In his understandable zeal to honor his wife, Mr. Young’s speech in opposition to the overture was the final impetus for my decision to vote in favor. The reason is because, in his speech, Mr. Young extolled what he believed are the virtues of ‘Jesus Calling’, repeatedly calling attention to the worldwide impact of the book. He was right, of course, in terms of the book’s massive popularity and impact. For that reason alone, the PCA should ask how one of our missionaries could write a book that presents so many important theological problems.

During the week of June 10, 2024 the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) held its 51st Annual General Assembly in Richmond, VA. Present were 2,160 commissioners, making it the third highest attended General Assembly in PCA history. The week was marked by times of reverent worship and faithful preaching. As always it was a blessing to be with so many fellow elders from around the country all united to further God’s glory in our beloved denomination.
Among the matters under consideration was Overture 33 which requests reports from the permanent committees of Mission to the World (MTW) and the PCA’s discipleship ministry (CDM) concerning their history, if any, with the book ‘Jesus Calling’ by long-time PCA missionary Sarah Young.
There have been many accusations flying around social and print media accusing the PCA of appointing a committee to trash the book of a recently deceased author. However, what the Assembly actually approved is far from that.
Overture 33 reads as follows:
Therefore be it resolved that the General Assembly request reports to be returned to the 52nd General Assembly from the permanent committees of the two agencies most connected with the Jesus Calling book.
From the permanent committee for the Committee on Discipleship Ministries, a brief report that will:
1. Examine the history of the CDM’s relationship with the book and outline its reasons for withdrawing the book from its inventory previously and not offering it for sale since.
2. Assess the book’s appropriateness for Christians in general and PCA members and congregations in particular with special regard for its doctrine and method.
3. Provide recommendations (if needed) for remedial materials, advisory statements, or General Assembly actions concerning Jesus Calling.
And from Mission to the World, a brief report that will:
1. Examine MTW’s relationship with the book, knowledge of its content, and any counsel given to the author.
2. Consider actions that MTW and the General Assembly should take in light of this study of the book and of the agency’s relationship to it.
Given the timing, so near the death of the author, many wondered why such an overture was even being considered. Some believed it was entirely unnecessary based on an assumption that ‘Jesus Calling’ has had no influence among churches in the PCA. Others expressed the opinion that such an overture, less than a year after the author’s death, was bad form and perhaps cruel to Mrs. Young’s family. I understand the confusion and some of the objections. Indeed, as the PCA’s General Assembly convened I was on the fence, not sure how I would vote on the overture. A week prior to the Assembly I told another PCA Teaching Elder that I was likely to vote against it as I considered it a waste of time. But three factors worked to change my mind to vote in favor of the overture.
The first factor that swayed me was Steve and Sarah Young’s longtime service as PCA missionaries. This relationship had been recently highlighted in many different journals and news releases. In an obituary for Sarah Young written for our denominational magazine, By Faith this connection was highlighted:
Sarah Young, author of the popular “Jesus Calling” devotional book series and longtime Mission to the World (MTW) missionary to Japan and Australia with her husband Steve, died yesterday, Aug. 31, at the age of 77.
Young’s “Jesus Calling” books sold more than 45 million copies in 35 languages, making her the bestselling Christian author of all time.
I had known for some time that Mrs. Young and her husband were PCA missionaries. That had been a source of dismay for me considering the profoundly errant foundation of the book which undermines the sufficiency of Scripture. Not only that, Jesus Calling offers up a disturbingly truncated, largely therapeutic view of Jesus and his ministry. As various obituaries for Mrs. Young began appearing in such publications as Christianity Today, many PCA church members were surprised to learn that she was an MTW missionary. Many wondered how one of our own could write such an errant book.
Read More
Related Posts:

Has the glut of material dedicated to diagnosing and exposing bad pastors been recklessly unaccompanied and counterweighted by the far less interesting fact that most of us have good pastors? What is more, has the definition of bullying become so broad and subjective that nearly every pastor can be accused of bullying by doing no more than simply conforming to the Bible’s instructions for pastors and churches? Given today’s standards for what constitutes bullying and narcissism, I don’t know how the Apostle Paul can avoid either charge. After all, he called the church to publicly excommunicate those in the church who violated God’s standard for sexual chastity. At times he employed sarcasm to expose error.

It seems like everywhere you turn there are discussions being had about bad pastors. Indeed, multiplied books, podcasts, articles, and documentaries airing on such streaming services as Netflix and Hulu seem to pop up every week or so. And, of course, there are bad pastors, and they should be refused the responsibility of leadership among God’s beloved flock. But has the focus on bad pastors been overdone? Has the proliferation of what some people have dubbed “scandal porn,” produced a skewed vision of reality? Certainly, I expect the world to cast as negative a light as possible upon Christian pastors. But when that project is taken up with equal zeal by Christians, I believe we have reason to be troubled.
I have no desire to diminish the sad experiences of those who have found themselves in the unfortunate and at times tragic circumstance of having an abusive pastor. But the attention given to those who abuse God’s people suggests, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that abusive pastors are the norm. And I think we all know why. It is because the salacious stories of bad pastors get a lot more traffic than any unspectacular account of the many good pastors who, day after day, faithfully plod away at their calling. Truth be told, there is something in us that rather enjoys the sensational and scandalous. We like reading the stories of the fiends and the failures. But the facts on the ground are much more boring. Most of us have good pastors. Perfect pastors? Of course not. Pastors who have never disappointed us or successfully mortified all of their remaining sin? Nope. But measured against the Scripture’s expectations for leadership, most Bible believing evangelical churches are served by good pastors.
In 35 years of vocational ministry, I have known very few people who can honestly say that they were bullied or abused by their pastor. Again, their stories are real and heart-breaking. No instance of a bad pastor abusing a church member is tolerable. But given the massive number of churches, pastors, and church members, such cases are not nearly as common as the attention given to them suggests.
On the other hand, I have never spoken to a pastor who has not been mistreated, slandered, undermined, or run off by church members, an associate pastor, elders, deacons, or all of the above. And I have known more than a few who have been so cruelly treated that they have been left deeply scared along with their families. Sadly, many of these men leave the ministry altogether. They are left in the dust of disillusionment, seeing no way to continue on in the call that at one time had been a source of great joy. Many others take the beating, persevere, and, by God’s grace, carry on faithfully.
So, while no one denies that there are bad pastors, almost no one is discussing the fact that there are bad churches. Where are the documentaries and podcasts discussing pastor-destroying churches? There is precious little discussion about the fact that there is hardly a pastor out there who has not been wounded, slandered, bullied, or run off from a church by bad associate pastors and ungodly church members.
In their excellent book, Handbook for Battered Leaders, Wesley and Janis Balda throw a spotlight on the well-known but often ignored phenomena of “toxic followers” that are present in most organizations from large corporations to family businesses to churches. Their exploration of “mobbing” and “triangulation,” are especially important:
A classic follower response in certain situations is the palace coup. This is the point when the mutiny begins flexing destructive muscles and everyone but the leader realizes a corner has been turned. We all know of situations where a powerful and evil despot abused followers…We are less convinced that simply misguided, or even evil, followers can bring down an otherwise competent leader on their own. However, there should not always be a presumption of innocence when confronting followers who have an agenda, as they can eventually destroy leaders and organizations” (p. 59).
Yet another problem often faced by pastors is a culture of niceness which is typically ill-defined but nevertheless pervades the congregation, elders, deacons, and staff. While kindness is a virtue and should be pursued, a culture of “niceness” can and often does turn rancid. Again, the Baldas write:
“While it is entirely a good thing that courtesy and civility attend our day-to-day work, niceness can be used to apply unfair standards and gloss over vulnerabilities. Passive-aggressive organizations employ niceness to avoid healthy confrontation and positive conflict…The fear of being seen as a complainer or even whistleblower quashes many situations where a little righteous anger might be helpful. And God help the leader who allows followers a glimpse of actual frustration or negative emotion in nice organizations – gossip and mobbing may quickly ensue, and a ride out of town sometimes follows” (p. 112).
Imagine the complexity of being called to lead a congregation of volunteers who pay your salary; men and women who often times have competing expectations of you, who are themselves still sinners. Imagine being in a position of leadership where it is absolutely essential to be liked by those you are called to lead, teach, correct, and, at times, rebuke. Imagine maintaining emotional and spiritual health when every day you are aware that you are letting someone down, failing to live up to some of the myriad and, at times, conflicting expectations. Add to that the all too common experience that pastors have of being actively undermined by an associate pastor, slandered by someone who voted against his call, or unyielding criticism from an influential church member. If young men called by God knew how they were likely to be treated in at least one church, I’m quite sure there would be very few willing to serve.
Read More
Related Posts:

In rebuking the religious leaders who opposed Him and His mission, Jesus said that their “desires” (lusts) were the same as their father Satan (John 8:44). Jesus locates the origins of lust within the evil heart of Satan. Not surprisingly then, lust, or worldly desires, often choke out the seed of the gospel in the human heart (Mark 4:19). 

It may well be that the first appearance of the sin of lust happened in the garden just as the man and woman made their tragic choice. As Eve considered the enticements of the serpent, she observed that the fruit was, among other things, “a delight to the eyes” (Gen. 3:6). Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with something being pleasing to look at. But Genesis 3 is the record of history’s most infamous sin. So, we may safely conclude that Eve’s longing look upon the fruit in delight was done with a lustful eye. It was a covetous glance; a longing to have something that was not proper for her to possess.
Because Eve was born without a sin nature, her sin of lusting for the fruit (or more specifically what she believed the fruit could give her) was a deliberately chosen sin in response to an external source of temptation. We call that a “temptation from without.” We, however, are in an even more difficult predicament than our first mother. Having been born with a natural preference for sin, we are quite capable of producing lustful desires on our own without any external source egging us on. We call that “temptation from within.” Consider the words of James 1:14–15: “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death” (emphasis added).
The New Testament word for lust is epithumia, which means “desire.” Of course, not all desires are bad. Indeed, there are examples in the New Testament of epithumia being used positively, such as when a qualified man appropriately “desires” the office of elder (1 Tim. 3:1). But epithumia is often used to refer to sinful desires, so epithumia is also rendered as “lust” and “passions,” as well as “desires.” Lust is the desire for anything that is sinful, such as illicit sex, intoxication, ill-gotten gain, revenge, or anything else that God forbids.
Read More
Related Posts:

There is a need for well-crafted and clear statements summarizing the Bible’s teaching about sexuality, gender, and what it means to be human. They are needful as means to catechize our children so that they may better resist the spirit of the age and avoid errors that will make shipwreck of their faith. But as the ongoing influence of Revoice makes clear, resources like the Nashville Statement are needful for the instruction of even our own pastors.

I did not originate the title of this article. The Eikon editors initially asked if I would be willing to write about how and why my thinking had changed about the Nashville Statement. But in service to greater accuracy, it would be better for me to pursue the question, “Why I finally decided to publicly endorse the Nashville Statement.” I have never questioned the biblical fidelity of the Nashville Statement. My initial reluctance to publicly endorse it was due to other factors that were at play at the time, primarily the debate over the doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS), of which I was a rather vocal participant. As many readers will know, that created an uneasy tension among those who were otherwise committed to complementarianism. Plus, as naïve as this sounds today, I believed the Nashville Statement was entirely unnecessary.
Nevertheless, my reticence to publicly endorse the Nashville Statement was banished decisively by three developments. First, I was encouraged by certain things happening within the CBMW. Second, it was clear that the moral revolutionaries who were driving the culture war had gained enormous ground, even among professing Christians. But the most decisive factor in my support for the Nashville Statement had to do with certain events in the denomination which I serve as a pastor, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
In the summer of 2018, the first Revoice conference was held at a PCA church in St. Louis, MO. It is true that Revoice upholds the Christian ethic that sexual intimacy is exclusively for a man and woman within the bonds of marriage. On that much we agree. But it is also true that Revoice holds to so-called Side B “Gay Christianity”. It is not my purpose here to go into detail about the deeply flawed doctrines attached to the “gay but celibate” movement which Revoice represents. I will only say that it distorts the doctrine of humanity — the telos of the body and sexuality — undermines sanctification, and strips the gospel of its power to transform our desires. And so, like so many within the PCA, I was dismayed that one of our own churches would play host to an event propagating such grievous errors.
This conflict in the PCA intersected with the Nashville Statement in the summer of 2019. That year, an overture reached the floor of our General Assembly which called for the PCA to declare that the Nashville Statement was biblically faithful. This overture (Overture 4) stated:
Therefore be it resolved that the Calvary Presbytery hereby overture the 47th General Assembly and asks it to declare the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood’s “Nashville Statement” on biblical sexuality as a biblically faithful declaration and refer the “Nashville Statement” to the Committee on Discipleship Ministries for inclusion and promotion among its denominational teaching materials.
Read More
Related Posts:

My conscience demands that I offer this retraction publicly, since my error was public. I know that some will be quick to respond in anger toward me. I accept that. It won’t be anything new. Others will be frustrated that I have not gone far enough, that I must publish an attack on Aimee Byrd herself. That is something I will not do.

Close to 20 years ago, the great Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke wrote a favorable review of Inspiration and Incarnation by fellow scholar Pete Enns. Many were surprised that Dr. Waltke would offer a positive review of a book which sought to dumb down the doctrine of the Scripture’s inspiration. The book itself, as well as Waltke’s endorsement, were the occasion of great controversy and dismay. Upon further reflection and an apparently more careful reading of Enns’ book, Waltke published a retraction of his earlier endorsement and offered a critical review in its place. He did the right thing.
I am no Bruce Waltke. But I have found myself in a similar conundrum.
Almost two years ago, on an episode of Mortification of Spin, I offered a verbal endorsement of the book Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by my friend and cohost Aimee Byrd. Many people were understandably confused by my positive, critique-free words of commendation. Since then I have been asked more times than I can calculate why I chose to endorse a book which, for many, contains significant points of concern for those who hold to the biblical pattern of male headship as I do. The questions are entirely justified.
The question I get most often these days is, “Do you regret endorsing Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood?” In order to avoid any confusion, I will respond directly without any nuance – Yes, I regret it.
Read More

By God’s grace, I continue to examine my heart and repent as best I know how of the sin I find present there, I hope my brothers in the National Partnership and those rushing to their defense will carefully consider why so many men and women in the PCA are vexed over what was revealed in the recently released emails. I would urge them to consider whether their methodology and secrecy best serves the peace and purity of our beloved denomination. I would ask them to consider whether their responses to their detractors has been one of love.

I hate fighting and I hate controversy. Truly. I much prefer peace and harmony. Peace is easier than fighting and I sleep better at night. More importantly, peace between brothers in Christ honors the Lord and adorns the gospel. But sometimes controversy comes to you and you find no other option but to enter the fray. Such has been my experience in the last several weeks with the release of 8 years of emails between the leadership of the National Partnership. Like so many, I was grieved by the political maneuvering and “us versus them” language found throughout. That grief has been met with dismay as denials persist that the National Partnership even has members or encourages people to vote in any particular way. I simply cannot understand these continued denials given what we now so clearly know.
I confess to feeling dirty over the last number of days, much of which is due to my own sin. It’s the feeling I get whenever a battle – no matter how necessary – must be fought. I think the source of that feeling comes from the fact that no matter how righteous the cause, I remain a sinner. And it seems like few things can aggravate my own sin like the heat of battle. In such times righteous dismay quickly gives way to sinful anger. The communion of saints is replaced with competition. As a result, I have spent no small amount of time repenting in these days. At times I find myself sliding into sinful attitudes within moments of grieving those very same attitudes. God have mercy!
Read More

Among their efforts is identifying the men who their members should not vote for if they are nominated for committees or agencies. For instance, one well known Ruling Elder with a well-earned reputation for faithful service to the Lord and the PCA was recently nominated to serve on the Standing Judicial Commission. In one email the leader of the NP wrote that this brother, “is the primary GRN organizer and agitator, the prime organizing voice against CTS and mover of the Nashville statement. He would be, I cannot stress enough, a disaster for the court.”

“Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:1-2)
It’s been said that politics is like sausage. You don’t want to see it made. Unfortunately, church politics can often be like that as well. This is particularly true when church officers demand secrecy.
On the evening of October 26, I (along with others) was sent a cache of emails exchanged among the leadership of the National Partnership. If you are not familiar with the National Partnership (NP), they are a rather secretive organization operating within the PCA which seeks to shape the denomination according to their vision. For instance, the NP has been enthusiastic in their support of Revoice and other efforts to broaden the doctrinal “tent” of the PCA. You can read a little about the NP Here and Here.
Now, back to the subject at hand. The emails in question run from 2013 to July of this year. They are emails exchanged through a password protected website between the leadership of the National Partnership. They are a window into the political activity of the secretive organization. Why one member of the group decided to make those emails known I do not know. But I was grieved to the heart as I read them. They reveal a level of political maneuvering that can fairly be described as cynical.
Interspersed among the emails is a rather triumphal claim that they, the National Partnership, represent the majority of the PCA. Apart from the party spirit betrayed by such chest beating one must wonder why it is, then, that they must operate under cover of secrecy. I would like to ask any member of the National Partnership if they are troubled by the revelations of non-disclosure agreements that have been employed by churches like Mars Hill? Do they believe it is appropriate to saddle the members of their group with secrecy?
The emails reveal why the NP has had such success in recent years in advancing their agenda. These men are highly organized. Some of them spend hours each week working to influence votes on the presbytery and GA levels. Among their efforts is identifying the men who their members should not vote for if they are nominated for committees or agencies. For instance, one well known Ruling Elder with a well-earned reputation for faithful service to the Lord and the PCA was recently nominated to serve on the Standing Judicial Commission. In one email the leader of the NP wrote that this brother, “is the primary GRN organizer and agitator, the prime organizing voice against CTS and mover of the Nashville statement. He would be, I cannot stress enough, a disaster for the court.”
Not surprisingly, the NP stands in strong opposition to the passage of Overtures 23 and 37 which were approved overwhelmingly at this year’s General Assembly. These clear and necessary overtures are meant to help sessions and presbyteries by providing guidelines for examining the character of candidates for ordination. It goes without saying that the NP’s opposition to these overtures gives insight into their vision for the PCA.
Another troubling feature of these many emails are the number of times the NP’s political leader refers to having “NP representatives” on the various committees and agencies. Please understand the significance of such statements. There is a secretive organization operating within the PCA which has labored to get their “representatives” (those working for NP ends) on PCA committees and agencies. How is this anything other than a party spirit? How is this not divisive? What do the many faithful lay men and women in the PCA think of such strategies? What are we to think of an unaccountable and secretive organization referring to its members as “representatives” of – not the PCA – but of the secretive organization?
Also troubling is the ubiquitous use of terms like “NP churches,” and “NP Presbyteries.” You read that correctly. There are pastors in the PCA who refer to PCA Presbyteries with NP members as “NP Presbyteries.” I wonder what our TE’s and RE’s who do not align with the National Partnership think of the presbytery they faithfully serve as being thought of as belonging to this unaccountable organization? If you understand Presbyterianism this sort of terminology is brazen to say the least. It’s certainly not Presbyterian.
Read More