Written by Jon D. Payne |
Monday, June 20, 2022
The temptation for the church to broker God’s truth for the sake of ecclesiastical unity and cultural acceptance is a perennial one. The evangelical world has already made that deal. It’s disgraceful. But we must not! My fellow elders in the Presbyterian Church in America, we must firmly resist the temptation to negotiate biblical fidelity and confessional integrity. The erosion of orthodoxy often begins with the pursuit of counterfeit unity.[6] True unity, however, is always founded upon the unadulterated truth of Scripture.

The book of Hebrews is full of strong exhortations and sobering warnings for the Church throughout the ages.[1] It was originally written to encourage first-century Jewish Christians not to abandon gospel orthodoxy. It was a call to resist the seductive enticements of religious and cultural syncretism. This urgent message to persevere in the truth — no matter what — is a profoundly relevant one for our current cultural moment. It is a remarkably fitting word for the Presbyterian Church in America, as we gather together in Birmingham for the 49th General Assembly.
Resist the Via Media
Intense cultural pressure and religious persecution made life difficult for Jewish believers in the first century. Being a Christian was never easy. Sometimes the biggest threats to the peace, purity, and unity of the church came from parties within the church. The same challenges were true for the great cloud of witnesses who preceded them— those resolute believers “of whom the world was not worthy.”[2]
Faithfulness to Christ was an arduous and costly road for the Hebrew Christians. Consequently, the temptation to compromise and negotiate the truth was ever before them. The satanic invitation to accommodate doctrinal error, syncretize truth with falsehood, and even apostatize, could at times be palpable. Christian profession meant persecution on some level.[3] There was a very real possibility of social, economic, and physical hardship for those who devoted themselves to Jesus Christ and His objective truth.
There was also a temptation for these early Christians to grow discouraged with the conflict and division within the Church. For the sake of peace and unity, some attempted to forge a theological via media, seeking to amalgamate old covenant shadows with new covenant realities.[4] The move to foster a middle-way with those who taught doctrinal error, however, would only eclipse the glory of the heavenly High Priesthood of Christ, subvert the true gospel, and sabotage the Church’s mission. Therefore, God’s people were admonished in the book of Hebrews not to explore third-way options for the sake of religious respectability, cultural approval, or peace in the church. Rather, they were exhorted to persevere in God’s way, to “hold fast the confession of [their] hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.”[5]
The temptation for the church to broker God’s truth for the sake of ecclesiastical unity and cultural acceptance is a perennial one. The evangelical world has already made that deal. It’s disgraceful. But we must not! My fellow elders in the Presbyterian Church in America, we must firmly resist the temptation to negotiate biblical fidelity and confessional integrity. The erosion of orthodoxy often begins with the pursuit of counterfeit unity.[6] True unity, however, is always founded upon the unadulterated truth of Scripture.
Lift Your Drooping Hands | Hebrews 12:12-17
In God’s providence, my devotions have recently been in the book of Hebrews. It’s a theological treasure, rich with gospel truth — a ravishing portrait of the preeminence of Christ and His all-sufficient mediatorial work. The church would do well to become more familiar with it. After reading Hebrews 12:12-17, and the corresponding commentary in John Owen’s works, it strongly occurred to me that the passage is an especially relevant word for our current moment in the PCA.
Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears. ~ Heb. 12:12-17
The author or preacher of Hebrews is fully aware of the church’s problems. He understands that there are deadly diseases plaguing the body of Christ. Rather than ignore or dismiss the spiritual contagions, however, he confronts them head-on. He doesn’t want them to take root and spread. He is a faithful pastor. He loves the church. John Owen writes:
It is the duty of all faithful ministers of the gospel to consider diligently what failures and temptations their flocks are liable or exposed unto, so as to apply suitable means for their perseveration.[7]
In this section of Hebrews, the church is being exhorted and admonished through powerful metaphors; that is, metaphors related to his athletic metaphor at the outset of the chapter.
Therefore … let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us (12:1)
The preacher compares the Christian life to a race, and his athletics metaphor resumes in verses 12-14 when he exhorts God’s people to “lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather healed.” In other words, he is urging the church to be roused from its spiritual lameness, due to doctrinal compromise, and to return to the straight paths of Christian truth and practice. He urges them to “be healed” before they are “put out of joint”, and it’s too late to recover.
Some in the church were like distance runners who had wandered off course. They were lost, slumped over with spiritual exhaustion, hands hanging down, and knees devoid of strength. They were unsteady, accommodating error for the sake of unity and peace. Owen explains that by the preacher’s words
“that which is lame,” the apostle peculiarly intends those that would retain the [Jewish] ceremonies and worship together with the doctrine of the gospel. For hereby they were made weak and infirm in their profession, as being defective in light, resolution, and steadiness; as also, seemed to halt between two opinions, as the Israelites of old between Jehovah and Baal. This was that which was lame at that time among these Hebrews. And it may, by analogy, be extended unto all those who are under the power of such vicious habits, inclinations, or neglects, as weaken and hinder men in their spiritual progress.[8]
Dear fellow PCA elders, shouldn’t we be compelled to ask— In what ways might we, as a denomination, be “made weak and infirm in [our] profession, as being defective in light, resolution, and steadiness?” I would argue that the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) accommodation of certain aspects of the current moral revolution has made us “weak and infirm” and is close to putting us “out of joint.” The accommodation of particular facets of the cultural revolution is the biggest threat to the spiritual health and future viability of our denomination.[9]
The moral revolution has overwhelmed western civilization, and is especially manifested in the LGBTQ+ and critical social justice movements.[10] Intersectionality is the new reigning religion in the West, and her prophets, priests, and rulers are seated on the highest thrones of earthly power. The evidence of the moral revolution is ubiquitous. Sadly, this insidious revolution has found a foothold in a growing number of our churches, presbyteries, agencies, and ministries through side B gay Christianity/Revoice, and critical social justice (It gives me absolutely no pleasure to express it. I wish it wasn’t true). What is, perhaps, even more concerning than the ministers who positively and publicly affirm aspects of these false ideologies, are those who quietly acquiesce to them, reluctantly accepting error without protest. This quiet acquiescence is a spiritual cancer to ministers, and to denominations. Owen is right: “A hesitation or doubtfulness in or about important doctrines of truth, will make men lame, weak, and infirm in their profession.”[11] Therefore, there must be no hesitation as it concerns the sufficiency of the gospel, and the divinely appointed means of grace, for the discipleship and mission of the church. We don’t need side B or CRT. In fact, no one needs it. We have the gospel— the power of God unto salvation for all who believe (Rom. 1:16; I Cor. 1:18)!
Read More

[1] The author refers to his epistle as “a word of exhortation” in Hebrews 13:22.
[2] See Hebrews 11:1 – 12:2.
[3] “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” II Timothy 3:12
[4] See Hebrews 8:1-6; 10:1-39
[5] Hebrews 10:23; c.f. 3:6; 4:14; 6:18.
[6] Counterfeit unity is a pseudo unity created by mixing truth with error for the sake of peace. Ironically, it’s a “unity” that eventually leads to deeper and more permanent division.
[7] John Owen, Commentary on Hebrews, Works, vol. xxiii (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991; first published 1684) p. 277.
[8] Ibid., 283.
[9] This is true for all denominations.
[10] Two recommended primers on these issues are Carl Trueman’s Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution (Crossway, 2022), and Thaddeus Williams’ Confronting Injustice without Compromising Truth: 12 Questions Christians Should Ask About Social Justice (Zondervan Academic, 2020).
[11] Ibid., 283.
Related Posts:

The Descent ranks as one of the most subversive texts in human history. Darwin brands the view that man’s origin can never be known—that is, that it might lie beyond the reach of the human intellect to explain—as the product of ignorance, and he sets about showing that it is a problem that can be solved by science.
To say that man’s origin is explicable in scientific terms is truly a radical claim. Whatever it is that makes human beings distinct—our apposable thumbs, upright posture, and complex speech mechanism, as well as our literature, philosophy, and sacred texts—can be explained by the very same forces that shaped blue-green algae.
Human beings, in other words, are solely and entirely the products of natural forces. With a few strokes of a pen, Darwin lays the groundwork for the disenchantment of human nature and human affairs. For example, he opens chapter two of the first volume by declaring his intention to show that “there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in mental faculties.”
In sharp contrast to the Cartesian account of non-human animals as automata, Darwin declares it indubitable that non-human animals “feel pleasure and pain, happiness and misery.” Animals dream, dogs love their masters, and even insects play together. He even goes so far as to assert that “All animals feel wonder, and many exhibit curiosity.”
The subversive impact of these assertions lies not in the notion that many supposedly exclusively human traits are far from unique, but rather that these traits are not so remarkable as we suppose because they are the product of forces that natural science can describe and explain. To repeat, we are what we are, Darwin asserts, entirely by virtue of natural forces.
One of the longest-running debates in western thought concerns the relationship between the lower and higher. The Book of Genesis, Plato, and Augustine all posit that the lower can only be explained in terms of the higher. Darwin, by contrast, locates himself in the camp of thinkers such as Marx and Freud in arguing that the higher can and must be accounted for in terms of the lower.
In the Bible, for example, creation is often understood as a story of divine love. The world rests not so much on a foundation of matter in motion or laws governing the behavior of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles, but on stories of how love brings the world into being and helps it to reach its full fruition. Action and reaction are less fundamental than adoration.
In Darwin, by contrast, the key ingredients for the world as we know it are scarcity, competition, and the struggle to survive and reproduce. The weak and infirm are continually culled out, as the forces of nature select for the best adapted among organisms. In Tennyson’s formulation, we are the perfectly natural byproducts of a pitiless nature “red in tooth and claw.”
Read More

Written by A.W. Workman |
Thursday, January 12, 2023
Preachers and authors, let’s make sure we ground our definitions in the only inspired source of eternal meaning we have, God’s word. This could often be as simple as an extra sentence or two. “The definition we just read fits well with how the Bible uses this term, as we see illustrated in this passage in…” or, “I like the Latin roots of this word because they echo so well with how the biblical authors use it, for example…” A small step toward a deeper grounding will help us communicate meaning that is eternal, and not that which is a mere snapshot of an imperfect language tradition. It matters how the English and the Romans defined things. It matters infinitely more how God does.

Preachers and authors do it all the time. They quote the English definition of a word or refer to its linguistic roots as a way to ground their argument, to establish the meaning of a term or concept. Then they move on, seemingly convinced that they have offered up enough evidence for their audience to trust that they are indeed communicating the true sense of that term. What is not often realized is that, for the Christian, this kind of appeal to the dictionary or history is actually an inadequate grounding.
Perhaps a sermon is being delivered on Isaiah 40:1, “Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.” The preacher focuses on the meaning of comfort in his introduction to his sermon idea. To do this, he quotes Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, which defines the verb comfort as:

to give strength or hope to: cheer
to ease the grief or trouble of: console

The preacher then takes this meaning of comfort, summarizes what comfort means according to the definitions he’s just read, and then gives his main point: Our God gives strength and hope to his people through his promises of salvation.
Or, perhaps a Christian counselor is writing a book on grief and to establish what comfort means, he appeals to the Latin roots of the word. In Latin, com meant with, and fortis meant strength. So, the author concludes, comfort means “with strength,” to be with someone in a way that gives them strength.
What’s the problem with these very common ways to establish the meaning of a term or concept? The problem is that this method of establishing meaning has only served to give us what one particular language and culture believed about that concept at a given time. But how do I know that Merriam-Webster English is giving me a true and universal meaning for comfort? Or how can I be sure that the meaning the Romans gave to their words is a faithful witness to what comfort actually is? Why should I trust these snapshots of a language at a particular time over my own personal definition for the term, cobbled together by the thousands of contexts where I have heard and seen that term used?
Unfortunately, any given language is an imperfect witness to eternal truth. A language is limited in its perspective on reality. It “thinks” in a certain way, and this affects how it describes things. This gives each language a unique perspective and voice, but that uniqueness also implies it’s missing a bunch of things that other languages notice. In English I am my age, in Spanish I have my age. If I only speak English, I only think about age in a certain way. But I am missing out on the reality that age is not just something I can be, it is also something I can possess.
Each language is also limited by the kind of vocabulary and grammar it has.
Read More
Related Posts: