During a special session in 2019, the UMC adopted a disaffiliation agreement allowing churches to leave the denomination through the end of 2023 “for reasons of conscience regarding a change in the requirements and provisions of the Book of Discipline related to the practice of homosexuality or the ordination or marriage of self-avowed practicing homosexuals as resolved and adopted by the 2019 General Conference, or the actions or inactions of its annual conference related to these issues which follow.”

Seventy churches in Georgia split from the United Methodist Church (UMC) last week largely over LGBTQ issues, marking the latest in a growing divide within the third-largest Protestant denomination in the United States.
The North Georgia Conference voted last Thursday to allow the churches, most of which were in rural areas, to disaffiliate from the UMC. The process for disaffiliation was laid out by the 2019 General Conference of The United Methodist Church through 2023, according to the North Georgia United Methodist Church Conference website.
In 2021, the Board of Trustees adopted a process and, along with District Superintendents, walked alongside the churches that requested to disaffiliate. The conference established ratification by the Annual Conference as the final step in that process.
During a special session in 2019, the UMC adopted a disaffiliation agreement allowing churches to leave the denomination through the end of 2023 “for reasons of conscience regarding a change in the requirements and provisions of the Book of Discipline related to the practice of homosexuality or the ordination or marriage of self-avowed practicing homosexuals as resolved and adopted by the 2019 General Conference, or the actions or inactions of its annual conference related to these issues which follow.”
The 70 churches that chose to disaffiliate represent 9% of the congregations in the Conference and 3% of the membership, according to the denomination. The date of disaffiliation will be effective June 30, 2022.
Read More
Related Posts:

Saints, we should be concerned with evangelism, but we should also be concerned with doing evangelism biblically. The He Gets Us Campaign does not practice biblical evangelism, and it does not present the biblical Jesus. We in the PCA should be seriously concerned that our leadership is even considering cooperating with such a Campaign, much less promoting and defending it to our Churches.

I don’t get the “He Gets Us” Campaign. If you aren’t familiar with this organization, be prepared to hear denominational leaders promote it in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).
The campaign has a noble goal to “reintroduce people to the Jesus of the Bible.” Based on recent surveys like Ligonier’s on The State of Theology, it is clear that those outside and inside the church need a reintroduction to the Jesus of the Bible. There is growing confusion on a range of topics from the inspiration of Scripture to misunderstandings on gender and sexuality. The campaign organizers should be applauded for their passion to reintroduce people to Jesus. Sadly, I am not so sure that the Jesus they want to introduce is the one found in the Bible. There are a number of red flags on the campaign’s website.
About the Campaign
Let’s start in the “About Us” section. If you were hoping to find out who is behind this campaign, you would be disappointed. All we are told is that “a diverse group of people passionate about the authentic Jesus of the Bible” (emphasis mine) started the campaign. At the very bottom of this section, it says that the “He Gets Us” campaign is an initiative of the Servant Foundation. If you Google “Servant Foundation” you will find this: https://servantokc.org/the-servant-foundation It is an endowment fund controlled by the Church of the Servant’s Foundation Board and the Oklahoma United Methodist Foundation. The Oklahoma United Methodist Foundation is dedicated to “empowering you to invest your resources to do long-lasting good in the world. From writing wills and estate plans to caring for single mothers and orphans, we empower you to commit your resources to do good that echoes for generations.” This is confusing. Is the whole initiative an outworking of one Church? Is it funded by the Methodists? If the latter, then which ones, since they are currently splitting? Finally, the Church of the Servant doesn’t tell you much about their beliefs. The Church’s “Our Beliefs” section tells us only that they love Jesus and that he died as a “demonstration of God’s redeeming love.” There is no statement on why Christ’s death (i.e., the Atonement) was necessary. Jesus’ death did “demonstrate God’s redeeming love,” but Scripture repeatedly says he died for my sins, which is not mentioned in the statement of belief on the Church’s website. Such clarity is likewise absent from the “He Gets Us” campaign site.
[PCA Polity] Editor’s Note: after initial publication of this article, a reader noted the following. “HeGetsUs lists “Servant Foundation,” not “The Servant Foundation.” This matches “The Signatry” which does business as “Servant Foundation.” “The Signatry” is involved in all sorts of broadly “Christian” work and functionally anonymizes where the money is coming from – basically a dead end for anyone wondering who is funding the campaign and what their theological convictions may be.” Of course, the ambiguity of the founding and accountability structures in place for the Campaign does nothing to address the concern of the author (or editor) of this piece.
One more thing worth sharing from the “About Us” section is that it says, “We’re also not affiliated with any particular church or denomination. We simply want everyone to understand the authentic (emphasis mine; there’s that adjective again) Jesus as he’s depicted in the Bible – the Jesus of radical forgiveness, compassion, and love.” This is confusing based on what I said above about this being an initiative of “The Servant Church.” It is also confusing with regards to why they keep referring to an “authentic Jesus.”  Who is He?
According to the “About Us” section, the “authentic Jesus” is characterized by the following values: “radical forgiveness,” “compassion,” “love,” “radical compassion,” and he “stood up for the marginalized.” His sacrificial death, teaching about hell, and emphasis on holiness are apparently not important enough aspects of the “authentic Jesus” to be worth mentioning. Finally, the emphasis of the Campaign is on Jesus’ humanity, “Ultimately, we want people to know his teachings and how he lived while here on Earth. And this will be a starting point to understanding him and his message.” Though they say they affirm Jesus’ full humanity and divinity, they again stress this is not all too important because “We’re simply inviting you to explore with us at He Gets Us how might things be different if more people followed his example.” So what kind of things does He Gets Us want the world to know about the “authentic” Jesus?
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Friday, May 3, 2024
The New Testament only grants authority regarding the internal governance of the church to the officers of the church. I think most people who oppose establishment frame their opposition the other way round: they are mostly afraid of Christians imposing their will on the general populace via the state. I am more concerned—from a biblical and theological standpoint—about the state interfering in matters that God has not granted it authority to pronounce upon. I’m aware that the older Protestant view did not give the magistrate carte blanche to interfere in internal church matters. But perhaps it still granted it too much leeway in this direction. Should the U.S. government have the authority to mandate that the Presbyterian Church in America (my denomination) call a second General Assembly every year? The older view allows this. I don’t see God having granted the state that authority.

In my series of articles on Christianity and politics, I have mostly attempted to make my argument from Scripture and natural law. In this entry, I aim to show how the ideas I’ve argued for relate to previous Protestant approaches to politics. I start with John Calvin since he is an important, and representative, voice within the classical Protestant approach. I then turn to some representative Protestant confessional statements of the past, since these (unlike the views of individual theologians, however revered) were actually authoritative for the practice of the churches. Lastly, I look at how classical Protestant political thought was adapted in America, using the American revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith as an example.
The Classical Protestant Understanding of Politics
John Calvin (1509-64)
The most foundational element of Calvin’s understanding of politics is his argument (here taken from the Battles translation of Calvin’s Institutes III.19.15) that “there is a twofold government in man.” This twofold government, which is sometimes called the “two kingdoms” is often mistakenly equated with the difference between church and state. The distinction, in fact, is between government that is internal and “spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God” and government that is temporal and “political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men.” Spiritual government “pertains to the life of the soul, while [temporal government] has to do with concerns of the present life” such as “laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately.”
Calvin’s discussion of this twofold government is found in the middle of his treatment of how the conscience of the Christian is absolutely free from any human commandment that is not found in Scripture. A possible, but erroneous, conclusion from this fact might be (as it actually was with the Anabaptists) that Christians are not bound to submit to earthly governments at all. Calvin accepts that the Christian’s conscience is bound only to God’s word in spiritual matters, while simultaneously insisting that obedience to lawful human governments is also mandated by God: “As we have just now pointed out that [temporal] government is distinct from that spiritual and inward kingdom of Christ, so we must know that they are not at variance” (Institutes IV.20.2). That is to say, the inward kingdom of salvation in Christ and the outward kingdoms of earthly governments must be kept distinct, yet should not be understand as at odds. Each is appointed by God; each has its unique vocation in the world: one pertaining to eternal life, the other to earthly life. The latter is not sub-Christian, a “thing polluted” (IV.20.2), simply because it is focused primarily on how to live on this earth. This is an important point for those Christians today who struggle to see that vigorous political action by Christians is not at odds with heavenly-minded piety.
For Calvin, “civil government has as its appointed end, so long as we live among men, to cherish and protect the outward worship of God,” and “to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church,” in addition to its non-spiritual purpose “to adjust our life to the society of men, to form our social behavior to civil righteousness, to reconcile us to one another, and to promote general peace and tranquility.” Few Christians today would dispute the non-spiritual purposes of government Calvin enumerates, though even fewer would accept the spiritual mandate of civic government “to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church.” Be that as it may, Calvin’s view was the norm in Protestant political thought for centuries afterward, so one at least needs to understand it, even if one partially or wholly rejects it. Sound reasons would also have to be provided for this rejection, reasons beyond “it’s scary,” or simply pointing out that it would be a difficult task. I have my own reasons for tweaking the classical view, which I will address below.
The Augsburg Confession (1530)
The Lutheran Augsburg Confession was presented to Emperor Charles V (1500-58) at the imperial Diet of Augsburg in 1530 as a summary of Lutheran beliefs. The Confession’s Article 16 is entitled “On Civil Affairs” and says the following:
Of Civil Affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God, and that it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to make oath when required by the magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in marriage. They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these civil offices to Christians. They condemn also those who do not place evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but in forsaking civil offices, for the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart. Meanwhile, it does not destroy the State or the family, but very much requires that they be preserved as ordinances of God, and that charity be practiced in such ordinances. Therefore, Christians are necessarily bound to obey their own magistrates and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to obey God rather than men. Acts 5:29.
In brief, this article states that just laws must be obeyed and that government is a good and divine institution. Like Calvin, the Confession rejects the Anabaptist notion that submission to God’s kingdom precludes submission to earthly governments. Unlike Calvin, there is no statement of a mandate for the civil magistrate to ensure that true religion prevails in a nation (see also Article 28). It does, however, require that the state practice charity in its ordinances, which at a bare minimum means that the laws of the state are shaped by Christian teaching. That said, the Augsburg Confession appears more concerned with preventing church officers from meddling in civil government than closing off the possibility that the state might have certain responsibilities regarding the promotion of true religion. In general, however, Lutherans did not employ Calvin’s argument in this regard.
The Scots Confession (1560)
In contrast to the Lutherans, all of the key political ideas expressed by Calvin (and other Reformed pastors and theologians) were soon enshrined in major Reformed confessions. The 1560 Scots Confession is a good place to begin, since it was written by followers of Calvin while he was still alive. The Scots Confession was approved by the Scottish Parliament and served as the official doctrinal statement of the Scottish national church. Chapter 24, on the civil magistrate, says the following:
We Confess and acknowledge empires, kingdoms, dominions, and cities to be distincted and ordained by God: the powers and authorities in the same (be it of Emperors in their empires, of Kings in their realms, Dukes and Princes in their dominions, or of other Magistrates in free cities), to be God’s holy ordinance, ordained for manifestation of his own glory, and for the singular profit and commodity of mankind. So that whosoever goes about to take away or to confound the whole state of civil policies, now long established, we affirm the same men not only to be enemies to mankind, but also wickedly to fight against God’s expressed will. We further Confess and acknowledge, that such persons as are placed in authority are to be loved, honoured, feared, and held in most reverent estimation; because that they are the lieutenants of God, in whose session God himself doth sit and judge (yea even the Judges and Princes themselves), to whom by God is given the sword, to the praise and defence of good men, and to revenge and punish all open malefactors. Moreover, to Kings, Princes, Rulers, and Magistrates, we affirm that chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the Religion appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true Religion, and for suppressing of idolatry and superstition whatsoever, as in David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be espied. And therefore we confess and avow, that such as resist the supreme power (doing that thing which appertains to his charge), do resist God’s ordinance, and therefore cannot be guiltless. And further, we affirm, that whosoever deny unto them their aid, counsel, and comfort, while the Princes and Rulers vigilantly travail in the executing of their office, that the same men deny their help, support, and counsel to God, who by the presence of his lieutenant craveth it of them.
There is no material difference between this chapter and Calvin’s teaching on the magistrate. It can be summed up like this: distinct nations are ordained by God, as are their civil rulers; these rulers are meant to rule for God’s glory and the good of their people; to unlawfully resist their lawful rule is to resist God; such rulers are tasked, as per Romans 13:1–7, with “the praise and defense of good men, and to revenge and punish all open malefactors;” they are also given responsibility “for maintenance of the true Religion.”
The Belgic Confession (1562)
The Belgic Confession was written in the early 1560s for the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, eventually becoming the official doctrinal statement of those churches. The original form of Article 36 (“Of Magistrates”) reads as follows:
We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the protection of them that do well. And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of anti-Christ may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, of what state, quality, or condition so ever he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates; to pay tribute, to show due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the Word of God; to supplicate for them in their prayers, that God may rule and guide them in all their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates, and would subvert justice, introduce community of goods, and confound that decency and good order, which God hath established among men.
Summarized, this article states that the civil magistrate is a legitimate, divine authority and that it must enforce just laws so as to facilitate a just and well-ordered society. On the role of the magistrate regarding true religion the Belgic Confession is somewhat more specific and detailed than the Scots Confession. Among the magistrate’s responsibilities is to protect the free exercise of the church’s ministry, remove idolatry from the church, and ensure that the gospel is preached faithfully and that faithful worship takes place.
Read More
Related Posts: