And so also do some say that such people in our own midst experience this lust unchosen, that it is largely fixed and unlikely to ever dissipate in this life, and that it would be unfair to deprive them of participation in something that others are allowed to experience. You seem to accept this position, or at the least to not think it is one that deserves condemnation, and you put your efforts into opposing those that seek to combat things like Revoice.

Read Part 1 and Part 2
The Dangers of Activism
There is danger in approaching the church as you do. He who engages in denominational politics, regardless of his faction, must heed this danger, for it is easy to become so bogged down with politicking that the common work of ministry is drowned out. In this you do poorly, and I fear the direction and consequences of your labors, that they tend to evil.
Perhaps you will appeal to the example of the Reformers and say that you only follow after their example in the spirit of semper reformanda. But they did not work to change a church that was faithful, but one that was false and in a state of “Babylonian” captivity. You approach the church as though it is a thing that you might fashion according to your own preferences. You seem to forget that the church belongs to Christ, and that he is a jealous king who will not share his glory with another. He is the dread majesty who “is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29) and who “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see” (1 Tim. 6:16).
Those who rule in his church ought always to remember that they should do so in his manner, openly and honorably, and they must never forget that all power and dominion in the church is his alone and that we are not free to do with or in the church as we will, but are mere stewards and servants of him who is the “only Sovereign” (1 Tim. 6:15). Consider the advice of one who was zealous in sundry activities, but who strayed from God in the midst of his doings:
Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. To draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they are doing evil. Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few. (Ecc. 5:1-2)
The church is God’s house, and they who deal with it should not be hasty in seeking to administer its affairs or in setting her policies and form at the highest levels (Lk. 14:10). Much unintentional harm has been done in this world by those that meant well but who could not see the consequences of their actions. Who can say where this activist spirit will lead, or what others who learn from its example will do? The temper of a thing often lingers after its immediate purpose is forgotten, and it may be that the activist tendency endures long after the present debates in the PCA are relics of the past.
The Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy transpired long ago, and yet the same spirit that reorganized Princeton Seminary is still at work in the PCUSA, albeit yet more faithless, and it leads her to follow the culture at every step, even into her own oblivion. Can you be sure that this activist spirit that you embody will not break free of restraint and lead you or others in bad directions? Is it not perhaps better to forego such a tendency and do the work of an elder in simplicity, giving little heed to politicking and instead keeping the faith as it has been delivered to us?
A Contemporary Failing
There is concern also in your position regarding Revoice. You believe that homosexual lust does not disqualify one from office and that the church would effectively wrong those that manifest it by refusing to ordain them. Does office exist for those that desire it? Is it not rather a position of service that places those that hold it in subjection to the needs of the sheep? No one has any right to office, and the denomination wrongs no one if it determines that the nature of someone’s lust prevents him from serving effectively or makes him morally unfit. In this you think along worldly lines, regarding the individual as possessing absolute rights to do as he wishes, and regarding it as unfair if others object or attempt to assert their own rights in turn. “This is the age in which thin and theoretic minorities can cover and conquer unconscious and untheoretic majorities” (G.K. Chesterton). It is an age in which the individual is everything and the corporate body nothing, in which a radical individualism prevails and says that the individual’s personal fulfillment is everything and that collective bodies have no rights of their own and exist only to assist individuals in finding their own career fulfillment or emotional acceptance (by self and others), or other such notions of personal wellbeing (or “flourishing”).
You upset the proper relation of things and seem to regard the church as existing to give the individual an occasion to labor, not the office holder as existing to feed the sheep (comp. Mk. 10:42-45; Jn. 21:15-17; Eph. 4:11-14). How else can we explain your horror that the PCA might refuse to ordain men who experience persistent homosexual lust or even remove them from office? In this two things are especially concerning.
One is that you have sworn to your acceptance of our form of government as part of your ordination, a form of government which says “every Christian Church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion and the qualifications of its ministers and members” and that even if it errs in doing this “it does not infringe upon the liberty or the rights of others, but only makes an improper use of its own.” You like Preliminary Principle I, because you think it elevates individual conscience above corporate conscience, the minister over the denomination that ordains, invests, and supervises him. But you seem to ignore Principle II, which qualifies principle I and establishes the practical rights of the corporate church body.
It is further concerning that the basic argument that some in our midst use is the same as that which was successfully used to normalize immorality in society. It was repeated ad nauseam that homosexuals are such because of an orientation that is immutable and unchosen, and that it was wrong to deprive them of things that others could experience because they did not choose this orientation. It was felt to be unfair for society to determine the nature and qualifications of its most basic institution of marriage.
And so also do some say that such people in our own midst experience this lust unchosen, that it is largely fixed and unlikely to ever dissipate in this life, and that it would be unfair to deprive them of participation in something that others are allowed to experience. You seem to accept this position, or at the least to not think it is one that deserves condemnation, and you put your efforts into opposing those that seek to combat things like Revoice. Thus do you participate, for all intents and purposes, in a contemporary movement to normalize homosexuality in the church. God says this is an abomination that should not be tolerated or even mentioned (Eph. 5:3), and that he has delivered men from it (1 Cor. 6:9), but you say it does not unfit one for office and that those who think it does are the ones who act unreasonably and unfairly.
Thus, do you effectively excuse what God condemns; and if you elsewhere teach an orthodox position you ought to consider that such an inconsistency cannot long exist (Matt. 6:24; 12:25) and that one of the principles must eventually win out to the utter exclusion of the other. You cannot espouse an orthodox view of sexuality and marriage on the one hand and then accept the concept of homosexual identity and put great energies into asserting a “right” for self-professed homosexuals to lead in the church on the other, especially when the basic argument that is used to normalize such lust and the basic conception of those that experience it is invading our denomination’s public discourse from the wider culture and is not gleaned from God’s word. We are only having this debate because the culture has already done so, and if it had not done so we would not be doing so now, for the impetus for it comes from culture and not from Scripture.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.

We live in turbulent times. We have come to expect the unexpected, even the bizzare. The Internet woos us with reports of UFO sightings and alien abductions. NASA and SETI continue to probe the heavens for signs of intelligent life. Offerings from Hollywood focus mankind’s hopes on space travel, cosmic demigods, and visitations from above. But wise Christians, grounded in biblical cosmology, will not be taken in. 

“For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show great signs and wondersso as to deceive, if it were possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand.”(Mt. 24:24)
Most Christians are familiar with these words, and most do indeed watch for false prophets. But their focus is limited: They are on the alert for human false prophets rising up out of the earth (Rev. 13:11f).
But in these dangerous last days, here’s a question well worth asking: Could it be that some of those false prophets will be evil spirits coming down from the sky, masquerading as highly evolved extra-terrestrials who are not out to blast us, but to “bless” us with their redemptive wisdom from the starry deeps?
Well, if you know anything about the great red dragon, whose tail sweeps stars down to the earth—and who is styled as the deceiver of the whole world—you wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) put it past him (Rev. 12:4, 9).
And yet, many Christians are double-minded on this subject. They ask, almost rhetorically, “Who’s to say that extra-terrestrials don’t exist? Surely in a universe as big as ours there must be other intelligent life forms out there! Isn’t it a bit arrogant to think that we, and we alone, are ‘the ones’”?
Those are good questions, questions I myself have asked. But in devoting a couple of years to the study of biblical cosmology, I was stunned to learn something of great interest, and—in credulous times such as ours—of great practical importance: I learned that, Yes, we really are “the ones”!
Very briefly, let me make that case.
What Shape is Your Cosmos?
Did you know that prior to the sixteenth century no one in the Western world believed in aliens? In part, that’s because no one believed in the Big Bang or cosmic evolution. But in larger part, it was because no one believed that space was infinite or centerless or curved; no one believed it was shaped like a saddle, a hyper-cube, or a multi-dimensional toroid. (Not to worry, modern cosmologists who dream of these “high things” can’t even imagine them themselves, 2 Cor. 10:5). Instead, they believed that God, in six literal days, created the universe as a great but finite sphere, revolving around a stationary earth that served as home for the apple of his eye: us! And where did folks get such an outlandishly man-centered idea? You guessed it: from the Bible (plus like affirmations from Aristotle and other ancients).
Now, please consider the following historical fact carefully: Belief in aliens came in when belief in biblical geocentrism went out. It came in when Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and all their followers demoted the earth from the place of cosmic centrality bestowed upon it by the Word of God. Interestingly, the first scientist to let the alien genie out of the cosmological bottle was Johannes Kepler, who speculated about the inhabitants of the moon in a book aptly called Dream. Four hundred years later, the dreamers at NASA and the SETI program are still at it!
If, then, we truly desire to understand the Bible’s verdict on the question of extra-terrestrials, we shall first have to re-examine its testimony about the purpose and structure of the universe. And as unpalatable as it may be to modern man, that testimony is actually quite clear, compelling, and (to my mind) comforting.
Read More
Related Posts:

Continue to learn doctrine, study your Bible, affirm the creeds, sing God’s praises—and read church history. Whatever you’re suffering, you’re not the first Christian to face that (Hebrews 11:39-40). Take confidence in knowing the stories of your brothers and sisters who went before. These stories offer real confidence. When you grow weary and desperate, look at how God has carried others through their trials. Trust him to do the same in yours. He’s far greater than our circumstances.

Church history has remained a pivotal aspect in tackling modern issues in the church. My love and passion for it grew from the time I was an undergraduate student. Grappling with church history, I saw how truly unique the church is.
More than this, I appreciated the role of the preservation of this history in the growth and the life of the church. The lessons from it have made me see God’s sovereignty, unfailing faithfulness, and unrelenting purposefulness. I have celebrated the many who went before me. Those that paid tremendously for defending doctrine and faith (Hebrews 10:32-34). Many faced death, because they knew that even death itself was temporary and that what they believed was forever (2 Corinthians 11:16-33). 
In this article, I endeavour to show that church history reminds us of God’s sovereign hand and presence with his people.
Jesus is Powerfully Present with His Church
The character of God is at the centre of the study and pursuit of the Christian faith. The significance of church history in this is that upon encountering it we are reminded of Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16:18, “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
The Bible is full of stories of people who experienced the faithfulness of God. The history of Israel repeatedly shows God’s compassion and holiness. He overcomes for Israel. He brings them into a land of physical inheritance. Yet throughout their history he points them forwards, to Christ, when God would come to dwell with his people. So Jesus Christ brings salvation, the fulfilment of Israel’s hopes. 
The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave on the third day sparked the beginning of Christianity. However, early church history is also the continuation of Israel’s story. The resurrection identified Christ as the Son of God, truly human and truly God. The disciples and the onlookers attested to his power over death. Convictions were strengthened and the Holy Spirit was manifest at Pentecost where many received power to become witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).
Read More
Related Posts: