Where is there Side B in the PCA?

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. – 1 Corinthians 6:11

It has been almost 5 years since the Revoice Side B Conference was born in the PCA. That first Revoice Conference featured speakers promoting the beauty of “queer treasure” and attendees cuddling, petting, and at least one walking around with a portion of his genitals hanging out of his shorts (28:20).  The PCA has been debating and seeking to deal with Side B (Gay) Christianity within the denomination ever since.   Thankfully the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) of the PCA has denounced many of the teachings of Revoice. Still the debate persists.

Throughout this time many in the PCA have publicly promoted Revoice while at the same time claiming that Side B does not exist within the denomination. They have said that rather than change our Constitution to address a non-existent issue that we should make use of the AIC Report on Human Sexuality because it gives us the tools to rightly address the issues we are facing.

I agree that the AIC Report is a fine work on Biblical Sexuality with some great tools.  I taught a 12 week class with it that I commend to you.  However, the AIC Report has no Constitutional Authority and men have (not surprisingly) disagreed with what it allows and forbids.  Additionally, since it does not use the term Side B,  how do we know what the AIC Report on Human Sexuality thinks about Side B Gay Christianity?

Dr. Tim Keller, one of the main authors of the AIC report explains that “the PCA’s Ad-Interim Committee on Human Sexuality considered this Side B view and clearly rejected it.

The problem is in how one defines Side B.  One PCA Pastor on Twitter, based on a decades old conception of Side B, boldly states that “they agree same-sex sexual unions are out of bounds.  Under these terms, the PCA is & always has been Side B.”

And on Facebook, “Side B is a label for those that believe same-sex sexual activity/practice is a sin…everyone in the PCA fits the label of Side B.”

Is that all that Side B is? Let’s attempt to define Side B and in so doing show that the least common denominator for Side B currently includes more than abstaining from same-sex sexual unions.  Secondly, we’ll show evidence for how this definition is occurring in the PCA and has been allowed to occur. 


I have defined Side-B in this way:

“Side B Gay Christianity… says that while

    • “being gay” or having a “gay orientation” is a valid category of personhood and identity,
    • Scripture clearly forbids the acting out of those desires.
    • They advocate for a “gay but celibate” way of life.”

*I was attacked for this definition and article until

Tim Keller offered his own definition:

    • “People attracted to the same sex, though remaining celibate
    • in obedience to the Bible,
    • still can call themselves ‘gay Christians’ and see their attraction as a part of their identity which should be acknowledged like one’s race or nationality….”

*This is the view that Keller says is rejected in the PCA AIC Report on Human Sexuality.

Dr. Greg Johnson, PCA Pastor and Side-B proponent in the PCA defines Side B this way:

“What makes someone Side B is simply

    • The rejection of homoerotic desire and practice
    • as sin, coupled with
    • The acknowledgement that a homosexual orientation is deeply rooted and unlikely to go away in this lifetime.” 

Religion News, reporting on these issues, defines Side B this way:

(Side B is) “openly LGBTQ Christians who,

    • while embracing their sexual orientation,
    • also believe God designs sex and marriage
    • to occur exclusively between a man and a woman.”

Q Christian Fellowship, which took over the Organization that created the term Side B, defines it this way:

“Any theology which

    • affirm LGBTQ+ identities,
    • yet maintains that Christians should refrain from same-gender sex
    • for a variety of personal and/or theological reasons.”

You’ll notice how all of these definitions include MORE than simply 1) being attracted to the same-sex and 2) remaining celibate and 3) for Scriptural/Moral/Theological reasons.  There is an identity component included in Side-B that in some sense is more than descriptive of the person’s experience.

This was an education for some in the PCA who thought Side B just meant that same-sex sexual unions are out of bounds.”  As a matter of fact, it seems that PCA pastors are the only people who still affirm that limiting definition of Side B.  Perhaps they aren’t up on the debate or the community even as some of them exist within the community.

What About Rosaria and Becket?

Rosaria Butterfield and Becket Cook are both Reformed Christians who formerly lived as practicing homosexuals but have left that lifestyle and identification to follow Christ. Rosaria has been married for many years now to an RPCNA Pastor and Becket lives a single and chaste life.  They have both written and spoken extensively on their journey and the dangers of the Side B position.

They both claim that this Side B ontological and anthropological error is what is going on in the PCA, Revoice, and Greg Johnson’s teaching.

Note: Becket Cook’s Book, A New Affection, is an extremely encouraging, helpful, and Gospel-Centered resource for people who struggle with same-sex attraction that I give out regularly.

Would we be so arrogant to think we know better than this sister and brother in Christ as to what Side B is and how that relates to the PCA?

When in an online dialogue with Greg Johnson about Side B, I asked him if Side B is simply that “same-sex sexual activity is immoral” why does Rosaria Butterfield reject it.  He responded:

“Rosaria rejects sexual orientation as a category. That’s what makes her different from Side B.”- Greg Johnson, November 30, 2021

By this statement alone we must reject the assertion by the uninformed that “Side B is just same-sex attracted but a commitment to the Biblical Sexual ethic.”  By Johnson’s own admission, a rejection of orientation as a category puts one outside of the Side B camp.  One thing to note is that Johnson doesn’t say what type of category it is.  Is it a category of experience? Personhood?  Being?   Identity?    He doesn’t say.

Thankfully, Rosaria tells us.  She explains the Side B that she Rejects:

sees sexual orientation as an accurate category of personhood (i.e., there is such a thing as a gay person – that gayness describes who someone actually is)…To the Side B Christian homosexuality is a sexuality – one of many.”

So, there you have it. Greg admits the difference is that Rosaria rejects sexual orientation as a category and Rosaria tells us that she rejects orientation as a category of personhood.

The issue here is one’s view of anthropology and is therefore theological in nature and not simply one’s use of language.


Even though some claim “The PCA has always been Side B,” there are some who say that Side B isn’t happening in the PCA.  If that’s the case, why would Becket Cook and Rosaria Butterfield say it is?  According to  Keller, “there is not One PCA court– not one session, presbytery, or agency– that has ever endorsed Side B Christianity.” Those are carefully chosen words, but what type of “endorsement” is Keller asking for? Is he implying that Side B can’t be allowed to exist in the PCA unless an official body makes a public declaration they are on board with Side B? Let’s see if there is any evidence of the Side B that should be rejected in the PCA.

  • While I don’t condone the accusations/charges in This Article, it raises many more issues and highlights many more examples than what I list below.

Members of Memorial Presbyterian Church Tell Us

Why would Dr. Nate Collins, a Member at Memorial PCA (the Church that Greg Johnson Pastors) and cofounder of Revoice, identify as “A Gay Man” while he is married to a woman and why would his Wife (Sara Collins) claim that What Keller says is rejected by the AIC Report regarding Side B is precisely what is going on at their Church?

(Note: I have been informed that Nate & Sara Collins no longer attend Memorial PCA)

It would seem that we should believe the co-founder of Revoice and His Wife, both members of Memorial Presbyterian Church until just recently,  that Side B Gay Christianity is being supported within their circles in the PCA and their impression that what Keller says is not going on in the PCA is in fact exactly what is going on.

REVOICE Was Founded in the PCA

Let me write that Again. Revoice was founded in the PCA. We have been told many times that Revoice is not a PCA Conference. Once again, this seems similar to Keller’s claim that “no session has endorsed Side B,” as if these are the right metrics for determining if something has roots in the PCA.  Consider the following:

  • Revoice was founded by Stephen Moss and Dr. Nate Collins, both members of PCA churches during their affiliation with Revoice.
  • The first ever Revoice was hosted at and promoted by Memorial Presbyterian Church, a PCA Church.
  • The first Revoice was publicly supported & promoted by PCA Mega Church Pastor Scott Sauls, calling the speakers “Trustworthy Voices.”
  • The Music at the Worship Service at the First Revoice was lead by David Gill, who is known as “Gay Worship Leader” on Social Media and was in the PCA at the time. (see below)

