: "the victimisation
or diminishment of human beings whose affections
happen to be ordered towards people of the same
sex" (3.2). According to this definition
"homophobia" is an attitude or behaviour towards
homosexuals which "denies [their] humanity"
(3.2). Such a definition, which the report
describes as "more helpful" is woolly at best
and absurd at worst. What does "denying the
humanity" of a person mean? Jack the Ripper,
Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and the Roman
Emperor Nero were all monsters of iniquity, yet
my saying that does not make them less human.
They showed themselves to be fallen human beings
by their sins. And because they are human, God
holds them (unlike animals) accountable for
their sins and punishes them in hell (Rev.
21:8). All men are totally depraved, so depraved
that they have completely lost the image of God,
which can only be restored by regeneration (Eph.
4:24; Col. 3:10), yet not one whit less human
because of it.1
Fornicators, adulterers and homosexuals are
guilty of gross transgressions of the seventh
commandment, yet they are all human.
There is a sinful hatred of
one's homosexual neighbour. All Christians are
called to love their neighbours. No true
Christian believes that it is acceptable to beat
up a homosexual or revile him in the street or
destroy his property. Such behaviour must
obviously be condemned. But that is not what the
homosexual lobby means by "homophobia."
"Homophobia," in practice, is any statement
which expresses disagreement with, or
disapproval of, the sin of homosexuality.
Increasingly, anyone who dares say,
"Homosexuality is immoral," is immediately
labelled a "homophobe." To say that
homosexuality is sinful is to be accused of
hatred and intolerance. Yet, the Bible does not
define love as unquestioning acceptance of all
sin, lest one hurt the feelings of one's
neighbour. The Most High commands, "Thou shalt
not hate thy brother in thy heart: thou shalt in
any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer
sin upon him" (Lev. 19:17). According to
Almighty God (but not the PCI report), to
fail to rebuke the neighbour for his sin is
hatred. To allow the neighbour to go on in
his sin is not to seek his salvation. To tell
the homosexual that God loves him and he can
carry on in his sin without fear of judgment
(although that is what he wants to hear
and that is what the politically-correct world
insists that he must hear) is to hate him
and to allow him to perish everlastingly (Eze.
33:8).
The report theorizes that
"the factors involved in why a person has
same-sex attractions may be too complex to
entangle," opining that "choice" is not
involved. We are all fallen, the report
continues, and "the fall has affected our
sexuality" (3.4). Nevertheless, we are "morally
responsible" for how we deal with our sexual
urges (3.5). We are also morally
responsible for our inward depravity and our
lusts. Romans 5:19 teaches that "by one man’s
disobedience many were made [i.e., constituted]
sinners" and that through Adam’s transgression
"judgment came upon all men unto condemnation"
(Rom. 5:18). This is simply the biblical and
Reformed doctrine of original sin. If Jesus
teaches that heterosexual lusts are themselves
sin—adultery in the heart (Matt. 5:28)—how much
more are the "vile affections" of the homosexual
sin (Rom. 1:26)? The report lies when it says
that homosexual "sexual temptation and desire
is not sin" (7.3; italics mine). The
Westminster Larger Catechism lists some of
the many transgressions against the seventh
commandment: "adultery, fornication, rape,
incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all
unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes and
affections …" (Q. & A. 139). In denying that
homosexual desire is evil, the PCI teaches a
thoroughly Pelagian and Roman Catholic doctrine
of sin and reveals that it understands neither
the seventh nor the tenth commandment nor its
own confessional standards (Westminster
Larger Catechism, Q. & A. 139).
The report cautions against
an overly condemning attitude concerning
homosexuality: "When we condemn homosexual
practices in isolation or single it out as
somehow worse than other sexual practices
outside of heterosexual marriage, then we
demonstrate homophobic attitudes" (3.5). This
effectively makes it impossible for any minister
to condemn homosexuality as sin for fear of
being labelled homophobic. The fear of man
(Prov. 29:25; Matt. 10:28) increasingly muzzles
Presbyterian ministers and so the pulpit falls
silent regarding this sin. What about the fear
of Almighty God and pleasing Him! "Enter
into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for
fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his
majesty ... Cease ye from man, whose breath is
in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be
accounted of?" (Isa. 2:10, 22).
The apostle proclaims, "I am
not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is
the power of God unto salvation to everyone that
believeth" (Rom. 1:16). A few verses later, he
declares that same gospel's condemnation of the
"vile affections" of lesbianism and sodomy (Rom.
1:26-27). Thus all those who refuse to preach
the Bible's robust denunciations of
homosexuality thereby proclaim that they are
ashamed of the gospel of Christ and therefore of
Christ Himself. Because sodomy is a moral and
ethical issue, someone ought to be ashamed. If
sodomy is not really that bad, then Christians
ought to be ashamed of God's Word which calls it
an "abomination" (Lev. 18:22; 20:13); but if
sodomy is what the Most High says it is, then
homosexuals ought to be ashamed. The PCI, in
muting the sharp biblical condemnations of
sodomy, in allowing homosexuals as church
members and in not disciplining them, reveals
that it is ashamed of the gospel of Christ and
therefore is not an apostolic church. Instead of
bringing God's unadulterated Word to them,
condemning their sins and (by God's grace)
leading some of them to repentance and salvation
in Jesus Christ (I Cor. 6:9-11), the PCI seeks
to avoid "making them feel bad"—which is
necessarily involved in repentance; II Cor.
7:11!—and seeks to make them "comfortable" in
the church!
True churches must continue
to preach the seventh commandment and in so
doing condemn fornication (Rom. 1:29; I Cor.
6:18; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; I Thess. 4:3),
adultery (Heb. 13:4), unbiblical divorce (Matt.
5:32), remarriage while the original spouse
lives (Rom. 7:3; I Cor. 7:39; Mark 10:11-12;
Luke 16:18), homosexuality (Rom. 1:26-27; I Cor.
6:9-11; Jude 7), bestiality (Lev. 20:15-16), and
any other transgression of the seventh
commandment which the ungodly world can invent.
This may well "hurt the feelings" of the
ungodly. We ought to pray that such faithful
preaching will be used by God to convert sinners
and to break their hearts so that they repent of
their sins (Acts 2:37). This is the apostolic
way followed in true apostolic churches. A
church which follows a different method,
dictated by political correctness, is neither
faithful to Jesus Christ nor apostolic.
The report states that there
needs to be "recognition within the church that
the desires for love (in all its aspects [which
would include the sexual aspect, MMcG]),
intimacy, companionship, etc., that move
heterosexual couples towards marriage are the
same desires that motivate those with same sex
attractions" (5.3). We recognise no such thing!
It is interesting that the Bible never
describes homosexual relationships in terms of
"love." How dare the Presbyterian Church in
Ireland dignify this unnatural lust with the
honourable name of "love!" The Bible always
describes the feelings of homosexuality as
"lust" or even "vile affections" or "going after
strange flesh" (Rom. 1:26-27; Jude 7); never
love. The Holy Spirit inspired these strong
words in a society where sodomy was practiced
and approved. The ancient Greek and Roman
societies in which the apostles laboured
revelled in sodomy. Yet, Paul, under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, condemned it.
Societal approval may cause the PCI,
chameleon-like, to be "conformed to the world"
(Rom. 12:1-2) but God’s Word stands forever (I
Peter 1:25). Homosexuality is sin and can never
be anything other than sin, all Presbyterian
theological revisionism notwithstanding.
The report continues that
"when a church states that it cannot agree with
practising same-sex relationships" this is seen
as "rejection" of the person (5.4). Churches may
not be intimidated by this. God rejects
homosexuals. He also rejects fornicators,
adulterers, idolaters, thieves, murderers and
all impenitent sinners. None of these may be
members of His church. This is the clear
teaching of Scripture. The PCI does not want to
be seen as rejecting anyone so we will
see her already muted and compromised
disagreement with homosexual practices become
less and less frequent. This is the clear,
downward direction of the PCI.
"Condemnation from the pulpit
closes the door on compassionate care outside
the pulpit," claims the report (5.6). How
ludicrous! Jesus condemned adultery in His
public ministry and yet harlots and sinners
flocked to him, that is, repentant
harlots and sinners (Matt. 21:31-32; John 8:11;
etc.). The apostle Paul preached repeatedly
against sexual sin, including homosexuality—"of
the which I tell you before, as I have
also told you in time past, that they which
do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of
God" (Gal. 5:21)—and there were repentant
homosexuals in the church at Corinth and
doubtless elsewhere (I Cor. 6:9-11). The
argument is absurd. If there is sharp preaching
against adultery, does that mean that adulterers
are afraid to approach the elders to confess
their sins? Of course not! In a well-ordered,
biblical church, where discipline is rightly
administered, the people know that Jesus (who
rules through the office bearers) receives
repentant sinners. Those only need fear the
preaching and the elders who live
impenitently in sin.
Avoiding "Unhelpful"
(Biblical) Language
How do we create an
atmosphere in the church which is comfortable
for the homosexual? To find oneself asking this
question is almost surreal. The church is not
supposed to be comfortable for any
impenitent sinner. Yet the report has an idyllic
vision of "safe spaces" where people can discuss
their sexuality with the pastor without fear of
judgment (10.10)! As if the holy
Lord in heaven does not behold nor try the
children of men (Ps. 11:4)!
The report’s answer to the
problem of uncomfortable homosexual members is
to avoid "unhelpful" language (7.1). Unhelpful
language is defined by the report as derogatory
language which tends to "victimise or diminish"
(3.2).
The first phrase which must
go is "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Given
the popularity of theistic evolution in the PCI,
I’d be surprised if there are many Presbyterian
ministers left who believe that Adam and Eve
were real, historical people, whose literal
actions had literal consequences for all their
posterity (Gen. 3). But how is an argument from
Genesis "unhelpful?" God did create Adam
and Eve. Are we not to preach that? In His
defence of marriage as a life-long bond between
one man and one woman, Jesus Christ Himself
states, "He which made them at the beginning
made them male and female" (Matt. 19:4).
Is the Son of God using inflammatory and
homophobic language here, effectively closing
the door to any meaningful pastoral care of the
homosexual (He did not say "male and male" or
"female and female") or the unbiblically
divorced or remarried person?
It is also unhelpful,
according to the report, to say that God "loves
the sinner and hates the sin"! Concerning His
elect in Jesus Christ, God loves the sinner and
hates the sin, but God hates both the
reprobate sinner and his sins (Ps. 5:5;
11:5; Rom. 9:13). Has it now come to this? Do
Presbyterians now hate neither the sinner nor
the sin? Do Irish Presbyterians hate any
sin? Except homophobia, of course! The issue
here is that we are called to hate all sin, as
God does (Rom. 12:9). However, homosexuals
refuse to call their "lifestyle" sinful. They
demand to be accepted in the church just the
way they are. Hence the report wrestles with
difficult questions such as "How could I ever
welcome a same sex partner into the home?" or
"What if they want to share the same bedroom?"
(2.5). How can these be questions for any
Presbyterian? Never mind difficult
questions!
Homosexuals are campaigning
like no other group to have those who call their
lifestyle sinful made liable to prosecution as
those guilty of "hate crimes." Homosexuals, like
the original sodomites, do not like their
actions to be judged and refuse to repent.
Remember their retort to Lot: "This one fellow
came in to sojourn and he will needs be a judge.
Now we will deal worse with thee, than with
them" (Gen. 19:9).
This brings us to the third
"unhelpful" term: "sodomy." Sodomy is that sin
which is practiced by sodomites. Such sinners
(like adulterers, fornicators, etc.) are not
members of the kingdom of God, either in the Old
(Deut. 23:17) or New Testament (I Cor. 6:9-10).
In Israel’s history, when the rulers of the
people were disobedient "there were sodomites"
in the land (I Kings 14:24; 15:12), but when the
more faithful kings ruled they removed the
sodomites from the land (I Kings 22:46; II Kings
23:7). In the OT, sodomites, as well as other
gross transgressors (adulterers, incestuous
persons, idolaters, etc.), were to be "removed"
by execution. In the NT, the Christian church
cuts off such rotten members by excommunication
and expulsion from the fellowship with the hope
that, the flesh being destroyed, "the spirit may
be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (I Cor.
5:5).
One of the tactics of the
homosexual lobby, aided and abetted by the
effeminate, departing churches, is to claim that
the sin which brought down fire and brimstone on
Sodom and Gomorrah (the sin of "sodomy"
therefore) was not homosexuality. Genesis 13:13
teaches that the "men of Sodom were wicked and
sinners before the LORD exceedingly." The sin of
the men of Sodom (no women are mentioned) was
sexual. They demanded that Lot bring "the men"
out that they might "know them" (Gen. 19:5),
that is sleep with them. Lot called this
"do[ing] wickedly" (Gen. 19:7). The sin of Sodom
was also an iniquity in which the sodomites
boasted ("They declare their sin as Sodom, they
hide it not;" Isa. 3:9). Modern sodomites parade
their iniquitous life-style in so-called "Gay
Pride" marches. Although the report mentions
"the promotion of alternative sexualities" which
lead to "confusion" among some young people
(9.3), there is no condemnation or even mild
criticism of such marches. Homosexual
propagandists within apostate Christendom often
appeal to Ezekiel to try to re-write the history
of Genesis 19. They contend that the sin of
Sodom was solely "pride, iniquity, fullness of
bread and abundance of idleness" (Eze. 16:49),
and therefore, not homosexuality. But they
ignore the context, nor do they compare
Scripture with Scripture. "And they were
haughty," continues the inspired prophet of
Jehovah, "and committed abomination
before me: therefore I took them away as I saw
good" (Eze. 16:50). "Abomination" is a word used
to describe sodomy (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). The
apostles also identified the sin of Sodom as
"filthy conversation [i.e., conduct]" (II Peter
2:7) and "going after strange flesh" and "giving
themselves over to fornication" (Jude 7).
Whatever the framers of this report may believe
the sin of Sodom was (and they do not say), one
thing is certain, there will be few sermons on
Genesis 19 and God’s destruction of Sodom in the
PCI.
Although the Holy Spirit uses
the word "unnatural" ("against nature" or
"leaving the natural use") in Romans 1:26-27,
the report deems it "unhelpful" in preaching or
counselling. Thus the Third Person of the
Trinity has less wisdom than the General
Assembly of the PCI! What a shame that holy and
inspired Scripture can not be rewritten by the
highest court of Irish Presbyterianism! Oh
foolish Holy Spirit, who inspired words which
"victimise" and "diminish" homosexuals! This
blasphemy follows logically and necessarily from
the report adopted by the 2007 PCI General
Assembly.
All of these words and
phrases concerning homosexuality, like "sodomy"
and "unnatural," "lock the door to effective
pastoral care before it is even open," complains
the report (7.1). How arrogant of the framers of
this report to think that they know better than
the Triune God! God saves His elect, some of
whom before their conversion walked in the sins
of homosexuality, exactly through the
application of these and other biblical words to
their hearts (Heb. 4:12). He also uses these
words to warn His church about these sins, lest
they be tempted to commit them also. Therefore,
writes Jude, the sodomites who are "suffering
eternal fire" in hell are "set forth for an
example," as a warning to all impenitent
homosexuals and to those who are tempted to
commit this sin (Jude 7; II Peter 2:6). More
"unhelpful" words, betraying the shockingly
ineffective pastoral care of Peter and Jude! If
only the inspired penmen of Holy Scripture had
learned a "balanced" theology at Union
Theological College and digested the report of
the PCI's 2007 General Assembly! The report
urges "balanced proclamation" (7.3). Don’t
condemn homosexuality too much (i.e., in the
language and with the force that God does in His
Word). In practice this means, don’t condemn
this sin at all.
A Radical Change or a
Predictable Development?
The Social Issues and
Resources Panel insisted that it was not
their remit to change the position of the GA
(1.3). The position of the GA, prior to the 2007
report, is contained in "The Church and the
Homosexual," which was prepared by the National
and International Problems Committee (Assembly
Reports [Belfast: 1979], pp. 181-195).
Already in 1979, the PCI was
weakening the biblical position, yet even that
was too strong for the PCI in 2007. Some of the
1979 statements against homosexuality which the
present Social Issues and Resources Panel (2007)
must have found "unhelpful" are these:
Heterosexual relations are still the
only "natural" sexual relations (cf.
Rom. 1:27, 29) (para. 18, p. 184).
It is surely incontestable that Old
Testament references to homosexual
practices strongly condemn them as a sin
against God and a degradation of society
(para. 20, p. 185).
Twice Paul refers to heterosexual
relations as being "natural," and evil
men and women "changing" or "leaving the
natural use" into that which is against
nature. This would leave little room for
the contention by many homosexuals that
their orientation is as "natural" and
God-given as that of heterosexuals
(para. 22, p. 185).
In the New Testament, the Old Testament
view that homosexual acts are sinful in
the sight of God is fully endorsed and
reinforced (para. 23, p. 186).
But there were cracks even in
the 1979 report; the warning signs were there.
The 2007 report is a further step in the wrong
direction.
In the first place, most of
the stronger statements in the 1979 report are
carefully qualified: the condemnation of
homosexuality in the OT would "seem to be
inescapable" (para. 20, p. 185; italics mine).
In the light of the NT passages cited (Rom.
1:26-27; I Cor. 6:9-11; I Tim. 1:10), "it would
be difficult to argue that a practising
homosexual may engage in and claim God’s
blessing on a homosexual relationship" (para.
23, p. 186; italics mine).
In addition, the framers of
the 1979 report welcomed signs of an openness to
enter into dialogue with homosexuals: "There can
be little doubt that many self-confessed
homosexuals would welcome dialogue … and there
are signs, much to be welcomed, that more and
more members of the Church are prepared to seek
enlightenment" (para. 26, p. 186). One is
amazed! How can the church enter into dialogue
with and "seek enlightenment" from
homosexuals, when God's Word has clearly spoken
on the issue? "To the law and to
the testimony: if they speak not according to
this word, it is because there is no light
in them" (Isa. 8:20).
The 1979 report also betrays
a false view of "pastoral care." We must "be
careful about condemning it [i.e.,
homosexuality]" (para. 59, p. 192). But does not
the Triune God condemn it? Perhaps the Almighty
ought to have been more "careful"? The 1979 PCI
report continues, "we must ask ourselves … what
we may have done as regards membership—with all
the discipline that goes with that—on the part
of those whose sexual orientation is towards
those of their own sex" (para. 60, p. 192). Is
this really a question? Note that in 1979 the
PCI was questioning God's prohibition
against homosexuals as members in Christ's
church (I Cor. 6:9-11)!
The 1979 report also insisted
that a "fine story" could be told of lives lived
by homosexuals in the service of church and
state ("including the ordained ministry"). This,
in the words of the 1979 report, is "beyond
dispute" (cf. para. 65, p. 193). Yet how can an
impenitent homosexual serve the church, when he
is not even a living member of the body of
Christ at all (I Cor. 6:9-11)? And how can
unbelievers (homosexual or heterosexual) be
indisputably fine servants of Jesus Christ when
"they that are in the flesh
cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8)? If even
the "ploughing of the wicked is sin" (Prov.
21:4), what about the "abomination" (Lev. 18:22;
20:13) of a sodomite "serving" in the holy
ministry of the Word and sacraments! Were there
no delegates to the 1979 GA who understood the
biblical and confessional truth of total
depravity (e.g., Rom. 3:9-20; WCF 6, 16)
that "the carnal mind is enmity
against God: for it is not subject to the law of
God, neither indeed can be" (Rom. 8:7)?
Such are the unscriptural and contradictory
proclamations of the PCI on sodomy, even in
1979!
In addition, reference is
made to a few congregations in some countries
who "accept self-professed homosexuals, living
in settled homosexual relationships, and do not
question the sincerity of their Christian
faith." Instead of sharply criticizing such
churches for their wicked practices, the 1979
report simply urged understanding and a
willingness to listen from those who may
disagree (cf. para. 68, p. 193). Presbyterians
ought instead to listen to Proverbs 19:27: "Cease,
my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to
err from the words of knowledge." But this Word
of God was not heeded. Instead, the false
counsel of the 1979 report caused the PCI to err
in "dialoguing" with the homosexuals, and now,
after hearkening to the sodomites, the 2007 GA
is further causing Irish Presbyterians to err
with its false report. So much for God's Word in
the PCI.
Already the 1979 report urged
"a more tolerant and understanding acceptance of
the homosexual" (para. 70, p. 194). These
aspirations are being realized in the 2007
report.
Tolerating Evil in the Name
of Love
The 2007 report describes the
struggles a homosexual person may have before he
"comes out" about his sexuality. First
reactions, cautions the report, have "the
potential to crush or bring hope" (8.1). The
person at this point needs unconditional love
and acceptance, just the way he is. "At this
point they do not even need to hear what the
Bible says about homosexuality" (8:2). How
foolish! Sinners always need to hear what
God’s Word says about their sin. They also need
to be told about the gospel and the sovereign
grace of God which delivers sinners from the
condemnation, shame, guilt and pollution of sin.
The grace of God which brings salvation teaches
us that, "denying ungodliness and worldly
lusts, we should live soberly, righteously
and godly in this present world" (Titus 2:12).
The grace of God does not teach us that God
accepts us just the way we are and that we can
go on in our lusts (whether they are lusts after
money or after power or after people of the
other sex or after people of the same sex,
etc.); it teaches us repentance. Any
other teaching is sheer antinomianism, "turning
the grace of God into lasciviousness" (Jude 4)
by telling homosexuals that they may continue as
members of the church as homosexuals.
According to this PCI report, pastors should not
force people into counselling or suggest that
people with same-sex attractions are spiritually
sick or perverted (8.2). But, according to God's
Word, homosexuals (and all other impenitent
sinners) must be told that they are
transgressors who need the grace of God to turn
from their sinful desires and practices. The
homosexual who is being pastored should not
be rejected by the church, according to this
report (9.4). Therefore we see that church
discipline is out of the question. Yet Christ
commanded church discipline of impenitent church
members (Matt. 18:15-18) and He cuts off
churches who tolerate wickedness in their
members (Rev. 2:14, 20). Whom are Irish
Presbyterians going to obey? The GA or Jesus
Christ? This report means that you can not obey
both.
The PCI cannot bring itself
to exercise biblical church discipline. Such
would be "unloving." This is indicated in the
report as well. The PCI says that their position
is that "sexual practice is only for
heterosexual marriage" (10). Well and good. But
then the PCI speaks out of the other side of its
mouth:
Our aim ought to be
to help ALL unmarried people to cope
with sexual pressures. We realise this
raises issues regarding celibacy. While
this is an area of debate in
relation to "the hope of marriage,"
essentially ongoing sexual pressures
need to be controlled (10; italics
mine).
Pathetic! This means that the
PCI won’t even discipline fornicators. How is
celibacy before marriage an "area of debate"?
How dare they raise questions about that which
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has
forever settled! Is the PCI going to enforce
celibacy on its homosexual members when it does
not seem to be able to do so with its
heterosexual members? One wonders how that would
fit with politically correct views of
"equality." How many other sins are tolerated in
the name of this false view of Christian "love"?
Yet faithful church discipline, after true
preaching and proper administration of the two
sacraments, is the third mark of a true church!
Unfaithful church discipline, permitting
homosexuals to the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper and muzzling the preaching of God's Word
against sodomy indicate that the PCI manifests
the three marks of the false church (Belgic
Confession 29).
The PCI report simply caves
in to the pressures of the ungodly world.
"Churches must continue to live with those who
act and behave in ways seen as inconsistent with
God’s Word" (9.4). Notice the words "act and
behave." Those who commit homosexual sins (not
just those who have such desires) are to be
tolerated as members of the PCI. This is a
"principle" of all pastoral care and "especially
in this matter [of homosexuality]" (9.4; italics
mine). Notice also the weak way in which these
sins are described: "in ways seen as
inconsistent with God’s Word" (9.4; italics
mine). Why the hesitancy? Those who act in ways
inconsistent with God’s word (i.e., those who
walk in the ways of wickedness, whether
adultery, theft or homosexuality, etc.) are to
be disciplined, and, if they remain impenitent,
excluded from the church and kingdom of Jesus
Christ (I Cor. 5:13). In this way the church
acts in love and prays for the repentance of the
sinning member (I Cor. 5:5). If, after repeated
admonitions, the sinner refuses to repent, he is
to be considered "an heathen man and a publican"
(Matt. 18:17). With such a person the church may
not have any fellowship. She takes this action
in the hope that the sinning member will return
in the way of repentance (I Cor. 5:11). Failure
to do this leads to the corruption of the whole
body (I Cor. 5:6) and Christ's removal of the
candlestick (Rev. 2-3). Do the framers of the
report fear Christ more than being called
"homophobic"? Clearly not!
Creating the Right
Atmosphere For Iniquity to Abound!
The PCI, according to the
2007 report, needs to "create an environment of
love, understanding, acceptance, patience,
forgiveness, openness and grace" (10) for
impenitent homosexuals. Remember there is not a
word in the report calling homosexuals to
repent. However, just because our society is
becoming more "inclusive" does not mean that
everybody is welcome to be a member of the
church. The church may not accept such
wicked people as members. The church must urge
them to repentance and administer discipline if
the call is unheeded. The report makes all kinds
of suggestions on how the church can be
understanding and accepting: the use of small
groups and youth groups, exploring the
possibility of support groups, and providing
books and tapes. What kind of books and tapes?
Material by authors and preachers who teach the
pure biblical truth about sodomy (which is
forbidden by the report) or the material of
those who are "double minded" regarding
homosexuality (James 1:8) like the PCI itself?
Answer: the latter! How will small groups, youth
groups or support groups explore this subject if
all condemnatory language from Scripture is to
be avoided? Report 10.9 is particularly
alarming, for it states that one must
"acknowledge a person’s right to a private
life." What does this mean? Does this mean the
homosexual's right to sleep with other men in
private? Or that church officers will not ask
questions about these things? We are not told.
We can only imagine. And shudder.
The report calls for
repentance. But it calls on the Presbyterian
church to repent for its attitude against
homosexual members (11) and it pleads (rather
pathetically) with the homosexual for some
understanding on his part: "It is not easy for
those who wish to be genuinely caring yet
maintain Biblical integrity without giving the
impression that in so doing they are rejecting
the person" (11.2). "It is not easy," either, to
"halt between two opinions" (I Kings 18:21) and
talk out of both sides of one's mouth! How
difficult to try to appear orthodox enough to
fool those who follow Jesus Christ but inclusive
enough to please the ungodly world. No such
difficulty exists for those who believe the
Bible and unashamedly confess it. Persecution
will follow, but a clear conscience remains (II
Tim. 3:12; I Tim. 1:19).
Proclaiming condemnation of
sodomy "does not win hearts and minds" (11:3),
says the report. But we protest! A sharp
condemnation of sin—by the grace of God—won over
the Corinthians, some of whom lived in
homosexuality before they repented and believed
the gospel (I Cor. 6:11). The report claims that
condemnation does not show "the pastoral care of
Jesus Christ" (11:3) but it offers no proof from
Scripture. The fact is that when Christ dealt
with people, unlike the report, He pointed out
their sins, demanded repentance and called them
to a new and godly life (e.g., John 4:16-18;
8:11). Thus the PCI is teaching "another Jesus"
and therefore "another gospel" and "another
spirit" (II Cor. 11:4), by approving a foolish
report which corrupts the church, taking her
away from "the simplicity which is in Christ"
(II Cor. 11:3). The men who wrote the report do
not have the mind of Christ (I Cor. 2:16), but
are slavishly in bondage to the fear of our
increasingly politically correct world. This is
the spirit of true apostolic Christianity: "if
yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of
Christ" (Gal. 1:10). Where does this put the
ministers and elders of the General Assembly?
Where is the zeal of the OT prophets in the PCI?
"But truly I am full of power by
the spirit of the LORD, and of judgment, and of
might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression,
and to Israel his sin" (Micah 3:8)! Oh, but this
would be "unhelpful" and "diminish" and
"victimise" homosexuals! It is significant that
the Epistle of Jude which exhorts all Christians
"earnestly [to] contend for the faith which was
once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3),
refers a few verses later to sodomy (Jude 7)! In
failing to contend earnestly against
homosexuality, the PCI shows that is losing (if
it has not already lost) "the
faith which was once delivered unto the saints"
(Jude 3).
Awake!
We have seen from a brief
analysis of this report how grievously the PCI
has departed from God’s Word on this matter (and
many other areas could also be detailed). But,
then, ought we be surprised? As early as 1873,
the PCI had women missionaries. By 1908, Irish
Presbyterians allowed women into the order of
"deaconesses." By 1926, the PCI permitted women
to be elders in the church. All these are clear
acts of rebellion against Jesus Christ, the head
of His church (I Tim. 2:12). This was followed,
logically, in 1976 with the decision to ordain
women to the ministry. The PCI has long departed
from a sound confession of the inerrancy and
absolute authority of Scripture; higher critical
(i.e., unbelieving) views of Scripture are
taught in Union Theological College. The
Westminster Confession is merely a venerable
antique in the PCI and a tool to fool the unwary
into thinking that the PCI is an orthodox
Christian and Reformed church. The majority of
the office bearers in the denomination do not
believe what their creed teaches, if they even
know what it contains. Arminianism is preached
from the pulpits. Those few ministers who claim
to preach the biblical and confessional truth of
God's sovereign and particular grace, teach it
quietly and inconsistently, while they cling
tenaciously to the errors of the free offer of
the gospel and common grace, proclaiming the God
loves everybody and wants to save everybody,
including the reprobate (read the following: Ps.
5:4-6; 11:5-7; 69:21-28; 73:18; 92:6-7; 115:3;
Isa. 6:9-11; Rom. 9:13).
The PCI's previous departure
regarding the seventh commandment ("Thou shalt
not commit adultery") needs especially to be
exposed in this connection. Fornication is
permitted amongst its membership, as we saw
acknowledged above. Unbiblical divorce for
reasons other than fornication has been going on
for decades (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). Adulterous
remarriage for both "innocent" and "guilty"
parties while one's spouse is living is rampant
(Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:16; Rom. 7:2-3; I Cor.
7:39). The PCI capitulation regarding sodomy is
simply the next logical step away from the
chaste Christian life required by God in the
seventh commandment—as it was for the Church of
England and other apostate churches. On the
great judgment day, the Most High will thunder
just as loudly (if not more so) against the
wickedness of the PCI in despising His
commandments (cf. Ps. 50:16-18) as He did at
Mount Sinai.
Every member of the PCI needs
to know that it is now the official policy
of the PCI to tolerate sodomy, both in its "vile
affections" and wicked practices. The official
position is that the church must "live with"
those who "act and behave" as homosexuals (9.4).
Sodomy will be, and is already being, tolerated.
"Homophobia" will not. If members complain
against a minister who preaches a forthright,
biblical sermon on sodomy (from, say, Romans
1:26-27 or Jude 7, etc.) or against elders who
seek to discipline a homosexual member, that
minister or session will not have a leg to stand
on in the ecclesiastical courts. This report
effectively ties their hands and leaves them
wide open to the appeal and overthrow of their
work. Those who would dare to discipline
impenitent homosexuals could themselves become
liable to church discipline!
Nor is this the end of the
matter. There are many people in the PCI who do
not think this report goes far enough. Rev. Ken
Newell (Newsletter, 9 June, 2006) and
Rev. Bobby Liddle (Newsletter, 6 June,
2007) make this point very clearly. Rev. Newell,
welcoming this report, enthused, "We hope that
this sends a very strong message to the gay
members of our Church and community that the
General Assembly, Presbyteries, Kirk Sessions
and Congregations [of the PCI] apologise for any
hurt caused them in the past" (Belfast
Telegraph, 7 June, 2007; italics mine). Note
again the free admission of undisciplined
homosexuals in the PCI. Moreover, here a former
PCI moderator, on behalf of the PCI in all her
bodies and members, makes a blanket apology to
PCI homosexuals for "any hurt" caused them,
which must include (in the terms of the 2007 GA
report) any biblical instruction ever given in
the PCI's history that homosexuality is
"unnatural" (Rom. 1:26-27) and that those who
live in this "vile affection" are not citizens
in the kingdom of God (I Cor. 6:9-10) but are
headed for eternal destruction (Jude 7).
Is this the "very strong
message" that any God-fearing Presbyterian "in
the pew" wants sent out? But where are the
groans and sighs amongst the believing remnant
in the PCI and where are the protests?
Thousands of PCI members ought to be waking up
to the terrifying and awful apostasy of their
denomination. Where are the people leaving the
PCI, shaking the dust off their feet? God's
truth is fallen to the street in the PCI (Isa.
59:14) to be trampled under foot by the General
Assembly which represents the entire PCI
membership, but few seem even to care! Yet the
second commandment tells us that "the
LORD ... [is] a jealous God, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto
the third and fourth generation of them that
hate [Him]" (Ex. 20:5)! Are not Irish
Presbyterians troubled about the salvation and
edification of themselves and their children and
grandchildren and fellow church members, as
their church descends the deep, dark path of
apostasy? Certainly the Holy Spirit is grieved
(Eph. 4:30) and quenched (I Thess. 5:19) in the
PCI, as it tolerates sodomy. Thus God's grace
and blessing is being withdrawn from its
preaching and sacraments. But the problem is
that most PCI members have gotten used to
departure from God's Word; they don't try the
church spirits (I John 4:1) by the light of
Scripture; they have little or no zeal for the
glory of Jesus Christ. Like those in the
apostate Northern Kingdom of Israel just before
she was destroyed, the great and eternal issues
of God's Word are "counted as a strange thing"
(Hos. 8:12) by most Irish Presbyterians. Then,
as now, those who warn members of a departing
church are denounced as a crazy scare-mongers.
Sadly, for some people in the PCI, like Lot in
Sodom (Gen. 19), it would take angels to come
down from heaven to drag them out! Their
denomination can descend so low as to make peace
with sodomy and seek to include impenitent
homosexuals in the body of Jesus Christ, but
they still remain in the PCI. Those who stay in
apostatising churches will probably lose their
children (Hos. 4:6).
What further PCI departures
on this subject can we expect to see in future
years? Sodomy is a particularly grave sin even
in the world; to homosexuality some unbelievers
are "given up" in God's just wrath (Rom. 1:26).
In the church, it is an especially gross
instance of departure from the truth, being
tolerated only when the church is already a long
way down the path of apostasy (Judg. 19:22-23;
Isa. 1:10). Openness towards and acceptance of
sodomy will grow in the PCI, as God’s judgment
against her for wickedly rejecting His Word. The
homosexuals in the PCI will become bolder and
more brazen (cf. Isa. 3:9). The Church of
England was at this stage some years ago. Now
they have openly homosexual ministers and
ministers in homosexual civil partnerships.
Think of the furore in recent times over Gene
Robinson, the homosexual Anglican bishop in New
Hampshire, USA. It remains to be seen how far
and how quickly the PCI goes down this road.
Already, as Rev. Bobby Liddle has said, there
are some in the PCI who do not think it has gone
far enough. And he should know, for Rev. Liddle
is the spokesman for the committee which wrote
the report! The pro-homosexual lobby in the PCI
is like the horseleech which is never satisfied,
crying "Give, give" (Prov. 30:15)! If
homosexuals are really full church members, they
will argue, why can they not be allowed to be
more open about their sexuality? Every office
and role in the PCI should be available to those
who widely declare their homosexuality in the
PCI. After all, they will say, you've allowed us
in these offices and roles when we've kept quiet
about our sexual proclivities! Now let us be
honest and nail our colours to the mast.
Remember, we're all equal! This is how it has
gone with the Church of England and other
modernist churches. This is how the PCI has
already apostatised regarding women in office
(first women missionaries, then deaconesses,
then women elders, and then women ministers).
How long will it be before the PCI has a woman
moderator? How long will it be before the PCI
has ministers who openly declare their sodomy?
Member of the PCI, you can
not sit on your hands and do nothing while the
church of which you are a member descends
into deeper apostasy. It will not do merely to
say, "Oh, but I do not believe the false things
that the PCI is saying about sodomy." The only
option you have is to secede. The so-called
evangelicals claim that they have been
attempting to reform the PCI for years, but the
church has not been turned around; it has gotten
worse. The evangelicals of former generations
would be utterly disgusted and appalled at the
PCI's capitulation even on so gross a sin as
sodomy. The fact is that the modernists and the
conservatives in the PCI are friends. Witness
the kind words conservative Dr. Harry Uprichard
had for the false ecumenist Rev. Ken Newell when
he succeeded Rev. Newell as moderator in 2005—as
if they were both faithful servants of Jesus
Christ! Ahabs and Jehoshaphats live in harmony
(II Chron. 19:2). Where in the PCI are the
Micaiahs who boldly stand against the 400 false
prophets (I Kings 22)? Leave the PCI, for "If
the foundations be destroyed, what can the
righteous do?" (Ps. 11:3). The PCI courts,
machinery and legislation are in the expert
hands of ungodly men; how could protests
possibly be successful? Few church members in
the PCI even understand their office as prophets
and their right of church protest. Even fewer
even care. And such protests would be swiftly
shot down anyway.2
Follow Jesus Christ as a member of a faithful
church which manifests clearly the three marks
of a true church.3
Trust not in lying words that
your congregation is better than the others and
your minister is sound. You and he are
corporately responsible and are under
God's judgment for all the wicked departures
of your church from Jesus Christ (Josh. 7; Dan.
9), especially if you do not raise a word in
ecclesiastical protest against it. You, by your
weekly offerings, financially support the
corrupt boards who penned this report. You
support the liberal PCI seminary in Belfast. You
pay the salaries of apostate clergy, ecumenists,
feminists and liberals. You do! In so
doing, you "help the ungodly" (II Chron. 19:2).
For the sake of your own soul and the spiritual
welfare of your children, obey the voice from
heaven which says, "Come out of her, my people,
that ye be not partakers of her sins, and
that ye receive not of her plagues" (Rev. 18:4).
As the PCI lurches towards
Sodom and Gomorrah, the angels' words ring out
in their urgency:
Arise, take thy wife,
and thy two daughters, which are here;
lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of
the city … Escape for thy life; look not
behind thee ... escape … lest thou be
consumed (Gen. 19:15, 17).4
Martyn McGeown
1See
also the article, "The
Image of God in Man: A Reformed Reassessment,"
or the quotes on "The
Image of God."
2A sermon which deals
with these issues: "The
Moral Foundations of the Church."
3See also the
pamphlet, "The
Marks of the True Church."
4An earlier edition of
this article referred to a piece in the
Belfast Telegraph quoting Presbyterian
Church in Ireland moderator (2007-2008), Rev.
John Finlay, as declaring that homosexuals can
be members of the PCI: "Technically there's no
reason why a homosexual cannot belong to the
church ... There would be no reason for not
having them as a member [sic]" (5 June, 2007).
In a letter to Rev. Stewart (6 August, 2007),
Rev. Finlay claims that he was misrepresented by
the Belfast Telegraph and that he was
referring to Christians who "were struggling
with the temptation towards homosexual behaviour"
and not (unrepentant) homosexuals. Rev. Finlay
also states in this letter, "Homosexuality is
sinful, condemned in Scripture and contrary to
God's purposes for mankind ... I believe that a
practising homosexual could not be a church
member in good standing and spiritual discipline
should be exercised by those in church
authority." The problem is, as we have
seen, that, though this is Rev. Finlay's
personal opinion, this is not the PCI's official
position which is stated in the 2007 General
Assembly Report. Nor is Rev. Finlay's view about
what "should" be done regarding homosexual
church members PCI practice, for what about the
discipline of the estimated 9,000 homosexuals in
the PCI? Indeed, as this paper on "The
Presbyterian Church in Ireland and Sodomy" makes
clear, biblical preaching against and discipline
of homosexuals in the PCI is now hamstrung by
the 2007 report—much to the delight of false
ecumenist Rev. Ken Newell, one of Rev. Finlay's
predecessors as PCI moderator, and many in the
PCI, and the homosexual lobby.
Listen to a special lecture:
Homosexuality: What Does the Bible Teach?