Attachment 2: First Two Pages of Charge One

CHARGE #1 AND SPECIFICATIONS

Preferred by the Presbytery of Southern California

against

The Rev. C. Lee Irons

June 1, 2002

The Presbytery of Southern California of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church charges you, the Rev. C. Lee Irons, with publicly promoting and encouraging the practice of homosexuality, in violation of the seventh commandment.

This offense is not only in violation of the seventh commandment as it is contained in the Decalogue (Exodus 20:14) and elaborated elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Timothy 1:10), but is also a violation of the injunctions of Scripture that call Christians to encourage good moral conduct in others (e.g., Titus 2:11-14; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8; Ephesians 5:3-12; and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Our secondary standards also give witness to this offense in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter XXIV.1 and XIX.5; the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q 138-139 and 92-99; and in the Shorter Catechism, Q 71 and 39-41.

This offence is serious enough to warrant a trial because it has seriously damaged the peace and public reputation of the church, and without remedial action it threatens to seriously compromise its purity. Particular areas of expressed concern:

a. The advocacy of "same-sex marriage" as a "civil right" has brought scandal to the OPC and other Bible-believing Christians.

b. The opinion that homosexuality is an unchosen "condition" has raised questions for some about Mr. Irons' ability to offer truly biblical counsel to those trapped in or struggling with homosexual sin or temptation.

c. These teachings have caused members to leave Redeemer chapel for reasons of conscience.

d. These opinions have given aid and comfort to the enemies of the cross of Christ (cf. e.g., Mr. Irons' financial support for the gay Roman Catholic journalist Andrew Sullivan [], and the posting on the "Upper Register" website of an article by Walter Olson against Mr. Irons' Christian brethren).

Specifications

1. On or about January 2, 2002, you posted a paper entitled, "A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage," by Misty Irons on your "Upper Register" web page (www.upper-register.com).

a. This paper maintains that, in the civil arena, Christians are free to advocate what is declared to be wicked perversion by the Word of God (i.e., homosexuality and same-sex marriage).

(1) The article promotes a pragmatic, "civil libertarian" political strategy, rather than the application of the principles of God's moral law to sin of homosexuality in our society.

The future of the Christian church in America lies with the preservation of civil liberties, not with the dogged pursuit of our Christian moral agenda to the annoyance of everyone else. (p. 1)

(2) It advocates that we do evil (licensing abomination) in order that good may come (mutual political support of civil liberties), arguing that a respect for people's civil liberties in this country "is absolutely essential for the church's survival in a pluralistic society." (p. 1)

b. The paper distinguishes homosexual attraction from homosexual sexual activity, and equates homosexuality with the attraction rather than the act. By claiming that homosexuality is an unchosen "condition," rather than a sin of the heart, the author contradicts the teaching of Scripture that both the desire and the act are sin.

(1) The author writes, "Am I saying that the civil rights argument rests on understanding homosexuality to be an unchosen condition? Absolutely." (p. 3)

(2) The author makes reference to the general trend of homosexual testimony as to "how in spite of every incentive, the desire for parental approval, the dream of someday having children, gaining acceptance in a small town community, escaping the threat of AIDS, people still could not change literally (as in the case of AIDS) to save their lives." (pp. 3-4) Conspicuous by its absence from that list of incentives is any reference to the power of the gospel.

c. The paper arbitrarily (i.e., apart from any biblical justification) distinguishes homosexual practice from what the author considers "perverse sexual choices" (e.g., incest and bestiality).

People who like having sex with family members or dumb animals are making perverse sexual choices. (p. 3)

But isn't there a big difference between a person who chooses incest or bestiality against the normal marriage options available to him, and a person who is only capable of being sexually attracted to someone of the same gender, so that without the right to enter nto same-sex marriage he or she is left with no marriage option at all? (p. 3)

A civilized society ought to recognize that there is a big difference between homosexuality thus understood, and perverse and irresponsible sexual practices such as incest and bestiality. (p. 4)

d. Throughout this paper the author consistently demeans the efforts of Christians who bear witness to the sins of our culture using biblical moral standards. "We are so quick on the draw when it comes to whipping out our Bibles. Then we get trigger-happy, demolishing every protest with yet another verse that condemns homosexuality as a sin." (p. 3)

Words like "religious rhetoric," "doggedly," "annoyance," "smugly," "ad nauseum," "smearing," "half-truths," "trumpeting," and "drench them with our loving Christian compassion" are woven into this thesis in such a way as season it with an uncharitable sarcasm, rendering contemptible the efforts of those who both believe that homosexuality and same sex marriages are sin and minister the gospel grace of Christ to homosexuals in word and deed.