  • Revoice’s biggest apologist and promoter has been TE Greg Johnson, a PCA Pastor.
  • Two out of three current Revoice employees, Nate Collins and Art Pereira, were at PCA Churches while working at  Revoice.
  • Two of this year’s Revoice Speakers were Greg Johnson and Steven Cooper, both PCA Pastors.
  • Men from the PCA’s Covenant Seminary and Memorial PCA speak or lead worship at  Revoice, Grant Hartley and David Gill.


And What About the PCA’s Covenant Theological Seminary’s Influence on Revoice?

Also, we must ask how this other 2014 Conference put on by the PCA’s Covenant Theological Seminary has contributed to the genesis of Revoice.  Here David Gill is mentioned, Side B Author Wesley Hill is the Speaker, and Side B topics such as “mixed orientation marriage” are discussed all in the first 7 min of this talk from the Conference.

Note: “The Chapel” is a ministry run by members of Memorial PCA on their property. It hosts openly LGBTQ+ affirming and Transvestite Festivals and events among other things.  So David Gil When to the PCA’s Covenant Theological Seminary and worked at Memorial PCA.

Note: Grant Hartley did go to Covenant Seminary. And the person he’s referencing also went their and recognized the missiology at Revoice from there.

Violations of The PCA AIC Report on Human Sexuality

Remember, according to the authors, the AIC Report on Human Sexuality rejects Side B.  Here are some statements from the report and evidence that this is going on.

On the Concept of Orientation:

“However, insofar as the term orientation carries with it a set of assumptions about the nature of that experience that is unbiblical (e.g. overemphasized rigidity, its normativity, etc.), then the terminology may require qualification or even rejection in some circumstances.”  (AIC HS, p. 31)

On Identity:

“To juxtapose identities rooted in sinful desires alongside the term “Christian” is inconsistent with Biblical language and undermines the spiritual reality that we are new creations in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).” (AIC HS, p.11)

On Language:

“Even if “gay,” for some Christians, simply means “same-sex attraction,” it is still inappropriate to juxtapose this sinful desire, or any other sinful desire, as
an identity marker alongside our identity as new creations in Christ.” (AIC HS, p.12)

This small sample out of many statements like this in the AIC characterize the heart of what Keller describes as the view that is rejected by the report in seeing “their attraction as a part of their identity which should be acknowledged like one’s race or nationality.”

Square those statements with these by Greg Johnson in this USA Today Article (also on Yahoo)

“I’m just a gay atheist kid who fell in love with Jesus and ended up the lead pastor in one of the most conservative evangelical denominations.”

“I tried to change my sexual orientation over the years. Of course, it never changed.”

-Greg Johnson in this USA Today Article (also on Yahoo)

NOTE: One PCA Pastor in a now deleted Tweet called this article a “beautiful example of the Gospel.” This goes beyond Greg.

Or on the “Why I Stay Podcast

“We Hosted a Conference Called Revoice for Same-Sex Attracted and Gay Christians.”

Or these on Social Media:


Or on NPR where Greg Johnson Gives the Impression that the Truth about Homosexuality is Relative

Everyone reading this article should listen to this 23 minute interview to see how Side B is communicated and manifested from this “gay St. Louis (PCA) Pastor.”






HOW About Sexual Minority Language?

How does Sexual minority Language relate to Side B. Remember Keller’s definition which states that Side B “see their attraction as a part of their identity which should be acknowledged like one’s race or nationality.

It is interesting that then Side B Advocates use language common to racial distinctions such as the term “minority.”

Becket Cook who experiences Same-Sex Attraction Yet Rejects Side B has picked up on this and recently tweeted:

Compare that with PCA Greg Johnson’s online language:

Or their view of sexual minorities that has them hosting demonic themed transvestite concerts and festivals on their church property as mission: Should the Church Promote Deeds of Darkness for Missional Purposes?

How About Spiritual Friendships, Gay Life Partners, Gay Cuddling

  • “Some couples the most they ever do is snuggle in front of a television.” – Greg Johnson, speaking affirmingly of this behavior.
  • When asked “What about Gay people that are already in relationships, maybe married and have kids?”
  • Greg Responds “…my goal would not to be to break them apart, in discipleship the goal would be to desexualize the relationship, because the love they have for one another (note: the intimate same-sex love is not sin?), its the sexualization of that, and in all honesty with a lot of gay couples when they’ve been together a lot of years they aren’t very sexually active…”
  • Watch the Clip or full video

How About The Side B View of Progressive Sanctification?

One of the biggest issues with Revoice and Side B, besides the false view of anthropology is the various views on Sanctification and the nature of temptation.  To my knowledge, all PCA Teaching Elders affirm what the Confession Says regarding Sanctification, particularly to PCA courts. Yet, there are still serious concerns about what Revoice supporters in the PCA believe about Sanctification. This aspect of the debate has well been documented.  There are more Judicial Cases in the PCA seeking to investigate just these matters. Here are resources to understand these assessments and ongoing concerns.

This assessment from the Gospel Coalition Article by the PCA Covenant College Professors sums it up very well:

“We’ve registered two substantial reservations, raising a worry about Johnson’s treatment of sanctification with respect to concupiscence and questions about the notion of sexual orientation as a fixed propensity that’s taken for granted in this book and by most participants in the broader debate. Since these themes are central to the book’s overall argument, they end up weakening his case for a paradigm of care. In our opinion, the paradigm of care is inadequate without a complementary devotion to sanctification.”

What If Greg Johnson and Memorial Leave the PCA?

This problem transcends Greg Johnson. He is just the most public example and teacher of the issues we are raising. Since our courts haven’t decided these issues and we don’t have consensus on if Side B is actually condemned in the PCA, the debates will go on.  Also, even if Greg Johnson leaves, many PCA pastors have publicly supported Greg Johnson, they have “liked” his questionable social media posts and comments and have promoted his book that Becket Cook and Rosaria Butterfield reject. The PCA still needs to speak into this issue decisively.  My brother in Christ, Pastor Ryan Biese, wrote this article entitled “The End of the Beginning” that I commend to you.  I close with his closing sentences.

“We must not think recent news out of Saint Louis is cause to slacken or pause. News from Saint Louis should stir us to remain vigilant against any who would erode the freedom of the gospel: freedom from the penalty of sin, freedom from the power of sin, and one day freedom from the presence of sin.”

Learn more about the Dangers of the Side B Position: The Joy-Robbing False Hope of Side B

Also, here are some amazing resources from M.D. Perkins with the American Family Association highlighting the dangers and issues with Side B:


What follows here includes some information regarding how some in the PCA were confused over the concept of Desire being sin and how these four years of discussions, the Nashville Statement, the AIC Report on Human Sexuality has helped to correct these misunderstandings, even if they remain online.

Early in the Discussion, same-sex attraction was placed in the same category as physical disabilities. And while the desire is unwanted, the category for it is sin.  The sinfulness of the desire was minimized and possibly denied.  Here is evidence of that:

  • Greg Johnson compares Same-Sex Attraction to Paraplegia and Infertility on the floor of GA.
  • “What I hear is that you are judging brothers for not repenting of something that cannot be repented of.” – Greg Johnson on Crosspolitik
  • “I’m just flabbergasted that somebody would actually say that the fallen condition itself is a sin.” – Greg Johnson on Crosspolitik

Greg Johnson has corrected his language and has affirmed to the SJC that he does hold the Confessional view on these things, even if he has not admitted to having mispoken. We are told that we have misundersood him.

This kind of confusion has even been shared by other PCA Pastors.

PCA Pastor Scott Sauls, quotes something very similar in this article of his:

“Former PCA minister, Francis Schaeffer, offers a helpful perspective on this. Schaeffer wrote:

The mistake…that the orthodox people have made…is [to say] that homophile tendencies are sin in themselves, even if there is no homosexual practice. Therefore, the homophile tends to be pushed out of human life (and especially orthodox church life) even if he does not practice homosexuality. This, I believe, is both cruel and wrong.”’

In the same article he separates temptations from sin and implies that Jesus was tempted in the same way that sinful man is tempted.  However, man is tempted both from outside of themselves and also as a result of indwelling sin which Jesus does not have.  Still, Sauls wrote regarding “unwanted feelings” in a way that seems to imply they are not sin because Christ “was tempted in every way as we are yet without sin.” Sauls writes:

“On the other hand, the word “gay” can also mean having feelings—including unwanted ones—toward people of the same sex. For Christians like Nate Collins, Greg Johnson, and Stephen Moss (as well as others like Tim Geiger from Harvest, USA), these feelings are not to be indulged or pursued, but rather, mortified daily. The classic word for these kinds of unwanted feelings is “temptation.”

Although he was in no way fallen, was without a sinful nature, and never for a moment experienced a sinful desire, Jesus nonetheless was also “tempted in every way, just as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). In his deity, Jesus could not and therefore did not sin. In his humanity, Jesus nonetheless subjected himself to the same temptations we experience. In this, we see that sin and temptation are different things and must be treated as such.”

Let me say unequivocally, this is not a Reformed understanding of sin, temptation, and concupiscence.  Jesus did not subject himself to the temptations we humans experience that arise from our sin nature, because He has no sin nature.  Furthermore, Westminister Confession Chapter VI clearly contradicts Sauls assertion regarding “unwanted feelings.”

I’m glad that the AIC report reminded us and hopefully our brothers that these are incorrect ways to communicate these things.  Here is a helpful video by the Gospel Reformation Network featuring Kevin DeYoung’s teaching on the Subject of Desire, Temptation, Sin, and Concupiscence. As for Sauls, he has been shown these errors as they have been widely written on as in here.


Here in this Video at the 30:37 mark Pastor Todd Pruitt addresses the very question if there is Side B in the PCA.  In the beginning of the video Pastor Aldo Leon explains the issues with Side B Pastors.

George Sayour
George Sayour

George is Senior Pastor of Meadowview Reformed Presbyterian
Church (PCA) in Lexington, NC. When he's not pastoring or writing, he's fishing, kayaking and spending time with his family.

Articles: 147


  1. I am sad that the instant of “noticing” of an attractive person, either of the opposite sex (for almost all of us in the PCA) or of the same sex (for our SSA brothers and sisters in the PCA), is conflated with “desires/lust” – the lingering in fantasy that occurs when we don’t move on to positive thoughts as we should. This instant of noticing is what causes someone to say they are gay. I guarantee that there are many heterosexual members of the PCA condemning the idea that this noticing is difficult to mortify, even if our SSA brother is progressively sanctified in how he deals with the next instant, while the condemning PCA members would never consider their noticing of an attractive member of the opposite sex who is not their spouse as a problem if they move to more positive thoughts in the next instant, even though it is disordered by the Fall as well since it is the seed from which lusts could grow for any person other than their spouse (let’s use “polyamorous precursor” for this noticing). Since the Bible refers to adultery as an abomination, and Jesus called lust “committing adultery”, we are perhaps a bit too forgiving of ourselves when we notice an attractive woman, since we justify it as “natural” vs. “unnatural” for SSA. However, is polyamorous desire truly natural, or is it a result of the Fall, as much as any other illegitimate desire we don’t happen to deal with. I say all of the preceding things to point out that if we can agree that we still notice, and in all likelihood will continue to notice, then perhaps we can have grace toward our SSA folks when they notice. And as for how they describe themselves, they are simply being transparent about who they notice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *