And So It Begins

The first Church of Scotland congregation to actively reject scriptural teaching on sexual ethics and positively decide that it will include those in same sex relationships among possible ministerial candidates is celebrated on the denomination’s web site under the banner headline “congregation votes for equality”.

So a simple question to evangelicals. Are your givings being used to finance this agenda, run this web site, and promote an anti-biblical teaching?  It is all very well speaking of a new evangelical agenda of resistance, but why is evangelical giving being used to finance such moral heresy? The denomination is not interested in your letters of protest or declarations of principle, but they are interested in your money to finance their pro-gay agenda.

Covenant Fellowship 

Plan of Action (4)

Covenant Fellowship pay lip service to another objection to their stance:

“Another ordination vow which is often quoted is the vow to seek to maintain the unity and peace of the Church. Truth, however, is as important as unity. To be united in error is the path to the ruin of the Church rather than to the peace of the Church.”

It is hard to believe that they genuinely hold that “to be united in error is the path to ruin of the Church”.  This is the very point that those who have left wished to emphasis - not merely as a future possibility but as a present reality! There is no enforceable doctrinal standard in the national church - the WCF and the Declaratory Articles are mere historical documents that do not form a present standard of truth and error for the church. 

Jumping ahead to a point that we will return to, the fact that they will encourage new candidates to study for the ministry of the national church under some lectures who are not evangelical, orthodox and Reformed, shows that they are not series about unity in the truth.  Indeed this is partially recognised in the fact that the Highland Theological College which is evangelical, stands in stark contrast to the "official" colleges of divinity. I know that when I trained in such an institute I had one O.T. lecturer who was an open atheist, one NT lecturer who was out and out Socinian, and only one among the teaching staff who could in any sense be described as orthodox.

If "truth is more important than unity", why do they choose unity with an apostate denomination rather than the blessing of both truth and unity with a body that is truly evangelical and Reformed?  I had a student ask me the question this week, "What was the most important difference you saw when you moved from the CofS to the OPC?"  My answer was basically, "Unity in truth!"  Or, to quote my actual words, "I thought I had gone to heaven - after years battling in a mixed and broad church, I was in a body that truly held to confessional orthodoxy and evangelical practice."

The desire for unity in truth is commendable, but CFS cannot realise this desire in a denomination that is unreformable.  They will be trying to graft on Reformed orthodoxy to a rootstock that is corrupt and dying.

The problem, in part, is the CFS have no truly biblical and reformed ecclesiology.  It would help to look back to historical statements of Reformed orthodoxy on this matter

Belgic Confession 1561

Comments and underlining by RMW

"We believe, that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects, who call themselves the Church. [That is, just because a denomination claims to be a "church", it is not necessarily a true church.]

The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin [This is certainly not the case in a church with no enforcable creed and no biblical standards of sexual conduct.]: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself. [If enquiry shows that a denomination is no longer a true church, our duty is to find and join a body that does reflect the biblical marks of the church. Not to do so is schismatic and a deliberate separation from the true church.] 

With respect to those, who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians: namely, by faith; and when they have received Jesus Christ the only Saviour, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbour, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood, as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit, all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in him." 

As for the false Church, she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes from them, as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those, who live holily according to the Word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and idolatry. These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other."

It seems that what our Reformed forefathers believed to be "easily known" is now a matter of perplexity and anguish - or perhaps a matter not of a failure to discern, but a failure to obey.  My hope is that it is the former and not the later.

Letter on Slavery – Some Further Thoughts

It has become almost obligatory in the debate on homosexual marriage for the proponents of this departure from biblical morality to draw a parallel between this and slavery.  In fact they are correct, but not in the way they imagine.

When the evangelical church in Switzerland addressed the issue of slavery (see previous post) they were speaking to an issue where the church was conforming to the world and departing from Scripture.  The culture accepted slavery, therefore the church, swayed by culture, also tolerated or even supported it.  The same can be said of homosexual marriage.  The culture now accepts it; the church swayed by culture conforms to the world and departs from Scripture and now proposes that we accept this practice. So in both the USA and Scotland the mainline presbyterian churches have defied Scripture and embraced that which the Bible condemns.

In the matter of slavery the Swiss argued from inference – there were no direct scriptural prohibitions.  In the case of homosexual marriage there are clear and repeated biblical prohibitions, nevertheless the pseudo-christian liberal church defies Scripture and sides with the godless culture.

Imagine that D'Aubigne and Guessen were writing to the church today, in particular to the professed evangelicals like Tony Compollo, who now embrace homosexual marriage. This letter, of course, would apply as much to Scotland as the USA.

Rewriting parts of the letter this is how it might read:

The following letter is from the pen of Rev. J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, D.D., of Geneva. But it is not only the voice of the historian of the Reformation  — the Protestantism of Europe here speaks to the Protestantism of America from a revered seat of our common faith, in tones so conciliatory and Christ like, that the most sensitive can not take offense. Will not the reader prayerfully consider this appeal, and also bring it to the knowledge of the church with which he is connected ?

To the Evangelical Christians of the United States of America.

Dearly beloved brethren in Christ our all-sufficient Saviour and common Head:

Now, dear brethren, we desire to express to you a thought which often presses itself upon our hearts. "We fear that the laws which establish and regulate homosexual marriage in several of your States, are a source of weakness, not only in your own dear country, but to her legitimate influence over other nations. We know that there are professed Christians in the United States who endorse this practice of homosexual marriage. We would assure them we come not to speak with them as enemies, but as brethren. We do not doubt that those among you who differ from us on this subject, are sincere and upright in their opinions. However, if we would speak in love, we must also speak in truth, and with that precious liberty which belongs to Christians.

Beloved brethren, if it is true, not only that homosexual marriage is established in several of your States, but that in many places it is unlawful to instruct the children in public school on a biblical ideal of marriage between one man and one woman; if other facts, which we prefer not to describe here, are true— we ask ourselves, and we would also ask you, if such laws are compatible with the eternal principles of Christianity, which we all are bound to obey?

We might doubtless bring forward other arguments. We might remind you that homosexual marriage is contrary to nature, and destructive of the family and society. But we prefer waiving such material considerations, and dwelling upon our argument in a Christian point of view.

It is as certain that homosexual marriage is opposed to the true spirit of Christianity and the direct teaching of Scripture. There are many texts in the New Testament which make this plain. Does the Holy Spirit, which changes the hearts of all in whom he dwells into temples of the Holy Ghost, make any allowance for such unlawful unions.

Such being the teaching of the Scriptures, do you not think with us, beloved brethren, that these principles suppress the spirit of sexual licence?  Christianity in general did not lay violent or imprudent hands on civil institutions, but spread its principles everywhere, and gave precepts to all men, the application of which was gradually to bring about the suppression of all homosexual abuses.

These considerations are important; but, we repeat, what particularly induces us to make an appeal to your consciences, is the system of laws, manifestly opposed to the precepts of Christianity, with which several of your States have been obliged to burden their legislation, in order to maintain homosexual marriage in the midst of you. It is not necessary to enumerate these laws; we know them from official documents published in Europe, and which have caused both astonishment and grief to the friends of religion, morality, and liberty. We are aware these laws do not exist in a good many of your States ; we know that, with the exception of one or two laws, legislation on homosexual marriage is local, instituted in their sovereign power by those States alone which maintain this practice. But that in no way prevents us from freely expressing the sentiments which animate us, either to just and moderate men, who doubtless are to be found in abundance in  all the Christians of the American Union.

If we mistake not, there are three classes of opinions and of persons in the United States, as to the present subject ; one is decidedly against homosexual marriage, another is decidedly in its favour ; but there is a medium class which hesitates ; and we think the moment has arrived when all those who belong to that class ought to decide before God and their conscience, wisely, but with courage and firmness. Between Christianity on one side, and utilitarianism on the other, we do not think that Christians should hesitate.

How often we have mourned to see radical Islam pointing to the existence of homosexual marriage in the United States! How often have we been tempted to exclaim: "Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines triumph." (2 Sam. 1 : 20.)

Dear brethren, listen to these voices, which come from a far distant land at the foot of the Alps, from the city of the Reformation, and are raised in concert with those in France and other countries. We would entreat you by the most precious interests ; in the name of the prosperity of the Union, of the peace, of the glory of your country ; in the name of the cause of true liberty ; and, above all, of the holy and great cause of Christianity — to do all in your power, with an unflinching fidelity, to bring about the suppression of homosexual marriage and the establishment of a pattern of biblical marriage in your country. Let it be done with wisdom, with kindness, with justice, without disturbing the public peace, but, notwithstanding, as promptly and as universally as possible.

Should this step offend you, dear brethren, we pray you to forgive us. We conjure you to bear with us. We say with St. Paul to the Corinthians, "If we are foolish, it is for the love of you;" it is, we believe, for the glory of Jesus Christ ; it is because we thought that God, in a special manner, had called us so to do.

We live in solemn times. A new era is dawning on this question, not only in your country but in the whole civilized world. Universal attention is aroused. Everywhere public opinion pronounces with decision on this subject. The time is certainly come when America must give satisfaction to the claims of Christianity. We know that it is not easy to find the means of attaining that end. There will be many shoals and difficulties ; but we know that your people have more courage than any others to surmount all these obstacles, and that the Lord will give the victory to those who are on his side. Let nothing stop your progress ; combat the homosexual attack on marriage  in the spirit of the Gospel, and not in a mere worldly spirit. Seek, above all, the means of attaining this excellent end in a spirit of prayer. Look to the Word of God, to the spirit of Christianity, to the requirements of morality and liberty, and to Jesus the Redeemer, and thus go forward in the Lord's name. May God be your strength in this great, salutary, just, and Christian work. Let us assure you that such shall be our constant prayer !

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all,

Amen!

Letter on Slavery

Editor : Read this today and thought it worth sharing.  These European evangelical leaders were willing to speak out when they saw other believers stray from the Word. In Scotland, shortly after the Disruption, the Free Church Anti-Slavery Society was formed and campaigned against this practice in the USA

The following letter is from the pen of Rev. J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, D.D., of Geneva. But it is not only the voice of the historian of the Reformation  — the Protestantism of Europe here speaks to the Protestantism of America from a revered seat of our common faith, in tones so conciliatory and Christ like, that the most sensitive can not take offense. Will not the reader prayerfully consider this appeal, and also bring it to the knowledge of the church with which he is connected ?

To the Evangelical Christians of the United States of America.

Dearly beloved brethren in Christ our all-sufficient Saviour and common Head:

The Evangelical Christians of Geneva frequently return thanks to God for having, in the days of Calvin, kindled that torch in their city, whose salutary light has spread throughout Europe, and reached your far-distant shores. They also give thanks to the Lord, that in these latter days, when the word of truth is penetrating into all nations of the earth. He has placed a powerful focus in North America; and has sent the children of God from your churches both to enlighten the ancient countries of the East, where the Apostles themselves preached the Gospel, and to bring many souls out of heathen darkness to the Lord and Saviour. The work of propagating Christianity in all the world, is, in our opinion, dear brethren, the principal vocation which has been allotted to you from on high. Thus every thing which can strengthen the hands of American Christians is, we think, an advantage to the whole world ; whilst any thing which would weaken them is a real loss, a matter of grief, not to you alone, but to us, and to all mankind.

Now, dear brethren, we desire to express to you a thought which often presses itself upon our hearts. "We fear that the laws which establish and regulate Slavery in several of your States, are a source of weakness, not only in your own dear country, but to her legitimate influence over other nations. We know that there are Christians in the United States who possess slaves, and we would not offend them. "Honour all men," says the Scripture, (1 Peter 2 : 17,) and above all, we wish to do so " to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us." (2 Peter 1:1.) We would assure them we come not to speak with them as enemies, but as brethren. We do not claim the right of imposing our opinion with authority upon them — the Pope of Rome alone believes that he has that power — and we do not doubt that those among you who differ from us on this subject, are sincere and upright in their opinions. However, if we would speak in love, we must also speak in truth, and with that precious liberty which belongs to Christians. We know, moreover, that the city of Calvin is an object of deep and brotherly sympathy in America. Your citizens, who visit us, are continually giving us fresh proofs of this, and this circumstance excites a hope that our request will find some favour in your eyes. But, we repeat, we do not pretend to teach you, but to give you a cordial token of our brotherly love.

Beloved brethren, if it is true, not only that Slavery is established in several of your States, but that in many places it is unlawful to instruct the children of slaves or even for the parents to attend public worship ; if it is true that the ties of husband and wife, parent and child are often violently severed ; if it is true that the master acquires the property and possession of a woman as if she were his own wife ; if other facts, which we prefer not to describe here, are true— we ask ourselves, and we would also ask you, if such laws are compatible with the eternal principles of Christianity, which we all are bound to obey?

We might doubtless bring forward other arguments. We might remind you that Slavery is contrary to natural rights, and that all men having freedom alike, none can be deprived of that liberty unless forfeited by some criminal act; that the rights of property in men and in things are widely different, and that no man is allowed to sell a human being as he would a material object. We might say, with Montesquieu, that Slavery is hurtful alike to the slave and to the master; to the master especially, because he acquires all sorts of vices with his slaves. He becomes proud, hasty, passionate, hard, voluptuous, cruel.  We might add, with that illustrious author, that in every country, however severe the toil which society exacts its fruits may be obtained from freemen, by encouraging them with rewards and privileges, adapting the labour to their strength, by bringing to their aid machinery which art invents, and which, we might add, art has invented abundantly since the days of that great writer. But we prefer waiving such material considerations, and dwelling upon our argument in a Christian point of view.

We acknowledge, dear brethren, that Slavery is not explicitly abolished in the New Testament. We see that Christian masters are not prohibited from having slaves, (Col. 4:1; Eph. 6:9;) and that slaves are exhorted to submission and fidelity, (Eph. Q : 5, 8 ; Col. 3 : 22, 25 ; Titus 3 : 9, 10 ; 1 Peter 2 : 5, 18.) Yes, slaves ought to be obedient and faithful, and nothing should be said which could drive them to revolt ; that is certain ; and yet it is as certain that Slavery is opposed to the true spirit of Christianity.

There are many texts in the New Testament which make this plain. Does not St. Paul say to the Christian slave, that if he can obtain his freedom he is to take advantage of it? (1 Cor. 7 : 21.)  “The Apostle thus demonstrates that liberty is not only good, but also more advantageous than slavery," says Calvin. Is it not also evident that slaves who have become Christians, should be regarded by their masters as brethren according to the Epistle to Philemon ? Does not the same Apostle, in another place, say that before the Lord in heaven the slave is as the free  (Eph. 6:9.) Do not the Scriptures elsewhere declare that the slave and the free share in the same blessings of God in Jesus Christ, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for ever ? Is He not the true and living God of the black as well as of the white man ? If the Eternal Son, who is God for ever and ever, became man, was it not for the Greek as well as the Jew, for the slave as well as the free ? Does not the righteousness which was acquired on the cross by the atoning blood of the Lamb, cover the sins of the one as well as of the other ? Does the Holy Spirit, which changes the hearts of all in whom he dwells into temples of the Holy Ghost, make any distinction of colour ? Ought we not to exclaim now with the primitive Christians: "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be bond or free"? (1 Cor. 12: 13.) "There is neither bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all." (Col. 3 : 11.)

Such being the teaching of the Scriptures, do you not think with us, beloved brethren, that these principles suppress the spirit of Slavery, and only leave its name and appearance? Do you not believe that since God, our common Father, bestows the tender sympathies of his love equally upon the slave and the free, we then brethren can not refuse the precious boon of liberty to those who are deprived of it ? If Christ has made them free, shall not we free them also ? Christianity in general did not lay violent or imprudent hands on civil institutions, but spread its principles everywhere, and gave precepts to all men, the application of which was gradually to bring about the suppression of all abuses.

These considerations are important; but, we repeat, what particularly induces us to make an appeal to your consciences, is the system of laws, manifestly opposed to the precepts of Christianity, with which several of your States have been obliged to burden their legislation, in order to maintain Slavery in the midst of you. It is not necessary to enumerate these laws ; we know them from official documents published in Europe, and which have caused both astonishment and grief to the friends of religion, morality, and liberty. We are aware these laws do not exist in a good many of your States ; we know that, with the exception of one or two laws, legislation on Slavery is local, instituted in their sovereign power by those States alone which maintain Slavery. But that in no way prevents us from freely expressing the sentiments which animate us, either to just and moderate men, who doubtless are to be found in abundance in the Southern States, or to all the Christians of the American Union.

If we mistake not, there are three classes of opinions and of persons in the United States, as to the present subject ; one is decidedly against Slavery, another is decidedly in its favour ; but there is a medium class which hesitates ; and we think the moment has arrived when all those who belong to that class ought to decide before God and their conscience, wisely, but with courage and firmness. Between Christianity on one side, and utilitarianism on the other, we do not think that Christians should hesitate.

The two great features which characterize the United States, and which form the essence of your people, are they not, honoured friends — the Gospel and Liberty !

And are you not called upon both to enjoy these two blessings for yourselves, and to testify to others how happy are those nations who possess them, and thus to be the means of spreading them in the world ? Now it is precisely the Gospel and Liberty which are implicated in this question. The maintenance of Slavery must hinder the growth of these two great principles. The most eminent writers have shown that if Slavery may be excused in despotic States, it is in conflict with the essence of democracy, and that if it is more or less natural amidst Mohammedans and Pagans, it is impossible to justify it amongst Christians, and above all amongst Protestants. Yes, it is now in your power, dear American friends, to render the most brilliant homage, the most signal service, to the cause of the Gospel of Protestantism and of true Liberty. Will you hesitate?

How often we have mourned to see Roman Catholics and partisans of arbitrary governments triumph in pointing to the existence of Slavery in the United States ! How often have we been tempted to exclaim: "Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines triumph." (2 Sam. 1 : 20.)

Dear brethren, listen to these voices, which come from a far distant land at the foot of the Alps, from the city of the Reformation, and are raised in concert with those in France and other countries. We would entreat you by the most precious interests ; in the name of the prosperity of the Union, of the peace, of the glory of your country ; in the name of the cause of true liberty ; and, above all, of the holy and great cause of Christianity — to do all in your power, with an unflinching fidelity, to bring about the suppression of Slavery and the establishment

of social liberty in your country. Let it be done with wisdom, with kindness, with justice, without disturbing the public peace, but, notwithstanding, as promptly and as universally as possible.

Should this step offend you, dear brethren, we pray you to forgive us. We conjure you to bear with us. We say with St. Paul to the Corinthians, "If we are foolish, it is for the love of you;" it is, we believe, for the glory of Jesus Christ ; it is because we thought that God, in a special manner, had called us so to do.

We live in solemn times. A new era is dawning on this question, not only in your country but in the whole civilized world. Universal attention is aroused. Everywhere public opinion pronounces with decision on this subject. The time is certainly come when America must give satisfaction to the claims of Christianity. We know that it is not easy to find the means of attaining that end. There will be many shoals and difficulties ; but we know that your people have more courage than any others to surmount all these obstacles, and that the Lord will give the victory to those who are on his side. Let nothing stop your progress ; combat Slavery in the spirit of the Gospel, and not in a mere worldly spirit. Seek, above all, the means of attaining this excellent end in a spirit of prayer. Look to the Word of God, to the spirit of Christianity, to the requirements of morality and liberty, and to Jesus the Redeemer, and thus go forward in the Lord's name. May God be your strength in this great, salutary, just, and Christian work. Let us assure you that such shall be our constant prayer !

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all,

Amen!

Merle D'Aubigne, D.D., President de l’École de Theologie et Vice-President de la Societe Évangélique.

 

L. Gaussen, D.D., Professeur de l’École de Theologie et Membre des Comites de la Soc. Evan.

Et alia – about another 30 signatories,

Streaming Sermons

I can’t say that I would necessarily use the language that Pastor James McConnell used in a public sermon describing Islam as satanic and heathen.  If however we say that it does not come from the God of Truth, it must either come from the mind of man or the mind of a spiritual force beyond man.  Islam would be equally offended by either suggestion.  So too, it seems, is the Public Prosecution Service.  They are bringing a prosecution against Pastor McConnell because his sermon containing these statements was streamed on the Internet.

The PPS say "that the offence was one of sending, or causing to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that was grossly offensive." Free speech is sacrificed to the cause of political correctness.

Does this mean we are free to say things that the Bible says only if it does not cause offence to various groups?  Are we free to preach from or read Romans 1 in church, but not stream or make available the download of the sermon? What if someone comes into our church in order to object to biblical teaching and complain to the police that we are preaching what they find offensive.

The Bible does not speak directly of Islam, but it speaks of other beliefs or behaviours that today are accepted and promoted by a godless, secular society.  The freedom to preach is under threat, as will be the freedom to stream sermons, write blogs and publish webpages.  The new totalitarianism is on the move, and the jackboot of the intolerant toleration of anti-christian secularism will trample all who question the new orthodoxies.

I believe that Muslims need to be saved by faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone.  I would not use language in speaking to them that was insulting or designed to inflame religious hatred.  Am I to be permitted to say, “You are wrong – wrong about the Quran, wrong about Mohammed, wrong about salvation.” Indeed, are they to be permitted to say to me, as I am sure they wish to do, “ No; you are wrong – wrong about the Bible, wrong about Christ, wrong about salvation.”

Another thought in the passing – do children attend Pastor McConnell’s church? How long before the State decides that children in such a situation are being abused by being subject to such “grossly offensive” language.  Such children must be taken into protective custody, removed from parents who are defiling their minds, and re-educated in modern British values.

The PPS decision is covered at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-33183760

 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)