Dear reader…[do not be] deceived or pressured into instinctively or uncritically taking a side in this current conflict, whether emotional or political, by the blowing winds of competing propaganda….Do not get swept away into any lie that would lead your soul into danger, let alone your body. Second, the believer need not be afraid. There is a sovereign and divine hand governing each tremor that rattles either soul or city. Take comfort that “the way of the wicked He turns upside down” (Psalm 146:9).

Since October 7, 2023, the events unfolding in the Israel-Palestine region have captivated minds and dominated headlines. Similar attention was given to the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war that began in earnest in February 2022.[1] What makes the present conflict unique is the perceived theological significance assigned to the geo-political entity known as Israel. This has only inflamed the present discourse instead of moderating it. The purpose of this article is a pastoral one as I discuss seven principles I believe Christians need to know concerning war in general and this conflict in particular. If people outside Christianity take heed to it, so much the better.
1. Christians must stand for peace.
As those bound to Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, Christians must be exceedingly reluctant to throw their support behind any war. Now let me be clear: Christians must not to be pacifists. The command you shall not murder requires the lawful use of force and even taking life when justice necessitates it. Nevertheless, it also requires us to exhaust every option in the effort to avoid taking life unjustly (See Westminster Larger Catechism 135 and 136). That said, the Christian instinct should be toward peace. Our Savior said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matt. 5:9). James 3:18 says, “the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.” Therefore, our hearts should burn with longing for the nations of this war-torn world to transform their weapons of destruction into implements of the cultivation, and that they might walk in the light of the Lord (Is. 2:4-5).
Allow me to apply this more pointedly. While some war may be necessary, all war is undesirable. While some war may be just, all war is unimaginably destructive. War historian and ethicist Henrik Syse wrote, “War is dangerous because it poses a huge challenge to the soul that strives to live virtuously. A war can hardly be imagined in which cruelty and lust are not given far too free reign. Therefore, even just wars should be regretted, as the truly just man would much rather avoid the necessity of violent fighting than resort to arms.”[2] War is not a football game where you can take sides and expect only emotional victory or defeat. War is a terrible judgment of God which all Christians should help to prevent.
2. Fallen humans inevitably drift toward violence and war.
The rulers of this world who are insufficiently instructed by Christians and the word of God will remain largely unchecked in their drift toward lawlessness, violence, and war. This is  because unbelieving men and nations are at war with Jesus Christ. It follows that the violence of war is the demonstration—not the cause—of the awful capacity of the sinful heart of man.[3] God says this about lost sinners: “Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom. 3:15-18). This spiritual cross-section of the unbelieving soul is a massive reason why Christians are called to bear salt and light witness in this dark and putrefying world. Ultimately, nothing less than the love of Christ revealed in the gospel by the Holy Spirit can teach those who are “living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another” to pursue lasting peace (Titus 3:3). While we bear witness to Jesus Christ to bring Him honor and to see sinners saved, it is also an act of love to neighbor to teach them the way of peace and perhaps keep nations from war.
3. Fallen humans lie, especially when they govern nations.
The Bible places violence and deception in close proximity with one another, “For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is destruction; their throat is an open tomb; they flatter with their tongue” (Ps. 5:9, cf Ps. 36:1-3, Is. 59:2-3, Rom. 3:13-14). It should come as no surprise that one of the clearest tactics used by rulers and governments at war with Jesus is deception. This is true across the political and societal spectrum, for propaganda does not discriminate. It just deceives. In the interests of obeying our Lord’s command to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, all Christians must come to grips with this.
Christians must stand for truth. In our day of competing narratives, this requires careful discernment. Related to this, what the Apostle John said theologically has political and societal application, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 Jn. 4:1). In other words, consider your sources. Is what you are hearing accurate? Is what you are reading true? Be mindful of the ubiquitous nature of propaganda, which is just a fancy word for publicly and widely told lies to gain ideological advantage. This does not mean the truth is inaccessible, but it does mean that, just as digging for buried treasure requires work and patience, sifting through the noise to find the truth requires careful thought. This is all the more vital today due to the technological capacity to manipulate images and even video.
As far as possible, our responsibility is to “live not by lies.” This good counsel comes from Alexander Solzhenitsyn:
Our way must be, ‘never knowingly support lies.’ You may not have the strength to stand up in public and say what you really believe, but you can at least refuse to affirm what you do not believe. You may not be able to overthrow totalitarianism, but you can find within yourself and your community to live within the dignity of truth. If we must live under the dictatorship of lies, then our response must be, ‘Let their rule hold not through me.’[4]
The particular lie to which I desire to apply this general principle is the lie that you must take sides in the present conflict; you must support one or the other. This is both false and dangerous. I will expand on this more below.
Read More
Related Posts:

The God of grace is still saving both Jew and Gentile, reconciling them to Himself through the blood— and only through the blood—of Jesus Christ. But is the land and the nation that goes by the name Israel still holy? Based on what I believe the Scriptures make clear, I contend that the answer is no.
For the last several weeks, our headlines have been dominated with coverage of the ongoing conflict between the modern nation-state of Israel and Hamas/Palestine. With the increased recent attention, I thought it would be timely to set some thoughts down about how to think biblically about the current geo-political entity we call Israel and the Israel we find in the Bible. I am afraid that there are many Christians who assume that because the words are the same the entities are the same and the current Israel, along with the contested land, has remaining theological significance. This becomes even more important considering that the nearly unquestioning support for the modern Israel—or the pressure to declare the same—among Christians is motivated by theological conviction. While often well intended, my argument is that this is misguided.
The biblical nation of Israel originated as the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the latter being renamed to Israel by God Himself (Gen. 32:28). They were His special treasure above all people (Ex. 19:5), the tribe of His inheritance (Jer. 10:16). To them God gave all the special blessings of His word, promises, covenant, worship, and grace (see Rom. 9:1-5). This story of redemption in the Bible is dominated by two great themes: the faithfulness of God and the faithlessness of His people (Mal. 3:6-7). To illustrate the latter with just one verse, here is what the Lord said concerning Israel, “O Ephraim, what shall I do to you? O Judah, what shall I do to you? For your faithfulness is like a morning cloud, and like the early dew it goes away” (Hos. 6:4). Why did God stay faithful to them for so long, despite grievous sins like rampant idolatry (Jer. 2:11), child sacrifice (Ezek. 16:20-21), and Sabbath breaking (Ezek. 20:13), which led them to exile (Neh. 1:8)? The first reason was His promise (Is. 49:16) and the second is His promised Son, Jesus Christ.
Concerning His promise, we must remember that God is not a man that He can lie (Num. 23:19). He gave Abraham an unbreakable promise that from him would come blessing for all the families of the earth (Gen. 12:1-3; see also Heb. 6:13-18). God’s gracious promise is the only reason behind bringing Israel back from their bondage in Egypt (Exod. 2:24), back from their exile in Babylon (Ezek. 36:22-24), and continuing to save physical descendants of Jacob who may even now be living in unbelief (Rom. 11:25-32).
The physical nation of Israel had one grand purpose in the Bible: in keeping with God’s promise, they were to be the people through whom the Messiah, the Savior of sinners and crusher of Satan, would come (Gen. 3:15). The reason God gave them circumcision, sacrifices, the tabernacle and temple, all His laws, and His gracious covenant as He worked through time was to preserve this people until the promised Seed came: “Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘and to your Seed,’ who is Christ” (Gal. 3:16). Once Jesus Christ came, who is not only the Second Adam (Rom. 5:18-21) but the One who fulfilled everything Israel failed to do (Heb. 10:5-7), Israel’s redemptive necessity ceased.
I cannot go into this at too much length here, but consider this big-picture perspective. Those things that specifically delineated Israel from the nations were entirely abolished after the coming of Christ. Circumcision was replaced by baptism (see Acts 15 and Galatians). The necessity of ongoing sacrifice ceased because of the once-and-for-all death of Jesus (see Hebrews). Later the temple would be destroyed in AD 70, precisely as Jesus said in Matthew 24 and parallel passages. Because of the death and resurrection of Christ, ceremonial and dietary laws were removed so that there no longer remained a barrier for fellowship for anyone in Christ (see Acts 10-11; Gal. 2:11-16). In fact, even the distinguishing blessings given exclusively to Old Testament Israel were explicitly bestowed upon the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, including the status of a holy ethnicity (compare Exod. 19:5-6 and 1 Pet. 2:9-10).
Read More

I believe that the greatest need the OPC has right now is not another committee, but rather men in leadership and members in our churches who are committed to true and decided piety. This stands as the chief necessity for the eldership and the Christian life (1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Peter 1:16). John Calvin provided this definition: “By piety, I mean a reverence for God arising from a knowledge of His benefits” (Institutes, I.2.1).

As the 88th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church convenes in the coming days, one of the items on the agenda is Overture 2 from the Presbytery of Ohio. This overture proposes that the Assembly take three principal actions: 1) form a committee of seven to study abuse and report back to the 89th Assembly, possibly with recommendations; 2) authorize the committee to “invite Christians knowledgeable on the topic of abuse to assist the Committee as non-voting consultants;” and 3) fund the committee with a budget of $15,000. In this article, I will seek to highlight some relevant history behind this overture, discuss its grounds, circle back to the actions being proposed, and conclude with some loosely related reflections.
History
This article provides some important details about last summer’s Assembly which are closely related to Overture 2. Last year a commissioner made the following motion:
“That the General Assembly determine to:

Resolve more effectively to minister to victims of abuse in the church by retaining the services of G.R.A.C.E. (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) to conduct an organizational assessment of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and authorize the Stated Clerk to execute the agreement necessary to effect this relationship, with a budget of $50,000.
Form a special committee of five, to be appointed by the moderator, with a budget of $1000 to:

Assist G.R.A.C.E. in their work, upon their request.
Receive and review, in consultation with select members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, G.R.A.C.E.’s reports and recommendations.
Present G.R.A.C.E.’s reports and recommendations to the 88th General Assembly.
Propose to the 88th General Assembly such other recommendations related to G.R.A.C.E.’s findings as may serve the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.”

After debate, the Assembly ruled a related substitute motion out of order, though sixteen commissioners requested that their positive votes be recorded in the minutes. While last summer’s motion differs significantly from Overture 2, the connection is obvious.
Grounds
The overture provides four grounds (i.e., rationale) for the proposed committee, all of which I am eager to hear explained during the presentation at the Assembly.
Ground 1 provides what appears to be the overture’s working definition of abuse: “misuse of power of various kinds (commonly termed ‘abuse’).” I briefly discussed the deficiency of this definition here. The overture states that both allegations and instances of abuse “raise complex legal, theological, and pastoral issues we cannot minimize, ignore, or dismiss.” While this is true, notice that the end of this sentence is framed negatively. In other words, we cannot do nothing. However, that begs the question of not only what the church ought to do, but how she ought to do it. This is the critical point. It appears that Ground 3 more positively addresses how the church ought to respond to allegations and instances of sin.
Ground 2 attempts to lay an exegetical and confessional foundation for the overture’s aim. Careful interaction with each passage will relegate this article to the bin of TLDR,[1] so here are two comments. First, I am very interested to hear the explanation for these passages. While some apparently support the thrust of the overture, others are rather puzzling (like Exodus 21:15). Second, it is interesting that among the references to the Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC 135, 139, 151), the fifth commandment receives no mention, especially WLC 130.[2]
Ground 3 properly assigns responsibility for dealing righteously with “such sinful behavior” to the elders of Christ’s church, citing the OPC’s Book of Discipline I.3.[3] The antecedent to “such” seems to be “sins of abuse” mentioned in Ground 2. No minister or elder who loves Christ and has sincerely vowed to serve in His Church will ever deny that we must deal with sin, including sins aggravated by abuse. Nevertheless, as I pointed out in a previous article, we must be clear regarding the standard by which elders measure offenses and the purposes for which elders address them. The Book of Discipline rightly states that the standard is the Word of God. The purposes are to honor Christ, purify the church, and reclaim the offenders. We must also remember that our sin is first and foremost an affront to the holy God (Psalm 51:4), and secondly against our neighbors (Matthew 22:34-40). Commissioners to the Assembly need to ensure that we do not make decisions because “the world is watching” (as I have so commonly heard), or while being unduly influenced by secular psychology. We must act in accord with the Word of God and with the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16).[4]
Ground 4 is worth quoting entirely: “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.” While this statement sounds humble, it carries the potential of a dangerous and subtle concession. Here is a critical question: what do the authors of this overture mean, not so much by gaps in practice, but by gaps in our theology? Certainly Westminster Confession of Faith I.6 is relevant to this question, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” This confessional statement rests upon the inspired Word which says, “His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue” (2 Peter 1:3). Are the alleged gaps subjective (i.e., deficiencies in elders) or are they objective (i.e., deficiencies in our system of theology itself)? This deserves close scrutiny and careful explanation. That we ought always to strive to be effective, Christlike ministers and elders is not in question. We must minister the balm of Gilead to those who have suffered much at the hands of others (Jeremiah 8:22). The key issue is how the committee—if established—would recommend the OPC do so, especially if it recommends changes to the church’s tertiary standards.
Proposed Actions
Could this committee honor Jesus Christ, help the OPC, her members, the broader church, and even our world? Or could it be a hindrance? That will depend upon the men who serve on the committee. If approved, it must be populated by men resolutely committed to the sufficiency of the Word of God and the gospel of free grace in Jesus Christ. They must be unwaveringly committed to Reformed doctrine, piety, and ecclesiology. They must not be spastic, reflexive, or therapeutic, but biblical, analytical, and pastoral. They must not seek to subject the OPC to a governmental substructure like what is happening in the SBC.
The other critical element for this committee—if appointed—is who they would invite to be “non-voting consultants.” The qualifier in this overture is that invitees must be “Christians knowledgeable on the topic of abuse.” That strikes me as an exceedingly broad proviso, especially considering last year’s attempt to hire G.R.A.C.E. How will the committee measure the quality of their knowledge?[5] Will it be required that these Christians hold reformed convictions? The kind of people invited will certainly be determined by the convictions of the men elected to the committee.
I do not know whether the Assembly will pass this overture, so with Proverbs 18:13 in mind, here is my preliminary perspective: a committee like this could be helpful only if it can provide biblical, wise, and godly helps for the church. If not, it could very well lead to disaster.
Concluding Reflections
I believe that the greatest need the OPC has right now is not another committee, but rather men in leadership and members in our churches who are committed to true and decided piety. This stands as the chief necessity for the eldership and the Christian life (1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Peter 1:16). John Calvin provided this definition: “By piety, I mean a reverence for God arising from a knowledge of His benefits” (Institutes, I.2.1).
Here are some sober reflections for myself and all my fellow elders, not only in the OPC, but throughout the broader church. Anemic preaching, neglect of shepherding and discipline, a habit of non-evangelism, departure from the prescribed means of grace, prayerlessness, ministerial pride, and other things contribute massively not only to problems in the church, but in the world. Preaching that does not engage the heart creates a “Christianity” that neither honors Christ nor affects the world. A church without ardent love and earnest holiness will soon be without a lampstand (Revelation 2:5). A nation without the light and salt of Christ’s witnesses will soon find itself spiraling into the darkness of His judgment (Matthew 5:13-16). Remember that judgment begins at the household of God (1 Peter 4:7).
Fellow elders, we must be men who can look at the members of our flocks, with sincerity in our eyes and integrity in our hearts, and say, “Imitate me, as I imitate Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1). We must be able to open our homes in biblical hospitality without fear of being “found out” (1 Timothy 3:2-7). We must shepherd faithfully, gently and tenderly binding up the wounds of the broken (Ezekiel 34:1-4). We must guard both our hearts and the sheep entrusted to us (Acts 20:28). Piety displayed exclusively in public is no piety; that is hypocrisy. Earnestness conjured up during public exhortation is not true zeal; it is merely heat with no true light. Our greatest need is for God to bring true revival of piety into the church through an outpouring of His Spirit and the preaching of His Word. This will change the church—and the world.
Mike Myers is a Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and is Pastor of Heritage OPC in Royston, Ga.  This article is used with permission.

[1] Too long, didn’t read.
[2] Q. 130. What are the sins of superiors? A. The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them, an inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; commanding things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to perform; counseling, encouraging, or favoring them in that which is evil; dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them in that which is good; correcting them unduly; careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonoring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behavior.
[3] BD I.3 – Judicial discipline is concerned with the prevention and correction of offenses, an offense being defined as anything in the doctrine or practice of a member of the church which is contrary to the Word of God. The purpose of judicial discipline is to vindicate the honor of Christ, to promote the purity of his church, and to reclaim the offender.
[4] Francis Schaeffer wrote this caution in 1994 in The Church at the End of the 20th Century, “Beware, therefore, of the movement to give the scientific community the right to rule. They are not neutral in the old concept of scientific objectivity. Objectivity is a myth that will not hold simply because these men have no basis for it. Keep in mind that to these men, morals are only a set of averages. Here, then, is a present form of manipulation which we can expect to get greater as one of the elites takes more power.”
[5] One concern I have is the broad and uncritical acceptance of intersectionality and standpoint epistemology. Intersectionality refers to the concept that “someone who belongs to more than one oppressed or marginalized group…experiences such oppression or marginalization in a particularly intensified way thanks to the ‘intersection’ of those social forces” (Scott David Allen, Why Social Justice is Not Biblical Justice, 66). This idea gives rise to standpoint epistemology, which means “one’s social position relative to systemic power confers additional insight or access to knowledge(s) that allows the oppressed to understand both oppression and the society or systems it operates within better than the privileged are able to so” (James Lindsay, New Discourses, emphasis mine). At root, both concepts are postmodern ideologies that undermine biblical objectivity of truth and knowledge.
Related Posts:

Here is the real problem that I believe underlies the failure of those frequently using the term abuse to provide a clear, biblical definition: the preference of the term abuse dislocated from sin, moves abuse out of the moral and spiritual realm and into the psychological. In other words, it tends to shift the serious matters at hand from that which is properly clerical and refers them to the clinical.

Last summer I wrote an article voicing my concerns about a motion brought to the 87th General Assembly (GA) of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). Now an overture related to abuse is on its way to the 88th GA this summer in Philadelphia (you can download a pdf version of the overture below). I will soon be interacting with the language of that overture in detail. Here I would like to explore the recent discussions about abuse and why we must not leave the term undefined, ill-defined, or without biblical qualification. I will also discuss one of the concerning trajectories for the church in its present approach to discussing abuse.
Importance of Definition
During the 87th GA last year, at least two commissioners asked some version of this vital question: “What is your definition of abuse?” No one provided a succinct, working definition. Why was this? Precise definition of terms is vital for a variety of reasons. When discussing important topics like this one, everyone needs to know precisely what is being talked about. In matters of righteousness and justice, there is no room for ambiguity. Clarity of definition is not terribly popular today, but this is nothing new. J. Gresham Machen wrote this in 1925, “Indeed nothing makes a man more unpopular in controversies of the present day than an insistence upon the definition of terms. Anything, it seems, may be forgiven more readily than that.”[1] How should we define abuse?
Should we use the UN’s definition? “Abuse is physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person.” According to this statement, abuse can be “emotional…actions…that influence another person.” This is a terrible definition because it is dangerously broad. The organization G.R.A.C.E. seems to indicate that an assessment for abuse would be warranted “if your organization has been notified that women do not feel comfortable in the culture and environment of your organization.” Is discomfort proof of abuse? While it could be, this is dangerously subjective. Diane Langberg, while teaching at a presbytery conference in the OPC in 2021 said in the question-and-answer session that, “the basic meaning of abuse is to mistreat somebody.” Will the OPC do any better? The overture coming to the 88th GA from the Presbytery of Ohio defines abuse as “misuse of power of various kinds.” We must do better.
Reconsider the statements above. Some use recklessly broad terminology and some inexcusably vague. Webster’s 1828 dictionary lists the following for the noun form. Abuse:
“Ill use; improper treatment or employment; application to a wrong purpose; as an abuse of our natural powers; an abuse of civil rights, or of religious privileges; abuse of advantages, etc; A corrupt practice or custom; Rude speech; reproachful language addressed to a person; contumely; reviling words; Seduction; Perversion of meaning; improper use or application; as an abuse of words.”
Left unqualified, abuse can be an exceedingly broad term. Consider this: by the above definition, overeating, losing your temper, a mean tweet, lying, adultery, murder, binge-watching Netflix, corrupt worship, and keying someone’s car all fall into the category of abuse.
To put it most broadly, all abuse is sin, and quite frankly, all sin is abuse in some way or another. But every fair-minded person knows that there are different kinds and severities of abuse. As such, all sins of abuse occur along a spectrum. It can range from relatively trivial (a mean tweet) to outright evil (murder/adultery). Frequently inserted to this discussion are categories including but not limited to emotional, physical, sexual, and spiritual (a topic for another day). In addition to different kinds, we can also identify different severity. For example, a spouse committing adultery is evil; a minister of the gospel committing adultery is far worse. For these reasons, not only does abuse need a clear definition, it ought not be a standalone term, especially in debates within the church. Instead, following the method of the Westminster Catechisms, abuse should be regarded as an aggravation of an underlying sin that renders it more heinous (WLC 151). [2]
With these matters of definition in mind, here is a most important question: by what standard can we determine the definition, kind, and severity of abuse? By what standard ought we to determine the correct response to various abuses? It must be the Word of God, for Scripture alone is the infallible standard for identifying, exposing, and dealing with sin. We must be biblical both in our definition and our method to account for the kind/severity spectrum of sins aggravated by abuse. Let us consider some passages of Scripture in search of a clearer understanding of the issue at hand.
Abuse in the Bible
Technically speaking Eve is the first culprit of abuse in Scripture when she misuses God’s Word in Genesis 3:2-3. Adam joins the ranks of abusers by way of neglect due to his silent abdication (Gen. 3:6). He then horribly mistreats his wife by offering her up to divine judgment in order to save his fig-leaf covered skin (Gen. 3:12). As covenant head, he was also responsible for plunging all humanity into an estate of sin and misery. As such, the sin of Adam became the source for all sin in human history, which makes it a kind that is extremely severe.
Judges 19:25 describes abuse of the most vicious kind and severity. This dark chapter describes unimaginable evil committed against a vulnerable woman. She was exposed to a perverse mob by a shameful, spineless man. Most English Bibles translate the original word aw-lal’ with abused, “And they knew her and abused her all night until morning; and when the day began to break, they let her go” (NKJV). I will return to this heinous event later. The other OT occurrences of this word with the closest usage are in 1 Samuel 31:4/1 Chron 10:4 (Saul not wanting to be abused by the Philistines), and Jeremiah 38:19 (Zedekiah wanting to avoid either mocking or mistreatment).
In these four texts, three of which use aw-lal’, the action under scrutiny is the misconduct by those in a position of influence with responsibility for their actions. While Eve was queen of creation, most importantly Adam was the head of natural humanity. The perverse mob in Judges was subject to the Law of God and had covenant responsibility to care for the stranger (Ex. 22:21, 23:9, see also Ezek. 16:49). Compounding the evil was the deplorable conduct of the Levite and the master of the house in Gibeah. For Saul and Zedekiah, they were both concerned about the serious maltreatment that would result from being handed over to reckless groups of sinners.
The New Testament twice uses the term katachraomai for abuse. In both occasions, the sense communicates the need to avoid the misuse of something given, whether material blessing in the world (1 Cor. 7:31) or apostolic authority/power (1 Cor. 9:18). The New Testament also describes the worst occasion of abuse that occurred in history, namely, the gross maltreatment and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. With respect to Him we find abuse reach its most egregious kind and severity: corrupt religious and civil authorities condemned the righteous Man; Jewish citizens mocked, spit upon, and beat Him (Luke 22:63-65); Roman soldiers scourged and crowned Him with thorns (John 19:1-2). To make it all worse, His disciples also forsook Him (Mark 14:50) and Peter denied Him (Luke 26:75).
How then should we define abuse? A friend of mine and fellow OPC minister offered this simple and helpful suggestion: the sin of abuse is “when someone intentionally uses his power to inflict serious harm upon another person.” This definition wisely includes the elements of purpose (intent), effect (serious harm), the victim (another person) and the aggravation of the breach/misuse of responsibility (power).
A Concerning Trajectory
In almost all the discussions about abuse that I have encountered, I have rarely heard mention of the Law of God. Here is an important question: under which commandment do sins of abuse rightly fall? Before reading further, I would like you to answer that in your mind. Most of the people to whom I have posed this question have referenced the sixth commandment, “You shall not murder.” It often tragically includes the seventh commandment, “You shall not commit adultery.” However, we must not overlook the relationship of this category of sin to the fifth commandment.
The fifth commandment establishes the framework in which all social ethics can and must occur. For life, purity, work/property, truth, and contentment to thrive, all must preserve the honor and perform the duty that belongs to everyone in their several places and relations, as superiors, inferiors, and equals (WSC 64). This is true for family, church, and society at large. Affirming that sins of abuse fall within the scope of things prohibited in the fifth commandment requires consideration of the categories of that commandment, namely, superiors, inferiors, and equals. This creates quite a dilemma for those seeking to deconstruct authority, especially within the family and church. Why? Because for the sin of abuse to be truly heinous—and it is—it requires a category of relational and positional inferiority/superiority (WLC 151). The trouble is that this is anathema in our egalitarian, feministic, and psychologized age.
There seems to be a movement in the church seeking to dislocate abuse from the category of sin. Why would anyone in the church want to do this? Perhaps it is because there is pressure, and there seems to be a lot of momentum, for the church to seek outside help related to sins of abuse. There are claims that the church does not know how to handle abuse (more on that in another article). Here is the real problem that I believe underlies the failure of those frequently using the term abuse to provide a clear, biblical definition: the preference of the term abuse dislocated from sin, moves abuse out of the moral and spiritual realm and into the psychological. In other words, it tends to shift the serious matters at hand from that which is properly clerical and refers them to the clinical. That is not to say that pastors and elders never need help. For example, when sins occur that are criminal (like sexual abuse of children), it is necessary to involve appropriate law enforcement. However, in matters that rightly fall under the spiritual realm and responsibility given to elders, Christ’s church needs to think more carefully before outsourcing to the local counseling clinic.
The church in this nation has sadly abdicated far too much in the last century. Education has been given over largely to the State. Care for the poor, widow, fatherless, and elderly has in large measure been usurped by the State. Will the church now hand over the care of the soul to “state licensed” psychologists and become subject to them? It will be a devastating and dangerous thing if the society of the redeemed makes itself subservient to an unaccountable panel of experts, especially if they are unbiblical.
In conclusion, let us revisit the egregious sin of abuse in Judges 19. What does God call it? In Hosea 9:7-9 He says, “The days of punishment have come; the days of recompense have come. Israel knows! The prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is insane, because of the greatness of your iniquity and great enmity. The watchman of Ephraim is with my God; but the prophet is a fowler’s snare in all his ways—enmity in the house of his God. They are deeply corrupted, as in the days of Gibeah. He will remember their iniquity; He will punish their sins” (emphasis mine). God called that abuse iniquity and sin because it is wrong before Him. Sin cannot be dealt with apart from the cross of Jesus Christ, the preaching and ministering of which God has committed not to psychologists, but to His church.
The trend toward psychologizing sin is a troubling one, certainly so if this is true of the OPC. Will the overture coming before the 88th General Assembly be a helpful corrective? I will examine that question in my next article.
Proposed Overture to the 88th GA of the OPC.pdfDownload
Mike Myers is a Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and is Pastor of Heritage OPC in Royston, Ga. This article is used with permission.

[1] J. Gresham Machen, What Is Faith? The Banner of Truth Trust, 13-14. This is very similar to a statement from J.C. Ryle in the opening sentence of Knots Untied, “It may be laid down as a rule, with tolerable confidence, that the absence of accurate definitions is the very life of religious controversy. If men would only define with precision the theological terms which they use, many disputes would die. Scores of excited disputants would discover that they do not really differ, and that their disputes have arisen from their own neglect of the great duty of explaining the meaning of words.”
[2] Q. 151. What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?

Sins receive their aggravations,
From the persons offending; if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.
From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them, or any other, and the common good of all or many.
From the nature and quality of the offence: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, willfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.
From circumstances of time, and place: if on the Lord’s day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.

Related Posts: