The Church

Lying, Cheating, Double Dealing, Mean, Mistreating Democrats

Why do Some Christians Make Fellowship with the God-hating Democrat Party?

“True prophets and teachers may take courage, and thus boldly set themselves against kings and nations, when armed with the power of celestial truth.” – John Calvin

I recently read yet another example of Democrats lying and cheating in an attempt to maintain their hold on political power.

In this case, it was Democrats keeping the Green Party off the ballot in Nevada because a (Democrat?) state employee had sent the party the wrong form for collecting signatures to get on the ballot. This is not to be confused with Democrats keeping Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the ballot in Wisconsin.

We could add many other examples of this. Kamala Harris maintaining that Congress must act before her administration can do anything about America’s open Southern border. Tim Walz saying that “You Can’t Yell Fire in a Crowded Theater” is part of First Amendment law. Or MSNBC calling J.D. Vance a liar for claiming that government, academia, and the private sector have conspired to censor conservatives.

When I read the Nevada story, it brought to mind Patty Loveless’ 1993 country hit, Blame It On Your Heart. Loveless is singing to her ex-boyfriend who keeps trying to get back together with her. She makes it very clear that she is done with him because she won’t forget his “lying, cheating, cold dead beating, two-timing and double-dealing mean mistreating, loving heart.”

It might not be immediately obvious why, but my problem with all this is not really the Democrats. There is no doubt in my mind that as a party they are breaking just about every law, command, precept, and testimony of God. But that is what I expect from people who hate God, who seem to make up the majority of Democrats these days—at least the ones we see in public. They are just doing what fallen, unredeemed enemies of God do. I don’t like it, but I understand it.

What does get me worked up are those people who claim to be on God’s side but find reasons for maintaining fellowship with these Democrats. People like David French, Ray Ortlund, and other Christians who are likely to vote for Harris for president or support the unbiblical policies pushed by Democrats. Why can’t they, like Patty Loveless, remember and reject the lying, cheating, double-dealing, God-hating heart of the Democrat Party?

In my more reflective moments, I believe a poor understanding of Scripture is behind these Christians’ dalliances with Democrats. There are a number of reasons for this, but one is that many churches are struggling or failing to do their job of “devot[ing] themselves to the apostles’ teaching (Acts 2:42) and being “a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

C. S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, explains the crucial role the church plays in helping the saints see the world though biblical eyes:

The little human animal will not at first have the right responses. It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting, and hateful.

Because many churches fail to fully train their flocks in the “discipline and instruction of the Lord,” some members run off like lost sheep thinking they are better off, at least when it comes to politics, with the wolves. Unfortunately, as Megan Basham has described in painstaking detail, in many cases the sheep are following the shepherds’ pursuit of the wolves.

In this essay, we’ll examine three areas that help explain why many Christians are failing to recognize the lying, cheating heart of the Democrat Party.

“And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat, Saying, this fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.” – Acts 18:12

When the Jews rose up in insurrection against Paul, they accused him of persuading men to worship God contrary to the law. Of course, the opposite was happening—Paul was preaching God’s law while the Jews were the ones attempting to persuade men to worship God contrary to His law.

One does not have to be an astute political observer to see that this is exactly the same deception that Democrats are practicing today. They, as a party, are attempting to convince the electorate that Trump, Christians, the “far right,” etc. are doing what they are actually doing.

They are taking away our “unalienable Rights,” such as free speech, private property, the right to assemble, etc., with which Americans are “endowed by their Creator.” Yet, they attempt to blame conservative Christians for this: “These far-right extremists are hellbent on restricting rights and taking away Americans’ freedoms.” At the same time they are destroying the family through abortion, same-sex marriage, and transsexuality, they say they are “fighting for families and investing in their economic freedom.”

David French provided a template for Christians seeking to ignore the Democrat’s evils when he announced he was going to vote for Harris to “save conservatism from itself.” Whenever he had to deal with the evils promoted by and engaged in by Democrats, he brushed aside the Democrats activities, excusing his choice by providing a false or highly manipulated version of Trump’s and conservative’s evils.

Democrats support the violence of Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and flash mobs across the country? “But only one party has nominated a man who was indicted for his role in the criminal scheme to steal an American election,” says French.

Ray Ortlund, the founding pastor of Immanuel Church in Nashville, who recently announced his support for Harris, takes the same approach.

Democrats support the “horrible evil” of killing babies up to just before birth? “Evils on the other side have risen to levels that jeopardize the foundational rule of law in our country,” says Ortlund.

Minimizing the sin of unbelievers by French, Ortlund, and others in the church by claiming others are sinning in worse ways does not comport with the apostles’ teaching. Paul, for instance, spoke plainly about the wickedness of unbelievers:

Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes. – Romans 3:14-18

Christians must humbly acknowledge that at one point in their lives they were just like this, yet Paul also teaches that our past should not stop us from walking away from fellowship with unbelievers:

But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him … – Acts 19:9

When Ortlund announced that he was going to vote for Harris, French responded, “This is the way.” Such blindness to the lies of the Democrats and the teachings of the apostles must be laid at the doorstep of churches that fail to instruct their flocks in biblical truth.

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. – Exodus 20:16

As I have written elsewhere, Christianity has long held the Ninth Commandment to require more than just not lying about our neighbor. It also requires “preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,” “standing for the truth,” “from the heart sincerely, freely, clearly_, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth,” and not “prejudice[ing or obscuring] the truth.”

Yet because of the failure of the church in this area, some Christians exhibit a misguided understanding of truth that often leads them to see falsehood in the speech of Trump or in conservatives where there is none.

For instance, Russell Moore, editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, blames vaccine hesitancy among Christians on falsehoods, “the sort of conspiracy theorizing that comes across social media along with a sense of uncertainty.” He does not consider the possibility that Christians may have come to their conclusions based on credible reports from front line doctors and others who have seen the harmful effects of certain vaccines.

Moore also accuses Christians of speaking falsely when waiting for “talking points” to justify supporting Trump after the Access Hollywood recording came out and after January 6.

In my church, an elder recently claimed this Trump quote, “There have never been people treated more horrifically than J6 hostages” was “shameful and intellectually dishonest.” A couple of members of our church pointed out that he seemed to be ignoring Trump’s frequent use of hyperbole, which was clearly on display in the quote, just as it often is in the Bible. Not to mention the fact that most of them have been treated horrifically.

These and examples reported by Basham are representative of the church’s struggles to stand as “a pillar and buttress of the truth” in the current political debate. Too many Christians simply can’t see the truth about lying, cheating Democrats who with seemingly each word they speak do everything they can by their unrighteousness to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18). In part, this is because too many shepherds in the church are criticizing Trump and his supporters or are simply unwilling to teach their flocks about the wickedness that has become the Democrat Party standard.

“See, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.” – Jeremiah 1:10

It is no secret that Trump appeals to many Christians because he is willing to fight against many of the progressive policies being pushed by Democrats.

Why does this attract us? It is because God has called us to be fighters.

Jeremiah was called by God to “to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow” the nations and kingdoms of this world. John Calvin explains this was a necessary predicate of Jeremiah’s work of building and planting because “impiety, perverseness, and hardened iniquity had for so long a time prevailed, that it was necessary to begin with ruin and eradication; for Jeremiah could not have planted or have built the temple of God, except he had first destroyed, pulled down, laid waste, and cut off.”

As New Covenant prophets in an America filled with “impiety, perverseness, and hardened iniquity,” Christians have much the same task before them. While our “weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh,” we still “have divine power to destroy strongholds.” We are called to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete” (2 Corinthians 10:4–6).

This is Christian warfare, done under the authority and commission of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:16-20). He Himself has been set over the nations to “break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel” so that they will become His heritage and possessions (Psalm 2). Against this, “the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Matthew 16:18).

Calvin foreshadows the problems some Christians today have with our call to warfare. He wrote that God exhorted Jeremiah to remember his calling during his work because He knows that men are often “afraid of those who are invested with power, or who possess wealth, or a high character for prudence, or who are endued with great honors.” Too often, we “timidly or servilely … flatter men, or … show indulgence to their lusts and passions.”

It is obvious that French, Ortlund, and other Christians are indulging the lusts and passions of Democrats. As we have seen, this is often done to excuse their claims that it is acceptable for Christians to vote for or support the policies of Democrats.

The Way Forward

Voting for Kamala Harris is not “the way” for Christians to carry out the Great Commission and deal with the lying, cheating, cold dead beating heart of the Democrat Party. Instead, we should be encouraged by God’s reminder to Jeremiah that we are carrying out His calling. Calvin wrote that this will help us overcome our natural timidity by being “magnanimous in spirit.” And remind us that as “true prophets and teachers [we] may take courage, and thus boldly set [our]selves against kings and nations, when armed with the power of celestial truth.” And thus “not … spare [our] hearers, but freely reprove them whenever there may be need.”

The Fear of the Lord: A Homily on Joshua 5:13-6:27

As the story opens in today’s passage, the people of Israel were finally at the place they had feared 40 years ago when Moses had sent men to spy out the land of Canaan. Upon their return, Joshua and Caleb had told them:

“The land, which we passed through to spy it out, is an exceedingly good land. If the Lord delights in us, he will bring us into this land and give it to us, a land that flows with milk and honey. Only do not rebel against the Lord. And do not fear the people of the land, for they are bread for us. Their protection is removed from them, and the Lord is with us; do not fear them.”

But the people did not listen to them. Instead, they listened to other spies who told them that “the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large. And besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there.” As a result, instead of fearing the Lord, they feared the men of Canaan.

So the people rebelled against Moses, seeking to stone Joshua and Caleb. Most importantly, of course, they rebelled against God. And because of their rebellion, they were condemned to die in the desert as they wandered through it for the next forty years.

Into the Promised Land – A Study of Joshua

Upon the death of Moses, Joshua was called to lead God’s people into the Promised Land, the land that God had promised to give to them through His covenant with Abraham. It was to be their land; no man would be able to stand before them all the days of their life. God would not leave them or forsake them. Their only task was to be strong and courageous in their conquering of the land. And though they committed to doing so, it wasn’t too long before the people began to fail in their commitment to the Lord. Joshua is the beginning of the story of the failure of God’s people to live up to their covenant responsibilities in the land, their failure to conquer the land as they had been called to do, the subsequent judgement of God upon the people (culminating centuries later in the two destructions of Jerusalem by Babylon and Rome), and in God’s covenantal faithfulness is maintaining a remnant of His people over time until the promised coming of the savior of His people in Jesus Christ and His inclusion in His kingdom of the Gentiles. Studying Joshua will help us to see our responsibilities in conquering the land (today, the entire earth) to spread God’s kingdom and understand how God has faithfully provided a Conqueror and King who will lead us in that conquest and provide our victory where earthly kings had failed us.

Resources

This study is designed to be a 17-week study with daily readings and questions five days each week. It is great for individual and group study.

It was prepared using Joshua: No Failing Words by Dale Ralph Davis. This is an excellent resource for individuals or group leaders. Of course, many others have written about Joshua. Here is a survey of several other authors looking at Joshua’s place in the Bible, organization, and themes. And here is a homily examining the fear of the Lord during the destruction of Jericho in Joshua 5:13-6:27.

You can download the study here.

Return from Exile: A Homily on Ruth

The story of Ruth is one of the most beautiful stories in Scripture. By faith, a young gentile woman is delivered from a pagan land, blessed with a faithful husband, and gives birth to a son renowned through the land who becomes part of the lineage of Jesus Christ.

There is so much to the Book of Ruth that we could spend weeks talking about it. Now don’t worry, I’m not going to keep you here that long. But I do want us to spend a little time together so that we can share in the richness of the many stories that can be found in Ruth.

Return from Exile: A Five Week Study of Ruth

This is a five-week study to help you walk through the book of Ruth. You can use it for individual or group study. It was prepared using some biblical commentaries. One I would highly recommend is Ruth: Under His Wings, by Rich Lusk and Uri Brito. A good commentary like this will be of great help to a group leader or an individual wanting to get the most from their study.

You can download the study here.

Healing the Moscow/Mizpah Divide

Kevin DeYoung’s infamous coinage of the term “Moscow Mood” has highlighted significant concerns about the evangelical church today.

DeYoung sought to warn Christians of the harmful “long-term spiritual effects of admiring and imitating” the “visceral” mood emanating from Christ Church, pastored by Douglas Wilson, in Moscow, Idaho. According to DeYoung, these harmful effects include developing a personality “incompatible with Christian virtue [and] inconsiderate of other Christians” and theological positions such as “Christian Nationalism or [Wilson’s] particular brand of postmillennialism.”

The critiques of DeYoung’s article are widespread, but I believe Joe Rigney’s piece in the American Reformer gets to the heart of the matter. He writes, “DeYoung fears that Moscow appeals to what is worldly in us. I have the same fear about the circles that DeYoung runs in. DeYoung worries that the world is burning and Moscow is lighting things on fire. I worry that DeYoung is bringing out a fire extinguisher in the middle of a flood.”

I attend a church in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). The PCA is one of the more "conservative," or biblically sound, denominations in the United States. Yet over the last 25 years the woke progressive movement has been making inroads into the PCA like it has in many other denominations. These inroads have been made on biblical doctrines such as those related to the days of creations, race, and egalitarianism.

The most recent assault on God's Word in the PCA is on the issue of homosexuality. Particularly what is known as Side B homosexuality, the idea that it is okay to be a "Gay Christian" with same-sex attraction as long as one remains celibate. Now, I welcome all same-sex attracted men and women to church, including those who are attempting to remain celibate. I do so because they, like me, need to repent of their sin. And unless they come to church, they are unlikely to hear that both same-sex sex and same-sex attraction are unholy and sinful in God's eyes and something of which they need to repent.

Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you are trying to accomplish something but the information you have to sort through to do so is so overwhelming that you are tempted to give up?

One example of this is the costs I incurred after my car engine stopped working one afternoon. It turns out that Kia engines of a certain date had a design flaw that caused them to seize. Kia replaced the engine for no charge and said I was eligible for reimbursement of rental car expenses. But now, after more than six months of effort, I still have not been reimbursed. And everyone at Kia I discuss this provides different, and apparently incorrect, information about how to resolve the problem. If it weren’t for the encouragement of my wife, I would have already given up.

In many ways the book of Ezekiel is much like this. It is filled with visions of whirling wheels and creatures with four faces; it’s setting moves from place to place, country to country, and time to time; and it speaks of people and events in strange lands and foreign times. The information overload can be overwhelming, and figuring out what the Lord wants us to learn from Ezekiel is no easy task.

Yet, if we work our way through Ezekiel, we will find that we indeed have a great need for the wisdom contained in it. Ezekiel teaches us that God is not far off but nearby, that as Christians we live in the presence of God each day. This makes digging into it very much worth the effort. So let’s spend a little time doing that today, focusing on Ezekiel 3:1-11; 5:5-17; and 36:22-32.

God's mercy constantly amazes me. And one aspect of His mercy is common grace, which he bestows on all people, saved and unsaved alike. We all know that this means, for instance, that it rains for all of us. But common grace, along with the fact that everyone is made in God's image, allows even unbelievers that hate God (and they all do) to engage in theology. And at time do so better than some believers.

The issue of race is one area where they phenomena is taking place. For instance, Thomas Sowell-an unbeliever writing in a Jewish magazine, blows the doors off of many evangelicals in his understanding of race as seen in last year's Virginia gubernatorial race. He correctly calls poisonous indoctrination what many white evangelicals call repentance. Then there is Joe Morgan, a sportswriter. I don't know about the state of his soul, but he clearly sees the irony in Atlanta and Houston making the World Series last year, and the potential for righting some of the injustice done to black Georgians harmed when the MLB moved the All-Star game to Colorado.

Jesus is making ALL things new. Which includes government and baseball. And it is nice when some unbelievers (at least one) can help us Christians see Jesus at work in this world that He gave us and is preparing even now to be the dwelling place of Good with man.

I came of age politically in the age of William F. Buckley, Jr and Ronald Reagan, which means I escaped being indoctrinated into the progressive ideology behind John Maynard Keynes’ economics and Rachel Carson’s environmentalism. So I was baffled by a recent article in World Magazine discussing how many of today’s young “conservatives” embrace the ideas I avoided 40 years ago.

The article, Young Republicans embrace climate care, begins with a profile of the 24-year-old Andrew Eisenman, a recent graduate of Liberty University who has begun to vote Democrat because of the Republican Party’s position on climate change. According to World, he believes climate change is “an urgent threat that will increasingly disrupt weather patterns, causing severe storms, crop destruction, and other deadly disasters.”

by Brad Isbell - Aquila Report

“In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.”

These words are from the stirring opening paragraph of J. Gresham Machen’s monumental-but-brief 1923 masterwork Christianity and Liberalism. Machen was the most eloquent, erudite, and forthright defender of orthodoxy in the northern Presbyterian church during the era we now call the Presbyterian Controversy. In a sense his times could not have been more different than our own. Though controversy rages in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) today, there are no theological liberals denying such cardinal doctrines as the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, His bodily resurrection, or Christ’s substitutionary atonement.

But there are similarities between our time and the tumultuous early 20th century. For one thing, Machen’s opponents (which included moderate evangelicals) did not want a “fight”—there was much criticism of his tone, temperament, and tactics. That’s why he had to first defend the very concept of fighting. Unity, ecumenism, and shared mission were the watchwords of his day. We see much the same thing today where all but the politest dissent is disparaged. Machen’s battles were waged in pamphlets, newspaper pages (secular and religious), seminary board rooms, and ecclesial meetings. Today’s squabbles often occur online, and a recent spate of online posting of open letters and blog posts about PCA issues and the upcoming General Assembly has turned up the tension even as the posts aimed to promote unity.

A recent social media post by a PCA pastor neatly sums up both the aversion to fighting and the minimizing of meaningful differences in doctrine and practice:

“So here’s where it seems we are to my eyes: we agree on 97% of everything theologically, and probably 75% of methodology, yet there are folks ready to go Mortal Kombat at GA (General Assembly)?”

Quantifying doctrinal fidelity in percentages seems like an impossible task. The doctrinal debates in the PCA focus largely on confessional subscription. The “confessionalist” wing of the PCA is not happy with how “good faith subscription” has developed in the 20 years it has been the law of the church. This rule allows presbyteries to grant ministers’ exceptions to the Westminster standards so long as they are recorded and approved by the ministers’ presbyteries. One confessionalist complaint is the way that many common exceptions are granted in some presbyteries as a matter of course. There are also active controversies over whether presbyteries can prohibit ministers from teaching their exceptions. Even if putting a percentage on doctrinal agreement is impossible, the existence of serious disagreement is obvious.

The offhand social media post gets closer to the crux of the issue when it speaks of agreement in “75% of methodology” in the PCA. Methodology includes ecclesiology, worship, and mission. Methodology is the program (or programs) of the church and the container or channel for the message. Ecclesiology is itself doctrinal. Methodology is what we believe applied. While some write off methodological differences as the normal consequence of contextualization (adjusting methods to local situations), others view “25% disagreement” (as it were) about methodology as an unhealthy and untenable arrangement.

While Marshall McLuhan’s famous line “the medium is the message” may overstate the case, we must agree that the medium or methodology that churches use shapes the message, not just the other way around. What churches do and how they do it necessarily reflects their doctrinal convictions, not just how good or bad they are at contextualizing their message. Is 75% agreement on methodology a good thing? Can 97% doctrinal agreement produce only 75% methodological or missional agreement?

It’s clear that most of the recent cries for unity and peace in the PCA are reactions to the recent Gospel Reformation Network conference. PCA moderates, missionalists, and progressives took issue with David Strain’s confessional alarm, Jon Payne’s overview of issues, and Harry Reeder’s comparison of progressive Christianity and theological liberalism (which Machen defined as a different religion altogether).

Read the rest on the Aquila Report

I did not know anything about reformed theology when I first came to the PCA in 1998. What I did know, after spending the first five years after my baptism in the Episcopal Church, was that I was not being fed with the whole counsel of the Word of God. Some friends convinced me that one of the PCA churches in Austin would do that.

They were right. And it did not take too much feeding and shepherding to convinced me that not only was I in the right church but also in the right denomination. I remember being comforted about not having to worry about where to go to church during my travels; I just needed to find the closest PCA church to be assured of sound preaching (though perhaps not weekly communion).

There came a point, however, where discussions in my church led me to look more closely at my denomination. When I did, I was shocked. For much of time I had been in the PCA, our General Assembly, permanent committees, and denominational agencies had been doing what had caused me to leave the Episcopal Church--allowing the pressure of the culture around us to undermine faithful exegesis, preaching, and application of God's Word.

by Timon Cline

It is presently in vogue amongst evangelical cultural elites to decry “Cultural Christianity,” or alternatively, “Bible Belt Religion.” Ray Ortlund’s tweet from April 12th encapsulates this mood. “I rejoice at the decline of Bible Belt Religion,” he wrote. “It made bad people worse—in the name of Jesus. Now may we actually believe in Him, so that our churches stand out with both the truth of gospel doctrine and the beauty of gospel culture. To that end, I gladly devote my life.”

The basic idea here is that Bible Belt religion is the broadly Christian culture that characterizes the evangelical stronghold of the South and Southwest United States. In response to his thread he clarified, “By ‘Bible Belt Religion’ I mean a nominal identification with Christianity motivated by social advantage and self-importance. It names Jesus, but not with a true heart. The proof: it mistreats those who really do love Him. I have seen this.” And back in 2016 he tweeted, “We’re losing a Bible Belt religion that held us back anyway. We’ve gained A29, TGC, ERLC, T4G, reformed hip hop and poetry, etc. Great!”

One of the most fascinating phenomena of our time is the number of evangelical Christians brought up in the wake of dispensationalism coming to grips with the problems of the church abandoning the culture.

Now, I understand that dispensationalism, and its reformed cousin--Two Kingdoms (R2K) theology, don't use the term, "abandon the culture." And both still embrace the importance of evangelism. However, neither actually expects significant results of this effort. Oh sure, the "frozen chosen" will be sought out and discovered this way, but most of the world and its cultural institutions will continue heading toward hell in a handbasket.

One proponent of Two Kingdoms theology, David VanDrunen, a professor at Westminster Seminary California, expresses a similar sentiment when he lays out his concern about the idea that “Christians are … called to transform [cultural institutions and activities] and to build the kingdom of God through this work.”

The practical results of this abandonment--a culture seemingly disintegrating before our eyes yet with plenty of energy to attack and persecute Christians--has led many evangelicals today to question it, even if they still believe they will one day "be caught up together ... in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" while unbelievers are left to fight it out among themselves. It also led many of them to vote for Donald Trump.

Enter David French.

French is one of many in the evangelical community (like VanDrunen, Russell Moore, Ray Ortland, etc.) who seem perfectly fine with the decline of "cultural Christianity," or what French calls "American Christendom."

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is sis-ads-4.jpg

Just like the 1980's era TV commercial picturing senior citizens struggling after fall and unable to get up to call for help, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), like all churches, struggles to address the cultural issues facing our country today.

In this series, I am providing a brief history of the errors of the PCA in exegesis and application that have led us to where we are today. In Part 2, we will look at race and racism. Specifically, the work on this of the PCA's General Assembly in 2004 and 2016.

In its response to Overture 43 from the Potomac Presbytery, the 44th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (2016) corporately recognized, confessed, condemned, and repented of various historical and continuing racial sins in the PCA and its predecessor denominations. After confessing and repenting of these racial sins, the General Assembly “praises and recommits itself to the gospel task of racial reconciliation.”

The PCA did not catalogue specific historic sins or present any evidence of any current racial sins. PCA members might seek more direction about which sins committed by which parent churches or denominations.

Given the number of related meme's populating the web, quite a few people still remember the 1980's era TV commercial encouraging senior citizens to buy a device that would call for help in the case they fall and are not able to get up to reach a phone. Though a lot of people have made light of the commercial, underlying it was a serious issue that needed to be addressed.

The same could be said today of the plight of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Though many elders, deacons, and members in local churches seem to be taking lightly the ongoing errors of the PCA, they are serious and must be dealt with in one way or another. If by God's grace this means a revival in the PCA, it is likely that lay members are going to play a significant role in this.

In this series, I'd like to run through a brief history of the errors of the PCA in exegesis and application that have led us to where we are today. Founded in 1973 to escape the growing liberalism in the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS), it took about a quarter of a century for the liberalism to work its way back into the PCA. In Part 1, we will start with the days of creation. Specifically, the report of the Creation Study Committee to the PCA's General Assembly in 2000.

Genesis 1 tells us that “God created the heavens and the earth” in six days, with each day being separated by evening and morning. The reality of the 24 hour days of creation cannot get much clearer than that. Jesus supports this in Mark 10:6 when He says, “from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female,'” indicating that Day Six was very close in time to Day One. And again when He says the “blood of Abel” was “shed from the foundation of the world.” The biblical text leaves no room for days that last for billions of years so that, for instance, the earth could have slowly formed out of the remnants of the big bang.

Texas Scorecard, one of the most important organizations fighting for liberty in Texas, has several principles which guide their operation. One of those is don't make it personal.

Michael Sullivan, Texas Scorecard's CEO, applied this principle to how citizens should approach politics in a recent commentary:

We need to step back, for the sake of our Republic. We must dial down the emotion in our reckoning of political actors’ official actions. Citizens must approach government professionally, even if the politicians do not. We need to stop personalizing our relationship with the elected officials whose names appear on our ballot – even if we actually do know them personally. And we must never take personally their unwillingness – or inability – to deliver on our expectations.

Despite the focus on not making it personal, Sullivan's group does not hesitate to talk critically about individual politicians:

In this sense alone, SD 30 is a massive loss to Austin’s swampy, lobbyist-controlled culture. It revealed that the citizens were not interested in what they were being told to buy. The lobby-favored candidate, of course, was State Rep. Drew Springer (R-Muenster). His most notable achievement to date had been (unsuccessfully) helping a Chinese drone manufacturer. Under the Capitol dome, he’s most known for doing what he’s told by whoever happens to be in power.

Yet, there is no conflict here.

by Peter Leithart

Scripture seems to be almost deliberately vague about the kingdom. It is like a seed, like leaven, like a sower going to sow His field, like a merciful master who forgives our debts. The kingdom is also a place where we enter to eat and drink with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus Christ Himself. We have been translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of Light and of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The coming of the kingdom, in John the Baptist's preaching, also brings judgment. The kingdom is our inheritance, a grant that has been taken from the Old Testament people of God, and given to a people producing its fruit.

Given this mind-boggling complexity (and these descriptions only scratch the surface), it is extremely difficult to arrive at a brief definition of the kingdom that does justice to every dimension of the reality. Of course, this is always the case when we study Scripture. We are always, as creatures, limited to looking at things from one perspective at a time. We cannot attain a God-like comprehension of the kingdom, or of anything that God says or does. But the problem is even more acute in the case of the kingdom because Scripture connects the kingdom with so many other important (and almost equally complex) themes.

Still, I think it proper, as much as we are able, to seek a brief summary definition of what the Bible means by the "kingdom of God". So, my effort at a single-sentence definition of the kingdom of God is this: The kingdom of God is the new world-order, in heaven and on earth, produced by the revolutionary changes brought about in Jesus' fulfillment of the Old Covenant in His life, death, resurrection, and ascension.

by Gary North

Here, I deal with the framework hypothesis of Genesis 1 that was offered by Meredith Kline in the late 1950's. I show why it is not biblical.

The framework hypothesis denies that the six days of Genesis 1 were sequential. Instead, it says that the days were literary. Day 1 paralleled day 4. Day 2 paralleled day 5. Day 3 paralleled day 6.

Why would anyone offer such an exegetically bizarre theory? Because the sequence of the text's six days cannot be reconciled with cosmic evolution. On day 4, God created the stars. On day 1, He created the earth. Framework theologians refuse to break with cosmic evolution. So, they interpret the sequence of days as non-literal. They invoke God's literary creativity, which somehow no one in Jewish history or church history had recognized until the early 20th century.

This strategy is intellectually futile. It buys them nothing in terms of subordinating the book of Genesis to the uniformitarian-based theory of evolution, either cosmic or biological.

Have you ever noticed how much more complicated it is to cover up the truth rather than confess it?

For instance, God tells us: "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished" (Genesis 1:31-2:1).

Yet rather than simply confess, as the Westminster Divines did, that "it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ... to create, or make of nothing, the world ... in the space of six days," a number of evangelicals have attempted to accommodate evolutionists' need for a world that is billions of years old by coming up with this:

Exegesis indicates that the scheme of the creation week itself is a poetic figure and that the several pictures of creation history are set within the six work-day frames not chronologically but topically. In distinguishing simple description and poetic figure from what is definitively conceptual the only ultimate guide, here as always, is comparison with the rest of Scripture.

In other words, the distinctive feature of the Framework interpretation is its understanding of the week (not the days as such) as a metaphor. Moses used the metaphor of a week to narrate God’s acts of creation. Thus God’s supernatural creative words or fiats are real and historical, but the exact timing is left unspecified.

Why the week then? Moses intended to show Israel God’s call to Adam to imitate Him in work, with the promise of entering His Sabbath rest. God’s week is a model, analogous to Israel’s week. The events are grouped in two triads of days. Days 1-3 (creation’s kingdoms) are paralleled by Days 4-6 (creation’s kings). Adam is king of the earth and God is King of Creation.

Got that? Neither do I.

Then there is the one-hundred and forty-three page report produced out of the Missouri Presbytery's (PCA) struggle to understand and "account[] for the controversial nature of Revoice and homosexuality:"

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has been already in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to be among those who come after. --(Ecclesiastes 1:9–11 ESV)

Nobody knew it at the time, but the beginnings of the Presbyterian Church of the World (PCW) date from the early 2000s when one of our predecessors, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), took two steps toward maintaining the authority of Scripture while avoiding a rigid and archaic concept of inerrancy.

The first step was the report of the Creation Study Committee in 2000. The committee was initiated largely by fundamentalists at the PCA's 1998 General Assembly who believed that it would return a report opposing any view other than a 24-hour day creation narrative. Instead, the report's focus on peace and unity over dogma opened the way for widespread adoption of the framework interpretation. This solved the supposed conflict of Genesis 1 and 2 read into Scripture by biblical literalists who believed those chapters to be historical and allowed Scripture to comport with the settled science of an earth that is billions of years old:

The Committee has been unable to come to unanimity over the nature and duration of the creation days. Nevertheless, our goal has been to enhance the unity, integrity, faithfulness and proclamation of the Church. Therefore we are presenting a unanimous report with the understanding that the members hold to different exegetical viewpoints.

From that point forward, the framework interpretation grew in popularity in PCA feeder seminaries until it became the majority interpretation in the PCA. This opened the way for a more reasonable application of the Westminster Standards that in 2025 brought to an end the practice of requiring PCA elders to take "exceptions" to that extra-biblical document when they disagreed with some of its misreadings of Scripture.

Christians Under Assault

Unlike the rest of his teammates, San Francisco Giant pitcher Sam Coonrod did not kneel during Major League Baseball's season opening tribute to Black Lives Matter, or perhaps to black lives matter.

Coonrod has been vilified by many, including NBC Sports writer Monte Poole. While Poole says Coonrod "did nothing wrong," he vilified him for saying things that were "plenty wrong," for "offering up an explanation that slid off his tongue and went dribbling down his chest like liquid contradiction."

What reason for not kneeling did Coonrod give that was so offensive?

I am a Christian.

“You can’t eat no words.”

Jake voiced his displeasure at Louisa’s recent attempt at panhandling.

“If you don’t do better than that, we’ll go hungry tonight,” he added.

Louisa could feel the emptiness in her stomach––the Thanksgiving meal the city had provided the day before no longer filled her. She was used to the gnawing sensation. And after living on the streets for more than a year now, she knew he was right. But his words still rang hollow to her.

She looked at the piece of paper she held in her hand.

“Church of the Redeemer” was scrawled on it, along with a phone number. This is what the man had given her when she had asked for money.

There was something attractive about the words to her. Maybe it was because of the man.

Louisa thought back to the encounter.

His car wasn’t expensive, but it was a late model and clean. And he had a smile on his face. So she walked up to him. He rolled down his window.

“Can you help me out with some money?” she asked.

He hesitated for a moment.

“I’d like to help,” he said. “But I’ve found the best way to do that is through my church. We have a program where you can come in and someone will get to know you and see what we could do that would really be helpful.”

“I don’t have a car, so I can’t get around very well to meet anyone,” Louisa responded. “Some money would be the best way.”

“I tell you what,” the man offered. “Let me give you our number. You can call it or not. But I think we might be able to help you. Not just with money, but also with some friendship.”

He opened his wallet to pull out a piece of paper. Louisa saw his money. Her mouth watered.

A car honked behind them. The light had turned green.

He wrote the information on the paper quickly. He smiled as he handed it to her, then drove off, rolling up his window.

“Jake, maybe we ought to call this church and see what they can do for us,” Louisa asked, anticipating his response even as she spoke. She knew how he felt about churches.

“I keep telling you, church people don’t want nothing good for us. He could’ve given us money. He doesn’t care. I’m the one who cares for you.”

Jake reached into his pocket.

“We’ve got twenty-two bucks,” he said. “There is no way we’re going to be able to eat, buy beer and have a room tonight unless you get back to work.”

The emptiness in Louisa’s stomach began to sour.

While she knew that she was wanted, she didn’t feel particularly cared for. Living on the street is especially hard for women. It seems like everybody wants you. Louisa had been wanted so often when she first went on the street that she’d lost track of the difference between sex and rape. Every encounter had become empty and painful.

Jake had changed that, for a while. He had really seemed to care. He told her that he loved her. The other men left her alone after Jake came into her life. But recently, she’d begun to feel more like a possession.

There are a lot more men than women on the street, and a man with a woman is both admired and despised by the other men. And though Jake cared for Louisa, underneath his feelings for her was a desperate need to keep his prized possession. Though he’d never admit it, even worse than losing her was losing the admiration of the others and being ridiculed because he couldn’t keep his woman.

This is what Louisa had been sensing. But there was more to it than that.

There was a longing inside of her, a thirst, a hunger, that was never filled by beer, food, or sex. Or Jake. No matter how he felt about her.

Yet the other day a preacher man on the corner had said something that seemed to satisfy her, if only for a moment. What was it he had said? “When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart’s delight.”

Louisa realized she had just said the words aloud.

Jake responded. “Honey, don’t you understand how much I love you. I’d do anything to protect you. There ain’t nothing that preacher can do for you.”

Yes, Jake did protect her. But she wanted more than a body guard. She longed for a comfort that Jake did not bring her.

She thought of her mother, and the way she used to talk about her father.

“I’m his treasure,” Louisa’s mother would say. “He loves me just because he loves me, because he chose me. I’m the bride he’ll never forsake.

She didn’t really even understand what the words meant. That life was but a distant memory for Louisa.

Louisa didn’t understand how she wound up where she was today. It didn’t make sense to her. She’d come from a good family. They’d gone to church. Her parents had loved her. In fact, they still did. Numerous times she had felt their presence as they searched for her. They had come close. So close that one day, she had actually seen her father. She and Jake had hidden until he had left.

That was the strange part of it, she thought. Why had she hidden? At 21 years of age, he couldn’t have forced her to come home. What was she afraid of?

Thinking back to that day, Louisa felt the fear she’d experienced when she’d seen her father. She had felt so dirty and ashamed. She couldn’t let him see her like that. She couldn’t let him find her like that. Not her father. Or anyone from her previous life. They would never accept me like this, she thought.

But as lost and desperate and ugly as she felt, there was something lingering in her from that distant past that made Louisa attractive to those around her. Jake, the girls on the street, all wanted to be with her. Even the men saw her as more than someone just to use for sex.

Still, they didn’t understand what it was that made her different. And neither did she. Her attempts to articulate the difference to her friends by expressing a desire for her former life were always met with resistance. They didn’t want to be reminded of the difference, and they didn’t want her to go.

“You’re crazy, Louisa. Stay with us.”

It was always the same, “Stay.”

But more and more she knew that she wanted to go. But where? That was the problem.

The words of the preacher were ringing in her ears now. She was tired of starving. She wanted to be filled and satisfied. She wanted a feast; a feast that kept her filled and satisfied longer than had the Thanksgiving meal from the day before.

Gathering her courage, she told Jake she needed to go to the bathroom. She got up from the sidewalk and went inside Caritas, the local homeless services center.

But instead of going to the bathroom, she walked over to the free phones. She took out the paper the man had given her and looked at the words. Their attraction was even stronger than before.

She picked up the phone and dialed the number. Despite what Jake had said, she was going to try to eat those words.

In Part 2 of this series, we presented the case that the obsession of many of the leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) with white racism is rooted in white guilt. Their consciences are overwhelmed because they blame themselves, other white people, and centuries of slavery and discrimination for the poor social and economic conditions of many minorities.

David French, a popular political commentator and member of the PCA, is helping to lead the chorus of those making this point:

The consequences of 345 years of legal and cultural discrimination, are going to be dire, deep-seated, complex, and extraordinarily difficult to comprehensively ameliorate.

Of course, there is racism in America today. People are sinners and will use everything they can think of to justify their sins, including the color of someone's skin. Whites, blacks, and others included.

The blaming of the economic and social conditions of blacks and other minorities on what white people have done in the past and present, however, runs into two major obstacles: the narrative does not fit the facts and it does not account for the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Messengers vote on a resolution during the 2019 SBC annual meeting. BP file photo

In Part 1 of this series, we looked at the claims about race and racism from some of the protesters in Minneapolis, noting how some recent pronouncements on racism from the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and the Presbyterian Church in America sound quite similar.

The predominant reason behind the Presbyterian Church in America's (PCA) and Southern Baptist Convention's (SBC) susceptibility to worldly influence on the issue of race appears to be white guilt. Yet, it is not real guilt, the kind that comes from sins that anyone actually committed against a particular person.

Rather, the guilt of many white evangelicals appears to be guilt that comes from looking at the condition of many minorities in this country, their poverty, the recent police killings, etc., and simply assuming that whites are responsible. Responsible because of real sins committed 50, 150, or 250 years ago that we just can't escape the consequences of, which includes today's white privilege and institutional white racism.

Foley Square, Manhatan. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura)

Only hours after one of her churches had been set afire by rioters in Washington, D.C., the Right Reverand Mariann Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington, chose to aim her harsh words at President Donald Trump.

“We align ourselves with those seeking justice for the death of George Floyd and countless others. And I just can’t believe what my eyes have seen,” she said.

What had drawn her ire was the president holding up a Bible while visiting St. John’s Episcopal Church.

It is not just the so-called mainline churches, though, that turn a blind eye to the damage being done to buildings, culture, and race relations in our country by the rise of progressive liberalism. Churches considered to be conservative and evangelical also suffer blindness in this area as worldliness slowly displaces biblical wisdom.

By Dewey Roberts

In the first chapter of Genesis, there is the divine revelation that God created the world “in the space of six days, and all very good” (Shorter Catechism #9). Genesis 1 gives us the six days of creation and verse 31 of that chapter says: “God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good. And there was evening and morning, the sixth day.” Those of us starting Vanguard Presbytery are in agreement that the days of creation were normal days because they are identified as such in Scripture—“And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5). Each of the six days are identified in that same manner by Holy Writ. The Sabbath commandment in Exodus 20:8-11, likewise, is based on the relationship between God’s creation of the world in six days and His rest on the seventh day.

Of course, no such Scriptural arguments are convincing to people who have, wittingly or unwittingly, been influenced by the theory of natural selection put forth by Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of the Species, published in 1859. Darwinian evolution has resulted in the rise of atheism wherever it has become popularly held and taught. Yet, Darwin himself claimed to be a theist who believed that God created the original material of the universe. What he denied, and that which is the heart of his thesis, is the intelligent design in the creation of all the various life forms of the world and all the intricate parts of their being. What he denied was that the human eye, for instance, is an indication of intelligent design just as much as the telescope. Darwin accounted for the development of all life forms through natural selection and not supernatural design. Darwinism holds the following principles listed by Charles Hodge:

Every faith has to make decisions about what it believes.

The Christian church generally agrees its beliefs are based on the Bible. Beyond that, though, agreement is often hard to find.

Case in point: those of us who call ourselves reformed or Calvinists agree that Scripture is inerrant and the whole counsel of God's Word is true, without contradiction. So what do we do when Scripture tells us that "God created the heavens and the earth" in six days? We argue about it.

Whether or not one believes in six 24 hour days of creation does not determine whether one is a Christian; that is dependent solely on believing in Jesus Christ. However, what the leaders of a denomination believe about the days of creation may be determinant of its future.

This piece will examine the Presbyterian Church in America's 2000 decision that in many cases allows elders to deny six 24 hour days of creation without taking an exception to the Westminster Standards and the effects of that decision on the PCA today and into the future. Sneak preview of the conclusion: the future of the PCA is in God's hands, and we should be in constant prayer to Him about the direction He will take us because we are not doing a very good job of it ourselves.

During the eight years that Barack Obama was president, friends and colleagues would often complain about various policies or actions of his administration. While I was usually sympathetic with their angst, I would often respond, "Well, we have no one to blame but ourselves. After all, we (the American people) elected him."

I had a similar response when watching an openly gay PCA pastor speak at at our recent General Assembly--and receive applause from many elders in attendance. While I didn't personally vote to call him--just as my complaining friends and colleagues didn't vote to elect President Obama, the truth is that Greg Johnson and most of those who support his position on Revoice and his ordination as a teaching elder wouldn't have been at General Assembly as elders in our denomination unless we, members of the PCA, had voted to call them.

Though I have lead with him, this piece isn't about Johnson. It isn't about Revoice. Or even, in some ways, about the challenges facing the PCA. It is really about our call, as lay members in the PCA, to faithfully exercise our God-given, Book of Church Order confirmed responsibilities to assist our denomination in its submission to God's authority as given to us in Holy Scripture. To that end, I offer some questions toward the end of this piece that we as members can discuss with our elders, candidates for elders, and other members so that we can better understand their beliefs about important issues facing the church today.

I noted in my previous piece describing the overtures to be considered at at the Presbyertian Church in America's General Assembly that at the top of the list was how it was going to deal with with the Revoice movement. That certainly turned out to be the case. So I thought I'd do a deep dive here on the issue by running through the numbers on the votes.

For those who can't wait until the end for a conclusion, the bottom line is that as many as a third of PCA elders in attendance at GA are strongly supportive of Revoice, with many more sympathetic to its aims. But the PCA is facing problems today that run far deeper than Revoice.

I've written about the details elsewhere, but basics are that while Revoice organizers acknowledge sexual activity is “restricted” by the Bible to within the confines of marriage, they also "support and encourage" the people they are engaging to identify as "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other same-sex attracted Christians" and flinch ("you [are] judging brothers for not repenting of something, ... an attraction ... that can’t be repented of") when it comes to acknowledging sinful sexual desires, e.g., same-sex desire, as sinful.

This isn’t how Jesus talks about sinful desire, however:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:27–28).

Unfortunately, much of Revoice's language and teaching opens the door for people to remain celibate "LGBT Christians," heterosexual adulterers, alcoholics, grumblers, etc. without their attractions, orientations, lusts, or ingratitude being acknowledged as sinful. Such teaching is not loving people, but is instead not healthy for their souls.

Now on to General Assembly.

Like the culture around it, the Presbyterian Church in America has been facing a fair amount of turmoil for some time now. Some of this usually shows up at the PCA's General Assembly, the annual gathering of PCA elders (teaching and ruling). This year's event, coming up this week in Dallas, promises more of the same.

Three years ago, much of the debate at GA focused on racial reconciliation. Last year, it was the role of women in the church. This year, it will likely be homosexuality and the Revoice movement, which is being hotly debated in the PCA and Southern Baptist Convention. Although sexual abuse and the "Me Too" movement is also in the mix and the role of women in the church is back for more debate. Plus, the debate over "social justice" is always lurking in the background.

Each year in General Assembly, its elders vote on a number of overtures, which are essentially petitions from presbyteries seeking to establish or clarify the PCA's position on an issue. In some cases overtures are simply encouragements or general statements, but they can also lead to changes in the governing documents of the PCA. In either case, they reflect the direction our denomination is taking on specific issues and, more broadly, how we are doing when it comes to submitting to the authority of Scripture.

This year, the best I can tell, 48 overtures have been submitted for consideration, though not all of them may be voted on. Below I have tried to provide a summary of them that may be of interest to us lay folks. I do this because it is important for church members to be informed how our denomination is handling God's Word, just as it is for Americans to do the same with our government. Which leads, as it also does in our democratic republic, to a responsibility for informed members to respond appropriately based on that knowledge. This dual similarity should not be a surprise because, though there are differences, the United States government is based on Presbyterian polity.

The results of the GA and the direction that the PCA is taking are important to more than just its members, though. Just watching the news tells the story that the culture war in the U.S. is being won by both cultural and theological liberalism. Though, to be clear, the battle is not over; it is still being engaged by Bible-believing Christians. The direction of the PCA, along with the SBC, may serve as leading indicators of the health of the orthodox church in the United States. If they were to submit to worldly wisdom, like numerous denominations before them, it becomes unclear what effect--absent another Great Awakening--the believing church will have on the culture in foreseeable future.

Here we go:

The Role of the Laity in the PCA’s Battle Against the Nations

Introduction

Those of us in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) have seen denomination after denomination, including our previous denomination—the PCUS, succumb to the attacks of raging nations (Psalm 2) on the church. And no matter what the points of attack have been, be it justification by faith or the social gospel, the underlying failure in all the church’s defeats has been the failure to stand on the authority of Scripture.

Strangely enough, many of the greatest failures of the church to stand on the authority of Scripture have been by those denominations that claimed the most authority for the church itself. This, of course, was the problem with a Catholic Church that elevated its authority over God’s Word. And, thus, over God Himself.

Revoice, Concupiscence, and Worldliness in the PCA

The decision of Memorial Presbyterian Church (PCA) in St. Louis, Missouri to host the Revoice Conference has raised quite a ruckus in the Presbyterian Church of America and some other evangelical denominations. The purpose of the conference is:

Supporting, encouraging, and empowering gay, lesbian, same-sex-attracted, and other LGBT Christians so they can flourish while observing the historic, Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality.

A PCA teaching elder and lead pastor of the sponsoring church is a speaker at the conference along with several graduates of and one professor from Covenant Theological Seminary, the PCA's official seminary.

The problem, as well noted by critics, is that the literature and supporters of the conference refuse to identify lustful desires of any sort--in this case homosexual--as a sin.

Willow Creek adds to Gender Role Confusion in the Evangelical Church

World Magazine's The Sift ran a story this week, Willow Creek leaders voice support for Hybels, regarding recent accusations of pastoral misconduct against Pastor Bill Hybels.

Accusations such as these are always going to be messy and often seeking the truth comes down to a he said, she said, back and forth--though with proper protections (like those of Mike Pence) in place a pastor or any other Christian man can avoid many of these problems. Yet it is true that faithful Christians are going to be persecuted any, just because they are faithful Christians.

It doesn't help Christians in these situations, however, when they add to the confusion. In this case, the thing that stood out for me when I read the story is this:

Pam Orr, the church’s highest-ranking elder, addressed questions about why leaders didn’t inform members of the inquiry into Hybels’ alleged misconduct earlier. “We had concluded in the first investigation that we found no evidence to support the allegation brought forward,” Orr said. “To bring that into full light, to bring that to the congregation just did not seem appropriate at the time.”

Egalitarianism and the Role of Women in the Church

“The central disease in the sexual revolution is the egalitarianism that drives everything else. Because it begins by setting aside portions of the plain Word of God, it ends by us discovering that the hidden intent the entire time was to dispense with the entire Word of God. And when that happens, there is no law to convict and no gospel to save." -- Douglas Wilson

From the beginning, the enemies of God have not directly attacked God Himself, but instead have attacked His subjects, using deceit to convince them that Scripture is not true, that God is not who He says He is. They do this in order to foment rebellion against Him. Satan sought to convince Eve that God was not good and that He was a liar (Genesis 3:1-7). The medieval Catholic Church sought to convince people that salvation rests not in God but in the church. The Deists of the 17th and 18th centuries sought to convince people that God was a benevolent but distant creator who has left us to fend for ourselves. All of this was geared toward making humans believe, like Eve, they can be like Him.

More recently, the enemies of God have become bolder by proclaiming that God does not exist at all. Now, humans don't need to strive to be like God; since He doesn't exist, they can strive to be Him.