Brother or sister, if you are to love the “unlovables” in your church, you must begin to grasp how unlovable you were when Christ chose to put his love on you, and how unlovable you remain today even as you are secure in his love. 

“But That’s Impossible” Is the Whole Point
God often asks his people for the impossible. In Exodus 13–14, God led his people out of slavery in Egypt and into an impossible predicament. They were trapped between the Red Sea ahead and the pursuing army behind. Yet God led them through the sea. I love how Isaiah put it, hundreds of years later:
Thus says the Lord,who makes a way in the sea,a path in the mighty waters.Isaiah 43:16
In other words, this is not merely something that God did once upon a time. Making a way through the sea is his signature move! Jesus tells the man with the withered hand to stretch it out (Matthew 12:13). “But that’s impossible!” He tells the crippled man to get up and walk (John 5:8). “But that’s impossible!” He tells the dead man to get up (John 11:43). “But that’s impossible!”
This practical guide shares 8 truths to show readers how they can cultivate God-exalting unity by loving those in the church who, if they’re honest, sometimes drive them crazy.
Jesus’s commands offer more than instruction; they empower. At his command, the withered hand stretches out. The lame man walks. The dead man walks.
The same is true of life in your church. Easy love rarely shows off gospel power. But love that stretches beyond what’s possible is a stage, set to display the glory of God.
The Limits of “Ought To”
“OK,” you say. “I’m sold! I love this idea of church as beautiful reflection. I’m going to go build friendships with people in my church who are different from me, where we often disagree and don’t share much in common aside from Jesus. And together we’re going to show off the power of the gospel!” That determination is a good start, but if that’s as far as you go, you’re asking for trouble. Before we go any further, we should rope off one potentially harmful route to obedience.
In friendship, real motives become evident over time. “Do you really love me? Or do you love what it looks like to love me?” That can smell like tokenism, not friendship. And too many of the brothers and sisters in your church who are accustomed to feeling different from the rest have learned the hard way that they are sometimes valued mainly because they make the church look better. These could be people who are different from most of the church in terms of skin color, social class, age, political leanings, and so forth. I should tread carefully here. I don’t want to portray obedience-oriented love as entirely wrongheaded. “Ought to” is an entirely valid reason to love others in your church (John 14:15; 15:12). “Ought to” can be a good starting point for love, but “ought to” cannot be the furthest extent of your ambitions for love. If you love simply because you ought to love, then your love may come across as something less than love. And such love loses its luster once its true motivation comes to light.
Read More
Related Posts:

That any endeavor to soften the blunt message of Scripture that homosexuality is utterly perverse and shameful and ought to be forsaken entirely runs a risk of blurring the absolute difference between the Christian position and that of the sinful flesh, and thereby risks making repentance seem less urgent and of making redemption seem less liberating.

[Read Part One]

That affixing any adjective that describes a heinous sin or lifestyle to what we are in Christ is blasphemy. Well might a man tear his clothes and gnash his teeth to hear or read such a phrase used anywhere, but especially in the church of God assembled.
That the judicial powers of the church ought to be used to discipline and discourage such blasphemous speech.
That no new or special overtures ought to be necessary to prosecute those whose manner of life is so obviously contrary to the example Scripture requires of ministers of the gospel, especially when they have committed other sins (as blasphemy), that ought to be disciplined.
That the foregoing thesis is not limited to such adjectives as same-sex attracted, but that it would have equal propriety in condemning the blasphemous terms of movements to normalize swindling, stealing, reviling, drunkenness, or the other sins of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, if ever such movements should arise.
That the absence of such movements, coupled with the existence of a militant movement to normalize homosexuality, is the reason for the church’s present concern with sexual ethics rather than with those others.
That notwithstanding that no special overtures should be necessary to preserve the church’s purity in this matter, yet the practical exigencies of the situation commend the contemporary adoption of such overtures.
That the prevalence of other sins in no way deprives the church of its right and duty to condemn homosexual immorality.
That past failures in this or other matters in no way deprives the church of its right and duty to stand firm in this matter, but only indicate it has need to repent in such other matters.
That any endeavor to soften the blunt message of Scripture that homosexuality is utterly perverse and shameful and ought to be forsaken entirely runs a risk of blurring the absolute difference between the Christian position and that of the sinful flesh, and thereby risks making repentance seem less urgent and of making redemption seem less liberating.
That they who convert from homosexual sin to Christ will often be drawn because of the difference in experience between his service and that of their previous life.
That those who commit homosexual sin are no less human thereby, and are to be prayed for and ministered to no less than any other people, in keeping with the Lord’s admonition to love our neighbors as ourselves.
That all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and are absolute lawbreakers from the standpoint of his law, for every command of which they are responsible (Jas. 2:10).
That the foregoing being true, there is no occasion for believers to be proud or to look down upon or despise those who are ensnared in sexual immorality of any type. As an old adage says, ‘there but for the grace of God there go I.’
That God’s hand is not shortened that he cannot save (Isa. 59:1), and that it is his pleasure to effectually redeem his elect out of all types of sinful living (1 Cor. 6:11).
That the church, as such, should diligently witness to those ensnared in sexual immorality of all types.
That mercy takes different forms, depending upon the nature and needs of its recipients.
That it is no act of mercy to minimize the severity of a person’s sin, and that mercy too contains within itself the other virtues, such as hatred of evil. As Jude says, “save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh” (Jude 23).
That he is mistaken who imagines that mercy is only passive and meek, and who does not recognize that it is also, as befits the occasion, zealous and aggressive.
That it is an act of mercy for the church to declare, frequently and plainly (yet with tact), that those ensnared in homosexual sin ought to repent hastily for the sake of their present and future lives.
That it is no mercy to be inconsistent in these matters or to waver as regards fidelity to the historic position of God’s people.
That friendship with the world is enmity to God (Jas. 4:4), an inexcusable act of infidelity that profits nothing and brings only woe. The world has ever shown itself a fickle and cruel seductress, always intimating its acceptance and respect if this or that offensive doctrine is surrendered, but never giving such respect and always desiring more compromise and infidelity on the part of the church.
That a desire for the world’s acceptance lies behind much of what factions such as the National Partnership seek. The notion that the church might offend unbelievers seems to loom large in their thought, however much they might say that this is only a desire to be effective in reaching the lost.
That the contemporary language of many of our ministers is liable to corruption and to being used to excuse a lack of zeal in contending “for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). We are often told of the need to ‘contextualize’ the difficult teachings of the church. How easily this can come to mean that we compromise to avoid giving offense, that the one who ‘contextualizes’ so tempers his words as to attempt to make an unpopular teaching palatable to infidels. How different this is apt to be, in practice, from the direct and simple style of such examples as John the Baptist or our Lord and his apostles.
That he who avouches his orthodoxy ought not to be taken at his own word, but should have his actual teaching and, more than that, the fruit of his teaching, examined to see whether it is good or bad. For it is the mark of the heretic that he regards himself as right and faithful where everyone else has gone astray, and therefore self-testimony is always to be abetted by careful examination.
That he who holds to the orthodox faith is yet unfaithful if he does not defend it actively against those that would subvert it. For Scripture says that the maintenance of sound doctrine is a duty of elders when it says that an elder “must hold to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9).
That one should not listen to the wicked, nor give heed to the slanders of unbelievers, except it be to refute them. At the 47th General Assembly one pastor stated that hatred of homosexuals is believed to be the foremost characteristic of believers among contemporary youth, his point being that we should labor to modify this perception of us that the world has. Such a statement only proves that the world is ensnared in the lies of Satan and misunderstands us and our beliefs.
That to be thus misunderstood is neither surprising nor an occasion for modifying our presentation of the faith; for doing so would not release unbelievers from deception, and would likely only lead to them believing some other lie about us. And have we forgotten our Lord’s teaching that “blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Matt. 5:11), and that we are to meet such a prospect, not with embarrassment and a public relations campaign to rehabilitate our image, but are rather to “rejoice and be glad, for [our] reward is great in heaven” (v. 12)?
That the world lies in the power of the evil one is seen especially in this, that it misunderstands the nature of hatred. For the unbeliever regards any disapproval of the behavior of others as an act of hatred and unjust judgment, no matter its motivation or manner of expression. Yet hatred is not disapproval as such, but rather a feeling of strong antipathy which might be either wicked or righteous, depending upon its object and motivations.
That the respect of the world is neither good nor desirable, and that its presence would indicate infidelity to our Lord, whose words the world hates (Jn. 15:18-25). For he who chases the acceptance of the world chases a phantom, unless he be willing to surrender fully his service to Christ; and what does it profit a man to gain the world and to lose his soul (Matt. 16:26)?
That what is enjoined to increase the church’s effectiveness and size has ever tended to do the opposite.
That doctrinal decline is gradual and accomplished in phases. Seldom, if ever, does orthodoxy yield to obvious heresy in a single act of change. In small increments fidelity gives way to apostasy.

Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Thursday’s vote on the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act” has paved the way for the Supreme Court to overturn the 2015 5-4 opinion in Obergefell v. Hodge and thus return marriage back to the states. These lawmakers have unwittingly created the perfect scenario to fix the mess the Court originally created.”

Although the House passed the “Respect for Marriage Act” with a 258-169 vote that included 39 House Republicans, this action is a strategic blunder by advocates of same-sex marriage. Rather than a victory, the “Respect for Marriage Act” will make easier the argument to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 5-4 opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges regarding same-sex marriage.
Three of the five Justices in the slim Obergefell majority are no longer on the Court – Kennedy, Breyer, and Ginsburg. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a stinging dissent. Justice Thomas and Alito also dissented. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson have since joined the High Court.
Until the passage of the “Respect for Marriage Act,” the biggest hurdle to overturning Obergefell was not on the law but on policy. Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, has no support in the Constitution. Like Roe, Obergefell was “egregiously wrong from the start.” As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”
Until now, the biggest obstacle to overturning Obergefell was based on those who relied on the flawed decision to obtain a marriage license. What happens to these licenses? The consequence of overturning Obergefell is now off the table and is no longer a policy reason for upholding the opinion despite that fact it was wrongly decided. Until the decision is overturned, those who obtained licenses will be “grandfathered” in and the licenses will remain valid. However, like abortion, the Supreme Court will return the matter of marriage to the states to decide a state-by-state law going forward. States will then be free to return to their laws prior to 2015 that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
The case involving Kim Davis may be a vehicle to overturn Obergefell. This case is working its way back to the Supreme Court where one of the arguments will be that Obergefell was wrongly decided. Justices Thomas and Alito have already invited future challenges to the 2015 Obergefell marriage case since the decision was never constitutional.
Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Samuel Alito) wrote that the Supreme Court’s majority decision in Obergefell v. Hodges caused a collision with religious liberty, and the Court must fix it. Four justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, strongly dissented in Obergefell. Justice Alito predicted the opinion would cause significant problems for religious freedom.
Read More
Related Posts: