Christ is one, and he alone is righteousness for all who believe in him, irrespective of anything in themselves and irrespective of their place in the church. But office has higher standards than membership, is available only to a select few (Jas. 3:1), and is not meant to glorify the ones who hold it but so that they may serve everyone else in humility and without partiality. (Mk. 10:42-45; 1 Tim. 5:21). 

Last year I asserted that we should reconsider what terms we employ in discussing the question of fitness for office in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Subsequent correspondence suggests that such an assertion merits further consideration. Of particular interest is the concept of the unthinkable in moral questions.
In such matters conscious obedience to what has been explicitly stated is, it needs but little comment, of great importance. God has revealed his moral law in the Old Testament, clearly transcribing by the hand of his prophet Moses those things that he wishes men to do or refrain from doing. But alongside of the question of intentionally obeying such explicit commands is the related matter of the unthinkable.
Consider an example. Some time ago I was working in a clinic where a boy was getting a shot. He resisted by making a scene, to which what appeared to be his grandmother responded by chiding him for his incivility. The boy responded by loudly cursing this poor woman.
When I mentioned this incident to a coworker from Michigan, he, while not approving the behavior, nonetheless asserted there were occasions in which he could conceivably curse while addressing his mother, albeit not with a disrespectful tone. That notion, like the boy’s behavior, is utterly foreign to my Southern upbringing, so much so that I am not sure what would have happened to me if I had ever done either. It was simply inconceivable that I would ever curse in the presence of a parent or grandparent, much less toward one.
Nor was this because I had the advantage of a rigorous Presbyterian upbringing (I didn’t). I knew that one does not disrespect familial authority like that even when I was, at most, vaguely familiar that Ex. 21:17 exists. This was because I was the beneficiary of a common moral sense that had been developed and propagated by my culture in the form of sundry taboos.
And central to the effectiveness of such taboos is the concept of the unthinkable: for what cannot be thought in one’s own mind cannot be discussed with others, and what cannot be discussed openly cannot be done with impunity. The creation of the taboo is a strong impediment to the commission of the behavior it ultimately seeks to defend against.
Now such taboos are not merely a result of God’s common grace (where they are beneficial), nor a result of sin (where they depart from his will, Mk. 7:1-5, 9-20; 1 Tim. 4:3-5); they are to have their place also in the church, provided of course that they are fully in accord with scripture and do not go beyond it by forbidding what God allows (Col. 2:18, 20-23; 1 Tim. 4:3) or requires (Matt. 15:3-6). See, for example, 1 Corinthians 5. A man in Corinth had married his step mother (a violation of Lev. 18:8), and Paul in his letter is aghast that such a thing had not only occurred but also been boasted over (vv. 2, 6).
It is not clear why the church was boastful about such a thing, but some think that it involved a misunderstanding of liberty in Christ.1 Whatever its precise cause, the church had stumbled by permitting what even pagans recognized as intolerably evil  (v. 1).
Read More
Related Posts:

The queer and trans history on Hope College’s campus has not always been warm or welcoming. With Hope being a religiously affiliated campus there are many places on campus that haven’t been a safe space for queer and trans students to exist as themselves.

A colorful display of celebration filled the space of the Butternut Event Center on Saturday night. The first-ever Rainbow Gala presented by Prism took place as a beautiful gathering of allies and community members who entered through the wall of decorative streamers dressed to the tens. As the debut of what will be an annual event that commemorates the hard work of queer and trans students, allies, and staff on campus, it showed to be a great success. Aubrey Brolsma (‘23), the treasurer of Prism, described the event, saying, “The event was a celebration of queer voices and allies on Hope’s Campus. It was our send-off to the year and it was a place where we could celebrate the students and faculty who deserve recognition for their work towards LGBTQ+ inclusion and equality on campus.” And celebrate the students and faculty they did.
As this was the first year of the event, some might be wondering what was the motivation behind carving out a space to hold an event like this. There were a couple of reasons that Brolsma outlined. This was the first year that Prism was included as a part of the Multicultural Student Organizations (MSO). Some of the MSOs are known for having large end-of-the-year celebrations so Brolsma mentioned that “we decided to go for it and secure funding!”
Another one of the motivations was based on the date that this event was held. On Friday, April 22, it was the national “Day of Silence” where people all over can take a vow of silence for a day to represent the silenced voices of queer and trans people all over the world. It is in honor of the voices that have been taken away due to bullying and harassment because of homophobia and transphobia. Saturday, the day after the event, is called “Breaking the Silence.” Brolsma explains that this date was intentional because “Breaking the Silence” is a celebration of the queer voices that can now be loud because of the work that has been done in the generations before.”
Speaking of generations before, that brings us to the third inspiration behind the gala, which was all of the history that led up to this moment.
Read More
Related Posts:

First, there is the contrast of physical versus powerful. The only requirement of priests under the old covenant was based on a genealogy. Christ, however, is not a high priest because of a physical requirement, but because of resurrection power. The second contrast is temporary versus eternal. Under the Law, there were many priests because of death, but under the new covenant, there is one, eternal priest: Jesus Christ. 

What does it mean that Jesus is our prophet, priest, and king? Like all theological questions, more is at stake than merely intellectual comprehension. The Gospel calls us to put our trust in Jesus for salvation. How, though, can we believe in Jesus if we do not know who He is or what He has done? We are therefore asking a critical question when we investigate the office of Christ as prophet, priest, and king, coming to the Scriptures so our faith in Him is not grounded on speculation, but on who He is and what He has done and is doing today.
Now we consider what it means that Jesus Christ functions as the Great High Priest, for His new covenant people. Scripture, especially the book of Hebrews, is really a tour de force on the priesthood of Jesus.
First, we need to understand the requirements of priesthood.
We should label the requirements of priesthood under two headings. First, there are the absolute requirements, which all true priests of God must always meet – Old Covenant priests and believers The second category of priestly requirements are covenantal requirements – old and new covenants.
Let’s start with the absolute requirements. The first requirement is priests must be human beings. Hebrews 2:17 says, “Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God.” Because of sin, people cannot come into God’s presence on their own. We need a mediator – a human person – who can represent us before God. The Son of God thus had to become flesh, so He could be our great High Priest and represent us before God.
We see here the importance of the incarnation. If the Son of God had not entered our world as a man, we could never have been saved. We would have no one to represent us before God, who would have only spoken words of judgment without the incarnation.
The second requirement is a priest must be appointed and called by God. Hebrews 5 brings this point out clearly. In Hebrews 5:1, we see that a priest represents men in God’s presence – but he does not do this on his own; rather he is appointed. Hebrews 5:5 makes it plain that Jesus meets this requirement. The Father appointed the Son to be our high priest.
The last absolute requirement of all priests is their faithfulness to God. Hebrews 3:1-2 says, “… consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession; He was faithful to Him who appointed Him…” God appointed Jesus, who faithfully fulfilled His charge as high priest.
Now, what about old versus new covenant? There are four contrasts to see the superiority of Christ’s priesthood compared to the old covenant priests, demonstrating how believers are heirs of a much better covenant.
First, there is the contrast of physical versus powerful.
Read More
Related Posts: