Learning the Gospel from Will Durant

My seminary hermeneutics professor was fond of crafting true statements in highly provocative ways so as to elicit responses from his students.  I remember this one in particular: “It is often easier for disinterested pagans to correctly understand the Bible than it is for Christians.”  His point was that when someone comes to a text without a preconceived agenda or an axe to grind, that person more easily allows the text to speak its own message than another person who comes desperately wanting the text to justify what he or she already believes and is committed to.  Just recently I came across a quotation from Will Durant which illustrates the point.

Durant became well-known in the second half of the 20th C. as a popular historian, having written a comprehensive work, The Story of Civilization.  By the time he began writing this series, he had left his early Roman Catholic roots and journeyed through a variety of religious, philosophical and political landscapes.  In the conclusion to his preface for volume 6 — The Reformation — he writes of his own deepest beliefs:

Less than any other man have I excuse for prejudice, and I feel for all faiths
the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the trust in reason is
a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments of darkness groping for the
sun. I know no more about the ultimates than the simplest urchin in the
streets.

No one would claim for Will Durant that he had an axe to grind against the Christian faith, nor that he would describe himself as a Christian in any meaningful sense.  So it fascinates me that he was able to capture the heart of the mission of Jesus as reflected in the Gospels so much more accurately than many in the church today.  Here’s the quotation in question, found in Caesar and Christ, vol 3 of The Story of Civilization (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944), p. 566:

He [Jesus] is not concerned to attack existing economic or political institutions….The revolution he sought ws a far deeper one, without which reforms could not only be superficial and transitory.  If he could cleanse the human heart of selfish desire, cruelty, and lust, uptopia would come of itself, and all those institutions that rise out of human greed and violence, and the consequent need for law, would disappear.  Since this would be the profoundest of all revolutions, beside which all others would be mere coup’s d’etat of class ousting class and exploiting in its turn, Christ was in this spiritual sense the greatest revolutionist in history.

While liberals in the church clamor for justice-love and rail against political and economic movements as the enemy that must be eradicated, Jesus speaks of the wholesale transformation of the human heart as his goal, with its consequent reordering of human society as the new community of the Spirit grows and expands.  For liberals, the agency of transformation is governmental regulation or the subversion of unjust government — they want the Kingdom of God, but feel it will come only as they exercise the tools of human social engineering to bring it about.  They like the phrasing of the Lord’s Prayer, Thy Kingdom come…on earth as it is in heaven, but they have forgotten that this is a prayer to God.  Our Father is missing from their vision of how the Kingdom will come.

Evangelicals, on the other hand, have been quick to champion the need for a personal relationship with Christ, but slow to grasp that such a relationship must transform our hearts and through them the world.  We have often privatized our faith, making it about “me and Jesus”, what God can do for me.  Instead of a gospel that makes us whole, we have opted for a gospel of palliative care — if God will just keep me comfortable, pain-free and blessed in this life until I die, then I’ll be transformed in heaven in an instant.  No pain, all gain!  We have focused on Our Father,…give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts…and lead us not into temptation., conveniently forgetting that a disciple of Jesus is one who longs that the will of God be done on earth (even by us) as it is always done in heaven.  That means both the transformation of the human heart, and through that the increasing transformation of the world.

The key to the achievement of Christ’s vision is obedience to the Great Commission — to go out and make disciples of all nations.  Not to make converts to a social gospel, nor to a palliative gospel, but to make disciples — those willing to surrender their very lives to the infusion of the Holy Spirit who puts an end to our old lives and equips and empowers us to live Kingdom-affirming lives.

Why is it that Will Durant could see Jesus’ vision so clearly, but we in various camps of the church remain so blind?  Perhaps my hermeneutics professor was right after all.  God help us not to baptize our own visions of His will, but to surrender and embrace His.

Luther the Progressive? (Part 2)

As we conclude this short study of Luther’s teaching on the Bible and homosexuality, we consider three more passages before drawing our conclusions concerning his translation of “arsenokoitai” in 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1.  Picking up from yesterday’s post………..

Finally, in one rather long passage, Luther ties together Genesis 19 and Romans 1 so as to apply them to the condition of the world of his day in an attempt to answer the question, “Which would be worse, to be ruled by the Papacy or by the Ottoman Empire?”  This section opens with Luther’s assessment of the residents of biblical Sodom struck blind by the angels, and claims that their physical blindness is mirrored by the pope’s and Ottomans’ (= Turks’) moral blindness in that they lightly regard heterosexual marriage but engage energetically in sodomy as if it were a blessed thing.  Luther concludes that all things considered, being ruled by the Muslim empire would be a slightly worse reality than
continuing under the control of Rome!

“God visits them with the same plague, too, and smites them with blindness so that it happens to them as St. Paul says in Romans 1 [:28] about the shameful vice of the dumb sins, that God gives them up to a perverse mind because they pervert the word of God. Both the pope and the Turk are so blind and senseless that they commit the dumb sins shamelessly, as an honorable and praiseworthy thing. Since they think lightly of marriage, it serves them right that there are dog-marriages (and would to God they were dog-marriages), indeed, also “Italian marriages” and “Florentine brides” among them; and they think these things good. I hear one horrible thing after another about what an open and
glorious Sodom Turkey is, and everybody who has looked around a little in Rome and Italy knows very well how God revenges and punishes the forbidden marriage, so that Sodom and Gommorah [sic], which God overwhelmed in days of old with fire and brimstone [Gen. 19:24], must seem a mere jest and prelude compared with these abominations. On this one account, therefore, I would very much regret the rule of the Turk; indeed, his rule would be intolerable in Germany” (Luther’s Works, 46:198).

There is no doubt that on this topic Luther spends most of his energy targeting the abuses of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.  This serves as one of his justifications for rejecting the authority of Rome, indeed even for his conclusion that the God of the pope and his priests is not the God of the Bible.  We have seen some of this focus in the quotations above, but here are a final few that drive the point home:

“If the papacy still had the sanctity and austerity of life that it had at the time of fathers like Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and others, when the clergy did not yet have an evil reputation for simony, extravagance, pleasures, wealth, adultery, sodomy, and countless other sins but lived in accordance with the canons and decrees of the fathers, outwardly religious and holy, and even practiced celibacy—what, I ask you, would we have been able to do against the papacy?” (Luther’s Works, 26:458)

“You must let yourselves be styled and judged before God and the world as procurers and harlot keepers. We shall depict for you in addition your Roman sodomy, Italian marriage, Venetian and Turkish brides, and Florentine bridegroom, so that you shall see and comprehend that our marriage has taken honest vengeance on your honorless chastity. The fact that perhaps some of you are not guilty of all such wrongs is none of our
concern. The protector, defender, comrade, and accomplice should be considered the same as those who are themselves guilty, because they do not punish, ban, and shun such vices, as the gospel and your own law teach, but help these evildoers, back them, and join them in raging against us. By such support they make themselves partakers of all such outrages and are therefore no better than the guilty” (Luther’s Works, 34:48).

In light of all these statements, we can now return to our original question: Does Luther intend to send the message in translating “arsenokoitai” as Knabenschänder that he does not really believe Paul means to proscribe all homosexual activity but only pederasty?  The answer to this must be, “Hardly.”  Luther is clear in all of his statements regarding homosexuality that he sees this sexual inclination as a perversion of God’s created order.  As such, any practice of it as opposed to God’s will.  In fact, the practice is so vile, to his way of thinking, that it is better not mentioned in innocent company.  Why then does Luther use Knabe rather than Mann? As I hypothesized earlier, it is possible that he linked Knabenschänder specifically with the charge of “Italian marriages” among the Roman Catholic clergy, a reference perhaps particularly to pederasty.  If so, his use of “Knabenschänder” would plant the aberrant clergy whom Luther despised squarely in the center of the list of sins which disqualify one from the Kingdom of heaven.  But this is only a guess.

Another possible explanation is that “Knabenschänder” was a colloquial term of his day which accurately translated the Greek “arsenokoitai”, but which has been lost to us in subsequent history.  This is strengthened by the fact that in the Leviticus texts Luther sets up the contrast between Knabe and Weib.  Since Weib clearly means woman or wife, it is likely that Knabe has a range of meaning including “male or man” in Luther’s usage.  In our own English language, we use the terms “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” to refer to dating relationships even of persons far beyond the age of “boy” or “girl.”  Take for instance this recent story online statement: “Halle Berry celebrated her 45th birthday with loved ones in Malibu Sunday. Halle had both her boyfriend, Olivier Martinez, and her daughter, Nahla, along….”  Martinez is also 45.  If we can use “boy” in this sense in English, certainly it is possible that “Knabe” may have been used that way in the Middle High German of Luther’s day.  But again, this is only a guess.

We cannot know for sure what Luther’s intention was with his translation of “arsenokoitai” into German.  We do know for sure, however, what Luther’s view of homosexuality was, informed by specific biblical texts and his overall grasp of a biblical world view.  Were he in our midst today, it would be safe to say based on his writings that he would be leading the charge against the normalization of homosexual behavior in any form, especially in the context of the church community.

Luther the Progressive? (Part 1)

This blog post and the next are the result of a challenge issued by a Christian favoring gay ordination. Their claim by implication was that Martin Luther possibly equivocated on the
sinfulness of homosexual behavior, and if this is true then perhaps evangelical Christians need to rethink their unequivocal opposition on this issue.  I was surprised to learn that Luther has been enlisted by the pro-gay ordination lobby in its efforts to normalize homosexual behavior between consenting adults.  Yet I feel confident now after researching his writings that were Luther not presently occupied with more heavenly pursuits around the throne of God, he would be spitting lightning bolts upon seeing how his words have been twisted in the service of falsehood.

Here’s how the pro-gay argument goes.  In four key biblical passages dealing with homosexual behavior (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10), Luther renders the original Hebrew or Greek texts with the German word “Knabe” (translated in modern German as “boy”).  In the two Leviticus texts, his translation says that one should not lie/sleep with a Knabe as with a Weib (= woman/wife).  In the two Pauline texts, Luther apparently coins
a new word (Knabenschänder, which literally translates as “those who defile boys”) to translate the also uniquely biblical Greek term “arsenokoitai” (literally “those who bed with males”) Hence their claim is that Luther understood these prohibitions/sins to apply specifically to pederasty (adult-child male-male sex), not generically to adult consensual homosexuality, and so Luther would not oppose the ordination of or marriage covenant for
practicing homosexuals.  It certainly is curious that Luther would use such a specific German term to translate a more generic Greek word.  On the face of it, one might be
led to conclude that indeed Luther was concerned more with defining pederasty as evil than with condemning all homosexual practice.  Even more curious is the fact that the
earlier German Zürcherbibel (Zurich Bible), published in 1531 (14 years before Luther’s translation became public), does not use Luther’s word in either of the Pauline texts but rather the more literally accurate phrase “mit Männern schlafen” (to sleep with men, i.e., males).  No one would accuse Luther of being ignorant of the full meaning of the biblical Greek term “arsenokoitai”, so why would he translate it with a German word seeming to mean only pederasty, rather than the more generic term indicating homosexual behavior of any kind?

If this were all we knew of Luther’s views on homosexuality, one might easily draw the conclusion that indeed Luther’s problem with same-sex relationships dealt only with
non-consensual or power-inequality sexual encounters (in this case due to age), not with committed partnerships among equals whether hetero- or homoerotic.  However, such is not the case.  In Luther’s other writings, especially dealing with Genesis 19 (Lot and the angels in Sodom) and Romans 1, Luther’s views on homosexuality itself are very clear.

In his work, Table Talk, Luther shares his understanding that male-female sexual attraction is part of God’s created/intended order, whereas male-male or female-female attraction is unnatural – that is, a perversion of God’s intention for human beings: “The longing of a man for a woman is God’s creation – that is to say, when nature’s sound, not when it’s corrupted as it is among Italians and Turks” (Luther’s Works, 54:161).  The reference here to Italians is a slam against the practice of sodomy apparently rampant among the Roman Catholic clergy, who of course were unmarried by vow.  The reference to Turks reveals Luther’s view that among Muslims the practice of sodomy was also widespread.

This understanding of homosexual inclination and behavior as a perversion of God’s original created order is seen even more clearly in his exposition of Gen 19:

“The heinous conduct of the people of Sodom is extraordinary, inasmuch as they
departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which
is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.” (Luther’s Works, 3:254-5)

Again in Table Talk we find a conversation between Luther and Melanchthon about “Italian marriages” as the two were travelling by cart to Torgau. Luther said:

“These exceed by far all the lewdness and adulteries of the Germans.  The latter are nevertheless sins, but the former uncleannesses are satanic.  God protect us from this devil!  By God’s grace none of the native tongues of Germany was at all acquainted with this heinous offense” (Luther’s Works, 54:278).

Some scholars believe that “Italian marriages” was Luther’s codename for not simply for homosexual behavior, but specifically for pederasty, an evil he believed was not widely known in Germany (as native Germans had developed no word for it) until it was “imported” by the Catholic priests from Italy.  If this is so, his use of the word Knabenschänder to translate “arsenokoitai” might be a pointed reference to the sexual abuses particularly of the Roman Catholic clergy.

With regard to his exposition of the visit of the angels to Lot in Sodom (Gen 19), Luther writes:

“I for my part do not enjoy dealing with this passage, because so far the ears of the Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy” (Luther’s Works, 3:251-252).

For Luther, homosexual behavior was an “unspeakable” sin.  Hence, he does not deal with it much in his voluminous writings.  But in his lectures on Scripture, when he comes across pertinent texts, he does not hesitate to speak clearly.  Concerning 2 Peter 2:7, “And if He rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked,”  Luther declares:

“Was it not a great abomination that they not only whored and committed adultery but also committed such an unspeakable sin openly and brazenly, and did not spare even
the angels who came to Lot? And both young and old in all corners of the city were addicted to this sin” (Luther’s Works, 30:179).

Likewise with Romans 1:24-27, Luther writes concerning sexual sins against one’s own body and by extension those committed with the bodies of others:

“To uncleanness to the dishonoring of their own bodies among themselves. From the apostle this vice gets the name uncleanness and effeminacy. Thus we read in 1 Cor. 6:9: “Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, … nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor homosexuals, etc., will inherit the kingdom of God”; and in Eph. 5:3: “All uncleanness, or
covetousness, must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints”; and in 2 Cor. 12:21: “They have not repented of the uncleanness, immorality, and licentiousness which they have practiced.” He also calls this a dishonor, or shame; for as the nobility of the body (at least in this respect) consists in chastity and continence, or at least in the proper use of the body, so its shame is in its unnatural misuse. As it adds to the splendor of a golden vessel when it is used for exquisite wine, but it contributes to its inelegance when
it is used as a container for dirt and refuse, so also our body (in this respect) is ordained either for an honorable marriage or for an even more honorable chastity. But it is dishonored in the most shameful way when it not only violates marriage and chastity but also soils itself with that disgrace which is even worse.

“The uncleanness, or effeminacy, is every intentional and individual pollution that can be brought about in various ways…. I have called it “individual,” for when it becomes heterosexual or homosexual intercourse, it has a different name” (Luther’s Works, 25:165).

Of particular interest in this passage is the fact that Luther links this Romans 1 text on general homosexual behavior with the list of sins in 1 Cor 6:9.  This strengthens our claim that Luther does not see “arsenokoitai” as pederasty but as generic homosexual activity.

Tomorrow, we’ll consider three final passages from Luther’s writings and offer some suggestions and conclusions concerning the translations in question, on the basis of Luther’s own thoughts.

Urgent: Chrysostoms Desperately Needed for PCUSA

I just came across this declaration by John Chrysostom, post-Nicene church father (d. 407):

“But why should all Christians at this time head for the Scriptures? Because in this period in which heresy has taken possession of the churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who want to know the truth of the faith except the divine Scriptures. Earlier we showed in many ways which is the church of Christ, and which heathenism. But now there is for those who want to know which is the true church of Christ no way to know it except only the through the Scriptures. Why? Because heresy has everything just like the church. How, then, will anyone who wants to know which is the true church of Christ know it in the midst of this great confusion resulting from this similarity, except only through the Scriptures? The Lord, therefore, knowing that there would be such a great confusion of things in the last days, commands that Christians who…want to gain steadfastness in the true faith should take refuge in nothing else but the Scriptures.

Otherwise, if they look to other things, they will be offended and will perish, because they will not know which is the true church, and as a result they will fall into the abomination of desolation which stands in the holy places of the church.”  (Traditionally ascribed to St. John Chrysostom, glossa ordinaria 49th Homily, on Matt. 24)

The battles we face in the PCUSA are not new, but they must be fought in every generation.  May God raise up many Chrysostoms in our midst, sentinels for the true church and doctors for a sin-sick humanity!

An Evangelical Declaration

The institution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in its present state has forfeited any rightful claim to belong to the true Church of Jesus Christ.  In spite of its de jure claims to
orthodoxy and orthopraxy as seen primarily in our Book of Confessions, its de facto reality as an institution promotes increasingly unbiblical beliefs and practices as normative for Christian life. When councils pretend to forge new articles of faith contrary to the
plain Word of God, “…we must utterly deny them as the doctrine of devils…” (Scots 3.20).  Those who approve such untruths may simulate allegiance to Christ, but though they are in the church for a time, they are not of the church (as tares among wheat, traitors among citizens, cancers among healthy tissues (Second Helvetic 5.139).

While we recognize that no church or covenant community of churches is entirely pure (tares will always remain among the wheat until Judgment day), and that at times churches can reflect more worldliness than holiness and still remain part of the true
Church, yet we believe that when churches publicly endorse or willfully turn a blind eye toward evil and refuse to repent of such travesties, but instead cite them as examples of reformation, conversion and advancement, they cease to be part of the body of Christ (Westminster 6:144 [1647 ed.] reads: “some [churches] have so degenerated as to become no Churches of Christ but Synagogues of Satan” ).

Reformed theology has long taught that the distinctive marks of the true church are: faithful proclamation of the Word of God; proper administration of the sacraments; and upright execution of ecclesial discipline to repress vice and nourish virtue (see Scots 3.18).  Second Helvetic 5.140 speaks a stark warning: “…we must be vigilant lest while the pious snore the wicked gain ground and do harm to the Church.”  We confess our complicity in culpable negligence of ecclesial discipline at all levels in our denomination, which has in turn led to the proliferation of false gospels being proclaimed from our pulpits and the confusion of vice and virtue among our congregations.  False teachers are never at all to be tolerated among God’s people, but rather driven away (5.167).  Yet we have welcomed them warmly in the name of diversity. The PC(USA) has forsaken the marks of a true church of Jesus Christ.

The true church is rightly described as one, holy, catholic and apostolic.  These terms no longer apply well to the institutional PC(USA).  By its scandalous and draconian application of the “property trust clause” against congregations wishing to align with
other Reformed bodies, and the entertainment of scurrilous charges against other Reformed denominations, the PC(USA) has shown complete disregard for the truth that we and the properties of which we are stewards exist not for ourselves but for Jesus Christ and his Kingdom. We have publicly maligned the oneness of the church.

By its recent decision to provide a way for unrepentant, practicing GLBT persons to serve as ordained leadership in our midst, the PC(USA) has declared holy what the Scriptures
unequivocally call sin, denying divine revelation in favor of cultural captivity. In the face of nearly universal disapprobation from the church catholic (and particularly our sister
Reformed bodies around the world), the PC(USA) has chosen to follow this unholy course, disdaining not only Scripture and reason but also the collective voice of the church from all times and places. With breathtaking hubris we have celebrated our false wisdom and in the process undermined centuries of work in ecumenism .

The apostolic church is branded by the commission to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world.  This gospel, as passed on by Jesus’ first apostles, is good news to a human race whose fallen nature deserves God’s eternal judgment.  Salvation is proclaimed for all who will recognize their sinfulness and embrace the cross of Jesus, where alone atonement for sin and reconciliation can be found.  The PC(USA), in allowing for a false anthropology which declares that in spite of the Fall we are created good (and thus homosexual inclinations are blessed by God as are heterosexual ones), thereby eradicates the reality of sin and undermines the apostolic message.

If the church may rightly be defined as “an assembly of the faithful, called and gathered…by the Word and the Spirit” (see Second Helvetic 5.125), which as one people bound throughout time  recognizes only one way of salvation, one God and Father, one Lord, one Spirit, one faith, one baptism, one Head over all whose truth and authority is to be our way, then the church is called to a spiritual unity characterized by shared submission to and engrafting into Jesus Christ through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  Such unity is reflected by “being of the same mind” (Phil 3:15f.), the mind of Christ, as seen in the truth and unity of the catholic faith (5.141).  Christian unity “…comes only from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit” (Barmen 8.01).  The PC(USA) today, chanting the mantra of theological diversity, has cast off any hope of such unity, and thus of renewal as well.  The manifold errors of heterodox Presbyterianism are devastating the church and fracturing our communion.

Therefore, as evangelical, orthodox believers, we must speak with one voice today.  Our biblical and confessional vows forbid our remaining silent any longer.  Standing firmly in the center of our Reformed confessions, we emphatically reject the defamatory claim that by opposing the errant direction of the institutional PC(USA) we are somehow being schismatic, or motivated by fear or hatred of others.  Indeed, we stand firmly on the historical, theological and spiritual foundation of our original forebears, and warmly
invite all others so inclined to join us. We have not broken away from the true church.  The denominational apparatus has separated itself from its Reformation roots.  We are not betraying the denomination; it has betrayed us by mutating into a post-Christian, political activism party.  Our faithfulness to Jesus Christ leads us to these positions:

We reject the claim of the Presbyterian left that Truth is progressive, subjective and abrogative in such a way that central theological and moral truths revealed in the Scriptures can now be trumped by cultural imperatives, appeals to “social science”, new
so-called revelations of the Spirit, or the recasting of biblical words with alien meanings.  The diversity to which the church is called should be seen sociologically and culturally, since God has created us with many ethnicities, stations and conditions of life.  But the mind of Christ is one, and we are called to discover together the unchanging truth found in him, and so discover a like-mindedness grounded in the Word and Spirit.

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Luke 21:33)

“I am the way, the truth and the life.” (John 14:6)

We reject the heretical and unfounded claim that the Holy Spirit is speaking new truth that is no longer tethered to the Scripture, or that abrogates or redefines what is clear in Scripture, as if the Spirit had not fully inspired the teachings of Old and New Testaments in a coherent way, pointing clearly to Jesus Christ as the consummation of God’s revelation to the world.

Spiritual truth claims are not to be accepted on the basis of individual human will or desire, nor through the majority vote of interested parties, but must be tested as to their alignment with the Word of God which is the sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17).

“If anyone is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be
eternally condemned!” (Gal 1:9)

“All Scripture is inspired and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness….” (2 Tim 3:16)

Jesus said, “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you
have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” (John 5:39-40)

Again he said, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you in all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.” (John 16:13-14)

We reject the deceptive claim that “God is beyond names or definition,” which is intended to undo the particularity of biblical revelation and to allow liberal adherents to recast God in whatever image suits their cause.  As a result of this falsehood, God’s self-descriptions in the Bible are ignored, and the declaration that “God is love” is perniciously distorted into “Love is God,” with “love” defined by whatever cause is in socio-political
ascendancy.  Likewise, as understanding of the true God is severed from Scripture, this deception results in a universalistic soteriology where all religious paths are equally acceptable ways to relationship with God.

We affirm instead that God has made himself known fully in and through Jesus Christ, and that what we know of God depends on his revelatory initiative. So Paul could say to the Athenians, “Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.” We abhor the idolatry that stems from ignorance or abandonment of God’s Word.

“No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in
closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” (John 1:18)

“This is my Son, whom I love; listen to him.” (Mark 9:7)

“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form….” (Col 2:9)

“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being,
sustaining all things by his powerful word.” (Heb 1:3)

We reject the absurd claim that human beings are born with good natures, uncorrupted by the Fall, such that all innate human desires or dispositions are deemed “good” because they were “willed by God.”  The Reformed doctrine of total depravity reflects the deep truth of Scripture that from the start all human life is corrupted by sin, that as Augustine understood we are awash with “inordinate desires.”  Our innate rebellion against God’s Law at all points demonstrates this depravity.  The present attempt to normalize aberrant sexual proclivities by appeal to God as their Creator either eradicates any objective standards for sin, or makes God the author of the evil he condemns in his Word.

We reject further the logical corollary that if human beings are born good there is no ontological reality to sin but only a functional one.  There is no need for rebirth to a new quality of life but only rehabilitation so as to keep the right rules.  As such, there is no need for a Savior for humanity, only messengers and teachers.  But we acknowledge:

“Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” (Eph 2:3)

“The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23)

“Our God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 12:29)

“We have seen and testify that that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world.” (1John 4:14)

“He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son has not life.” (1 John 5:12)

Finally, we reject the lie that the gospel of Jesus Christ is good news for those who will not repent of sin.  God through the sacrifice of his Son will forgive every sin but those which we refuse to acknowledge and surrender.  The radical inclusiveness of the gospel welcomes all sinners to the foot of the cross, but it does not permit us to overrule God’s judgment by arrogating to ourselves the definition of what is or is not sin.  We are welcomed by God on his terms, not our own.  As Heidelberg 4:098 reminds us, “…we must not try to be wiser than God….”

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings….” (2Tim 4:3)

“If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

“If we say we have fellowship with God while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth….If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and
cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1John 1:6-9)

“Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord….” (Acts 3:19)

In light of these and similar false teachings which have been tolerated and even given safe harbor within the PC(USA), we hereby declare that we can no longer remain idle, but must decide together in one of two directions: either we move forward peacefully to reclaim this denomination and rebuild it on the Reformed foundations upon which it was originally established, cleansing it of the heresies and evils that have led to its downfall; or we withdraw peacefully, shaking the dust from our feet even as we grieve the decay and coming judgment of a once noble and faithful denomination.  But one thing is sure: there is no longer any option of remaining under the authority of a structure that has cast revelation and obedience to the wind.

“For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity?  Or what fellowship has light with
darkness?  What accord has Christ with Belial?…Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God.”  (2 Cor 6:14-7:1)

Soli Deo Gloria.

August 1, 2011

Those Pesky Punctuation Marks!

The Westminster Confession is one of the finest compendiums of Reformed theology ever scripted.  It is not without minor problems (as is true of all human documents of serious value) but has stood the tests of time very well.  Much of what still remains in the PCUSA that is good and right is rooted in the rich soil of Westminster.

One quotation from Westminster found our old Book of Order and still retained in our new Form of Government has to do with freedom of conscience.  If you’ve had to endure many presbytery meetings you no doubt will have heard it quoted, or at least partially quoted: “God alone is Lord of the conscience.”

Its primary contemporary use has been by those in favor of homosexual ordination and/or marriage.  Their argument is that when my conscience tells me something is right, human regulations (even in the church) have no overruling authority, because, after all, God alone is Lord of my conscience, and God and I don’t seem to have any problems with this issue.

Unfortunately for this argument, the actual statement from Westminster is not truncated at the point its proponents would like.  Some people have actually read the whole sentence (and maybe even allowed their eyes to stray over the whole Confession — but I digress…), and discovered that the this portion of Westminster actually subverts the position of theological liberalism on this matter.  If one is serious about learning how to properly interpret the words of others, one must quickly learn how to pay attention to pesky punctuation marks — or just go back to watching television and leave the hard work of thinking to others.  Let me illustrate.

If “God alone is Lord of the conscience” should be taken as a stand-alone sentence, then indeed the liberal champions at presbytery and GA meetings are right that no other human being has the right to overrule anyone else’s conscience.  Of course, if such is the case, then we have no consensual basis for the common good of society (even in the church), and life would then devolve to a social morality of “might makes right:” You’ll do this because I say it’s right, or you’ll suffer the consequences….

Some folks actually quote a bit more of the Westminster declaration: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men.”  This is also used to support the claim that our denomination’s former ordination standards (demanding fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness) are merely human doctrines, and as such cannot be binding on an individual’s freedom of conscience.  Seems pretty clear.  But punctuation marks remain a pesky problem.  If you actually read the whole sentence in Westminster 6.309 (or in our Form of Government [F-3.0101a]), you’ll find no period where these debaters stop.  Instead, the full sentence reads as follows:

“God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.”

There’s nothing like a little context to bring out the true meaning.  What this text really declares is that no human institution, whether church or government, has the authority or right to bind the human conscience in any matter contrary to or not commanded by the Word of God with respect to faith and worship.  Or, to paraphrase the words of Luther, our consciences are to be held captive to the Word of God.

Westminster is championing the cause of those refusing to give up biblical truth under pressure by misguided secular or religious authorities. “You can’t demand such things of us Christians – we answer to God as He has revealed His ultimate truth in Scripture!”

How ironic that liberal Presbyterians are now trying to use a part of Westminster to champion the exact opposite of its intention: “You can’t force us to uphold fidelity and chastity — our consciences are free to do whatever we wish (as long as we can convince ourselves that God doesn’t mind, or even better, that He/She/It radically approves).”

Freedom of conscience is a vital Christian principle to uphold — as long as we understand that this freedom is meant to enable us to hold firmly to the truths of God in a sometimes hostile world, not to enable us to avoid the truths of God in favor of the errors of sin.

Let’s pay attention to those pesky punctuation marks, or we may just lose our way.

 

Facing Hard Facts

The PCUSA is dying.  Any objective observer taking the time to analyze the last 45 years of our comparative statistics would rightly conclude this.  I don’t need to parade them before the world again.  Now less than half the size of our halcyon days, aging and shrinking in a culture increasingly resistant to denominations and religious institutions, we find ourselves straining to breathe like a COPD patient in an oxygen-deprived room.  We are dying….But we are not dead yet.  God may indeed do a miracle.  If so, it will have to transform us from stem to stern.  Perhaps an in-depth look at our recently-released 2010 annual statistics will show us what is needed.

In the last three years, we have lost roughly 9% of our active membership.  One might hope that after a bad year, the downward trajectory might rise, but declines in this last decade have accelerated.  Comparing 2010 figures to those of 2009 proves sobering.

In 2010 across the 10,000+ churches of our denomination we welcomed 89,900 new members, but we lost a total of 151, 037 that same year.  For every 9 we gained, we lost 15, a ratio of 1:1.67.  But this itself doesn’t tell us much about the kind of people we are taking in and losing.

In terms of reaching the lost, we are becoming even more ineffective.  To measure this, we look at the numbers of professions of faith, reaffirmations and baptisms recorded compared to last year (a year we also lost a net of 63,000 members).  Among those 17 and younger, professions of faith are down 8% from the year before; among 18 and older, they are down 5% (this includes reaffirmations of faith as well).  But even this category doesn’t tell us too much about the individuals in those categories.  If they are anything like new believers in my church, they are probably folks raised in some church who never before made a public profession of faith, but were perhaps baptized as infants, or who joined a church at one point but subsequently became inactive for many years.

So the statistics of child and adult baptisms point us a bit more clearly toward answering how well we are doing reaching the unchurched.  Compared to 2009, child baptisms are down almost 9% (perhaps reflecting the fact that the PCUSA is an aging denomination, perhaps that we are attracting fewer young couples).  Adult baptisms are down almost 10% – this is the most telling statistic.  Believer baptisms reflect the possibility that the individuals in question were previously unchurched, though probably a large part of this number comprises youth who were baptized upon joining the church after confirmation.

In any case, if you take the adult baptism figures as the one category that might indicate how well our denomination is reaching the unchurched American culture with the gospel, the results are not very encouraging.  Of all our gains for 2010, just under 7% were newly baptized believers.  Said another way, 93% were already in the orbit of some church somewhere in the past.  As a denomination we are failing pretty miserably to obey Jesus’ Great Commission.  Unless we once again discover a passion for the gospel and for the lost, we will continue to die.  And we will deserve to.

Equally telling, as a denomination we do not seem to carry significant attraction even for our own members and for mainline Christians presently unattached and looking for a church home. The latter category is our most likely source of new members through transfer (certificate).  But in 2010 we gained 13.4% fewer members by certificate than in 2009.  Fewer potential transfers were interested in joining us.  On top of that we lost 7% more Presbyterians transfering out by certificate to other denominations than in 2009.

These numbers should cause us to ask why it is that we appear less attractive to seeking Christians, and increasingly repulsive to our own membership.  Unfortunately, I don’t see our national leadership doing too much soul-searching on these questions.

Lastly, a few words on the numbers related to congregations.  In 2010 we lost a net total of 97 congregations from our midst.  77 were dissolved (I’m guessing some of these were merged together and reconstituted as new congregations) and 26 were dismissed to other denominations (principally the EPC).  On the other side of the balance, 20 new churches were formally organized, and 2 were received from other denominations.  In reality, even more churches actually left the PCUSA in 2010, but since they had not yet been formally dismissed by their presbyteries, they are not included in that number of 26.  Obviously, the trend is not positive.  I personally believe this is the tip of the iceberg — in the next decade, if the PCUSA is still a viable institution, the number of churches dissolved will skyrocket due to our aging population, changing geographical demographics, and our continuing denominational dysfunction.  Shrinking congregations simply will not have the people or resources to keep open their doors.  As well, if we do not return to our biblical and Reformed theological and behavioral roots, we will continue to dissuade seekers and repulse members, and the numerical trends will continue until we finally wither on the vine.

I’m always curious why congregations would want to join the PCUSA in our present state, and so have done a bit of digging to find out the backgrounds of the two churches that came into our denomination in 2010.  One is a Korean congregation (over the last number of years, I believe that Korean congregations have been the major player in this category — we have foreign missions of yesteryear to thank for that!).  The other, if I’m not mistaken, was a small PCA congregation which felt hounded out of that denomination and thought the PCUSA would be a safer harbor.  I tried to call them to ask them about their transition, but their number was disconnected.  I fear that 2010′s addition will appear as one of 2011′s dissolved churches.

I’ve always wondered in light of our property trust clause whether our leaders out of a sense of justice counsel with churches wanting to come into the PCUSA that they are welcome, but must leave their property with their former denomination, as our understanding theologically is that such property rightly is held in trust by the congregation for the benefit of that denomination.  Or do they say, we welcome you with your property, which now by the way, gets signed over to our denomination should you ever decide you want to leave us.  Sort of reminds me of the Hotel California — you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

Oh well, enough sadness for one day.  Lord, reverse the mess we have made of your church, and show us all (even critics like myself) our complicity in this sad declension.  Amen.