The answer for the church is not to allow its property to be used to celebrate and encourage such a destructive social phenomenon but to persist in telling the truth that God has ordained a definite order for human life, and that all things which run counter to that ensnare people in destructive falsehood and reduce their victims to earthly and eternal misery of body, mind, and spirit. It was no more loving for Memorial to allow its property to be used to promote such things than it was for Israel’s kings to allow the high places to be used for the worship of idols.

Tim Lecroy would have us put on mourning because of the recent departure of Memorial Presbyterian (St. Louis) from the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). And to be sure, it is a sad affair when any individual or church leaves our communion. Yet there are different reasons for being sad, and it is one of the tragedies of the moment that the same event has saddened different people for different reasons. Lecroy is displeased because he believes that what he regards as a faithful church and ministers “have been bullied out of the denomination.” There are others, including the present author, who are saddened because a body of professing believers has fallen into error and willfully separated itself from the church rather than heed rebuke and repent of its waywardness. Let me state this plainly: I take no pleasure in Memorial’s departure and am grieved that affairs came to such a point. The scriptural witness (Prov. 24:17; comp. Obad. 12) compels me to regard this as a grim occasion for sobriety and self-appraisal (1 Cor. 10:12; Gal. 6:1; Phil. 3:18). But the tragedy of the moment would be increased if we were to misunderstand the true nature of the situation.
One, it is reported that 42 churches left our communion between 2012 and 2020. The casual observer might think it rather amiss that we are to lament Memorial’s departure when we have not been urged to lament the departure of these other 42 churches. Were such churches less worthy of our lament than Memorial? No indeed, and yet unless there is something of which I am unaware, there has been rather little public expression of sorrow at these things.
It so happens that I am not a casual observer in this matter. I have a fair bit of correspondence from people who have left the PCA, or whose churches have done so, and it portrays a situation in which the departed felt compelled to do so because they believed the PCA had serious issues and was not interested in resolving them. Lecroy asserts that we handled the Memorial matter poorly by allowing its leaders to be subjected to largely unjustified opposition and is saddened on that account; my more numerous correspondents assert the opposite, and believe that the PCA was feckless in opposing grievous wrong and that we should be ashamed and repent accordingly.  Such absolute difference in opinion raises an important question: whose understanding of the matter – and by extension, whose reasons for grief – is just and in accord with the truth? Whose sadness is what Paul calls a “godly grief” that “produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret” (2 Cor. 7:10), and whose is a merely earthly grief that things have not gone as we wished?
In answer consider a few facts. Memorial allowed its property to be used for a series of plays celebrating transsexuality (“Transluminate”). Lecroy regards this as “unwise and unhelpful, but not worthy of censure or excommunication.” Scripture has a different view. When God’s people use their property that he has given them to worship him in order to promote debauchery that is heinous in his sight, he, being a jealous God, does not gloss over the matter. He testifies to the wrong by his Word, and then in due time punishes the faithless with temporal punishments that are meant to bring them to repentance and that are meant to serve as a testimony to others as to the depravity of the offense (e.g., Ezekiel 5:1-11:13, esp. 5:11, 7:2-4, 8:16-18). When people who should call the wayward and confused to repentance instead give them practical support in committing their sin, thus making repentance less likely, God says that those who have done so have done a great evil by their dereliction (Lk. 17:2; Eze. 3:18; 33:6,8; comp. Lk. 17:2).
And when men who purport to be ministers of a God whose eyes are too pure to behold evil (Hab. 1:13) yet talk about the “human propensity to [expletive] things up,” and in so doing use an obvious heretic’s alternative to the orthodox doctrine of sin, Scripture condemns their speech: “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless” (Jas 1:26). “But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you’” (Jude. 1:9). Also, “let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths” (Eph. 4:29); “now you must put . . . away . . . obscene talk from your mouth” (Col. 3:8); and “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matt. 12:34; comp. 7:15-20); as well as sundry other passages that teach foul language is unholy (Isa. 6:5; Jas. 3:9-10; Ps. 10:7; 59:12).
Now one might fancy from my vehemence that I am a fundamentalist prude with little experience of how many people speak. Actually, I work in a field in which foul language is the norm – many of my coworkers struggle to express frustration without cursing – and it is a sin with which I am constantly tempted and to which, alas, I rather frequently succumb. It is a sin of which I am guilty, yes, but also one which I am trying to overcome. Now consider: am I more likely to mortify this sin in a church in which it is censured, or in one whose ministers believe it an example of culturally-sensitive, ‘nuanced’ ministry? One in which it is recognized as evil and forbidden; for this thing is common where it is acceptable, whereas it is rare or unheard where it is disapproved. My grandmother would promptly rebuke me on the spot for saying something like ‘darn’ – and I feel no inclination to curse in her presence. I have had coworkers who used certain four letter words as naturally and frequently as if they were conjunctions – and behold, I felt a strong urge to do the same. Funny how that works.
And yet that understanding of the nature of human speech and its morality – one which all of my school teachers and most of my other employers understood – is apparently not known by one of Memorial’s pastors. Imagine that: a thing which would have gotten soap in the mouth at home, detention in school, and a pink slip in many jobs, and yet it is put forth as Christian ministry to comfort the tempted! It seems to be forgotten that one cannot urge to holiness with unclean vulgarity, nor motivate resistance to temptation with actual sin.[1]
It is my own failures regarding cursing, and my own efforts to overcome it which motivate my opposition to it here, for I recognize that a church in which such evil is allowed to pass unrebuked is a church in which I will never be sanctified on this point. And the tendency of the leaven of sin being to further leaven everything it touches, I doubt that such a church will be free of failure on many other points.
As for sadness here, it is a grief that ministers would ever get to a point where they thought it acceptable to write in such a manner; and it is a further sadness that such a slip was either unnoticed or unrestrained. That is the proper ground of sadness here. It is not that the one who published such things left our denomination formally, but that long before his morals in speech had already done so, and that the fault was not meaningfully corrected.
And so it is with the other matter to which I alluded. Where it is unthinkable to publicly present oneself as having a sex that differs from one’s actual anatomy (sans surgical alteration), the phenomenon of sexual confusion is extremely rare. There are still very few who suffer it, and they deserve our pity and aid, for such an experience must surely be miserable. But they deserve our aid, not our indulgence; and the habit of affirming those with such afflictions has caused the frequency of that phenomenon to explode, particularly among the young and impressionable. When saying ‘I’m a man trapped in a woman’s body’ receives society’s disapproval, almost no one does it. When it is met with approval and all manner of practical, medical, legal, and political favor, it suddenly becomes in vogue.
The answer for the church is not to allow its property to be used to celebrate and encourage such a destructive social phenomenon but to persist in telling the truth that God has ordained a definite order for human life, and that all things which run counter to that ensnare people in destructive falsehood and reduce their victims to earthly and eternal misery of body, mind, and spirit. It was no more loving for Memorial to allow its property to be used to promote such things than it was for Israel’s kings to allow the high places to be used for the worship of idols. It was not reaching the lost; it was giving practical aid for them to commit a type of sin which is especially ensnaring and destructive of its victims. The sadness is not that Memorial has left, but that they ever got to a point of being so confused about what is right and wrong, as well as that they did not heed rebuke but attempted to justify their sin. There is still time for them to repent, and everyone in the PCA ought to pray that they do so, but our grief ought to be felt for the right reason.
And in conclusion let me state that there is one other point on which we all ought to be engaged in frequent, tearful prayer. Memorial is gone, yes, but there are many in our midst who still feel it was guiltless of serious wrongdoing and that its deeds were only “unwise” (as Lecroy put it). And the fact stands against the PCA that it failed to punish wrongdoing effectively. There is a great difference between a wrongdoer being named as a sinner and cast by the church from her offices and such a person leaving of his own volition. In the first case the church exercises its spiritual power to declare to the sinner and others his true nature and need to repent. In the latter he leaves unrebuked because he believes he has been wronged.
We should not allow wrongdoers to depart imagining themselves as victims rather than perpetrators. The whole point of discipline is to appraise and declare someone’s true nature on the basis of his deeds. We did not do that in any meaningful sense of the term, and the accused even seized that as an opportunity to publicly present himself as “exonerated” of wrong and thus imply his opponents are slanderers. Those responsible for this failure to administer discipline are still in office among us, and there is reason to think they persist in their original thinking. For the failure to do our duty and the probability that we will continue to fail in future there is much occasion for sadness, dear reader, and it is on that account that you should be grieved. Pray for discernment and mercy, for God observes our deeds and it may be that it is with us now as it was with Peter’s audience, and that it “is time for judgment to begin at the household of God” (1 Pet. 4:17).
Tom Hervey is a member, Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Simpsonville, SC. The statements made in this article are the personal opinions of the author alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of his church or its leadership or other members.
[1] To be sure, Scripture uses some vivid terms, yet they are not unclean. There is a popular notion that the Gk. skubala in Phil. 3:8 is really a curse word for dung. Without getting into a detailed discussion, suffice it to say that such a claim betrays the eagerness of many for a pretext to justify their carnal speech, but that such evidence as is claimed for it is far from convincing and is rather heavy on assumptions and mere appeals to authority.
Related Posts:

Written by David T. Crum |
Wednesday, January 17, 2024
Since the fall of mankind, the Lord has been carrying out judgment on wickedness, often resulting in death in battle or wars. When disasters occur, or wars start, rest assured that the Lord is at work. It may be humanly impossible for us to ascertain the purpose, but Christians can find solace in knowing God remains in control.

This is a remarkable passage for the purpose of providing the right of the sword; for if the Lord, by arming the magistrate, has also committed to him the use of the sword, whenever he visits the guilty with death, by executing God’s vengeance, he obeys his commands. Contend then do they with God who think it unlawful to shed the blood of wicked men.—John Calvin

It is true that Christians should abhor war. Imitating the teachings of the Lord, believers are called to live a life of peace. A valuable example occurred when Jesus ordered Peter to put down his sword (Matthew 26:52). Much the same, Stephen sought prayers for those stoning him to death (Acts 7:60), not vengeance.
However, the concept and call to peace do not negate the fact that warfare is present in this fallen world. And it is clear through war that the Lord’s providence occurs.
Among the great Reformers, John Calvin garnered wide recognition for upholding a reputation of peace. John Knox, famous for carrying the Bible in one hand and a sword in the other, remained a bit fierier than his mentor (Calvin). Luther, like Knox, defended his own movement aggressively. Luther commented on war, “For if the sword were not on guard to preserve peace, everything in the world must go to ruin because of lack of peace. Adding, “When men write about war, then and say that it is a great plague, that is all true; but they should also see how great the plague is that it prevents.”[1]
Luther and Knox had merit for their aggressive response to the Papacy and darkness needing to be confronted by the sword. Calvin frequently discussed war, too. He wrote:
He (God) bids us to live chastely and refrain from all violence. However, when wars break out in the world, when there is bloodshed and countless acts of rape, will we say when these occur that God failed in his counsel to consider what was right? Do we think that he would let fortune prevail, as if he were asleep in heaven, or was enjoying a delightful rest? What a blasphemous idea! It would be like making God into an idol…If God did not determine everything in this world and keep Satan and all his evildoers in check, we would most certainly be doomed to perish a hundred times every minute of the day. Moreover, unless we realize that wars and similar things are judgments which God uses to punish our sins, we would surely not be brought to repentance.[2]
Read More
Related Posts:

All Christians are called to similarly engage with the fallen world into which God has placed us. That is how Christianity transforms culture: one interaction at a time. That influence is really what effective followership is about, and since leadership is influence, effective followership is simply leadership by another name. This means that as Christians, we are called to be effective followers both of Christ and of the secular authorities God has placed over us.

In previous posts about cultural issues in general and transgender pronouns in particular, I have addressed ways in which Christians can conscientiously object to policies that would cause them to sin.  This will undoubtedly lead to conflicts in the workplace between Christians objecting to these policies and their leaders who are charged with enforcing them, which brings up a leadership topic that is not often discussed but definitely important: followership.  Every leader is a follower, but not all followers are leaders, so it is just as important (if not more important) to know how to be a good follower as a good leader.
Followership
So what is a good follower?  We often associate good followership with blind obedience or unquestioning agreement, but these are actually not traits of effective followers.  Instead, Robert Kelley said that effective followers “think for themselves and carry out their duties and assignments with energy and assertiveness. Because they are risk takers, self-starters, and independent problem solvers, they get consistently high ratings from peers and many superiors….Effective followers are well-balanced and responsible adults who can succeed without strong leadership”.[1]  He goes on to describe the qualities of effective followers: self-management, commitment to the organization and to purposes outside of themselves, ever-increasing competence, effective focus of effort, courage, honesty, and credibility.[2]  For Christians, this aligns with commands for servants to respect their leaders while working heartily as ultimately working for God (Ephesians 6:5-8).  Its proactive nature and sense of greater underlying purpose also fit well with my definition of submission based on Philippians 2:3-4 from my leadership paper: “choosing to live sacrificially by putting the needs of others and their ultimate good ahead of ourselves motivated by a healthy fear of God and following the example of Christ”. This means that good followers develop a reputation of trustworthiness, diligence, and competence such that when they disagree with their leaders, those leaders are willing not only to listen to them but even take certain risks in order to accommodate them.  Therefore, Christian workers should endeavor to build just such a reputation before conscientiously objecting to policies.
With this reputation, a good follower can also strongly yet respectfully disagree with their leaders.  This needs to happen behind closed doors before a decision is made.  The follower makes the case to the leader why a different course of action would be better and the two can debate it.  Since these discussions can get passionate, the military term to describe them is “cussing and discussing”.  This term does not necessitate the use of foul language—which the Christian is forbidden from using (Ephesians 4:29)—but speaks to how a leader and follower can passionately disagree about what is best for the organization and debate the topic in a heated manner while still maintaining respect for each other.  At the end, the leader makes the decision then the two exit the room on the same page.  If the leader ends up still deciding to follow the course of action the follower opposed, a good follower will own that decision and work hard to make it successful.  Regardless of the outcome, the private nature of the discussion means that the two can disagree and resolve that disagreement without undermining the reputation of either in the eyes of others.   However, this only applies when the leader’s decision does not cause the Christian follower to do something unethical.  If a prospective leadership decision would cause a Christian to sin, the Christian follower must find a way to avoid sin while still obeying the leader.  It is to this challenge we now turn.
Daniel as an Effective Follower
A wonderful example of this is found throughout the life of the prophet Daniel.  Taken from Jerusalem as a teenager, he was forced to serve the kings of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires.  This he and his friends did with such distinction that they became trusted advisers and thus some of the most influential men in the world at the time.  Throughout this time, they also had to confront the most powerful men in the world at the time.  His friends had to confront Nebuchadnezzar’s self-absorbed idolatry by refusing to worship his statue (chapter 3).  Daniel then had to tell Nebuchadnezzar that he would be humiliated by God as a punishment for his pride and self-confidence (chapter 4).  He also had to declare impending doom to Belshazzar by interpreting the writing on the wall (chapter 5) before refusing to commit idolatry by praying to Darius (chapter 6).  In all of this, he had such a reputation for impeccable character that his enemies literally had to invent an unethical law in an attempt to bring him down.  This makes him perhaps the best merely human example of being above reproach that we see in Scripture.  All Christians should seek to emulate his example such that if our enemies want to dig up dirt on us, they will need to provide that dirt themselves.
Daniel and his friends developed this reputation from the beginning of their time in Babylon, giving us an excellent example of how to conscientiously object well with their refusal to eat the king’s food.  With all of the remarkable stories and prophecies recorded in Daniel, the story of the “Daniel diet” in Daniel 1:8-16 appears unremarkable, but this amazing event would set the tone for his entire seventy years of service while teaching us how to maintain obedience to God while serving our secular bosses well.  From Daniel 1:3-7, we learn that Daniel and his three friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were among the Jewish youths taken from Jerusalem to Babylon to serve in the royal court.  This began with three years of indoctrination in the Babylonian language, literature, culture, practices, and religion to turn them from Jews to Babylonians ready for service.  Part of this process was changing their names from names that reflected their devotion to the God of Israel to names that honored the false gods of Babylon: Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.[3]  It also entailed a change from the diet required in the Law to eating food forbidden by the Law.  It was to this that Daniel objected, since obedience to the authorities over him in eating the food provided would have meant disobeying God.  So Daniel went to the chief of the eunuchs who was over him and asked not to eat the food and drink the wine provided but to keep a diet of vegetables and water that would obey the Law.  After Daniel and his friends successfully tested this diet for ten days, they were allowed to continue it indefinitely.  Thus, they successfully objected to a policy that would have forced them to sin without any negative impact on their careers.  We can take several lessons from this.
Lesson 1: Develop a Reputation for Trustworthiness and Excellence
Successful conscientious objection is greatly aided by a good reputation.  Daniel clearly established a reputation for both character and excellence early, which bought him an audience with the chief of the eunuchs.  There is no telling how many boys were part of this program, but it was likely enough that someone of less reputation would have been ignored or punished.  No doubt some level of attrition was expected in this program, meaning that without that reputation Daniel could have easily been removed.  It was at least partially due to his good reputation that the chief of the eunuchs was willing not only to listen to him but also to allow his alternate diet.  Daniel and his friends had clearly established a good reputation as both honorable and competent young men such that their removal would have been detrimental to the program, meaning the chief of the eunuchs had a vested interest in listening to them and even accommodating them.  When we conscientiously object, we should have established a reputation such that our leaders are willing to do what they can to accommodate us and even fight for us to their superiors if necessary.  Without such a reputation, it will be much easier for our leaders to either ignore us or fire us for our objections since they wouldn’t have a vested interest in keeping us.
Lesson 2: Choose Your Battles
Just as the boy who cried wolf was not taken seriously when the actual wolf arrived, so conscientiously objecting Christians will not be taken seriously if they develop a reputation of objecting to nearly everything.  It is easy to focus on what Daniel objected to while forgetting what he did not object to.  First and foremost, his name was changed from one honoring God to one honoring pagan gods, which he could have objected to on the basis of the probation of idolatry, but he did not.  Instead, it appears he found a workaround by using both his given and new names, as he is referred to several times in the book by both names together (Daniel 2:26, 4:8, 4:19, 5:12, 10:1).  He was thus able to use the new name while still ensuring it was clear that he retained his identity as a worshipper of the One True God.
Read More
Related Posts: