Wednesday, 18 May 2016

Nailing our Colours Firmly to the Fence

Nailing our Colours Firmly to the Fence

A few month ago a local Muslim prayer room was damaged in an arson attack.  The local Church of Scotland congregation responded by offering the use of their facilities for Friday prayers.  I did wonder at the time if a local Kingdom Hall, (Jehovah’s Witnesses), was damaged would the same openness be shown to them.

Islam is a post-Christian heresy.  It does not worship the same God as Christians; it denies the deity of Christ and reduces him to the level of a mere prophet among many.  Like the JWs it embraces a form of Arianism. 

Is it right therefore that an orthodox Christian church should enable and facilitate false worship? Of course Liberal Christianity would deny that we worship different gods because Liberal Christianity is itself Arian, denying the true Trinity, the deity of Christ and his vicarious atonement.

It does not come as a surprise therefore that the Presbytery of Glasgow, (Church of Scotland), has received a report on “the use of church premises for worship by people of non-Christian faiths” that firmly nails its colours to the fence.  We have the usual prevarication about there being sincerely held but radically opposed views, “The committee notes the good faith of parties with radically different views.”  In essence, there are those who hold to and those who reject the orthodox biblical view of salvation being found in Christ alone and experience by grace alone through faith alone. This means that whatever else, “we did not approach this as a disciplinary matter.” There is no dividing line between what is orthodox and what is unorthodox, just the ever fluid boundaries of broad church theology.

Indeed, there is even the suggestion that some might wish a church set aside space for “common search”?  “Common search” implies that we do not already have the Truth as found in Christ, but will engage with Muslims in an open ended exploration of possibilities.  (Would Muslims, I wonder, accept this concept of “common search”, denying as it does the idea that ultimate truth is found in the Quran?)

Is this not what Paul means by referring to some who are “always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth”? (2 Tim 3:7) Liberalism hates the doctrinal and moral certainties found in orthodox Reformed theology and would rather engage in a search than rest in a previously revealed absolute truth.

Ultimately, in true presbyterian  style, it is suggested that “Presbytery refers the topic of the use of church premises for worship by people of non-Christian faiths, to the theological forum of the General Assembly.” Yes, true clarity will be found there!  The report to Presbytery oozes  niceness and openness and “lets’-all-get-along-togetherness”. It lacks conviction and doctrinal certainty, but that is the mark of a Broad Church.

Evangelicals are faced with another example, all be it tangential, that the exclusiveness of Christ and the Gospel is no longer upheld by the denomination.  But then, they know that already and seem prepared to live with it.


I should point out in fairness that at least one minister in the Presbytery raised this issue as a matter of concern prior to this report.  His concerns fell on deaf ears it seems.


Thursday, 12 May 2016


Homosexual Marriage – A Look Elsewhere

With the recommendation going to the forthcoming General Assembly of the Church of Scotland that those in homosexual marriages be permitted to hold office in the denomination (approved by a majority of presbyteries) the decline in apostasy continues.

It is worth having a look elsewhere to see what other liberal or mixed denominations are suggesting.  

The Reformed Church in America will be facing this issue at their forthcoming G.A. or General Synod as they call it.  A special commission has recommended two options that are in direct opposition to each other, that they either define once and for all marriage as between a man and a woman or, alternatively, as between “two persons”.  No shades of gray here – the suggestion is that it is time to make a decision and cease sitting on the fence.  Of course, the majority liberal consensus is that the latter alternative be chosen.

What then of talk of restrained or reconciled diversity on this issues?  A gritty realism prevails.  It is suggested that if a decisive and clear decision is made that some, most probably the few remaining Reformed evangelicals, could not in good conscience acquiesce with this decision.  If that is the case there would be a need for separation:

RECOMMENDED ACTION OF GENERAL SYNOD: That Synod instruct the General Synod Council to appoint a task force to explore and articulate the options and consequences within the RCA for grace-filled and orderly separation over time, should the different perspectives regarding human sexuality keep us from remaining as one, for report back to the 2017 General Synod.

I respect their realism, and their recognition that if both sides cannot live together then at least the divorce should not be acrimonious.  However, if the PCUSA sets a precedent, then separation will not necessarily be “grace-filled and orderly”, for that denomination has demanded huge leaving payments from congregations who wished to depart, and in some cases have refused them their property.  

Going by past action, the Church of Scotland will not facilitate congregations leaving and any that do will find that they have to fight hard for their properties and funds – no “grace-filled” separations are in prospect!

Of course it is possible that the evangelicals in the Church of Scotland will  again reluctantly accept the reality of the denominational decisions and claim that “restrained diversity” allows them to mentally and spiritually separate themselves from the approval of what Scripture clearly forbids, while remaining in full denominational fellowship with those who embrace or practise these sins.

The RCA report can be found at:

“We may add this consideration, that hitherto toleration of errors and diversity of corrupt opinions have ever been looked upon, and made use of, as a most subtle means for undermining and destroying of the Church.”
James Durham, “A Dying Man’s Testimony to the Church of Scotland” 1659

Friday, 15 April 2016

The Perfect Apology




A new scientific study has come up with the elements of a perfect apology. The study, led by Professor Roy Lewicki and published in the journal Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, suggests that the most effective apologies contain these six elements:

1.    Expression of regret
2.  Explanation of what went wrong
3.  Acknowledgment of responsibility
4.  Declaration of repentance
5.  Offer of repair
6.  Request for forgiveness

The study also suggests that some of these elements are more effective than the others. The most important element of an effective apology is acknowledging your responsibility. If something is your fault, say that it is. The second most important element is your offer of repair. If you say that you want to fix things, and explain how, your apology will go a lot further.

The least effective element was the request for forgiveness.

(http://lifehacker.com – edited)

Interesting on a number of fronts, especially if we compare it to our apologies to God, i.e. confession of sin, both private and publicly in worship.

True confession does not excuse our sin; it acknowledges our sin and our personal responsibility for it.  True confession also includes the element of making things better by reparative action.  Our forgiveness is not based on our promise of reparation, but it certainly leads to an active effort to put things right.

The study even uses the term “repentance”, although that is not defined in the summary. (Sorry, the actual article would cost $6 to read online, so I am just going with the reported summaries.)

However, the really intriguing element was that asking for forgiveness was the least effective element in a good apology. It seems that fallen humans are just not good at forgiving.  What a contrast with the God of all grace and mercy:

“Bless the Lord, O my soul,
    and all that is within me,
    bless his holy name!
Bless the Lord, O my soul,
    and forget not all his benefits,
who forgives all your iniquity… ( Psalm 103)

I thought it would be useful to compare the scientific study with the traditional Reformed teaching on repentance as expressed in the Larger Catechism, (Modern Language Edition) I think that we can see all 6 elements of a perfect apology in this biblical based definition:

Larger Catechism
Q. 76. What is repentance unto life?
A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace worked in the hearts of sinners by the Spirit and the word of God. By it sinners recognize not only how dangerous it is to commit sins but also how filthy and hateful they are to God. Understanding that in Christ God is merciful to those who repent, sinners suffer such deep sorrow for and hate their sins so much that they turn away from all of them and turn to God, attempting to walk continually with him according to this new obedience in every way.

Our apologies to those against whom we sin should, in some measure, be modeled on our apologies to God. If they are, we might find that they are more effective than the vacuous and generic “Sorry” that really is just a reflex reaction to the fact that our misdeeds have caused us hurt and we are forced to issue an insincere apology.


Wednesday, 13 April 2016

“Gay row minister fined over crash that injured pensioner.”


“Gay row minister fined over crash that injured pensioner.”

Probably a new low here for the Herald:


A retired minister, aged 69, was involved in a serious accident and found guilty of dangerous driving.  As the Herald reports it: “A CHURCH of Scotland minister who opposed a gay man’s appointment as a minister has been fined £500 and had his licence endorsed after he caused a car crash that left a pensioner with serious injuries.”

A number of questions need to be asked here.  Is the event newsworthy? Probably.  Is the headline in any way related to the case?  Absolutely not.  It seems that in 2009 the minister opposed the ordination of the first openly gay minister in a civil partnership and had the temerity to say at the General Assembly that there was ““a danger that we will make a decision about homosexuality in the ministry based on the prevailing culture of our time”.

How in any way does the fact that a retired minister opposed homosexual conduct mark him out as worthy of denigration?  It is only the fact that the Herald is engaged in a pro-homosexual propaganda campaign that causes this particular headline to be written.  Why was the headline not “Bible believing minister who upholds the traditional Christian ethic on sex and marriage fined over crash that injured pensioner”?  Is it now the case that the minority of Church of Scotland ministers who hold to orthodox theology and ethics are to be marked out for such contemptuous treatment?

The logical fallacy of association, or more popularly “guilt by association”, is so basic that any novice journalist should be aware of it.  However, as with all informal logical fallacies, it can be knowingly used to tarnish an opponent’s position. This is exactly what the Herald is trying to do – all ministers who oppose sodomy or homosexual practices in members of the church are disreputable characters, the kind of characters who will drive dangerously.

I should make clear that I am making no comment on the actual issue of the traffic accident, on whether the driver lost concentration or fell asleep at the wheel. What I am commenting on is that ministers who hold to a biblical position can now be pejoratively dismissed in the popular press.

The Herald has not allowed comment on this article.  This may be because of some legal issue of which I am not aware, or it may be because they do not wish to have their shoddy journalistic standards exposed.




Friday, 1 April 2016

Can you Trust a Liberal? Questions for Church of Scotland Evangelicals?


Can you Trust a Liberal?
Questions for Church of Scotland Evangelicals?

Evangelicals are suckers; they are naive fools who are too ready to believe the empty promises of liberals that if only same sex marriage is allowed for office-bearers the conscience of evangelicals will be respected.

I have two counter-examples.  One is the promise given to the naïve evangelicals in the sixties who believed that the introduction of woman’s ordination was simply permissive legislation and no church or individual would be forced to conform to this practice.  Well, at least we can say that they waited 25 years before they reneged on this promise.

Liberals it seems are no longer as patient.  No sooner does the PCUSA allow the ordination of candidates in same sex relations, than it reneges on all its promises to the dumb evangelicals who believed the nonsense of reconciled diversity, mutual toleration and forbearance, and broad church co-operation.  How long did it take?  Five years!

This is so blatant that even some of the more moderate liberals are appalled. Read the testimony of one of them:

“BREACH OF FAITH: Why the Apology Overture is So Wrong by Barbara G. Wheeler”


Now of course the Church of Scotland evangelicals will say that this is the USA and our home-grown liberals are models of integrity who would never do such a terrible thing.  As I say, “Suckers!”, or to use the more biblical term, “Fools!”

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”  (Proverbs 1:7)




Tuesday, 8 March 2016

A Comparison of Ordination Vows


A Comparison of Ordination Vows

I have had the privilege of serving in three presbyterian denominations, the Church of Scotland, The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and the Free Church of Scotland.  In each I sincerely and honesty subscribed to certain ordination questions. However, in the Church of Scotland these vows were meaningless for many who took them – they had no genuine commitment to the Confession of Faith. In the OPC and the FCS biblical discipline is maintained, and the required promises are enforced.  Both the FCS and the OPC were born in secession and separation from a mother church for doctrinal reasons.  Similarly, the Presbyterian Church in America, (PCA), was a church that separated from a doctrinally compromised denomination.

It is a useful exercise to compare the ordination vows of these three denominations:

1  SCRIPTURE

OPC
Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

PCA
Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and NewTestaments, as originally given, to be the inerrant Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

FCS
Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and the only rule of faith and manners?

All three focus on the place of Scripture as a rule for faith and practice. (The FCS uses “manners” in the archaic sense of “conduct”.  It is always possible that someone thinks this is about etiquette rather than conduct.)  The OPC and PCA specifically speak of the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.


2  CONFESSION OF FAITH

OPC
Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?

PCA
Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you will on your own initiative, make known to your Presbytery the change which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this ordination vow?

FCS
Do you sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approven by former General Assemblies of this Church, to be founded upon the Word of God; and do you acknowledge the same as the confession of your faith ; and will you firmly and constantly adhere thereto, and to the utmost of your power assert, maintain, and defend the same, and the purity of worship as presently practised in this Church ?

The language of the FCS is again somewhat archaic and verbose.  Both the FCS and the PCA use language that requires a candidate to continue in adherence to the Confession whereas that is not made explicit in the OPC vow.  The FCS also includes a commitment to the purity of worship in this vow.

3  CHURCH GOVERNMENT AND DISCIPLINE

OPC
Do you approve of the government, discipline, and worship of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church?
Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord?

PCA
Do you approve of the form of government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in America, in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity?
Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord?

FCS
Are you persuaded that the Presbyterian government and discipline of this Church are founded upon the Word of God, and agreeable thereto; and do you promise to submit to the said government and discipline, and to concur with the same, and not to endeavour, directly or indirectly, the prejudice or subversion thereof, but to the utmost of your power, in your station, to maintain, support, and defend the said discipline and Presbyterian government by Kirk-Session, Presbyteries, Provincial Synods, and General Assemblies?

Also

Do you promise to submit yourself willingly and humbly, in the spirit of meekness, unto the admonitions of the brethren of this Presbytery, and to be subject to them, and all other Presbyteries and superior judicatories of this Church, where God in His providence shall cast your lot; and that, according to your power, you shall maintain the unity and peace of this Church against error and schism, notwithstanding of whatsoever trouble or persecution may arise, and that you shall follow no divisive courses from the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Church?

Again the FCS language is somewhat archaic and verbose, but spells out in detail a commitment to biblical Presbyterianism. The FCS also explains what it means to be subject to our brothers in the Lord


4  MINISTERIAL LIFE

OPC
Have you been induced, as far as you know your own heart, to seek the office of the holy ministry from love to God and a sincere desire to promote his glory in the gospel of his Son?
Do you promise to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the gospel and the purity, the peace, and the unity of the church, whatever persecution or opposition may arise unto you on that account?
Do you promise to be faithful and diligent in the exercise of all private and personal duties which become you as a Christian and a minister of the gospel, as well as in all the duties of your office, endeavoring to adorn the profession of the gospel by your life, and walking with exemplary piety before the flock over which God shall make you overseer?

PCA
Have you been induced, as far as you know your own heart, to seek the office of the holy ministry from love to God and a sincere desire to promote His glory in the Gospel of His Son?
Do you promise to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the Gospel and the purity and peace and unity of the Church, whatever persecution or opposition may arise unto you on that account?
Do you engage to be faithful and diligent in the exercise of all your duties as a Christian and a minister of the Gospel, whether personal or relational, private or public; and to endeavor by the grace of God to adorn the profession of the Gospel in your manner of life, and to walk with exemplary piety before the flock of which God shall make you overseer?

FCS
Are not zeal for the honour of God, love to Jesus Christ, and desire of saving souls, your great motives and chief inducements to enter into the function of the holy ministry, and not worldly designs and interests?
Have you used any undue methods, either by yourself or others, in procuring this call?
Do you engage, in the strength and grace of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Master, to rule well your own family, to live a holy and circumspect life, and faithfully, diligently, and cheerfully to discharge all the parts of the ministerial work, to the edification of the body of Christ?

All three denominations look for godliness of conduct and a holy life in their ministers.  Ministers are not only teachers, they are to be examples to the flock.

5  CALL TO A PARTICULAR CONGREGATION

OPC
Are you now willing to take the charge of this congregation, in agreement with your declaration when you accepted their call? And do you promise to discharge the duties of a pastor to them as God shall give you strength?

PCA
Are you now willing to take the charge of this church, agreeable to your declaration when accepting their call? And do you, relying upon God for strength, promise to discharge to it the duties of a pastor?

FCS
Do you accept of and close with the call to be pastor of this congregation, and promise, through grace, to perform all the duties of a faithful minister of the gospel among this people?


6  REJECTION OF ERRORS

OPC – None

PCA – None

FCS
Do you disown all Popish, Arian, Socinian, Arminian, Erastian, and other doctrines, tenets, and opinions whatsoever, contrary to, and inconsistent with, the foresaid Confession of Faith?

The OPC and PCA rest in a positive acceptance of the doctrines of the Confession; the FCS also insists on a renunciation of errors.  These particular errors are those of 1647.  Although still relevant today, there is no renunciation of major current theological errors such as false charismatic revelations, the Federal Vision theology, or of major moral errors such as the acceptance of homosexual conduct in the church.


7  ADHERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF SECESSION

OPC – None

PCA – None

FCS
Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, as King and Head of the Church, has therein appointed a government in the hands of Church-officers, distinct from, and not subordinate in its own province to, civil government, and that the Civil Magistrate does not possess jurisdiction or authoritative control over the regulation of the affairs of Christ’s Church; and do you approve of the general principles embodied in the Claim, Declaration, and Protest, adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1842, and in the Protest of Ministers and Elders, Commissioners from Presbyteries to the General Assembly, read in presence of the Royal Commissioner on 18th May 1843, as declaring the views which are sanctioned by the Word of God, and the standards of this Church, with respect to the spirituality and freedom of the Church of Christ, and her subjection to Him as her only Head, and to His Word as her only standard?

All three churches were born of secession. (OPC from the PCUSA, 1936; PCA from the PCUS, 1973; FCS from the Church of Scotland, 1843)  The FCS alone imbeds the history of this secession in its public ordination vows, requiring office-bearers to verbally adhere to the formal cause of secession.

It could be argued that while the original cause of secession of the FCS is important, it is no longer necessary or appropriate that this be included in the public ordination vows.  It is now 173 years since the secession; will the FCS still be requiring this public commitment in 2043?

It is interesting that the FCS did not originally require this public affirmation of its ordinands – they subscribed to a written statement to the same effect, but the formal ordination service did not include this lengthy and historical statement.  The questions were used under Interim Acts of Assembly from 1844, though the formula was first adopted in 1846.  

(See: “Report of the Scottish sub-committee on creeds and formulas of subscription to the General Presbyterian council to be held at Philadelphia in 1880".  This is an extremely interesting study of the history of subscription in various denominations in Scotland up to 1880)

So, here are a number of issues that this comparison of ordination vows raises, particularly for the FCS.  Firstly, should the public service of ordination not be in contemporary language, rather than frozen in the language of 1843 and before? Secondly, is the public abjuration of specific errors necessary, given that the positive commitment to the Confession already covers such errors?  Similarly, if the public abjuration of specific errors is required, why these specific errors alone and not contemporary errors?  Also, is a public adherence to specific historical documents of 1842 and 1843 still relevant to the FCS today, and if it is, can it be done, as originally was the case, by a written subscription rather than by an oral response?

The FCS is a modern, evangelical and Reformed church.  It may be time to look afresh at our ordination service.  The OPC and PCA give us guidance in this respect.  Our public service of ordination is important; it may be the first time that some of those present have come into contact with the FCS.  Are we giving the impression of a church frozen in the past, or of a vibrant contemporary Reformed church that is moving forward in the cause of the Gospel while retaining our full commitment to Reformed orthodoxy?



  

Thursday, 18 February 2016

Road Users – A Parable


Road Users – A Parable


In the U.K. we drive on the left on our roads. This is not simply a matter of custom or social convention, but it is enshrined in law and written in our Highway Code, the booklet studied by every driver as a guide for all road users.

Nevertheless, a group of Liberal Motorists have decided that this rule is an infringement of their personal freedom and a dictatorial restriction on their right to choose.  “We should be free”, they argue, “to drive on the right or left, or even on both sides at different times. Some of us are by nature right hand drivers, and it would be unloving to force us to drive on any other side.”

Some of the Liberal Motorists have argued that although the Highway Code does speak of driving on the left, we should interpret this contextually.  Some passages, although mentioning the left obviously do not mean us to take this instruction literally - by “left” it actually means “right”. Others have argued that this practice of driving on the left is historically conditioned and now, in a more enlightened age, we realise that it is better to drive on the right.  The fact that British cars have the steering wheel on the right, (for left side driving), is no counter argument - we can simply mechanically adjust the layout of the controls and move the steering wheel to the left.  Indeed it is every Motorists right to have this done at State expense.

Some Liberal Motorists are more radical.  They acknowledge that the Highway Code consistently and universally requires motorists to drive on the left. They do not seek, by subtle arguments, to reinterpret this fact; they rather assert that as modern drivers we are no longer under the authority of the Highway Code and can simply reject its rules and thereby allow driving on the right.  They claim that they have great respect for the Highway Code, but that this respect is shown not by slavishly following its directions, but by following the underlying “spirit” of the Highway Code which obviously encompasses driving on the right. Besides, it is argued, certain more enlightened countries have already moved to driving on the right.  We must go with the flow and follow the spirit of the age. They also argue that this issue is not a matter of fundamental importance and surely liberty of opinion and practice should be extended to all Motorists on this issue.

Thus some Liberal Motorists simply ignore the Highway Code, others have tried to have the Highway Code amended, others have convinced some left side drivers that we can accommodate both views within the Motorist fraternity, and still others have simply taken a unilateral decision and have started driving on the right. It has even been argued that in the progress and development characteristic of the new age of enlightenment that anyone who refuses to recognise the right to drive on the right should themselves not be given a driving licence; they should be denied the opportunity to become Motorists because of their narrow, backwards and discriminatory attitude.

Meanwhile, some traditional Motorists, having grown tired of the constant debate, and the chaos, confusion and carnage on the roads, have decided that in future they will take the train!

Matthew 11:15, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”