The more immediate point drawn from Psalm 107 is this: The LORD’s love is a providential love by which he directs the affairs of humanity. He will not allow the human bent toward self-destruction to have its final way, and so in his love he directs men and women back towards him—even if by way of the purgatorial path.

Psalm 107 is a song celebrating the steadfast love of the LORD: “Oh give thanks to the LORD, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever!” This love is experienced by God’s people after a particular historical pattern; one that deserves some reflection if for no other reason than the corrective it provides to the banal triumphalism that pervades so much of American evangelical celebration of the love of God in song.
Psalm 107 forms the final part of what was originally read as a kind of three-part epic, rehearsing the Israelite history from Exodus through Exile. The phrase in verse 3—“[whom he has] gathered in from the lands”—notably answers the previous psalm 106:47: “Save us, O Lord our God, and gather us from among the nations…,” indicating that the two are supposed to be read sequentially. Psalm 106, similarly, follows on from Psalm 105. After rehearsing the salvation of the LORD in the exodus event, 105:44 declares that God gave them the lands of the nations, “that they might keep his statutes.” Psalm 106 opens menacingly: “Remember me, O LORD, when you show favor to your people… Both we and our fathers have sinned.” (vv. 5-6).
Together, then, these three psalms form a trilogy, describing the Jews’ liberation from Egypt and entrance into their promised land (Ps. 105); the Jews’ rebellion and exile from their land (Ps. 106); and God’s covenant love and rescue of his people from exile (Ps. 107). This trilogy provides the Christian a wonderful place to mentally camp-out, as it were, and contemplate the history of God’s salvific work amongst his people; for it is our history as well.
The Sovereign Love of God
In order to set the backdrop against which the love of God comes to the fore, the majority of Psalm 107 (vv. 4-32) is taken up with the various ways the exiled people experienced their exile.
Wanderers
“Some wandered in deserts wastes, finding no city to dwell in” (v. 4) These wanderers, precisely because of their wandering, were unable to meet their basic needs. Cities emerged in large part in response to the harshness and unpredictability of the wilds. There were places where people gathered together and worked together to stave off the wilds, the dangers, the deprivations of the wilderness. To make it on one’s own as a wanderer, a pioneer, was most difficult, and most simply could not.
These wanderers had no city, no community. They suffered the deprivation of those basic necessities of life to such a degree that they were ready to give up, to let death make its final mark on their sinewy bodies. “Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble, And he delivered them from the distress” (v. 6).
The Lord’s delivery led them to a city, a refuge, a place of safety and abundance. They had longed in their souls, and God had satisfied them. “For he satisfies the longing soul, and the hungry soul he fills with good things” (v. 9). And so, “let them thank the LORD for his steadfast love” (v. 8). Hospitably, God gathers in the wanderers and nourishes their desperate souls.
Prisoners
“Some sat in darkness and in the shadow of death, prisoners in affliction and in irons…” (v. 10). These prisoners were not unjustly condemned. They had rebelled against God, they had “spurned the counsel of the Most High” (v. 11). For this reason they were punished with prison camps. They were made to work hard labor, the psalm says; their hearts were bowed low (v. 12).
Their rebellion against God was an indication that they had elevated themselves in pride. The Lord justly brings the proud low.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by S.M. White |
Friday, April 19, 2024
There is always a danger that intersectionality is a temptation to culturally attuned and influence seeking churches. Yet a commitment to Reformed confessionalism and a recognition that God distinguishes the spiritual and temporal kingdoms he rules over we will have a bulwark against those who would wish to insert worldly agendas, and in particular those who seek to insert intersectional mandates to either syncretize or make use of Christianity towards an earthly end. 

One of the hot topics of discussion among Christians in the United States is the issue of Christian Nationalism. One of the most glaring problems with it is some of the proponents of it make no distinction between the theocracy of Israel and the other common kingdom nations that exist today. They propose that since Jesus is King, that there should be some sort of minimal national fidelity to a Christian creed, or some even suggest applying the moral law, even including the first 4 commandments, which would essentially make the nation a form of Christian theocracy. One can only imagine with politicians swapping out every 4 years or so what kind of God Biden or Trump might get to dictate what we worship, or perhaps which church they would delegate that responsibility to. Rome?
With Biden’s continuation of Obama’s fundamental transformation, and with a sort of cultural decline in general, there is distinct new culture arising to be the Antithesis, and even replacement of traditional Christian, (or so called family) values. Under the name of democracy, and human rights, abortion, race, LGBTQ, trans-humanism, and a host of other intersectional commitments combine where there may be a narrative of grievance or inequality, even down to “healthy-at-any-size” individuals joining together via “identity politics” in  movement that has been termed Cultural Marxism.
Cultural Marxism is not like the old Marxism where the inflection points were between the material divisions between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat.  The social classes and grievances today have been remapped to a group of intersectionals who oppose issues such as white-privilege, male-domination, hetero-normative dominance, with even traditional families being considered part of racial inequality, and therefore at cultural enmity with the intersectional comradery. These new intersectional cultural norms are considered necessary parts of democracy, which America assumes it has the right and responsibility to spread democracy globally, which now comes with these features such as LGBT included, or else the nation or leadership of that nation is pegged as undemocratic, or dictatorial and are therefore problematic.
One of the nations in the sights of this new values democracy is a more traditional values friendly and therefore new values resistant Hungary. Which is one reason many conservatives in America look to it as a beacon and guide for what America should be like. As a American, Reformed Christian who lives in Hungary, I have thought about these things and hopefully have some insights that might be helpful.
First off, Hungary is a culturally Christian country which reminds me more of the 1970s or 80s America. Hungary is more culturally Christian than formal.  The statistics are that about half of the population identifies as Christian, where most of them identify as Roman Catholic, but about 1/3 as many of those identify as Calvinist. It has been my experience that most of the churches that identify as “Reformed” or Calvinistic, most would resemble more of a sort of “do-gooder” type of Christianity without much doctrinal understanding or confessional fidelity. Still, nearly 1 million people identify as Calvinists in this small country of about 10 million people.
It does differ from America and many of the Western European nations in that there is not much crime, or delinquency in its capital city Budapest. For example, there is not as much street art painted on buildings and hoodlums don’t go around and destroy cars, or art, and most parts of the beautiful city of Budapest are safe for a woman to walk alone, even at night. Right now the bricks on our sidewalk are being replaced, and there is this sense that the government cares for its citizens, the beauty of the city, the public transportation, good affordable food, natural gas heating, and clean water. It’s not a panacea here.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Jon D. Payne |
Thursday, November 18, 2021
Don’t give up on the PCA. Double down in your commitment to pray, stay informed, and get involved. Obviously, there may be a time in the future to organize and depart together as a large group of confessional churches. But now is not the time. There is much to be encouraged by after the last General Assembly. Will you, therefore, along with the GRN, seek to prayerfully, winsomely, transparently, boldly, compellingly, and with integrity, contend for the future faithfulness of the PCA?

It’s a question that more than a few PCA elders and members are asking right now. The recent Standing Judicial Commission’s (SJC) decision to reject the complaint against Missouri Presbytery has left many disheartened. Moreover, the current presbytery voting tallies on Overtures 23 and 37 show that there is no guarantee they will meet the two-thirds threshold necessary for a vote at next summer’s General Assembly. What if the overtures fail? Would this mean that all positive momentum gained this past June at the 48th General Assembly is lost? Has the time to depart the PCA finally come? The answer is a resounding NO!
It is not time to depart the PCA. It’s time to contend for the PCA—to humbly contend for the biblical and confessional faithfulness of our beloved church.
Divergent Visions for the PCA
The recent disclosure of National Partnership (NP) emails punctuates the fact that there are vastly divergent and competing visions for the future of the PCA. Most are now recognizing that these disparate visions are highly incompatible. The cache of NP emails also reveal that there are profoundly different methods of seeking to advance those visions. Over the years we (the GRN Council) have been encouraged to adopt similar political machinations as the NP, but we’ve firmly resisted. It’s not our way. It never has been.
The progressive wing’s sympathy with, or doctrinal indifference to, various tenets of Side B gay Christianity has been a major contributing factor to this sad incompatibility and division. It’s caused a heartbreaking rift in the PCA. To be sure, there are other matters fostering discord. It hardly needs mentioning, however, that Revoice doctrine is the most divisive issue at present. Even with the adoption of the excellent Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality there remains significant confusion, obfuscation, indifferentism, and fracturing over whether officers in the PCA should be permitted, for any reason, to retain and promote a settled gay identity. From my perspective, a split is inevitable if Revoice doctrine finds a permanent home in the PCA. Christ’s followers are called to renounce, hate, and mortify their sins, not foster and promote an identity with them.[1] We are called to kill our sin, not manage it. Those in the PCA who believe otherwise should repent or peacefully depart and find a denominational home elsewhere.
A Compelling Reformed Vision for the PCA
Over the past several years the Gospel Reformation Network has sought to publicly promote a compelling vision for the PCA—a transparent vision to cultivate warm-hearted biblical and confessional Presbyterianism in our churches and presbyteries. Through public articles, videos, conferences, lectures, seminars, booklets, seminary chapels, and luncheons we’ve aspired to encourage fellow elders to hold fast to the PCA’s founding vision—to be Faithful to the Scriptures, True to the Reformed faith, and Obedient to the Great Commission. We haven’t always done this perfectly, but from the beginning, it’s been our aim and focus; and by God’s grace it will continue to be.
The GRN’s purpose and distinctives are published on our website, in case you haven’t seen them. Moreover, we will host our second GRN National Conference, May 4–5, 2022 in Birmingham. Mark your calendars for this wonderful time of worship, teaching, and fellowship. We would love for you to join us. All are most welcome!
Members of the GRN Council have maintained regular interaction with our brothers on the opposite side of controversial issues facing the PCA. This is something for which I’m deeply grateful, despite the frustration that we (and they) often feel in our conversations. What many around the denomination do not realize is how much discussion actually occurs behind the scenes. I’ve personally grown from these interactions. They’ve helped me to understand better where my brothers are coming from, and what their positions truly are. These exchanges have also helped me to recognize the sin lurking in my own heart.
What Now? 
Perhaps you are thinking, “So, if it’s not yet time to go, then what must be done? What can be done? What should I do personally? What should my session and congregation do to contend for the future faithfulness of the Presbyterian Church in America?” Here are a few actions items that I would humbly ask you to prayerfully consider:
Read More
[1] Shouldn’t we all be gravely concerned when a PCA minister feels the freedom to publicly post #LGBTinChrist?