Rejection from the world because we teach and preach biblical truth is typical; why do we continue to think that otherwise? While I believe all officers in the PCA affirm this principle intellectually, it seems that some of us experientially may become unsettled by the potential rejection of our faith by the culture around us.

In previous articles we addressed the first two “U”s against Overtures 23 & O37 presented in the  “National Partnership Public Advice for Voting on Overtures 23, 37” (see Part 1, Part 1 continued, and Part 2), specifically the claim that the overtures are unclear and unnecessary. In this article I assess the third basic argument presented against O23 & O37: that the overtures are unloving toward those who struggle with same-sex attraction (SSA). The National Partnership (PA) Advice for Voting opens and closes with two primary concerns. First, how the world outside the PCA will respond to O23 & O37, and second, how SSA strugglers within the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) will respond to O23 & O37.
Under this second primary concern I will highlight a number of public statements made by Dr. Greg Johnson, pastor of Memorial PCA in St. Louis, who is arguably the most vocal opponent of O23 & O37. My comments are not assessing his Christian character, not discounting the grace of God which is evident in his life of celibacy, or mischaracterizing his theological formulations. Doing so would be unnecessary and inappropriate. Instead, my comments are intended to demonstrate that frank and sincere disagreement and Christian love are not mutually exclusive. In this present debate before the PCA, we can take issue with an adversary’s rhetoric without being accused of holding to a “harsh and adversarial fundamentalism,” that, unfortunately, has been attributed to some in the PCA.[1] May God grant us all the ability to disagree with grace and humility.
Concern #1 The Response of the Unbelieving World
In the second sentence of the PA, the writers mention the Washington Times as being among the publications that “struggled to interpret O23 (BCO 16-4) and O37 (BCO 21, 24).” [2] In an age when journalistic integrity and objectivity are circling the drain, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the writer engaged in virtually no interpretation but simply recounted the events of General Assembly (GA) and cited various perspectives on the outcome.[3] The only “struggle” that I could identify was found in the title itself, “Gay men not qualified for ministry, Presbyterian Church in America votes.” Admittedly, the title could have been clearer. At face value, the title could give the impression the PCA had a standing practice of ordaining practicing homosexuals and that the 48th GA voted to do so no longer or that any person who admits to struggling with homosexual desires at all was automatically disqualified by these overtures.
So yes, the article’s title is confusing and subject to misunderstanding but is this necessarily the fault of O23 & O37 as the PA insinuates or is it possible that the reporter simply chose an unclear title for his article? By extension, should the PCA shoulder the blame any and every time a secular news outlet misinterprets or misrepresents the teachings and rulings of our denomination? The answer must be “No.”
Kellner’s article was by no means a tongue lashing and the concern surrounding it feels overblown. But, what if it had been a tongue lashing? What if Kellner did interpret O23 & O37 in the worst light possible and took the PCA behind the woodshed for its “homophobic crusade against SSA strugglers?” Would such strong pushback from a secular news outlet be clear proof that the GA failed to love SSA individuals by voting in favor of O23 & O37? No, in fact, it would be yet another realization of what the Apostle Paul said will ordinarily result when the Church faithfully proclaims the gospel of Christ—opposition.
Paul reminded believers in the church of Corinth, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14). The very meat and marrow of our message, the cross of Christ, “is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor 1:18). We are not to expect the unbelieving world to apprehend or appreciate the spiritual truths we confess, no matter how clearly and carefully we communicate them. For spiritual truth to be understood rightly one needs to be spiritually discerning, and for one to be spiritually discerning he needs to be regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 3:3, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God”). Without this sovereign intervention of God’s Holy Spirit in the heart and life of sinners, faithful Christians will, in fact, come off as “a fragrance from death to death” to those who are perishing (2 Cor 2:15, 16).
Be that as it may, we are not to use the above passages as license to be as obnoxious or offensive as we please. The gospel by its very nature is already offensive to unbelievers; it is contrary to the world system and the two systems clash every time they meet (Eph 2:1-5). Indeed, Christians should be mindful of the manner in which they communicate the gospel. I’ve personally found it a helpful and humbling exercise when reflecting on an evangelistic conversation, to ask myself, “Did my tone communicate concern or contempt for the person to whom I was speaking? Were my words intended to heal or to hurt my neighbor? Was my neighbor offended by me or by the gospel?” Such self-reflection can be painful, but essential to effective gospel engagement.
Yet, as true as this is, we must not let the unbelieving world’s feelings about our message become the standard by which we measure the faithfulness of our witness. Consider the prophets (Matt 23:37), Christ himself (John 1:9-11), and the warning that Christ gave his disciples in the Upper Room Discourse:
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 14:18-20).
We are not greater than our Master and so we should not expect a warmer reception from the world than Christ received himself. Rejection from the world because we teach and preach biblical truth is typical; why do we continue to think that otherwise? While I believe all officers in the PCA affirm this principle intellectually, it seems that some of us experientially may become unsettled by the potential rejection of our faith by the culture around us. At times, when our commitment to biblical truth is misunderstood by those living in darkness, it may result in losing book deals, or followers on Twitter, or forfeiting a seat at the table with cultural thought leaders. But when compared to the unfading glory and the riches of the gospel, we should consider all these earthly, fading treasures as rubbish. God’s approval is infinitely more valuable than the approval of man.
Concern #2 The Response Among SSA Strugglers Within the PCA
In the final paragraph of the PA, the writers argue, “These overtures will be heard and read by many faithful same-sex attracted congregants in ways that will make them feel more alone and isolated in our congregations.” This possibility should be taken very seriously by every shepherd in the PCA; it is an outcome that we want to avoid at all costs. And such a reading is indeed avoidable if ministers and elders in the PCA would accurately represent the spirit of the O23 & O37 and display their substantial agreement with the Ad Inerim Committee Report on Human Sexuality (AIC). In step with the AIC, neither overture automatically disqualifies a man who struggles with SSA from pursuing ordination in the PCA (see O23). Neither O23 nor O37 single out or “isolate” homosexuality or the attraction to members of the same sex as though they were unpardonable sins.[4] Like all the other sins listed in O37, if a candidate who confesses to struggle with SSA can demonstrate that his life is not dominated or by his sin, and that he is living an exemplary life of holiness through the power of the Spirit, then there is nothing stopping him from serving as a deacon or elder in good standing in the PCA. What SSA member of our congregations wouldn’t be encouraged by this? O23 & O37 cut through any confusion that may have been hanging over the heads of SSA strugglers in the PCA for years, “Can I live a life of holiness that is pleasing to God though I still struggle with this particular sin?” O23 & O37’s answer is a resounding “Yes.”
However, this positive perspective has been largely ignored by those who oppose O23 & O37. In fact, though they accuse their opponents of “fear mongering,” marching to the “drumbeat of fear,” and resorting to “Humpty Dumpty verbicide,” these same men have likely produced tremendous angst within SSA strugglers with their inflammatory language.[5] If Greg Johnson and David Cassidy so object to being called theological “liberals” on the grounds that it is untrue and uncharitable, then why do they continue to refer to those who disagree with them as “fundamentalists” and “pietistic Southern moralists” when this, too, is patently untrue and unloving?[6] If you are going to call on your brothers to love and assume the best of you, then please be consistent and extend the same love toward your brothers. If “liberalism” is off the table, then “fundamentalist” should be, too.
And this gets us to the heart of the issue—who or what determines whether our words are loving or unloving? The ultimate standard must be the objective truth of God’s Word (John 17:17). Whatever is prejudicial to truth is, by nature, unloving. We hate our neighbor when we lie or conceal the truth from him. Speaking the truth is a must, but it is only half of what we must do. Paul calls on believers to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). But this brings us back to the original question, “Who gets to decide whether my words are loving or not?” According to Greg Johnson, love is determined primarily by the ear and feelings of the listener and not the mouth or heart of the speaker. In a tweet published on July 16, 2021, Dr. Johnson wrote:
Dear pastors and elders. No matter how well intended, I’m rather afraid that your words are not always heard the way you think. Here, let me translate. (If you’d like to educate yourself, you can start here: http://stilltimetocare.com)

“You shouldn’t identify with your sin” = “Get back in your closet”
“Your identity is in Christ” = “Fake it ’til you make it”
“God won’t leave you there” = “You haven’t tried/prayed/believed hard enough”
“You’re minimizing the power of the gospel to change you” = “You’re unbelieving”
“You can’t be gay and be a Christian” = “You are not saved”

In effect, Dr. Johnson’s tweet leaves virtually no possibility for a well-intentioned brother in the Lord to disagree with him or Side B Gay Christianity without inflicting emotional damage in the process. The tweet leaves the speaker with no words, no possibility of mutually beneficial dialogue. And because the hearer will inevitably hear “get back in your closet” or “fake it ’til you make it,” when we use the above language, it seems that we are left to conclude only the following: we must stop critiquing Side B Gay Christianity altogether lest we offend the SSA struggler and thereby be guilty of failing to love our neighbor. Far from a meaningful contribution to the furtherance of peace and unity in our denomination, Johnson’s comments read like a gag order to silence all objections. Such rhetoric only compounds our problems.
Dr. R. Scott Clark noted in an insightful blogpost on the above tweet,
“The receiver of the message is also morally bound to do his best to interpret the message sent in the way the sender intended…Where the receiver simply refuses to fulfill his part in the process, communication necessarily breaks down. This refusal is known as bad faith. Just as the sender is obligated to communicate in a way that can be understood by rational people…so the receiver is obligated to act in good faith by seeking to interpret the message as intended.”[7]
So long as the speaker is tuned to the frequency of biblical truth, clarity, and Christian love, any breakdown in communication is the sole responsibility of the hearer who refuses to tune to that same frequency. As I read Johnson’s tweet, the words of Heidelberg Catechism 112 came to mind,
“What is required in the ninth commandment? A: That I bear false witness against no one; wrest no one’s words; be no backbiter, or slanderer; join in condemning no one unheard and rashly.”
In my mind, the text that settles the issue over love as it relates to speech is Mark 10:17-22. Mark’s account highlights the heart of our Savior toward the rich young ruler:
“And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, ‘You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.’ Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.”
Should Jesus have been more careful with the words he spoke? Was he somehow at fault for the rich young ruler’s rejection of his exhortation to mortify his besetting sin of materialism? If the hearer has the final say on what is and is not loving, then we must conclude that Jesus didn’t really love the young man as Scripture claims he did. It is crucial that we do not allow crooked, sinful man to be the plumbline of truth and love.
Finally, Scripture teaches elsewhere that frank reasoning among Christians is not contrary to, but a genuine expression of, brotherly love. Often, when people cite the Golden Rule from Leviticus 19:19, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” they isolate these words from those that immediately precede. Beginning in verse 17, God said to Moses:
“You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.”
According to Scripture, remaining silent while a prominent voice in our denomination continues to align with the troublesome Revoice conference would be a form of hatred. Failing to speak the truth to him and those who follow him would be cruel. This is why I, and countless others, have reasoned as frankly as we have online, out of love for a brother in Christ and love for those sheep who look to him and to us all as their shepherds. It is my sincere hope that my brothers in the PCA will receive my writing in the spirit that it was intended: love for Christ and love for his church.
Stephen Spinnenweber is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Westminster PCA in Jacksonville, Fla.

[1]https://www.semperref.org/articles/the-gay-threat-to-the-pca
[2]https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jul/2/gay-men-not-qualified-ministry-presbyterian-church/
[3] Kellner is the Faith & Family reporter for the Washington Times. Previously, Kellner served as News Assistant Director and News Editor for the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. From what I gather I assume him to be a sincere brother in the Lord.
[4] Some have argued that O23 does, in fact, single out SSA strugglers because it only mentions those identities by name that refer to homosexual sin. However, the language of the overture indicates that there are other identities that could undermine one’s identity in Christ (such as, but not limited to, “gay Christian,” “same sex attracted Christian,” “homosexual Christian,” or like terms) and furthermore, no one is presently identifying themselves as “child abusing Christians” or “racist Christians” and so it would be superfluous to include these in the wording of the overture.
[5]https://www.davidpcassidy.com/blog/pca-at-the-crossroads
[6] Add my name to the list of those who object to anyone being called a theological liberal. There are no liberals in the PCA and such language is uncalled for. Though Dr. Johnson did not say “pietistic Southern moralists” but “pietistic Southern Moralism” in his July 2, 2021 tweet, I agree with Dr. Carl Trueman who wrote on Ref 21, “If someone claims that pietistic moralism is attacking the Reformed faith, as exemplified by the PCA GA decisions, then it is not misrepresenting that person to portray them as claiming that pietistic moralists are attacking the Reformed faith, as exemplified in the PCA GA decisions.” Full article: https://www.reformation21.org/blog/a-friendly-correspondence
[7]https://heidelblog.net/2021/07/this-a-trap/

