This blog represents the thoughts of the author. While it may reflect the theological position of The Renewal Fellowship, it should not be seen as an official statement.

In June 2019, General Assembly approved the following recommendation regarding Remits B and C – “That as a matter of urgency, the Life and Mission Agency provide a means for those affected by this decision to express their concerns, views and pain in a safe environment and that the concerns be reported back to the 2020 General Assembly before the report on remits is received and its recommendations considered.”

While the Feb. 15 deadline to file these expressions has passed, I am sharing my statement in an effort to encourage prayer for the following:

• that the members of the Life and Mission Agency tasked with the responsibility of sorting through all the responses will have the energy they need to consider each submission;
• that the LMA may consider making formal recommendations in addition to providing a summary of the responses; and
• that commissioners to GA 2020 will receive the Holy Spirit as they prepare.

To the Life and Mission Agency,

General Assembly in 2019 invited those “affected” by the remits to “express their concerns, views and pain.” While “concerns and views” are laudable, “pain” is powerful. As we are discussing nothing less than God’s revelation and our response as believers, pain is what I will share.

On Feb. 11, a presbytery moderator broke a tie vote over Remit C. It passed. It’s painful to see a moderator disregard the gracious and wise custom of casting a “no” vote in such situations. Further, it’s painful to know that in several presbyteries, support for Remits B or C have been decided by a single vote. It’s painful to see that the affirmative side carries the entire roll in the Barrier Act tally, and that the level of overall support for the remits does not accurately reflect the deep division in our courts and congregations.

It’s painful to see a denomination supposedly united under its confessions so divided over our world views and our hermeneutics.

Two weeks ago, a PCC minister attempted to shame me into submission by posting on Facebook a link to an article which suggested that those who are not allied to LGBTQ communities are homophobic and perpetuate hate. He singled me out, tagging me by name, in plain view for all of his friends and all of mine.

I don’t hate anyone. In fact, I genuinely love those who identify as LGBTQI. I am drawn to their humanity, their sensitivity, their love for one another and their sense of justice. I love their creativity.

I’ve been told that if only I got to know people who are living out their same-gender attraction, that I’d see their beauty and I would change my tune. They assume I live in a sheltered world and I’m not in touch. If only they knew.

A former colleague recently married her female partner. She is one of the most beautiful people I know. She took photos of my wedding and a few years later shot family pics for us on location in a woods. A few years ago, she and her female partner took me on a tour of their home. I felt the love they had and I couldn’t argue with it. I treat them the same as any other friend or acquaintance. Apparently, that’s not good enough for some critics.

If any threat came to someone as a result of their sexual orientation or lifestyle, I’d come to their defence. It is painful to know that those who act upon their same-gender attraction – and even those who don’t – have been subjected to discrimination, hatred and violence. It repulses me. I echo the gracious words in the February 2018 letter of repentance from the moderator to all those who have been harmed by homophobia and hypocrisy.

Therefore, to be lumped into the same category as those who hate is painful. And yet that’s what a significant number of those who are advancing the campaign to change PCC doctrine are doing. Material distributed at last year’s Affirm gathering at Knox Waterloo had the message that you cannot be neutral on the matter of full LGBTQ inclusion: unless you are able to march in the Pride Parade and be a vocal ally, then I am considered by some in the PCC to be homophobic.

In all honesty, a part of me wants to support same-gender romantic partnerships and bless their homes and applaud as they join hands and exchange rings. I want to be their ally and stand up for justice, march in the parade and even hang the rainbow flag. Seriously, I do.

But something is keeping me from doing that. It’s the knowledge, deep in my soul, that I would be disobeying God. Despite my comfort being in the presence of same-sex couples who clearly love one another the same way I love my wife, my soul does not allow me to celebrate the physical consummation of same-sex attraction.

I am torn and it’s painful. But I make the decision to obey God, not people.

And yet, despite all this, I still get labelled as homophobic and hateful. To be accused of something of which you are completely innocent is painful. Not in a biting way, but it’s a slow, dull ache, like an annoying hum that never goes away.

I understand why some PCC congregations wave the rainbow flag. But it’s painful to see photos of PCC congregants and ministers carrying “Presbyterian Pride” banners in the same parade as nearly-naked men wearing bondage attire. It’s a tacit acceptance of sexual idolatry.

It’s painful to know that some see me as legalistic and authoritarian. At heart, I am a libertarian. I have a fundamental suspicion of state and cultural control. In my younger days, I labelled myself as a “non-conformist.” I love the artistic spirit, the creative mind. But, as Bob Dylan sang, “Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord. But you’re gonna’ have to serve somebody.”

That’s the fundamental issue in my mind: who or what do we ultimately serve? It’s painful to acknowledge that some corners of the church are submitting to the enemy.

On the natural side of this issue, let’s talk about sex. Shouldn’t I want everyone to experience the beautiful gift of sexual union? Who am I to say that those who are same-gender attracted should not enjoy such pleasure? Why would God allow people to be so powerfully attracted to one another and not want them to act upon it?

My head and heart hurts as I churn those questions over.

As I am badgered to open my mind and soul to consider “covenanted same-sex marriage,” another question crosses my mind: “Could I be wrong?” I know many people who profess to follow Christ and have wrestled with the matter and eventually changed their tunes and no longer believe that same-gender sex is a sin. Many of them are beckoning me to do the same.

In fact, I was once open-minded. I used to believe that if it feels good and you’re not harming anyone, what’s the harm? Then, I had a spiritual awakening. All the Scripture and truth I had rejected since childhood suddenly, in my late 30s, made sense. “Wow,” I said to myself. “It’s all true. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.” Yes, He wants us to enter through the narrow gate. Jesus was dead-serious when He told us to “deny yourself, pick up your cross, and follow Me” and to “love God and love one another.”

The problem with progressive Christianity is that it hangs the bulk of its theology and practice on the love commandments and neglects the need for self denial. I point to Scripture: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20). Love is not demonstrated by indulging in sensual activity. No, “Love means doing what God has commanded us.” (2 John 1:6, NLT)

Back to the question, “Could I be wrong?” I have gone to the cross in prayer more than once and said, “Lord, give me a sign. Lord, show me in that amazing way You speak to me.” I’ve been doing this now for years. The response I get is the peace of Christ when I am among those who share my Biblical hermeneutic and theology. At the same time, I am pained when I am watching worship led by those who say the Bible can be reinterpreted to fit our times, that Scripture would have been written differently today, that we’ve been reading it wrong – that the prohibitions against same-gender sex were not about “covenanted relationships between two consenting adults” but were aimed at the abuse of children and servants. And if something cannot be reinterpreted, that we simply ignore it.

While I accept that those who don’t know Christ might easily ascribe to the progressive social view (because the enemy has almost-full control over our culture in this fallen world), I have a hard time understanding how someone who has accepted Christ, who sees Him as the only way to God – as Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience attest – can turn their backs on what I see as God’s divine will for a fallen world.

I hold myself back at this point, knowing that I am potentially crossing a line. Romans 2:1 shouts at me: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.”

What am I to do? Love God, for sure. And love one other – no matter who they are and what they believe and what they do. I will continue to follow the commands of Christ and emulate His lifestyle as much as humanly possible in 21st century North American culture. This includes the command to deny myself, and the teaching in John 10:25 that “those who live their life in this world will lose it.” In the end, I hope to achieve that “rich and satisfying life” Jesus promised in John 10:10. The richness is in the fruits of the Spirit as I continue the process of sanctification – which is a lifelong process. The satisfaction is the peace that I get from knowing that if God is for me, nothing can be against me, that our triune God is more powerful than the enemy, and that the joy of living for Him outweighs any human pleasure.

While I feel the pain, I acknowledge that it’s not the same as the pain felt by people who are faced with coldness, hatred, and violence. It’s nothing compared to the anxiety and dis-ease felt by those who don’t fit into a heteronormative world.

I rose at General Assembly in 2019 to ask a question of clarification of the Rainbow Commission on the recommendation that Assembly reaffirm its stance against reparative and conversion therapy. I said, “We know that there are people who are same-sex attracted who have decided not to act on those desires, and they deserve and need pastoral counselling in order to support their decisions. My question to the mover of this recommendation: if this is adopted, would it prevent pastoral support for those in the LGB communities who want to remain celibate?” Their response was calm and reassuring, “No, it would not.”
However, the next speaker went on a tirade against conversion therapy. The implicit message was that even something as innocuous as pastoral support for celibacy might be seen as homophobic. It was aimed at me, and it was painful.

Several days later, I rose at presbytery to give my commissioner’s report. I referred to Remits ‘B’ and ‘C’ as “The Issue.” Another minister interrupted me mid sentence. It’s “not an issue,” she admonished. It’s about people, about lives, about relationships, about brokenness and hurt and violence and a great need to seek justice and inclusion and healing. Those weren’t her exact words, but that’s the gist of it. The moderator did not call for order; he allowed her to speak.

Being called out in public was unfair and painful. Knowing that the moderator was willing to put aside normal rules of decorum was troubling – and painful. My colleague’s assumption – that I was being clinical about something that I know is a very real pastoral and theological matter – was disappointing and painful.

This debate has dragged on for decades and haunted our consciousness to the extent that, collectively, we don’t have time for what’s most important. We are commanded to go into the world, to plant seeds of faith, to baptize and teach. Yet we are so consumed with social justice that we’ve forgotten the greater injustice that people are increasingly separated from God. How painful is that?

I don’t see parallel definitions of marriage and freedom of conscience putting this matter to rest – ever. It won’t put a lid on the debate and it won’t end the spiritual dis-ease. I believe it will simply be a matter of time before any “freedom of conscience” is challenged.

Some measure of pain relief will only come when we have freedom to believe and practice without interference from the other. Several new overtures will come to General Assembly 2020 that call for the creation of two streams of Presbyterianism, each with its own courts and polity which supports its own Biblical view. I urge commissioners to give serious consideration to such requests, for the good of the Kingdom.

Moderator, in my brief time before the court, I will provide several reasons to vote against these remits. I will demonstrate that they will not bring peace to our divided denomination. They will not advance the Kingdom. And they are not in God’s will.

I will approach this from three points of view: theological, practical, and legal.

Theology: When we consider a proposal to change the doctrine and practice of the church, we need to consider the motivation. Every decision we make in life needs to be filtered through the Holy Spirit. We are invited to ask, “Are we acting in God’s will? Is this decision or proposal mostly about God, or is it mostly about us?” I am going to suggest that Remits “B” and “C” are more concerned about people.

It’s been stated in this court and in other places that this is a fight for justice, that it’s about people and their struggles. I don’t disagree that there is injustice in this world. Those who are same-sex attracted or who wrestle with gender identity have experienced hate and discrimination in the church. We, as a denomination and many of us as individuals, have apologized and repented.

But what is being presented here is not about justice on a human level. This is an attempt to rewrite or change God’s will to accommodate ourselves.

Let’s consider the nature of God. He is revealed to us as divine, holy, and pure. His perfection is in contrast to the human condition. We exist on a planet that has been given over to the enemy. But we have a choice. We can choose to submit to Christ – the one whose death and resurrection paves the way to reconciliation – or we can choose to live according to the ways of the world. When we choose Christ, we agree to follow His commands to love God and one another, pick up our own crosses, deny ourselves and follow Him. These remits might pass the love test – although I’d argue that we are confusing love with sex – but they fail against the command to deny ourselves and follow Christ. These remits are not consistent with what the Scripture teaches us. All of Scripture points to Christ and His commands to submit to a holy and perfect God.

So against that truth, we can conclude the following:

• The remits are unbiblical. The words “covenant relationship between two adult persons” cannot be supported with biblical evidence.
• Any theological justification of same-gender sex is nonexistent or weak at best.
• The remits would set a dangerous precedent. There would be little reason to stop the same revisionist theology from changing other essential doctrine.
• The statement in Remit “B” that “faithful, Holy Spirit filled, Christ centred, God honouring people can understand marriage as” two different things suggests that the Spirit of Christ is divided. Scripture clearly teaches that Christ is not divided.

Despite all that, I still love my gay sisters and brothers, as well as those who don’t agree with my theological outlook. All are welcome in my congregation. But I am compelled by the Holy Spirit to speak the truth in love.

Someone might say to me, “it’s easy for you to say all this – you’re not attracted to your own gender.” Or they may also point out that “you don’t know what it’s like to have a close family member who is same-sex attracted, otherwise you’d be singing a different tune.”

That may be true. But it’s helpful to know that I used to have no issue with the LGB lifestyle. I used to think, “What’s the harm if they’re adults and no one’s getting hurt?” But the Holy Spirit spoke to me very clearly and opened my eyes to the fact that the world and many parts of the church are not focused on our holy God. We make compromises in order to have peace with one another. That’s not what Jesus brought to the world. He called us to be counter-cultural. Christ denied Himself and He calls us to do the same.

Despite all that, there is a part of me that still wants to march in the pride parade, hang the rainbow flag, and join two people of the same gender in marriage, just so we can all get along. But the holy hand of God shakes His head and tells me “No.”

Practicality: Let’s pretend for a moment that I am in favour of same-sex marriage and that I want to create room for diversity and show the world that we can be as one. It’s been suggested by some that our disagreement can be compared to a marriage, in which two different people united in love still need to carve out room for each other. Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as that.

To begin with, two parallel definitions of marriage is faulty logic. Parallel definitions may be acceptable when you’re dealing with two different uses of the same word. For example, a “date” is a word for an activity as well as an item of food. These are parallel definitions and both are true because “date” has two completely different uses and the meanings match the use. But marriage has a singular use – it’s about two people united before God as the foundation of the family unit – so it cannot have two meanings.

In itself, the use of the word “parallel” doesn’t make sense. It’s a mockery of an otherwise useful literary technique. It’s fine to state that “my sister likes to hunt and work with tools. She also likes to read.” Both are true and are not mutually exclusive. But it makes no sense to say “Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is also between two adult persons.” Which is it?

Many on the progressive side say these remits will demonstrate to the world that we truly love one another. While there may be some who see this as accommodating and open minded – which are cornerstones in our diverse and pluralistic world – we forget that the world looks to the church for answers. All I hear these days is that millennials, who were raised and bathed in a sea of relativism, are looking for truth. They turn to the church, and rather than a solid answer, they get multiple choice.

The remits are a textbook public relations non-answer: they’re neither black nor white, just an evasive, catch-all that reminds me of the answer that the chief priests and the scribes gave when Jesus asked them if John’s baptism was from heaven or from man: “ ‘If we say it was from heaven, he will ask why we didn’t believe John. But if we say it was merely human, the people will stone us because they are convinced John was a prophet.’ So they finally replied that they didn’t know.” (Luke 20:5-7 NLT) And Jesus walked away from them.

I would prefer that the church took a stand either way. Do we remain in orthodoxy, or do we move formally into liberalism? One or the other.

Legality: Last week, The Presbyterian Church in Canada received a gift in the form of two opinions from two top firms, Kuhn Legal Counsel and Miller Thomson. Both have expertise representing faith and human rights organizations, are widely published, and between them have made more than two dozen appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada. They were retained by David Jennings – himself a lawyer who happens to be a representative elder in the Presbytery of Westminster and a member of the national church’s Assembly Council. He asked these firms to determine the legal implications if the remits are adopted.

Both opinions find numerous legal problems. They concluded that the remits may expose the PCC to liability for discrimination, and they found that the intended protection for ministers and congregations who are opposed to same-sex marriage is weak. Should the remits pass, they would expose the PCC to legal risks.

Specifically, the conclusion by Kuhn states:

2. … As interpreted by the Clerks of Assembly, the Remits would not permit ministers to believe in the sinfulness of same-sex marriage in all circumstances. The adoption of the Remits will make it more difficult for PCC ministers to establish a sincerely held religious belief opposing the morality of same-sex marriages, particularly if they are compelled by the PCC to accept ordination of ministers and ruling elders who are in such relationships.

3. The adoption of Remit B may expose the PCC to liability for discrimination, even if individual ministers are permitted to refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Further, individual ministers could themselves be potentially liable if they fail to take adequate steps to accommodate such a ceremony request, even if they are not personally required to perform such a ceremony.

4. The adoption of Remit B would also undermine the ability of individual congregations to refuse to allow church property to be used for same-sex wedding ceremonies and celebrations.

5. Additionally, the adoption of Remit B would undermine the ability of congregations and Presbyteries to refuse to employ ministers who are in same-sex marriages or who wish to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

6. It will be difficult for the PCC to change its current uniform theological teaching on same-sex marriage, as expressed in Living Faith, and at the same time grant “liberty of conscience and action” for ministers and congregations.

Miller Thomson agrees with Kuhn’s opinion: “Recent decisions of courts in Canada expose the PCC to legal risks should the Remits be passed.”

Clearly, these remits will not put this issue to rest and in fact may create more problems.

Moderator, if the remits fail when put to theological, practical, and legal tests, how can they be good for the church? They would perpetuate a debate that has raged for far too long, caused far too much damage to the church and its congregations. They will take our attention away from what’s most important – which is to go into the world, to baptize and teach about a holy and righteous God – whose Kingdom is much different from this world. They will impede the ability of the Holy Spirit to work through us to make disciples of all nations.

For these reasons, moderator, I am voting no to both remits “B” and “C” and would urge this court to do the same.

Final remarks

Moderator, it’s been pointed out that the redefinition of sexuality and marriage is an attempt to get it right – that we’ve been misinterpreting Scripture and misunderstanding our holy God for thousands of years. But same-sex marriage is not the essential issue. Rather, it’s the attempt to change the nature of God to suit our natural desires. And let’s be clear, we all live in sin every waking moment. As painful as it might be, we can’t turn from God’s holy will.

We can still love one another, we can tolerate one another even if we don’t agree. But we cannot be divided in our theology.

These remits would do nothing to help the church take the Gospel into the world in an effective way and in fact would do more harm than good. In a peer-reviewed paper, a secular university recently found in a study of Ontario mainline denominations that congregations whose people and ministers hold onto traditional, orthodox Christian theology and practice are growing – the numbers back it up – and that liberal interpretation of Scripture and practice of ministry are a driver of decline. [See Theology Matters, Haskell et al. I can provide a copy.]

These remits would formally adopt liberal theology and practice, and freedom of conscience for those who adhere to orthodoxy would be weak at best. The road to decline would grow steeper.

The Anglican Church of Canada did some number crunching, and in a report released earlier this month, predicted that if the decline for them continues, the denomination will be extinct by 2040. Same with the United Church. Both are predominantly liberal. Both formally recognize same-sex marriage and clergy. Is this what we want?

But there is hope. Buried in that Anglican report was the fact that the only places experiencing growth are in the Arctic, whose congregations and ministers are predominantly evangelical. They are the ones who voted “no” to same-sex marriage earlier this year. Similarly, in the United Church, there are healthy and growing congregations. But rather than toe the liberal line, they are evangelical and conservative. They proclaim a holy God who is calling to live holy lives. It’s not the story that the United Church leadership wants told.

The only hope for the church, whoever the denomination, is to adhere to orthodoxy.

Although statistics can be powerful, I’m going to end with words. I’m going to quote a recently-retired minister, who summed up the state of the Presbyterian Church in a way I can’t.

He writes: “I have been retired for five years now, and it seems that the human sexuality and related issues have been on the front burner of the Assembly as well as the denomination for well over half my ordained ministry. I was talking to a minister in his mid-50s, and he was lamenting it had been the major controversial issue for pretty much all the Assemblies and for the denomination for most of his ordained ministry. He was saying that he was just sick and tired of it all. This is very sad. In reflection on the underlying major issue, of which the remits are just a symptom, it would not be an overstatement to say that for all my 37 years of ministry in the church, the authority of Scripture has been the dividing and defining line in the PCC. … How long can a person go on trying to do the Word of God when the church can’t even agree on what the Word of God is let alone what it’s for? It seems to me that as leaders in the church we stand to do tremendous damage to individual Christian’s lives and ministries as we battle it out in the church courts for the sake of so called ‘unity’ when we can’t even agree if the rule of faith is the Word of God or the traditions of the church.”

Moderator, as the writer states, we have spent an entire generation debating an issue that will never be resolved. For reasons that I have already stated clearly, the Remits will not put this matter to rest. In fact, every sign points to greater division, more confusion, and a legal challenge that no one needs.

So for the good of the church – and by that I mean the Body of the Christ who lives in the hearts of believers everywhere – and the advance of the Kingdom, these Remits must be defeated and replaced with something better. If it means that we go our separate ways, at least it will allow us the freedom from conflict, which always gets into the way of ministry.

Note: The Presbytery of Essex-Kent will vote on the remits at its Feb. 18, 2020, meeting.