The boundaries of the Christian Faith have been exchanged for other boundaries contrary to the Christian Faith.  What we are watching today is the replacement of the Second Commandment by a secularized First Amendment.  That was not the original intention of those who approved the First Amendment. The First Amendment was there to encourage the freedom of men to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures, not debasing a Holy God. 

When I heard of the statute of the Satanic idol being destroyed at the Iowa State Capitol Building, I thought of Charlie Daniels’ famous hit “The Devil Went Down to Georgia.”  In this song the Devil challenged the young man Johnny to a fiddle-playing contest. The prize for Johnny was a golden fiddle if he won, and the prize for the Devil was the soul of Johnny if he won.  Johnny won. I think a new song might be appropriately written by Charlie now, and as a man who lives in the South, I would call it “The Devil Went Up to Iowa.”
This statute has been demolished by a man from Mississippi. The head has been cut off, and only part of the statute remains on site.
Although I must confess that there was a joyful response in me as I visioned the ram’s head on the floor, yet, as a Reformed Christian I cannot support vandalism.  Men, even men like Michael Cassidy, who is a Christian and a former Navy fighter pilot, do not have the right to destroy public property.  You know—such an attitude toward the legitimacy of vandalism could lead to vigilante riots and the destruction of millions of dollars of property in cities like Minneapolis where the police are told to stand down while the city burns to the ground. Or it could lead to robbing jewelry stores in San Francisco in broad daylight and the only criminal is the owner of the store.  I am glad I live in a country where vandalism and vigilantism are not tolerated.
The real issue on trial here was not the statue of a pagan idol by the name of Baphomet in a public place set up by the organization called the Satan Temple of Iowa with the approval of the Iowa State Legislature.  The real issue here is the concept of free speech.  Does it violate free speech by restricting objectional material from public display?  One Iowan representative, who is a follower of Christ, and also an ordained minister, spoke approvingly of this public display as protecting the right of civil liberties guaranteed in the United States Constitution.  It is a matter of the First Amendment, he said.
Reactions in the Reformed world vary, as you might expect. The most common response is simply to grimace and ignore it.  “I do not like it, but idolatry in worship at my local church is a much bigger concern than an ugly statute of Satan in a State Capitol.”
So, what about the free-speech argument?  If we curtail free speech, are we curtailing rights guaranteed by the Constitution?  If we are, then this might lead to worse things.  It could even lead to being fired from work if you speak the wrong pronoun preferred by a transgender.  It could lead to a world-renown medical scientist being punished for publicly questioning the validity of the covid vaccine.  Or, likewise, it could lead to a presidential candidate being cancelled from social media for posting what high-tech corporate leaders call disinformation. Paraphrasing A. J. Liebling, the freedom of the press is only free to those who own one.  Another result of restricting the freedom of speech might be stamping out the call by young college students at Harvard University for the genocide of the Jews from the River to the Sea. I hope you see the potential danger of restricting free speech.
Of course, I am being a little facetious in this article.  Foolishness needs to be exposed at times. “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit (Prov. 26:5).”  When the statute of Robert E. Lee comes down and the statue of Satan goes up, it all seems a little controverted to me.
However, I think the confusion can be cleared up if we consider one thing. The issue in Iowa is not free speech but rather a matter of who sets the limits of free speech.  All free speech is limited.  Free speech is not absolute. You will get in trouble if you shout “fire” in a crowded theatre.
When America was a Chistian nation, it was assumed that the public display of Satanic symbols was outside the boundaries of free speech.  The First Amendment was created to protect the Christian Faith by the disapprobation of a national church in exchange for the approval of existing Christian denominations within the various States.
The First Amendment protected the Christian Faith by guaranteeing the freedom of Christian men to live with a conscience bound only by the Word of God. Yea for the Baptists!  Early America chose the Ten Commandments as its foundation for civil laws and for liberty. Apart from the Christian Faith, the United States Constitution becomes a purely secular document, and as such it is now being used to crush the basic tenets of Christian morality in the public square. Old-school Americans cannot seem to get beyond the sacredness of the First Amendment, even when it is being used as a weapon against them.
As America has drifted from a Christian Nation to a Polytheistic Empire (see A Polytheistic Empire – A New Experiment About to Fail?) the limits on free speech have changed.  New limits have been created and the old ones have been cast away.  That is what makes the conversation about the First Amendment so confusing and contradictory.  We highly value it, but for Christians it is no longer working for us.
The boundaries of the Christian Faith have been exchanged for other boundaries contrary to the Christian Faith.  What we are watching today is the replacement of the Second Commandment by a secularized First Amendment.  That was not the original intention of those who approved the First Amendment. The First Amendment was there to encourage the freedom of men to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures, not debasing a Holy God.
Presbyterians are bound by such documents as the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, but what I have found is that we, too, tend to be confused.  For example, the Larger Catechism Question #108 asks, “What are the duties in the second commandment?” The answer given, even for those in the special calling of civic leadership, is as follows. The duties are “disapproving, detesting, and opposing all false worship, and according to each one’s place and calling, removing it and all monuments of idolatry.” Of course, this does not legitimize vandalism, but it does command men to act where they legally have a right to do so in accordance with the commandments of God, even in the sphere of civil government.  It includes preaching about it too, something the modern church needs to do.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:

Written by J. V. Fesko |
Monday, August 1, 2022
Accountability is only as good as the truth. If you want to grow in your sanctification, you have to be honest with Christ, yourself, your family, and your church. When you’re honest and admit your sins, your need for Christ, and your need for assistance, then you can begin to deal with your need for repentance and greater sanctification.

Part of my pastoral ministry involved making regular visits with the members of my congregation. My elders and I did our best to visit every household in the congregation once a year. There were and are a number of benefits to doing this. First, it allowed me as the pastor to get to know my sheep. It is very difficult to get to know people if the only interaction you have with them is on Sunday when you spy their faces from the pulpit or when you see them across the buffet line at church lunch. I would spend a portion of my visit with the household getting to know them. Second, it was an opportunity for me as the pastor and my elders to be present in a home before there was trouble. It is a bit difficult to enter into a home for the very first time when you have to deal with a problem. People might not trust you, know you, or be willing to listen to your counsel because you have not established much of a relationship with them. True, regardless of these things, members of a church have the biblical responsibility to submit to their elders (Heb. 13:17), but knowing your sheep certainly helps.
However, one of the things that I quickly noted was that when holding members accountable to their profession of faith, accountability was only as good as the truth. What do I mean? On a number of occasions I would observe a family and instinctively know that something was wrong. I saw certain behavior that led me to believe that there were spiritual problems. When an unmarried couple, for example, is very “hands-on,” in public, showing a great degree of public affection, then chances are such behavior is merely the tip of the iceberg—what they do in public is a fraction of how they’ll conduct themselves in private. I visited with such people and flat out asked them about their sexual purity, and I typically received answers, that on the face, were correct—they denied wrong-doing.
I also typically asked the members of my congregation, “Are there any significant struggles, or sins, that we can assist you with, pray for you, and hold you accountable?” I typically received negative replies to this question with the assurances that all was well. Apart from any specific hard-evidence, and only unfounded suspicions, I had no other choice than to take people at their word.
Read More
Related Posts:

The SJC recommends that Missouri Presbytery (MOP) utilize the AIC report on Human Sexuality to help protect the peace and purity of the church by acknowledging where the “statements of some speakers at Revoice 18 may have differed from the propositions in that Report.” MOP, commendably, took action to protect the peace and purity of Memorial Presbyterian Church by alerting the congregation to erroneous beliefs promoted at Revoice 18. Now, they must act in a similar manner by recognizing the errors of Revoice 18 to the broader church with hopes of maintaining the peace and purity of the Church.

Earlier this week, byFaith Online published an article entitled SJC Concludes Action on Matters Related To Revoice 2018. In that article TE Larry Hoop states, “this concludes the matters that have been before the SJC related to Revoice 18 involving TE Greg Johnson, the Session of Memorial Presbyterian Church, and Missouri Presbytery.”[1] This statement summarizes the determination of the Standing Judicial Commission’s (SJC) ruling on the three cases concerning the revoice movement and Side-B homosexuality (Investigation into the views of TE Greg Johnson, Revoice 18 conference at Memorial Presbyterian church, and the request to assume original jurisdiction over the TE Greg Johnson case).
It is true that the SJC is a commission that acts on behalf of the General Assembly and functions much like the Supreme Court in the United States. The Book of Church Order (BCO) states this concerning the SJC’s work: “in the cases committed to it, the Standing Judicial Commission shall have the judicial powers and be governed by the judicial procedures of the General Assembly. The decision of the Standing Judicial Commission shall be the final decision of the General Assembly” (BCO 15-5).[2] With that said, there is still more work to be done – and more actions to be taken – in the courts of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) regarding the Revoice controversy.
Mending the Controversy
The work before the PCA is substantial and demands careful attention. There are at least three actions that can be taken to help mend the current division in the PCA: follow the SJC’s recommendation, amend the BCO, and lead the church as churchmen.
Following the Standing Judicial Commission
First, Missouri Presbytery (MOP) should follow the “Amends” laid out in the SJC report. The SJC has called on MOP to “hold a new hearing” (BCO 43-10) that focuses on the following matters:
What steps must MOP take to make clear to the broader Church the errors that were identified in Presbytery’s various investigations with regard to some of the teachings at Revoice 18, particularly with regard to Theological Judgments 2, 3, and 5, and what steps must MOP take to fulfill its responsibilities to protect the peace and purity of the broader Church under BCO 11-3, 11-4 and 13-9(f) in light of those errors?[3]
The SJC argues that Theological Judgments 2, 3 and 5 of MOP’s report found error within Revoice 18, but declined to act upon that error. The SJC states, “MOP unnecessarily restrained itself by the incorrect criteria for review that it opted to follow in evaluating the teachings of Revoice 18. Consequently, it did not take adequate action with respect to the errors that it had identified.”[4] The SJC has requested MOP to address the following Theological Judgments:
“Revoice 18’s use of the terminology in question, though confusing to some and potentially unwise, was not a grave and serious doctrinal error” (Theological Judgment #2).
“We concur with the CIM’s judgment that the evidence was such that this question as to whether a ‘gay beneath the gay’ exists could not have been judged to be a key teaching of Revoice, but continues to have the potential for becoming a grave and serious error if it begins to play a more central role, and thus we exhort those involved with Revoice to consider our position on this matter” (Theological Judgment #3).
“We concur that i) celibate SSA believers face complex barriers in developing friendships with people of the same gender and that, ii) Christians must labor to empathize with this difficulty and that, iii) it was unwise and hence an error of judgment rather than an error striking at the vitals of religion for Revoice leaders to be entertaining publicly the possibility of celibate partnerships without more careful boundaries proposed and that, iv) TE Johnson adequately warned about the dangers of these type of friendships in his own Revoice 18 talk.” (Theological Judgment #5)[5]
The SJC recommends that MOP utilize the AIC report on Human Sexuality to help protect the peace and purity of the church by acknowledging where the “statements of some speakers at Revoice 18 may have differed from the propositions in that Report.”[6] MOP, commendably, took action to protect the peace and purity of Memorial Presbyterian Church by alerting the congregation to erroneous beliefs promoted at Revoice 18. Now, they must act in a similar manner by recognizing the errors of Revoice 18 to the broader church with hopes of maintaining the peace and purity of the Church.[7]
Read More
[1] Larry Hoop, “SJC Concludes Action on Matters Related To Revoice 2018,” 2022.
[2] The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America (Office of the Stated Clerk, 2021).
[3] SJC, “Decision on Complaint: TE Ryan Speck v. Missouri Presbytery,” 2022, 11–12.
[4] Ibid., 8.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., 14.
[7] Ibid., 11.