Written by Christopher J. Gordon |
Thursday, June 15, 2023

Christians, be faithful and uncompromising in your witness, even unto death, remembering that Jesus told us to be of good cheer because He has overcome the world. The sexual revolution is no match for Him, for the battle has always belonged to the Lord.

When I first entered the ministry almost twenty years ago, I was a young, idealistic pastor ready to take on the world and to defend the Reformed doctrines of grace. Though I knew that Western culture over the past century was experiencing a radical change in the understanding of what it means to be human and how that plays out in our sexual ethics, I was not prepared for how quickly the sexual revolution would progress. Who of us entering the ministry in the early 2000s was prepared to face a sexual revolution that would overturn the God-ordained institution of marriage between a man and a woman? I felt more equipped to address the challenges that the Reformers faced from those who troubled the church from the inside on the important nuances of soteriology. It did not take long, however, before I as a pastor faced what seemed to be an insurmountable problem: the entire world’s demanding our submission to an unbiblical anthropology.
The Sexual Revolution
Ever since the Obergefell decision in 2015, when gay marriage was legalized in the United States, a flood of assaults have sought to overturn the creational sexual ethic that God established from the beginning for the good of the human race. We can no longer take it for granted that non-Christians around us agree on the basic definition of male and female. Our institutions have embraced concepts such as gender fluidity and call believers to declare their preferred pronouns and accept whatever view of gender is espoused by those around them. This is becoming no less true among historically robust Christian institutions as parents face sending their children to colleges that will actively seek to indoctrinate them with the new sexual libertinism. Homosexual behavior and premarital sex have for some time been normalized in the mainstream consciousness, and there seems to be no question that as we see the continual unraveling of all creational norms and the embrace of things that are contrary to nature, the next wave of sexual deviancy will demand the acceptance of nonmonogamous relationships and bestiality.
To this point, Christians have enjoyed, for the most part, marginal acceptance by society due to legal protections, but if things continue at their current rate, this time will soon be over. Full participation in the workplace and in wider society will require complete submission to whatever are the prevailing ideals of the moral revolution and the proposed reset of all creation norms.

While our freedoms still remain, we have already witnessed in the church a growing temptation to compromise on biblical anthropology and sexual ethics. Many of the ideologies of the culture have already found a place in many quarters of the Christian church in an attempt toward cultural acceptance. Movements such as Side B Christianity have attempted to forge a middle way by adopting an identity in unnatural desire, such as being a gay Christian, so long as the desires are not carried out.

Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Glenn D. Jerrell |
Thursday, July 28, 2022
Good Presbyterianism should be caring because the sheep are cared for with Christ’s love.  Authority with a servant’s heart, as we know, may be used to care and shepherd the people of God for their good; on the other hand, authority can be sinfully wielded and twisted, thus inflicting damage on the sheep.

Introduction
When one is not a commissioner to a General Assembly (GA), the temptation to answer a speech while it is being given is absent because you don’t have the privilege of the floor. Listening to the proceedings at a GA is a true learning experience. That was my situation during the 88th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). It is helpful to sit back and just take it all in. This article contains observations based on certain speeches on Overture 2 and Mike Myers’ two articles (here and here) published in the Aquila Report, as well as some historical reflections.
Overture 2, proposed to the 2022 GA of the OPC by the Presbytery of Ohio, approached abuse with a wide range of considerations that pastors, sessions, congregations, and presbyteries would find helpful in support of their gospel/shepherding ministries.
As an onlooker, it appeared that the opposition to Overture 2 by Mr. Myers and others ended up squandering a full hearing for the GA, the Ohio presbytery, and for themselves. How? The opposition sacrificed a comprehensive study of abuse, trading it for a partial, more limited consideration of the subject and leaving the larger controversy for another day. In the end, a substitute motion replaced the recommendations of the Presbytery of Ohio in Overture 2, which had also been supported by the Advisory Committee that examined the proposed overture. Adoption of the substitute meant that the church did not interact with all the points raised by both the presbytery and Mr. Myers, and further, the lengthy consideration of Overture 2 consumed so much time that important matters from other presbyteries received short shrift.
Mandate 1 of Overture 2I.A.1. Of Overture 2: “Collect, study, and develop resources related to the many forms of abuse that manifest themselves in the church (sexual, domestic, ecclesiastical, verbal, emotional, psychological, etc.).”
The substitute that prevailed squeezed much of the life out of Overture 2. What was adopted certainly needs attention but what the 88th GA adopted eliminated consideration of a wide range of issues our churches are facing today. The church needs help and instruction in recognizing both the spectrum of sins involved in abuse and the too often overlooked need of supporting the victims of abuse. Tragically, some of the concerns in Overture 2 must wait for another day for GA help. The committee the GA established could serve the church well by identifying areas that need further study.
Mandate 2 of Overture 2I.A.2.: “Produce and recommend to the church resources to equip pastors, sessions, and presbyteries to recognize and respond to allegations and and instances of abuse in ways that honor Jesus Christ, comport with the laws of the land, and promote justice for victims and perpetrators.”
Overture 2 was carefully thought out and well written. It shows due diligence. How do we respond to claims of abuse? Do we doubt the accuser? Do we affirm the accuser? Do we take the claim seriously? How do we protect the accuser? And what about the accused? How does the church respond to the accused? Do we believe them? Do we take their claims seriously? We need resources. When an adult says I was sexually molested as a child and I still dream about it, how does the church respond? When do you bring in the police? How do we respond to a congregant who seeks help with a manipulating minister or ruling elder? We need to practice listening. Hearing the stories of abused OPC members, of those who have felt pushed out of the OPC, and of a multitude of other situations, the depth of the problems and the need for instruction becomes clearer and more urgent. What about those who don’t feel safe at a presbytery meeting, or in a local church. These situations exist, they are real life. The Presbytery of Ohio obviously has a passion for pastoring the people of God in a full, rich, and loving way. Perhaps this could become a class for the Ministerial Training Institute of the OPC?
Mandate 3 of Overture 2I.A.3. “Recommend to a future General Assembly, if appropriate, possible amendments to the Book of Church Order that more explicitly address the sin of abuse.”
Yes, there are some changes that might be considered to better serve in a wide array of abuse cases. Our current book provides adequate protection for the accused but what about the accuser? They also need consideration and protection. All need shepherding. What about protections for the victims of sin, that is a man or woman, a boy or girl, those in the pew? The subject matter of Overture 2 must not be forgotten because the OPC needs to address the pastoral questions raised by abuse. “Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them” (Ecc. 4:1 ESV).
The four grounds provided for Overture 2 (see below) provide the rationale for the recommendation of the Presbytery of Ohio.
Mandate B of Overture 2B. “Authorize the committee to invite Christians knowledgeable on the topic of abuse to assist the Committee as non-voting consultants.”
At the Assembly, the above quoted section of Overture 2 sparked a significant amount of controversy. Those in favor of II.B of Overture 2 ended up making a number of speeches during debate, but not as many as the opponents.  An amendment to replace the words “Christians knowledgeable on the topic of abuse” with “North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) officers” failed. But the substitute reveals gaps in biblical thinking. The substitute would have severely restricted who may be consulted. It was asked “will it be required that these Christians hold reformed convictions?” This substitute would have had the effect of failing to consult with
1) Reformed churches around the world;
2) men and women in the OPC holding the general office of believer; and
3) knowledgeable men and women in the church universal.
Does not the “NAPARC officers” amendment contain an implicit assertion that only Reformed Christian officers have contributions to be made on the subject of abuse, and that there are no contributions to be made by non-Christians, thus denying common grace?
The above gaps reflect a less than robustly biblical engagement with God’s people and the world around them. Each of the points above were mentioned in speeches made on the floor. The Assembly listened and the “NAPARC officers” substitute was defeated.
Ground 1 of Overture 2“Allegations and instances of misuse of power of various kinds (commonly termed ‘abuse’) have become increasingly known in our society and in the church. Reports, testimonies, and confessions of abuse raise complex legal, theological, and pastoral issues we cannot minimize, ignore or dismiss.”
The suggestion made that Overture 2 is possibly opening the doors of the OPC to a woke understanding of abuse is baffling.  Where are the signs of the OPC going woke? This suggestion sounds hollow. Is the article questioning whether large areas of the sin of abuse exist? The best way to avoid being accused of following the world is not to ignore issues raised by the world, but to outthink the world on these issues.
Ground 2 of Overture 2“The sins of abuse are expressly forbidden by Scripture and the Westminster Standards. (For example, see 2 Timothy 3:2–5; Jude 7; Exodus 21:15; Deuteronomy 22:25–27; also, WLC 135 and 139) and are especially heinous as they are ‘against the express letter of the law,’ ‘many commandments,’ ‘admit of no reparation,’ often involve various other aggravations (WLC 151); and have devastating and life-long effects on victims (2 Samuel 13:1–22).”
Is there a psychologizing of sin in this overture, especially in II.2 above, as has been suggested by Mr. Myers? The desire of Overture 2 is very plainly to identify abuse as sin and to deal with it biblically. There is no hint of separating abuse from sin. Mr. Myers’s article states, “There seems to be a movement in the church seeking to dislocate abuse from the category of sin.” Overture 2 seeks to deal with abuse as the sin that it is and nothing less.
We should not allow a justified opposition to our culture’s concern about micro-aggression to blind us to the real suffering that God’s people undergo in our fallen world — sometimes even at the hands of those who should be protecting them.
Ground 3 of Overture 2“It is the responsibility of the elders of Christ’s Church to exercise their authority, jointly and severally, to shepherd those under their care by guarding against such sinful behavior; to care for those victimized by the sins of others; and to exercise judicial discipline for such sins in terms of the goals expressed in Book of Discipline I.3.”
Good Presbyterianism should be caring because the sheep are cared for with Christ’s love.  Authority with a servant’s heart, as we know, may be used to care and shepherd the people of God for their good; on the other hand, authority can be sinfully wielded and twisted, thus inflicting damage on the sheep.
Ground 4 of Overture 2“Giving careful study to the complexities and consequences of abuse will help us recognize and remedy gaps in our theology and practice in order that we might more effectively minister to victims of abuse with the hope and consolation of the gospel and more readily confront perpetrators of abuse with the need for repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.”
Are we not to bear the burdens of others? The multiple trials, complaints, and appeals in our assemblies are humbling. Are we informing our consciences with the study of these questions in the light of Scripture? Do we have a sense of rightness that exposes any self-righteousness? We need to discuss these issues in our judicatories to make us aware of the dangers of sin. It needs to be done in a brotherly and loving way without intensity and anger blasting those with whom we disagree and whom we shepherd. Good procedures are a blessing but they are not the purpose of our existence and they are not the gospel. Our imperfections reflected by the issues raised in Overture 2 deserve to be heard in our prayers of confession each Lord’s Day. Where we have fallen short in understanding the complexities and consequences of abuse, we need the assistance of Overture 2 to help us seek to recognize abuse and help those who are the oppressed, the wounded, and the traumatized.
As Rachael Denhollander suggests in a tweet, we need to give “…careful study to the complexities and consequences of abuse….” There are “…incredibly important dynamics to understand with abuse, especially the way abusers wield the trauma they have caused, and the victim’s self-defense to flip the narrative.” There is much about abuse that we do not recognize as fully as we should. We need to be humble and take these things to heart!
ConclusionMuch of the material in this article is gleaned from the minutes of the General Assembly. I did not take time to go through the PSE minutes to document this. Since the issues were given their final appeal at GA and final decisions were made by GA, I thought it best to look at the record from the settled outcome. The most painful reflection that ought to be pursued is not addressed in this paper: do the fissures in the PSE still exist? What is being done to heal the wounds? Answering that goes beyond what I am writing here, but is important to note.
Overture 2 still provides a thorough look at what we need to be learning and thinking about. The Overture remains available for any presbytery, session, individual, or group to use. Although the mandate of the committee has been narrowed, the ideas do not need to be shelved. The real-life questions and stories remain. The PCA has recently completed its own report on the subject of abuse. Both the OPC and the PCA studies will supply some help but both are unduly limited in their approach. Overture 2 is certainly the boldest and best path.
Glenn D Jerrell is a Retired Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC); he is living in Knoxville, Tenn.
Related Posts:

If Christians come to view other Christians as oppressors based solely on their ethnicity or gender, if we exalt lived experience over the Bible, if we see oppression rather than sin as our fundamental problem, and if we see activism rather than Jesus as the fundamental solution, we’ll have deeply undermined this good news. God forbid.

Two weeks ago [04/10/22], David French wrote an article about the battle over Critical Race Theory that has engulfed both our culture and the evangelical church. If you haven’t read it in its entirety, I suggest stopping now and reading it here. Because French cited Dr. Pat Sawyer’s and my Gospel Coalition article “The Incompatibility of Critical Theory and Christianity,” I’d like to offer a few points of agreement/pushback.
Issue #1. The term “Critical Race Theory” is sometimes used extremely broadly and carelessly.
I agree. We can all find pundits and politicians who rail against CRT (or anything else) without apparently understanding what that term signifies other than alignment with their political opponents.
However, French writes that the label “CRT” has been “fundamentally and intentionally changed by conservative activists to encompass an enormous number of arguments and ideas about race, including arguments and ideas that have nothing to do with CRT.” This statement is more questionable, mainly because the category of “CRT” has evolved substantially over the last three decades.
For example in 2001 –long before “CRT” had appeared on the radar of most conservative pundits– CRT cofounder Kimberle Crenshaw wrote: “the name Critical Race Theory [is] used as interchangeably for race scholarship as Kleenex is used for tissue.” Similarly, in their seminal text CRT: An Introduction, Delgado and Stefancic state plainly that “although CRT began as a movement in the law, it has rapidly spread beyond that discipline” (Delgado and Stefancic, CRT: An Introduction, p. 7). They go on to mention education, political science, ethnic studies, sociology, theology, and health care as fields in which critical race theory has taken root (ibid, p. 7-8). Even more recently, the African American Policy Forum –which is led by Crenshaw herself– wrote that “Critical race theory originated in law schools, but over time, professional educators and activists in a host of settings –K-12 teachers, DEI advocates, racial justice and democracy activists, among others– applied CRT to help recognize and eliminate systemic racism.” Consequently, suggesting that conservative activists like Chris Rufo were solely responsible for the broadening of the term “CRT” is incorrect.
That said, when French states that “extreme manifestations of CRT can clash with Christian orthodoxy,” he’s implicitly recognizing that these ideologies are indeed properly included under the heading of “CRT.” So we may be in agreement here.
Issue #2. CRT is not the best term for the ideology Christians are concerned about.
On the one hand, I think we should use terms as accurately and precisely as possible. When I talk about the all-encompassing oppressor-oppressed worldview permeating our culture, I tend to use terms like “contemporary critical theory” or “critical social justice” rather than “critical race theory.”
On the other hand, we also should be wary of playing an endless semantic shell-game: We can’t critique “cultural Marxism” (“a Neo-Nazi conspiracy theory!”); we can’t critique “wokeness” (“cultural appropriation of African-American vernacular!”); we can’t critique “postmodern Neomarxism” (“Jordan Peterson’s made-up bogeyman!”); we can’t critique “critical race theory” (“it’s just a legal discipline!”). And on and on. This strategy makes it impossible to offer any critique whatsoever because any term we use will be deemed “problematic.”
To illustrate, this same strategy could easily be deployed against French himself. In 2018, French wrote an article entitled “Intersectionality, the Dangerous Faith” in which he repeatedly compared intersectionality to a religion, writing:
rising in the heart of deep-blue America are the zealots of a new religious faith. They’re the intersectionals, they’re fully woke, and the heretics don’t stand a chance.”
And
I’m hardly the first person to make this argument [that intersectionality is a religion]. Andrew Sullivan has noted intersectionality’s religious elements, and John Sexton has been on this beat for a year. Smart people know religious zeal when they see it.
And
There’s an animating purpose — fighting injustice, racism, and inequality. There’s the original sin of “privilege.” There’s a conversion experience — becoming “woke.” And much as the Christian church puts a premium on each person’s finding his or her precise role in the body of Christ, intersectionality can provide a person with a specific purpose and role based on individual identity and experience.
If I were a critic, I could write a long diatribe claiming that French is misusing the term “intersectionalty.” I could point out that the academic literature describes “intersectionality” not as a religion but merely as “an analytic tool [that] gives people better access to the complexity of the world” (Collins and Bilge, Intersectionality, p. 2). I could add that in his 2022 article, French says explicitly that Crenshaw’s 1989 article on intersectionality was “immediately enlightening.” I could therefore portray French’s 2018 article as a slanderous hit-piece aimed at pandering to his conservative base and riling them up over an esoteric sociological framework.
But, of course, all of that would entirely miss French’s point. Clearly, there is some set of extremely pernicious ideas that has a vice grip on our culture, our elite institutions, our major corporations, and even on some churches. What we choose to call it (whether “intersectionality” or “critical race theory” or “cultural Marxism”) seems like a secondary issue. And, to be fair to French, it is indeed possible to show that the concerns French had in 2018 about a “hierarchy of oppression” and the valorization of “lived experience” can indeed be traced to both intersectional scholarship… and to critical race theory.
For my part, I’ve emphasized over and over in my talks that what matters is the ideas themselves, not the labels we use to describe them. Moreover, even apart from considerations of precision and accuracy, conservatives need to recognize the practical importance of focusing on ideas rather than labels. If you firebomb a particular term like “woke” or “CRT,” scholars will simply swap out the offending term and continue promoting the same bad ideas under a new heading.
Issue #3. “Anti-CRT” bills don’t actually target CRT.
Issue #4. As long as we don’t treat CRT as a worldview, it’s compatible with Christianity.
Issue #5. CRT is not really making inroads within conservative evangelicalism.
Issue #6. The furor over CRT is partisan culture-warring.
Read More
Related Posts: