Bishop Barron in “Frank Disagreement” with Synod on Synodality’s report on “Development of Moral Teaching”
“To say that this multilayered, philosophically informed, theologically dense system is incapable of handling the subtleties of human sexuality is just absurd,” Barron said.
“But the deeper problem I have is that this manner of argumentation is based upon a category error— namely, that advances in the sciences, as such, require an evolution in moral teaching,” he added.
“Let us take the example of homosexuality. Evolutionary biology, anthropology, and chemistry might give us fresh insight into the etiology and physical dimension of same-sex attraction, but they will not tell us a thing about whether homosexual behavior is right or wrong. The entertaining of that question belongs to another mode of discourse.”
A misperceived “tension between love and truth”
The bishop also noted that during discussions at the October synod assembly, there was a “perceived tension between love and truth,” particularly around the issue of outreach to the LGBT community.
“Practically everyone at the synod held that those whose sexual lives are outside of the norm should be treated with love and respect, and, again, bravo to the synod for making this pastoral point so emphatically. But many synod participants also felt that the truth of the Church’s moral teaching in regard to sexuality ought never to be set aside,” Barron said.
You Might also like
-
Should We Stay or Should We Go?
Written by Jon D. Payne |
Thursday, November 18, 2021
Don’t give up on the PCA. Double down in your commitment to pray, stay informed, and get involved. Obviously, there may be a time in the future to organize and depart together as a large group of confessional churches. But now is not the time. There is much to be encouraged by after the last General Assembly. Will you, therefore, along with the GRN, seek to prayerfully, winsomely, transparently, boldly, compellingly, and with integrity, contend for the future faithfulness of the PCA?It’s a question that more than a few PCA elders and members are asking right now. The recent Standing Judicial Commission’s (SJC) decision to reject the complaint against Missouri Presbytery has left many disheartened. Moreover, the current presbytery voting tallies on Overtures 23 and 37 show that there is no guarantee they will meet the two-thirds threshold necessary for a vote at next summer’s General Assembly. What if the overtures fail? Would this mean that all positive momentum gained this past June at the 48th General Assembly is lost? Has the time to depart the PCA finally come? The answer is a resounding NO!
It is not time to depart the PCA. It’s time to contend for the PCA—to humbly contend for the biblical and confessional faithfulness of our beloved church.
Divergent Visions for the PCA
The recent disclosure of National Partnership (NP) emails punctuates the fact that there are vastly divergent and competing visions for the future of the PCA. Most are now recognizing that these disparate visions are highly incompatible. The cache of NP emails also reveal that there are profoundly different methods of seeking to advance those visions. Over the years we (the GRN Council) have been encouraged to adopt similar political machinations as the NP, but we’ve firmly resisted. It’s not our way. It never has been.
The progressive wing’s sympathy with, or doctrinal indifference to, various tenets of Side B gay Christianity has been a major contributing factor to this sad incompatibility and division. It’s caused a heartbreaking rift in the PCA. To be sure, there are other matters fostering discord. It hardly needs mentioning, however, that Revoice doctrine is the most divisive issue at present. Even with the adoption of the excellent Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality there remains significant confusion, obfuscation, indifferentism, and fracturing over whether officers in the PCA should be permitted, for any reason, to retain and promote a settled gay identity. From my perspective, a split is inevitable if Revoice doctrine finds a permanent home in the PCA. Christ’s followers are called to renounce, hate, and mortify their sins, not foster and promote an identity with them.[1] We are called to kill our sin, not manage it. Those in the PCA who believe otherwise should repent or peacefully depart and find a denominational home elsewhere.
A Compelling Reformed Vision for the PCA
Over the past several years the Gospel Reformation Network has sought to publicly promote a compelling vision for the PCA—a transparent vision to cultivate warm-hearted biblical and confessional Presbyterianism in our churches and presbyteries. Through public articles, videos, conferences, lectures, seminars, booklets, seminary chapels, and luncheons we’ve aspired to encourage fellow elders to hold fast to the PCA’s founding vision—to be Faithful to the Scriptures, True to the Reformed faith, and Obedient to the Great Commission. We haven’t always done this perfectly, but from the beginning, it’s been our aim and focus; and by God’s grace it will continue to be.
The GRN’s purpose and distinctives are published on our website, in case you haven’t seen them. Moreover, we will host our second GRN National Conference, May 4–5, 2022 in Birmingham. Mark your calendars for this wonderful time of worship, teaching, and fellowship. We would love for you to join us. All are most welcome!
Members of the GRN Council have maintained regular interaction with our brothers on the opposite side of controversial issues facing the PCA. This is something for which I’m deeply grateful, despite the frustration that we (and they) often feel in our conversations. What many around the denomination do not realize is how much discussion actually occurs behind the scenes. I’ve personally grown from these interactions. They’ve helped me to understand better where my brothers are coming from, and what their positions truly are. These exchanges have also helped me to recognize the sin lurking in my own heart.
What Now?
Perhaps you are thinking, “So, if it’s not yet time to go, then what must be done? What can be done? What should I do personally? What should my session and congregation do to contend for the future faithfulness of the Presbyterian Church in America?” Here are a few actions items that I would humbly ask you to prayerfully consider:
Read More
[1] Shouldn’t we all be gravely concerned when a PCA minister feels the freedom to publicly post #LGBTinChrist? -
The House of Eli and Our Modern Hubris
The great need of our day is thus to heed the wisdom of the psalmist; to kiss the Son lest he be angry, and we perish in the way (Ps. 2:12). We should remember that reality is structured so as to one day give all glory to Christ as Lord (Phil. 2:10-11). Seas and rivers, hills and nations will clap their hands and sing together for joy when He comes to judge the earth (Ps. 98:7-9). The obligation that rests upon each of our shoulders, therefore, is to simply lay aside the burden of hubris and join the chorus.
Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: ‘I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever,’ but now the LORD declares: ‘Far be it from me, for those who honour me I will honour, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed. (1 Samuel 2:30)
In many ways, 1 and 2 Samuel may be read as a working-out of the principle stated by God in the above verse: “those who honour me I will honour, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed.” Initially uttered as a judgment upon the house of Eli, this statement forms one of the major themes of the two books, with different figures emerging on either side of the divide. On the one hand, we are met with various man-honouring figures such as Eli, Hophni, Phinehas, and Saul; on the other, we find various God-honouring figures in the persons of Hannah, Samuel, and David. The basic question, however, remains constant: Who will be glorified? Who will receive honour? Those who glorify Yahweh will themselves be glorified (1 Sam. 9:6; 2 Sam. 6:22), but those who despise Yahweh (by giving glory to others) will be “lightly esteemed.”
The word “glory,” translated by the ESV in this text as “honour,” is a term that carries with it the idea of weight or heaviness. To give glory or honour to someone is to ascribe a certain degree of weight, significance, or value to them. This is why Eli is condemned in this passage. His sin was honouring his sons above Yahweh — giving more weight to them than to God (v. 29).
By contrast, Samuel is presented in the text as an example of what it is to give proper honour or weight to Yahweh as the King of Israel. Through a life of obedience yielded to God in humility and faith, Samuel gives Yahweh the glory He is due.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Questions of Confidence
How is a confidential relationship created? Does one person have the authority to establish confidentiality by fiat? What about the request of the leader/moderator of a group—does that, by itself, establish confidentiality? Does remaining in a group whose originator desires confidentiality equate to tacit approval of that imposed confidentiality?
It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.—variously attributed to Mark Twain, Will Rodgers, etc.
Much ink has been spilt—or, perhaps, many keys have been struck—over the recent release of emails from the National Partnership going back almost a decade. In usual internet fashion, there has been as much clutching at pearls as there has been gentle (or not so gentle) nudges to move along because there is nothing here to see. I suppose with these emails having been leaked, anyone curious is able to decide for themselves.
My concern in this particular article is not so much if the emails contain nefarious plots, but rather the oft repeated rejoinder that these emails are confidential, and that the real nefarious deed was their illicit release to the public. This is not a small accusation—keeping confidence is a serious matter.
It is not very far into the emails that a header is added indicating the desire of the moderator of the email group that all those who receive the email keep it confidential. Not long after that, the moderator emails the group in response to a leak of emails to a presbyter outside the group. In that email, he declares his understanding of the confidential nature of the group. In particular, he asserts that confidentiality exists because of the private (i.e., non-public) nature of the conversation the emails contain.
This assertion (both specifically in that particular response and more generally as the claim is being bandied about) raises a number of questions. How is a confidential relationship created? Does one person have the authority to establish confidentiality by fiat? What about the request of the leader/moderator of a group—does that, by itself, establish confidentiality? If the leader of a group indicates that it was his intention for the group to have a layer of confidentiality, does that declared intention, by itself, establish confidentiality? Would that confidentiality be retroactive according to the originator’s desire, or would it only establish confidentiality on an ongoing basis? What if members of that thing remain after the leader has indicated his intention? Does remaining in a group whose originator desires confidentiality equate to tacit approval of that imposed confidentiality?
Much in line with caveat emptor, I would say “let the one who seeks to establish confidentiality beware.” Confidentiality requires the consent of both—indeed, all—parties. Without that consent, statements of confidentiality are both hollow and unsupported—regardless of what statements are made in the actual emails.
It does not appear that the apparent initiator and the primary communicator did have consent from all parties that this was, in fact, a confidential group. Take the repeated reminders of the authors desire for confidentiality. If membership in the email group was conditioned upon confidentiality—that is, if a prospective member had to explicitly agree to confidentiality to be part of the group—then the emails would not indicate the authors desire for the group to be confidential. Rather, the emails would remind the members of what they had agreed to in joining the group.
Read More