Written by Daniel B. Miller |
Monday, December 27, 2021
Rooted in Romans 8:13, Owen contends that the only true means of mortification is the Holy Spirit. He writes, “He only is sufficient for this work; all ways and means without him are as a thing of naught; and he is the great efficient of it, he works in us as he pleases.” This truth is paramount to understanding Owen’s conception of mortification. While it is true to say that mortification is something that we do, it is more accurate to say that mortification is something that is done in us. Mortification is worked in us by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Read Part 1
Owen, in the opening chapter of his work The Mortification of Sin states that, “The vigor, and power, and comfort of our spiritual life depends on the mortification of the deeds of the flesh.”[19] Owen’s goal for this work, according to Andrew Thompson, was to, “Escape from the region of public debate and to provide something of general use” for the people of his day.[20]
The Mortification of Sin, then, is a deeply practical and useful devotional work rather than an academic and polemical tome. The textual focus of this work is Romans 8:13, “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” In this verse Owen finds both the necessity and the means of mortification. The necessity of mortification is found in the fact that to continue to live according to the flesh leads to spiritual death. As Owen puts it, “Be killing sin or it will be killing you.”[21]
The means of mortification is found in the fact that it is by the Spirit alone that deeds of the body are put to death. In Owen’s words, “Not to be daily employing the Spirit and new nature for the mortifying of sin, is to neglect that excellent succor which God hath given us against our greatest enemy.”[22] We will deal with these two aspects of mortification in turn.
The Necessity of Mortification
Owen writes in his chapter on the necessity of mortification, “There is not a day but sin foils or is foiled, prevails or is prevailed on; and it will be so whilst we live in this world.”[23] For the Christian, the necessity of mortification, of killing sin, is founded in the fact that our enemy never sleeps and never grows weary. As Owen goes on, “there is no safety against it but in a constant warfare.”[24] The Christian life is one of this constant warfare, because the battle is always raging in our hearts. As we have already established, this battle is between the law of sin and the law of the Spirit. We do not fight in the hope to win the ultimate victory, but because we know that the ultimate victory has been won by Jesus Christ.
Now, what does it mean that sin does not grow weary in its warfare? It means that it does not rest until it has captured our whole heart and led us into the most grievous sin.  As Owen writes, “Sin aims always at the utmost; every time it rises up to tempt or entice, might it have its own course, it would go out to the utmost sin in that kind. Every unclean thought or glance would be adultery if it could; every covetous desire would be oppression, every thought of unbelief would be atheism, might it grow to its head.”[25]
This is the warning to the Christian that is one of the bases of the necessity of mortification: sin will destroy all of us if we do not mortify it by the Spirit. As Owen goes on, “When poor creatures will take blow after blow, wound after wound, foil after foil, and never rouse themselves to a vigorous opposition, can they expect anything but to be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin, and that their souls should bleed to death?”[26] Neglect of mortification is neglect of the soul. For the Christian, the mortification of sin is necessary because sin does not grow weary and will have all of them if it can.
Mortification is necessary for both negative positive reasons. As we have seen, it is necessary to avoid the negative consequences unmortified sin. But mortification is also necessary to achieve the positive vision that God has set forth for his people in his Word. As Owen writes, “It is our duty to be perfecting holiness in the fear of God, to be growing in grace every day, to be renewing our inward man day by day. Now this cannot be done without the daily mortifying of sin. Sin sets its strength against every act of holiness.”[27]
God has set apart a people for himself by the blood of Christ. Those people, his church, are called to pursue holiness, to grow in grace, and to live lives that are set apart for God. This positive vision for the Christian life, the pursuit of God, is impossible without the identification and mortification of indwelling sin. So even as the Christian pursues mortification to avoid being overtaken and destroyed, the Christian should pursue mortification with the goal of living a life set apart for God, a life of thanksgiving and holiness.
The Means of Mortification  
Rooted in Romans 8:13, Owen contends that the only true means of mortification is the Holy Spirit. He writes, “He only is sufficient for this work; all ways and means without him are as a thing of naught; and he is the great efficient of it, he works in us as he pleases.”[28] This truth is paramount to understanding Owen’s conception of mortification. While it is true to say that mortification is something that we do, it is more accurate to say that mortification is something that is done in us. Mortification is worked in us by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Owen establishes this point in contrast to a Catholic understanding of mortification. In this, we see the Reformed and Protestant nature of Owen’s theology of indwelling sin. He writes, “The greatest part of popish religion, of that which looks most like religion in their profession, consists in mistaken ways and means of mortification.”[29]
Why is the Catholic understanding of mortification mistaken? According to Owen, “Because those things that appointed of God as means are not used by them in their due place and order – such as are praying fasting, watching, meditation, and the like. These have their use in the business at hand; but whereas they are all to be looked on as streams, they look on them as the fountain.”[30]
For Owen, Catholic mortification is mistaken because it looks at the streams of mortification as the fountain. This is to say that the Holy Spirit does indeed work through secondary means (such as prayer, fasting, and meditation) but these secondary means are never to be understood as the primary means. Prayer, fasting, and meditation are nothing in themselves if not empowered by the Holy Spirit and by faith.
According to Owen, these duties, done in themselves do nothing but subdue the flesh, leaving sin unharmed. He writes, “Attempting rigid mortification, they fell upon the natural man instead of the corrupt old man, upon the body wherein we live instead of the body of death.”[31] This rigid mortification refers to the ascetic practices common to the monastic movement and broader Catholicism.
The point that Owen is trying to make with this statement is that ascetic practices, while they can be helpful, will only ever mortify the body if done in themselves. One can train themselves to abstain from sexual pleasure but leave the sin of lust unmortified. One can train themselves to go without food but leave the sin of gluttony unmortified. This leaves the Christian in a tragic state. As Owen writes,
“Men are galled with the guilt of sin that hath prevailed over them; they instantly promise to themselves and God that they will do so no more; they watch over themselves, and pray for season, until this heat waxes cold, and the sense of sin is worn off; and so mortification goes also, and sin returns to its former dominion. Duties are excellent food for the unhealthy soul; but they are no medicine for a sick soul. He that turns his meat into his medicine must expect no great operation.”[32]
The tragic state of the Christian left to themselves is that none of their duties can avail them mortification. As Owen goes on, “A soul under the power of conviction from the law is pressed to fight against sin, but hath no strength for the combat.”[33] The Christian is totally dependent on the power of the Holy Spirit for the mortification of sin.
Owen gives us two reasons why mortification is the work of the Holy Spirit.
First, because he is the one who God promised in Ezekiel would be given to us to take away the heart of stone and to give us a heart of flesh.[34] This is the eschatological hope of Scripture, referenced by Owen in Indwelling Sin in Believers, that God would place his law in our hearts and would give us a new heart so that we may worship and obey him rightly. This is the work of the Holy Spirit.
Second, he writes, “We have all our mortification from the gift of Christ, and all the gifts of Christ are communicated to us and given us by the Spirit of Christ.”[35] This means that our mortification must be from the Holy Spirit because it is he who communicates to us what Christ has won for us. And mortification was won for us by the merits of Christ.[36]
How does the Holy Spirit work mortification in us?
First, he renews us and causes us to abound in grace and the fruits that are contrary to the law of sin. Owen cites Galatians 5:22-24 in support of this. It reads: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” The Holy Spirit causes these fruits, which are contrary to the law of sin (the flesh), to abound in our hearts so that that the power of sin is weakened. As Owen explains, “This renewing of us by the Holy Ghost, as it is called, is one great way of mortification; he causes us to grow, thrive, flourish, and abound in those graces which are contrary, opposite, and destructive to all the fruits of the flesh.”[37]
Second, the Holy Spirit drives our lusts and sins out of our heart. As Owen points out, in Isaiah 4:4 he is called a Spirit of judgement and burning which “washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem”.[38]
Finally, the Holy Spirit, according to Owen, “Brings the cross of Christ into the heart of a sinner by faith, and gives us communion with Christ in his death and fellowship in his sufferings.”[39]
Owen makes a point here that is essential to understanding his conception of the Gospel, the Trinity, and the order of salvation. For Owen, and many other Protestant reformers, the Holy Spirit is the person of the Trinity who applies to the heart of the believer the accomplishments of Christ.
In Christ we are justified and made righteous by his perfect life, innocent death, and resurrection. By the Spirit we are born again, given the gifts of faith and repentance, and given the seal of God’s presence in our hearts. This understanding of the Father as the author of our salvation, the Son as the accomplisher of our salvation, and the Holy Spirit as the one who applies our salvation is one of key truths which springs from Sola Gratia and Sola Christus Reformation theology.
So, if the question is: is the mortification of each and every sin possible? The answer, Scripturally, is a deep and resounding yes! And the answer is yes because of the Spirit of Christ.
One might ask: why we are commanded in Romans 8:13 to mortify our sin if it is the Holy Spirit who does this work in us? Owen’s answer to this question is rooted in Philippians 2:12-13, in which Paul instructs us to, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”
The Holy Spirit, according to Owen, “Works in us and upon us…so as to preserve our own liberty and free obedience…he works in us and with us, not against us or without us; so that his assistance is an encouragement as to the facilitating of the work, and no occasion of neglect as to the work itself.”[40] So, even as we work at mortification, in obedience and faith, God by his Spirit is working, helping, and empowering our every energy and effort.
There are several activities that aid in the mortification of sin that Owen reviews in his work:

First, the Christian should consider and meditate deeply on both the holiness of God and the wickedness of their own sin. Owen explains, “Be much in thoughtfulness of the excellency of the majesty of God and thine infinite, inconceivable distance from him. Many thoughts of it cannot but fill thee with a sense of thine own vileness, which strikes deep at the root of any indwelling sin.”[41] This activity is one that should bring the Christian into a state of humility, of dependence on God, and of hatred for their indwelling sin. It is only when we are made low and our sin is hated as our enemy that we are open to receive the Gospel work of Spirit-wrought mortification.

Second, the Christian should set their faith in Christ and his merits for the mortification of their sin. Owen explains, “Set faith at work on Christ for the killing of thy sin. His blood is the great sovereign remedy for sin-sick souls. Live in this, and thou wilt die a conqueror; yes, thou wilt, through the good providence of God, live to see thy lust dead at thy feet.”[42] This act of faith brings us into a position of dependence on Christ and calls us to consider all the provision for mortification given to us in Christ. In faith, as Owen writes, the Christian should, “Raise up thy heart by faith to an expectation of relief from Christ.”[43] This position of humility, faith, and dependence is the ground on which the Holy Spirit pours his life-giving water. Through these Spirit-empowered activities, by prayer and petition, the mortification of indwelling sin is worked.

Daniel B Miller is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Assistant Pastor at First PCA in Lansing, IL. This article is used permission.

Bibliography 
Owen, John. Indwelling Sin in Believers. Reprint edition. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2010.
———. The Mortification of Sin. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012.
Thomson, Andrew. John Owen: Prince of Puritans. Christian Focus Publications, 2016.
Footnotes:
[19] John Owen, The Mortification of Sin (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012), 13
[20] Thomson, John Owen, 79.
[21] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 14.
[22] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 18.
[23] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 17.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 17.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 23.
[29] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 24.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 25.
[32] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 25.
[33] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 28.
[34] Ibid., See also Ezekiel 11:19, 36:26
[35] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 26.
[36] Acts 5:31
[37] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 27.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 28.
[41] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 87.
[42] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 107.
[43] Owen, The Mortification of Sin, 108.

First, winsomeness is not a political strategy. We do not seek to be kind and gentle merely as a strategy for winning over our neighbors to our point of view. We seek these characteristics because our Lord commands and exemplifies them. Kindness is a fruit of the spirit. Secondly, in different seasons of cultural change, the church can and should shift its public posture.

Something has changed in the air of evangelicalism in recent years. Once-aspirational words like “winsome” and “thoughtful” or descriptors like “nuanced” and “kind” now trigger an attitude of dismissiveness and sneering from many on the right.
For some, these words describe a mindset too focused on currying favor with the world. It’s too accommodating to engage in this way with the “cultural elites” whose leftward politics wreak havoc in society. The “winsome” may have good intentions, according to this view, but their attitude and actions demonstrate an extraordinary naïveté in relation to politics and cultural change.
How did we get to the point where some Christians spurn civility? In my previous column, I offered a brief look at the rise of a “neo–Religious Right” and explained why some younger evangelicals thirst for a more confrontational approach to engaging the culture. Today, I want to dig a little deeper into the reasons why some have repudiated a more evangelistically front-facing, pastoral posture to culture change and now call for a more combative, political approach.
Winsomeness Doesn’t Win
Why do words like “nuance” and “winsome” receive sneers from some on the right today? Because the strategies these descriptors represent are seen by many as having failed. Society is changing quickly, and not favorably toward Christianity.
Christians have experienced a rapid shift in which traditional Christianity has been downgraded from respectable to reprehensible. For example, in 2008, Rick Warren prayed at President Obama’s inauguration. Just four years later, Louie Giglio—who shares roughly the same theological framework and approach—was deemed too controversial to do the same. When prominent, well-regarded pastors, such as Max Lucado and Tim Keller, are seen as hateful and bigoted (with Keller even having an award rescinded), how can anyone be so naive to think that “thoughtfulness” or “winsomeness” can earn the right to a hearing?
Younger evangelicals recognize instinctively that no amount of goodwill or winsomeness will create warm feelings among those who claim Christian moral teaching is repressive and harmful. Christians don’t win a hearing by “playing nice.” And so, we’re told, the need of the hour is to be forthright, bold, and confrontational. The culture war is upon us, and we need to stand up and fight.
2 Approaches to Life in Babylon
Although we can spot similarities, we shouldn’t assume younger evangelicals are picking up the same playbook as the old religious right. Unlike our parents and grandparents, most of us agree that we’re in Babylon, not Israel. The difference is in how best to live as exiles in Babylon.
For a generation now, many evangelicals have assumed we’re a moral minority living in a world that is, if not hostile, at least barely tolerant of our views. Over the years, the prophet Jeremiah’s letter to the Babylonian exiles (Jer. 29) has been the go-to text for helping us live faithfully in these times.

“Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their produce. Find wives for yourselves, and have sons and daughters. . . . Pursue the well-being of the city I have deported you to. Pray to the LORD on its behalf, for when it thrives, you will thrive.” (vv. 5–7, CSB)

In other words, remember, Christian, that you are not “at home.”
Read More
Related Posts: