The Bible and Polyamorous Relationships

It was suggested by opponents that legalising same-sex marriage would lead to demands for polygamy, polyandry and polyamorous relationships also being legalised and recognised.  We were told that two people of the same sex should be allowed to marry because they “loved each other”, and that overrode any biblical prohibition or social taboo.

In an interesting article in the Guardian, which frequently carries articles on this issue as part of the liberal elite’s “softening up opinion agenda”, one male homosexual writer  tells as what a wonderful three way relationship he has and why he is proud of it.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/26/dating-two-people-at-once-why-im-polyamorous-and-proud

He argues that “relationships are infinitely diverse”, therefore his relationship with two male partners should be recognised and celebrated.

He wants not only recognition, he wants legal rights and perhaps some legal means of registering his relationship:

“I write this explanation as a call to embrace poly people and our relationships. That doesn’t mean I think everyone should become polyamorous, although I believe everyone should think about whether it would work for them.

Even if you decide against it, it’s time to embrace those who are. That should mean fighting for more legal rights for those of us who choose to live this way. It is much more difficult for heterosexual people in polyamorous relationships to gain legal rights than it is for a gay monogamous couple.”

Of course the question should be asked, if three, why not four or five?  Could a rich individual have a mixed polyamorous harem of say 3 females and 3 males?  If the only criteria for judging such relationships is mutual consent, how dare we limit the boundaries of love.

How long before the pseudo-christian liberal church climbs aboard this bandwagon?  If, after all, the male and female (singular) of the biblical text can be broken and now include male-male and female-female relationships why not the singular aspect limiting the partnership to two persons.  If the church feels free to redefine marriage as the union of two persons, as the PCUSA has done, there is no logical reason not to extend this definition to “the union of two or more persons”. 

Oh - perhaps I should have mentioned that some professed Christian liberal groups are already campaigning on this matter:

http://uupa.org/index

http://www.libchrist.com/bible/polygamy.html

Indeed, even such a definition is unnecessarily species biased.  Apes are persons too, as some liberal campaigners maintain.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood#Advocacy )

So, there is no logical reason, apart from a prejudice against zoophilia, to restrict such marriages to humans.  This reductio ad absurdum shows that once you move away from biblical law, logically anything goes. Once the church no longer feels bound by Scripture, there are unforeseen consequences and eventually what can happen, will happen.  Those who are campaigning in the Church of Scotland for the acceptance of homosexual marriage will eventually campaign for a redefinition of marriage itself.  This is not prophecy, it is just looking at the trajectory that the PCUSA has followed and seeing that the liberals will not be satisfied until the Kirk, like the PCUSA, redefines marriage.

Covenant Fellowship Plan of Action (3)

Covenant Fellowship Scotland, (herafter CFS), recognises that their resistance to the new and forthcoming legislation put them on a collision course with the denomination and the decisions of the General Assembly.

They state: “A Minister vows ‘to be subject in the Lord to the courts of the Church’ and the words ‘in the Lord’ must be taken seriously. Our promise to obey is not an unconditional vow but a vow conditioned by our loyalty to a higher authority than the General Assembly, namely, the authority of the Lord.”

In what sense will they not be obeying the G.A.? Presumably in their refusal to recognise these in active same-sex relationships as legitimate officers and members in the church.  So what?  The ordinations of those individuals will still go ahead, apart from the rare situation of, say, Lewis Presbytery, where presumably no-one would be found willing to participate in the ordination.  In other presbyteries a quorum will be found and the ordinations will go ahead. 

I presume that CFS mean they will refuse to recognise and work with those who come to or are ordained in their presbytery.  It could lead to the rather ridiculous position of evangelicals recognising and working with liberals who deny the virgin birth, the sacrificial atonement and the bodily resurrection but not working with others who may affirm these truths but are in homosexual relationships.

The Action Plan takes the vow to be “subject in the Lord”, quite rightly as limited by the higher duty of obedience to Scripture.  However, I would suggest a different understanding after the example of Ephesians 6:1 “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.”

“In the Lord” is the sphere of their obedience; it is because they and their parents are Christians that they ought to obey.  I presume that Paul is not expecting young children to assess each demand of their parents and decide whether or not it is according to God’s will expressed in Scripture!

If the parallel is established with the ordination vow “‘to be subject in the Lord to the courts of the Church” it is saying that we obey because we are together part of the body of Christ and  we recognise that we and they, (the courts), are united in fellowship. 

To say that we will not obey is to say that this condition no longer applies.  It is to say that we do not recognise a bond of fellowship with these courts, that we cannot accept that we are one with them “in the Lord”.  In other words, the decision to disobey the courts of the church is saying “We do not recognise you as part of the body of Christ because your rebellion and disobedience of Scripture show that you do not love and follow the Lord.” But if this is the case, why do CFS wish to remain in denominational fellowship with those to whom they cannot be subject to “in the Lord”?

I may be mistaken here.  It is up to CFS to say whether or not their proposed disobedience is in effect a statement that they will not recognise the legitimacy of such courts as part of the body of Christ. I imagine that they will argue that it is only on this one issue that they cannot be subject “in the Lord” and that the fellowship relationship of being one “in the Lord” with the court of the church will still stand nevertheless.

Scripture tells us, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.” (Heb 13:17) Presumably an act of principled and continued disobedience is saying that the court is not recognised as genuinely concerned with the wellbeing of the souls of its members. Interestingly, Scripture says these courts will “give an account” and face judgment.

Let us consider some practical issues.  A refusal to obey a court of the church could bring about a discipline charge of contumacy against members of CFS.  Would the liberals be bold enough to do this? I doubt this, as they have never brought a charge against those who will not ordain women – they just remove them at source, by refusing to recognise them as candidates for ministry, and wait for the dinosaurs to retire or die or leave.  If history repeats itself then the church establishment will have patience with the rebels.  Time is on their side and they can afford to wait for the akward theological rebels to simply die out, as in the case of those opposed to woman's ordination, (or worse, to change their mind and accept the revisionist position as has also happened with woman's ordination.)

What of candidates for the ministry?  Will they be asked if they will be subject to the courts of the church on this matter, as candidates are now asked if they accept the church’s position of women in office?  A presbytery could legitimately refuse a candidate who has reservations about the current law of the church.  Remember, they will not be asked whether they personally believe that active homosexuals should be ordained; they will be asked whether in the broad church context they will work with and recognise such individuals within presbytery, the G.A., or Kirk Session if the Session moves in that direction.

I have another question: Should not candidates on the basis of honesty and integrity clearly affirm to presbytery that they do not accept this law?” Or, following previous evangelical history, will they keep quiet in the hope that they are not asked and if asked prevaricate?

It could be argued that if we find ourselves having to disobey the law of the church on an ongoing basis then the correct thing to do is to renounce the jurisdiction of the church and leave.  We would not expect a minister who rejected infant baptism and refused to recognise those so baptised as legitimately baptised to remain in a Presbyterian denomination.

(To be continued)

Covenant Fellowship Plan of Action (2)

The Action Plan positively states:

“We believe that the time has come to draw together those in the Church who believe that the Scriptures, in their entirety, are the Word of God and must provide the basis for everything we believe and do. Our vision is nothing less than the reformation and renewal of the Church of Scotland, in accordance with the Word of God and by the empowering of his life-giving Spirit.”

This is excellent - a clear statement regarding the authority of Scripture and a vision that goes beyond localism. It is followed by an accurate statement of the action of the General Assembly in permitting active homosexual practice and recognition that “the Church is contravening both Scripture and our Confession of Faith”.

In the light of this unbiblical action there is a call to repentance: “We call on the Church of Scotland to repent of this unbiblical decision and to seek forgiveness from God”

They recognise that in the light of the denomination’s continuing unbiblical action some have “protested” by leaving the denomination and others are considering doing so. I am not sure that those who left see their action as simply a protest against the denomination’s actions, but we will leave that issue aside.

Covenant Fellowship Scotland (CFS) are not leaving:

“While respecting that position, our vision is to remain within the Church in order to seek its reformation from within. We hope and pray that the Church can be brought back to its roots in the Bible and the reformed faith and it is our intention to work tirelessly for the realisation of that goal.”

Vision is a good thing when rooted in Scripture, but can be a problem when not so rooted.  A Christian might marry a non-believer with the “vision” of reforming the unbeliever and seeing their conversion, but that does not make the marriage a biblically justified course of action.

The leaders of the Covenant Fellowship commit “to work tirelessly for the realisation of  the goal of reformation and renewal”.  How is this to be realised?  

The Action Plan looks at short, medium, and long term actions.

To begin with there must be urgent prayer and evangelism and the practical step of registering their support for CFS.  I am not sure whether identification with CFS stands on the same level as prayer and evangelism, or whether it is the only avenue of protest and action, but this idea is emphasised a number of times in the Action Plan.

The second practical action is “to write to your Kirk Session, Presbytery and to the Principal Clerk’s office, indicating in a gracious manner your concern over what the General Assembly has done.”

Well, there is no harm in writing a gracious letter of concern.  I am not sure whether “concern” is the best term, but it is a start.  But, what happens to letters of concern? They are simply expressions of opinion and the denomination knows already that such opinion exists, indeed it revels in the breadth of opinion that it, as a broad church, contains.  

A letter of concern makes us feel that we have done something; it does not necessarily produce action, especially in the higher courts of the church. A letter of concern is not calling for action; it is not asking that discipline be initiated against named individuals; it is not saying what we will do if these concerns are not addressed.  Paul did not write a gracious letter of concern to the churches of Galatia or Corinth – he wrote epistles that outlined action.

If you are an elder “you might consider moving a motion to the effect that your Kirk Session holds to the traditional position of the Church and rejects the decision of the General Assembly.”  

Next to the letter of concern comes the statement of position.  Again, there is no harm in this but in itself it has no consequences.  I was involved at presbytery level in such a statement of principle.  I’m glad we affirmed the biblical position on homosexual practice in Buchan Presbytery in 1995, and sent a note on this to every other presbytery.  I am not sure in hindsight what this actually accomplished in practical terms.

However, CFS, does also call for action at Presbytery level: “We also call on all members of Presbyteries to resist the ordination and/or induction of anyone in a same-sex relationship.”   

I would extend this to anyone who does not hold to orthodox, biblical and Reformed Christianity and biblical ethics. Why pick on active homosexuals and ignore those who promote and support this behaviour?  Is this not a form of homophobia?  Why not say that anyone who does not meet biblical qualifications should not be in office?

What does “resist” mean in this context?  Does it mean vote against; does it mean register dissent and appeal to a higher court if we are not successful?  But we know that there is now, in church law, no legal basis of appeal as the denomination has already said that in certain contexts this behaviour is acceptable.  Does it mean that we will not work with or recognise such individuals – that is a recipe for guerrilla warfare, and guerrilla warfare has a tremendous cost in terms of stress and effort. 

Imagine 40% of a presbytery refusing to recognise or work with the other 60%.  Why would anyone want to belong to such a body when, by denominational transference, you could be working with a presbytery with whom you agree 100%?  I also doubt that in some of the presbyteries there would be as much as a 40% evangelical voice.

I commend these initial ideas.  I wait with interest to see them put into action, but I would have them extended on the basis of the Scriptures that CFS recognises as the supreme authority to action against all who deny biblical authority, teaching and practice.

(To be continued)

Covenant Fellowship Plan of Action (1)

Covenant Fellowship Scotland, the evangelical group who intend to remain in the Church of Scotland despite the increasing apostasy of the denomination, is to be congratulated on its Plan for Action.  It gives its members some positive steps and it gives its critics something solid with which to interact. The Action Plan is found here:

http://covenantfellowshipscotland.com  

I will be analysing the Plan in detail over a series of blogs here at Presbyterian Plodder. However, at this point let me make some passing comments.

The Plan of Action does not interact with Scripture, nor even quote Scripture.  

It might be argued that the underlying biblical and theological foundations have already been established and that there is no need to repeat them in the Plan of Action.  I would question that assumption, for I do not believe that a Scriptural case for remaining in an apostate denomination has been made or indeed can be made. I also believe that it is correct to describe the denomination as apostate, while acknowledging that this is not the case for every individual congregation. The Plan is not arguing the “if” of remaining within the Church of Scotland, it is outlining the “how to”. 

Secondly, Covenant Fellowship really needs to debate these issues – both the supposed biblical justification for remaining in an apostate denominational body and the actions that they propose to take to reform the church.  It needs to debate them publicly with real opponents and not imaginary straw men.  That could be either a live debate before an audience or a virtual debate by blog. Iron sharpens iron; a retreat into isolation without interaction is not the way forward.

Are the members of Covenant Fellowship willing to engage in such detailed discussion?  Personally, I understand their fear of engaging on a second front.  They are fighting the denomination, and some of them consider any criticism from fellow evangelicals as a betrayal. In particular they are fearful that any argument addressed directly to the members of their congregation will disrupt their unity – mirroring in some way the denominational mantra that unity is the supreme value, whatever the cost in terms of compromise. 

But surely these leaders of the Covenant Fellowship owe it to their congregations to come afresh to the arguments for biblical discipline as an essential mark of the church. They need to begin with Scripture, not the situation they find themselves in currently or the pragmatic issues that might arise through following a biblical course of direction.

The Decline of the Church in Scotland

Having just downloaded Os Guinness’ “The Last Christian on Earth” to my Kindle, it seems rather ominous to read in the Spectator Damian Thompson’s article, “2067: the end of British Christianity”. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9555222/2067-the-end-of-british-christianity/

Thomson, the editor of the Spectator, writes from a Catholic perspective, but the statistics are chilling for Protestants as well. If current rates of decline continue, Christianity will cease to have any real presence beyond 2067.  Indeed, that is a generous reading of the figures, because others would place the terminal point much sooner:

“The Church of England is declining faster than other denominations; if it carries on shrinking at the rate suggested by the latest British Social Attitudes survey, Anglicanism will disappear from Britain in 2033. One day the last native-born Christian will die and that will be that.”

Not that Scottish Presbyterians fare any better:

“Self-identification with the Church of Scotland has fallen off a cliff: from 36 per cent of Scots in 2001 to 18 per cent in 2013.”

Of course Thompson is writing from a statistical rather than a theological viewpoint, but the point is beyond dispute that the visible church in the UK in general, including Scotland, is shrinking fast.  His analysis is perceptive in pointing to the role of secularism in its many forms.  However, there may be other reasons found within the churches themselves.

The Church of Scotland, a broad based denomination that has embraced theological “diversity” (i.e. heresy) and moral depravity ( e.g. practicing homosexuals in membership and office) is shrinking in part because of its apostasy. Meanwhile the Free Church of Scotland, a biblically conservative denomination true to the Reformed faith and Scripture, is showing signs of new life and experiencing a measure of modest growth.

The forthcoming visit of atheist bishop Jack Spong to a Church of Scotland in Glasgow is a celebrating of theological and moral confusion, but it should also be noted that during his twenty plus years as bishop in Newark his diocese saw a 43.5% decline, (over 20% higher than the already disastrous decline in the ECUSA in general). Theological liberalism, pseudo-christiainity, is an ally of secularism and a catalyst for decline.

The Church of Scotland is following the same trajectory as the PCUSA, who embraced practicing homosexuals in office and have now gone on to “redefine” marriage as the union of two persons.  It will follow the same pattern of decline. The PCUSA lost 92,433 members in 2014, and showed an overall percentage decline 2012-2014 of more than 15%.

Figures may be found at : http://www.layman.org/pcusa-continues-membership-decline-92433-members-gone-in-2014/

Reports to the Church of Scotland’s 2015 General Assembly show membership declined by 16,000 last year, and by more than 150,000 people in the last decade.  Overall the percentage  of Scottish people identifying as Church of Scotland has declined from 36% of the population in 2001 to just 18% in 2013.  In the face of a 300 members a week haemorrhage the Church of Scotland speaks of “gentle decline”; the same spokesman would probably have described the sinking of the Titanic as a “gentle submergence”.

The Kirk has also sought to disguise the decline by insisting that membership rolls  are so passé, and that those who look at their web-sites could also be considered part of the church, or those who for whatever reason attend whatever meeting that happens to use the facilities of the denomination. 

The antidote for decline is the Gospel, but any church denomination that no longer has the Gospel and thinks that atheist bishop Spong will bring healthy discussion and growth to the church, deserves to decline.  Equally any conservative denomination that has the Gospel but does not choose to take the Gospel to the community around would also deserve to decline.

The true church in Scotland will not die as long as it is faithful to the Word, true to the Faith, and enthusiastic in sharing the Gospel.  The challenge may be great, the days getting darker, but Christ “will build his church and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.” (Matthew 6:18, NLT)

Messiness in the Extreme - More on Spong

David Randall of Falkirk Free Church has written a very perceptive letter on the forthcoming visit of the atheist bishop Jack Spong to speak in a Church of Scotland.

What is interesting is the “official” response of the Church of Scotland.  Remember, as I noted in the post Even Messier Church, Spong is a non-theist, who rejects totally the faith of the church – see his Twelve Theses on Reform in the previous post.

So how does the Kirk respond:

“A Church of Scotland spokesman said: “We always encourage open discussion on the interpretation of scripture. We are sure Bishop Jack Spong will cause people to challenge their views in a healthy way.”

It is interesting that Scripture is also interested in challenging people’s views in a health way:

Paul's instruction to the young pastor, Titus, is: “But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.”  Titus 2:1. 

Here the adjective “sound” comes from a root that means healthy.  Paul uses this term 9 times in the pastorals, and 5 times in Titus alone.

Titus 1:9  The elder “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

Spong contradicts sound doctrine.  His heresy is not healthy; it is a cancer destroying the Faith.

Titus 2:2  “Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness.”

A man who rejects every aspect of apostolic orthodoxy, as Spong does, is certainly not “sound in faith”.

Titus 2:8, “Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned…”

Spong’s speech is not sound. By undermining the faith he dishonours Christ and defiles the church. He should be rebuked not rewarded for his apostasy.

The Church of Scotland by welcoming him and defending his right to propagate false doctrine, (and by allowing one of their ministers to teach the same heresy), shows that it cannot in any way be identified with the true church that is “the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.” ( 1 Tim 3:15)

My challenge again is addressed to those evangelicals who despite the denomination's endorsement of sodomy and heresy still prefer to share fellowship with apostates rather than unite with fellow evangelicals in a true church.

 David Randall's Comments at:  http://tinyurl.com/qeuet94

FRAMING THE PSALMS: PSALM 8

Aids to introduce the psalms sung in worship.

John Brown of Haddington, 18th century Scottish theologian.

This psalm contains a pleasant, but solemn meditation upon the glory, the greatness, and the grace of God. Let me here observe

(1.) How illustrious and widespread are all his glory and renown, ver. 1, 3, 9

(2.) By how weak and insignificant instruments, he manifests and spreads his superlative fame, ver. 2

(3.) Behold his marvellous condescension and bounty to mankind, but chiefly to the man Christ, in uniting his human nature to his divine person, and in giving him all power in heaven and earth, for the benefit of his chosen people, ver. 4-8.

May this Jesus, this name of God in him, be the enthroned inhabitant, the everlasting wonder, and the superlative darling of my heart. Let me, with the babes of Jerusalem, Matt. 21,  pour forth my hosannas to him that cometh in the name of the Lord to save me ­ hosannas in the highest. Let all the works of nature lead, and excite me to admire their Creator's kindness towards men ­ towards sinful and insignificant me.

John Cumming, 19th century Scottish Presbyterian.

This beautiful Psalm maintains that the glory of God is to be  seen in the works of creation and providence ; and that, therefore,  the atheist, and the infidel, and the untutored Gentile, are all without excuse.

In verses 3, 4, David admires the condescending love of God to man, and wonders that frail mortality is even remembered amid the stupendous objects of the universe.

In verses 5—6, he alludes to the humiliation and exaltation of the Son of God become the son of man, and to our right in him to that lordship which we lost by the fall.

Oh, may we sing the Psalm filled with admiration and joy, and anticipating the day when we shall enter paradise regained — the new heaven and the new earth, which Christ has gone to prepare for us. Our Saviour applies this Psalm to himself, in Matthew xxi. 16.

  

William Romaine, 18^th century evangelical Anglican

Our Lord has applied this psalm to himself in Matt. xxi. And St. Paul has commented upon it in Heb. ii. 9. " But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels crowned with glory and honour. 

He has dominion over all creatures and things, which we lost by the fall, and is only restored to us under Christ. In this view he is here considered as glorious even to admiration, he has the testimony of children to confute his enemies, and he has the earth and heavens, the sun, moon, and stars to magnify him, for though he was a little while abased below the angels in his humiliation, yet he is now crowned king of kings, and is set over all the works of God: His kingdom ruleth over all. The prophet begins and ends the psalm with the same admiration of the surpassing glory of the name of the Lord Chrift.

May we understand and enter into the spirit of this divine hymn. O that we could sing it today, as the happy subjects of such a glorious, monarch. May we so trust in what he did for us, when he was lower than the angels, as to expect he will be our friend in his high exalted state. May we in using this hymn admire the excellency of his great name, and with thankful hearts bless and praise King-mediator today, and for ever.