Homosexuality, Public Confession and LC 139

[Shawn Mathis]

Hello,

I hope I have the correct place to post this. I have been studying the growth of homosexuality in the American conservative churches for a bit and with the new revelation about pastor Johnson being gay, I thought it important to discuss public confessions of such sins intersecting with the nature of that particular sin.

My opinion (posted here) is that publicly confessing such a sin makes the sin more heinous. That's how I read the Larger Catechism--even if there was no physical enactment of said sin LCQ 139: "and all unnatural lusts; [783] all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections..."

As a reminder, the Westminster Larger Catechism 151 states, in part,

“From the persons offending, if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others...the nature and quality of the offense.”

Besides, homosexuality is already a heinous sin. And, I fear, much of the church does not look at it that way. I have encountered this in conservative Reformed churches.

And publicly confessing this sin (in this manner in particular), I think, will exacerbate the problem. Matthew Henry's commentary reminded me of this fact. He wrote:

"Christians may and ought to testify more respect to loose worldlings than to loose Christians...The reason of this limitation is here assigned. It is impossible the one should be avoided. Christians must have gone out of the world to avoid the company of loose heathens. But this was impossible, as long as they had business in the world. While they are minding their duty, and doing their proper business, God can and will preserve them from contagion. Besides, they carry an antidote against the infection of their bad example, and are naturally upon their guard. They are apt to have a horror at their wicked practices. But the dread of sin wears off by familiar converse with wicked Christians. Our own safety and preservation are a reason of this difference."

[Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and
Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 2253.]

Note well: "But the dread of sin wears off by familiar converse with wicked Christians. Our own safety and preservation are a reason of this difference."

This is bad precedent, in my humble opinion.

 

[User20004000]

Hello,

I hope I have the correct place to post this. I have been studying the growth of homosexuality in the American conservative churches for a bit and with the new revelation about pastor Johnson being gay, I thought it important to discuss public confessions of such sins intersecting with the nature of that particular sin.

My opinion (posted here) is that publicly confessing such a sin makes the sin more heinous. That's how I read the Larger Catechism--even if there was no physical enactment of said sin LCQ 139: "and all unnatural lusts; [783] all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections..."

As a reminder, the Westminster Larger Catechism 151 states, in part,

“From the persons offending, if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others...the nature and quality of the offense.”

Besides, homosexuality is already a heinous sin. And, I fear, much of the church does not look at it that way. I have encountered this in conservative Reformed churches.

And publicly confessing this sin (in this manner in particular), I think, will exacerbate the problem. Matthew Henry's commentary reminded me of this fact. He wrote:

"Christians may and ought to testify more respect to loose worldlings than to loose Christians...The reason of this limitation is here assigned. It is impossible the one should be avoided. Christians must have gone out of the world to avoid the company of loose heathens. But this was impossible, as long as they had business in the world. While they are minding their duty, and doing their proper business, God can and will preserve them from contagion. Besides, they carry an antidote against the infection of their bad example, and are naturally upon their guard. They are apt to have a horror at their wicked practices. But the dread of sin wears off by familiar converse with wicked Christians. Our own safety and preservation are a reason of this difference."

[Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and
Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 2253.]

Note well: "But the dread of sin wears off by familiar converse with wicked Christians. Our own safety and preservation are a reason of this difference."

This is bad precedent, in my humble opinion.

I agree, Brother, but for some reason sexual sin of all sorts has gained a unique standing in the church. The culture has worn down the church. Such sin is no longer shocking but that's because people are more saturated with the world than the word of God. We've become desensitized and the truth is at best a vague memory. The church actually now believes there are practicing homosexual Christians. My own children have been exposed to X-rated word-pictures from God’s pulpit (not at my home church). They would have been better off in “junior church” and it would have been better for a millstone to be hung around one's neck if a youth within the hearing of that word was led astray. (Matthew 18:6)

Let’s get it out of our minds that there is such a thing as the Christian homosexual. If thousands of people say they love Christ yet God has not seen fit to grant them repentance from this sort of sin, who should we believe - God’s word about who will not inherit the kingdom of God or the people God’s word says live in darkness and will not own the truth? At the very least, why is it no longer “disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret”? (Ephesians 5:12)

How many ministries to homosexuals tell their subjects that such a life style is depicted in Scripture as punishment for being abhorred by God? How can a long and drawn out book study for such sin not undermine the urgency that such a person is sealing his destiny with temporal judgment (Romans 1). Such coddling of the impenitent portrays the lie that this is a common struggle in the church. No, it’s not a struggle in the church, let alone a common one; it’s a “struggle” for those outside the church, and the struggle is due to a decided unwillingness to repent. What, God can save us – He just cannot keep us from such unspeakable sin? What is salvation, after all?

I hear more about this sin than gossip. I hear more about this sin than Sabbath breaking! Why is the sin that God turns men over to for hardened unbelief – that of degrading passions and unnatural functions (Romans 1: 26) – been the focus of so much attention? It’s because many leaders in the church do not believe the Bible is relevant for this day, though they’ll never say it that plainly. I guess "sex sells" is now true for the church too.

For those who have been saved out of sexual immorality (or any class of sin), the sanctified path does not enter through doors of meeting with people who had, let alone still have, the same struggles. I befriended one man who was eventually put outside the church for such sin, and then was reclaimed by the mercies of God. His testimony was that the renowned focus group he attended was no more than a pick-up spot. The path of light that leads unto life is through the study of the whole counsel of God - and exercising oneself unto the ordinary means of grace in the church. The Bible knows nothing of special focus groups that are often time an occasion to stir up sinful passions with graphic testimony. (Divorce groups have similar problems.) What all Christians need is integration into the body! And the last thing they need to do is recite their past to the church or small group for "the glory of God"! Again, it is disgraceful even to speak of these former things that were done in secret.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1Corinthians 6:9-11​

 

[Shawn Mathis]

"His testimony was that the renowned focus group he attended was no more than a pick-up spot."

It is information like that which is helpful for the body of Christ to know. It matches the information I have studied for my book on this subject.

The church is woefully ignorant of this lifestyle (I was too). This has colored her response. There is a real danger of this pick-up problem when churches advertise themselves as "gay-friendly"--whether the liberal or conservative churches.

This fact alone is strong evidence against such public confessions/coming-outs.

And as for speaking of things done in secret, we are forced into this by dint of circumstance. I certainly don't want to talk about it! My exposure to this began in 2017 when I saw a video by Sam Allberry on facebook--and Reformed people were hailing his public, self-identification before the CoE synod. (I write about my response to that here).

 

[Jeri Tanner]

My exposure to this began in 2017 when I saw a video by Sam Allberry on facebook--and Reformed people were hailing his public, self-identification before the CoE synod. (I write about my response to that here).

Yes, thank you. My first exposure was to a write-up on Challies about Wesley Hill. I could not believe it. Then came Sam Allberry. I thought that their coming out and 'testimonies' couldn't help but serve as advertising that could and seemed inevitably would lead to pickup situations. And one of those from an ordained minister.

 

[Herald]

Lot's fall was not just because he dwelt among immoral people but that he tacitly accepted their immorality. This is the real threat to churches and believers today. Departure from truth almost always starts incrementally.

 

[Kinghezy]

Do you think a lack of shame plays into it? I had come across the connection of the "pride" associated with homosexuality, and it seems like that fits with these "confessions" and even with what Paul says in Romans.

...and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
— Romans 1:32

 

[Wayne]

Shawn:

Excellent comment.

Matthew Henry's comment on which text? I scanned through Romans 1, but didn't see it there. (scan too quickly?)

And "Complete and Unabridged in One Volume" - just how thick is that jewel of a book? Tiny print and 8 inches thick?

 

[A.Joseph]

After watching him on Crosspolitic, he was taught poorly. What seminary did he attend and who deemed him fit for ministry?

 

[ZackF]

After watching him on Crosspolitic, he was taught poorly. What seminary did he attend and who deemed him fit for ministry?

Why was he necessarily taught poorly? Why can’t a man get through examination regardless of how he later turns out. There are brilliant men who’ve veered off into SJWland and the Federal Vision. Some bright heterosexual men have trashed their ministries and ruined countless live. One recent example was celebrated worldwide and he turned out to be a suicidal philanderer. Was he necessarily vetted inadequately?

The case of TE Johnson’s aside (which is far from over), we are too easily astonished when a shepherd is later found to be a wolf. Jesus picked a bad one...on purpose. Has Providence entirely forgone that path from the modern Church. I don’t think so.

 

[Taylor]

Matthew Henry's comment on which text?

It is from his comments on 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.

 

[A.Joseph]

Why was he necessarily taught poorly? Why can’t a man get through examination regardless of how he later turns out. There are brilliant men who’ve veered off into SJWland and the Federal Vision. Some bright heterosexual men have trashed their ministries and ruined countless live. One recent example was celebrated worldwide and he turned out to be a suicidal philanderer. Was he necessarily vetted inadequately?

The case of TE Johnson’s aside (which is far from over), we are too easily astonished when a shepherd is later found to be a wolf. Jesus picked a bad one...on purpose. Has Providence entirely forgone that path from the modern Church. I don’t think so.

Understood, but I was suprised that he had such a high view of man. I will have to watch again to get to the specific context where he seemed to really depart from Reformed 101... obviously he’s taken his departure even further

 

[A.Joseph]

Why was he necessarily taught poorly? Why can’t a man get through examination regardless of how he later turns out. There are brilliant men who’ve veered off into SJWland and the Federal Vision. Some bright heterosexual men have trashed their ministries and ruined countless live. One recent example was celebrated worldwide and he turned out to be a suicidal philanderer. Was he necessarily vetted inadequately?

The case of TE Johnson’s aside (which is far from over), we are too easily astonished when a shepherd is later found to be a wolf. Jesus picked a bad one...on purpose. Has Providence entirely forgone that path from the modern Church. I don’t think so.

At the 23min mark he seems to deny original sin/total depravity of man... And it just continues downhill. I never get the impression that he is willingly denying these truths. It’s as if they are totally foreign as in never been taught...

 

[ZackF]

At the 23min mark he seems to deny original sin/total depravity of man... And it just continues downhill. I never get the impression that he is willingly denying these truths. It’s as if they are totally foreign as in never been taught...

He knows better.

 

[User20004000]

First off, they liken SSA to being attracted to the opposite sex. Just don’t act on it. Well, I could say that some of my friends have attractive wives. That would be an objective statement. But it would be disgusting sin if I was attracted to my friends’ wives. They don’t see it that way. Heck, I know attractive men but is that the same thing as being attracted to men? The other thing is, they don’t think concupiscence is sin. Big problem there.

There’s also some major manipulation going on here. Would we be pity a father who was attracted to his daughter? Would we buy into his tearful struggle that God made him that way? No way. We’d tell the sicko to repent. So why do we buy into this deception? These guys are soft and self-deceived. The antidote for this perversion is no different than the antidote for a guy who prefers sheep. Man up and get over it, sicko. What would Paul do, start a book club or support group? If this sounds harsh, it’s because we’ve been worn down. I’ve given the gospel at a queer’s funeral and I’m no stranger to these sorts of guys. They don’t need our gullibility. They need to hear the apostolic message, truth and grace.

 

[Jack K]

The antidote for this perversion is no different than the antidote for a guy who prefers sheep. Man up and get over it, sicko.

I understand that you want to take a strong stand against laxness toward sin, which is highly admirable. But I have to say this:

"Man up and get over it" is never, ever a Christian antidote to sin. Christ is the only antidote to sin.

A man who turns to Christ and takes him as his Savior from sin, in the full sense of that phrase, gains the one effective antidote. Christ becomes for him not merely a forgiver but also a victor—one who will put to death the sin inside that man, beginning already in this life. That man's glorious and honorable duty, undertaken eagerly and expectantly if he properly sees the beauty and power of Christ in him, is to strive alongside his Savior in this battle against sin.

That is far different from "Man up!" Any of us who have truly struggled against besetting sins know the importance of drawing near to Christ and seeing that he is the Destroyer in our war against sin. We do not have the power, merely on our own, to defeat that sin by manning up.

This should give us compassion for others who struggle, and even for those who in despair or frustration or fear have convinced themselves that they are allowed to give up the struggle. In many cases, much of what they need is a bigger understanding of Christ and the fullness of the salvation he alone can work, and the fact that he does intend to work it in us. This is why we engage them theologically, and not merely by telling them to "get over it."

 

[User20004000]

You’ve missed the point. Don’t lust after boys and be a man is good advice. Be a man, love your wife and put away your stupid p0rn is also good advice. I give the theology when appropriate, but some guys who only give high talk about the Victor have never dealt with these sorts of men who are in bondage. The church has become impotent. 140 plus pages, how ridiculous is that?!

“This is why we engage them theologically, and not merely by telling them to "get over it."

Is that what this pastor lacks, better theology? I think he lacks repentance. You actually make my point.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

At the 23min mark he seems to deny original sin/total depravity of man... And it just continues downhill. I never get the impression that he is willingly denying these truths. It’s as if they are totally foreign as in never been taught...

Assuming he read the books in his library, there is a picture of him in a work helmet with the standard ST books behind him on his f/b page.

Also, recall at about 5" mark that he describes homosexuality as "disordered friendship."

I have been studying this issuse a while (since I am writing a book on this) and I have come to the conclusion much of this is post hoc justification. Part of the evidence is their own life story that includes current struggles with p0rnography (common among gays), bouts of depression (Allberry talks about that in one of his lectures), and the nearly across the board insistence that same-sex attraction (SSA) as such is *not* sinful, need not be mortified or even has an element of pre-fall goodness to it.

I only point this out because the danger (and it is already happening) is that we will argue over nuance, definitions, theories, etc. while missing the larger picture that we are making the church a more comfortable place than it should be on this issue. The number of definitions and theories easily outnumber the singular truth of the matter and could bog down the church in endless debate and study committees.

my two cents,

 

[Shawn Mathis]

First off, they liken SSA to being attracted to the opposite sex. Just don’t act on it. Well, I could say that some of my friends have attractive wives. That would be an objective statement. But it would be disgusting sin if I was attracted to my friends’ wives. They don’t see it that way. Heck, I know attractive men but is that the same thing as being attracted to men? The other thing is, they don’t think concupiscence is sin. Big problem there.

There’s also some major manipulation going on here. Would we be pity a father who was attracted to his daughter? Would we buy into his tearful struggle that God made him that way? No way. We’d tell the sicko to repent. So why do we buy into this deception? These guys are soft and self-deceived. The antidote for this perversion is no different than the antidote for a guy who prefers sheep. Man up and get over it, sicko. What would Paul do, start a book club or support group? If this sounds harsh, it’s because we’ve been worn down. I’ve given the gospel at a queer’s funeral and I’m no stranger to these sorts of guys. They don’t need our gullibility. They need to hear the apostolic message, truth and grace.

I think this sentiment is spot on. Homosexuality is the new respectable toy sin. Society (and much of the churches) have already put up with fornication and adultery. This is the next sin attacking the church. It is wearing us down (this is labeled "grooming"). Most homosexuals are not poor saps who need sympathy in the effeminate manner we often see around us (I say "most"--some are sad cases as I have read their testimonies).

In the case of the Side-B movement, I've read their books and listened to their lectures and read their essays at TGC. It is mostly a woe-is-me or (especially) the-church-better-not-make-me-feel-uncomfortable-about-SSA lecturing and almost never "let us kill this attraction!" Hill's book is a big sad story of personal turmoil. The movement is all effeminate that way. So by your use of "man up" I understand to mean to call them to eschew their homosexuality, to keep fighting it ("soft"--recall the Greek in 1 Cor. 6). They cannot and will not fight it if they refuse to name it sin.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Shawn:

Excellent comment.

Matthew Henry's comment on which text? I scanned through Romans 1, but didn't see it there. (scan too quickly?)

And "Complete and Unabridged in One Volume" - just how thick is that jewel of a book? Tiny print and 8 inches thick?

Wayne: 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.

 

[User20004000]

I think this sentiment is spot on. Homosexuality is the new respectable toy sin. Society (and much of the churches) have already put up with fornication and adultery. This is the next sin attacking the church. It is wearing us down (this is labeled "grooming"). Most homosexuals are not poor saps who need sympathy in the effeminate manner we often see around us (I say "most"--some are sad cases as I have read their testimonies).

In the case of the Side-B movement, I've read their books and listened to their lectures and read their essays at TGC. It is mostly a woe-is-me or (especially) the-church-better-not-make-me-feel-uncomfortable-about-SSA lecturing and almost never "let us kill this attraction!" Hill's book is a big sad story of personal turmoil. The movement is all effeminate that way. So by your use of "man up" I understand to mean to call them to eschew their homosexuality, to keep fighting it ("soft"--recall the Greek in 1 Cor. 6). They cannot and will not fight it if they refuse to name it sin.

Yes.

Also, we tend to be in a hurry to point such to Christ before they’ve agreed with God about their sin, let alone before they’ve acknowledged guilt for their alleged born-this-way orientation.

I’m a presuppositionalist. That means I don’t gather and present evidence for what men know by nature, like God exists. If men know God exists, then to try to prove they do only lends credence to their claim that they don’t. Similarly, I don’t spend time building a case to men who already know they shouldn’t lay down with other men (or animals). In love, I declare to them the law, its consequences and the forgiveness they can have in Christ. This has meant opening up my home etc. It has never meant coddling or indecisive wavering. Man up and repent can be said in love.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Yes.

Also, we tend to be in a hurry to point such to Christ before they’ve agreed with God about their sin, let alone before they’ve acknowledged guilt for their alleged born-this-way orientation.

Exactly. Johnson at his Revoice lecture takes this approach. He called it a "Gospel culture." He offers many examples that would not fit the repent model most of us would recognize.

And it is not just Johnson. Allberry explicitly states this in his book. He writes in his section, "What Should We Do if a Gay Couple Starts Coming to Our Church?"

This is what I most want people to know—for them to be bowled over by the God of the cross and resurrection. And, once gripped by this, to help them think through what trusting in this God will involve—what will need to be given over to him, including our messed-up sexuality.

But I want that conversation to take place in the context of the gospel, rather than start with their sexuality and try to get from there to the gospel. They need to know who Jesus is before being landed with what he requires. There is little point in describing how to live in the light of God's grace if someone doesn't yet know God's grace. So when a gay couple starts coming to church, my priority for them is the same as for anyone else: to hear the gospel and experience the welcome of a Christian community.​

This book was endorsed by Reformed men. This is where we are.

 

[Jack K]

I think he lacks repentance.

Ah, but "Man up and get over it" is not Christian repentance.

Hear me: I'm not suggesting that if someone is sinning we be content with a lesser repentance. Rather, I'm saying we should call that person to a full repentance that requires more than a mere summoning of willpower, which is no true repentance at all.

I'm not comfortable discussing this at length on a thread that began by pointing out a specific person's possible sin. I don't want to imply I'm going online to tell the world how some other guy needs to repent. But I thought it good to briefly mention that any repentance needs to include embracing Christ and the fullness of his salvation, by faith. Repentance and faith in Christ should work together.

 

[User20004000]

Ah, but "Man up and get over it" is not Christian repentance.

But that’s not all I said in that post. “Would we buy into his tearful struggle that God made him that way? No way. We’d tell the sicko to repent...They need to hear the apostolic message, truth and grace.”

Keep treating these guys like the effeminate men they pretend to be and maybe they’ll just stay that way. I prefer to treat them like the men they are and leave the rest to God. Unfortunately, the church has become androgynous. The church now panders to the effeminate.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Gregory of Nyssa makes a useful observation:

For common sense as well as the teaching of Scripture shows that it is impossible for one who has not thoroughly cleansed himself from the stains arising from evil to be admitted amongst the heavenly company.

Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism (c. 385), 36 in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2, 5: 504.

Rosario Butterfield is a real-life example of how the gospel is transformative in this area. I realise, however, that the process of sanctification and mortifying of these unnatural desires may take much longer for some people than for others. While I am all for being compassionate towards those who struggle with this form of sinful temptation, the fact that "same-sex attraction" (a euphemism for sodomite lust) is sinful must always be the starting point from which we operate. After all, if someone is not willing to admit that such desires are sinful in the first place, there is little hope of him putting them to death. Why would you bother mortifying something if it is not a sin in the first place?

 

[Ed Walsh]

The path of light that leads unto life is through the study of the whole counsel of God - and exercising oneself unto the ordinary means of grace in the church. The Bible knows nothing of special focus groups that are often time an occasion to stir up sinful passions with graphic testimony. (Divorce groups have similar problems.) What all Christians need is integration into the body! And the last thing they need to do is recite their past to the church or small group for "the glory of God"! Again, it is disgraceful even to speak of these former things that were done in secret

Dear Ron,

I could certainly have posted your entire text, but I had to choose something as a sample to say what follows:

The "path of light sentence" and the "integration into the church" thought were both excellent. You seem to be a clear thinker, and you are an excellent writer, and I can only assume a useful ruling elder. Be encouraged to faithfully teach the whole counsel of God as you have opportunities. Thanks.

Ed

 

[Ed Walsh]

sodomite

Now there's a word you don't hear often enough in Christian circles. It is my word of choice for this sin. Gay is, well, too nice and faggot is just crude slag, but 'sodomite' is both Biblical, reminding people of God, and descriptive, as a timely reminder of what's going on behind the facade. Good choice.

 

[User20004000]

Dear Ron,

I could certainly have posted your entire text, but I had to choose something as a sample to say what follows:

The "path of light sentence" and the "integration into the church" thought were both excellent. You seem to be a clear thinker, and you are an excellent writer, and I can only assume a useful ruling elder. Be encouraged to faithfully teach the whole counsel of God as you have opportunities. Thanks.

Ed

Ed,

We can all grow weary so I’m grateful for the encouragement.

Ron