Unless the Church of Scotland returns to the Gospel, it will die. To some, this seems a strange statement. What does same-sex marriage have to do with the Gospel? It’s straightforward. We do not make up the Gospel. We receive it by revelation from Christ – through his word. Part of that is his teaching about marriage. When we start to dismantle that word and rearrange it according to the views of our culture, then it is not the Gospel we believe, but ourselves. When we move away from Scripture, we move away from Christ. Whenever a Church does that, it withers and dies.

Christian Today asked me to write this article about the C of S assembly decision.   It is different from my earlier article on the Wee Flea earlier this week.
What Happened?
After a long and protracted process which began with the Scott Rennie case in 2009, the Church of Scotland approved the solemnisation of same-sex marriages in the Church by a vote of 276 to 136 at this week’s General Assembly in Edinburgh. Ministers can now apply to be celebrants, and no one will be compelled to take part.
The Moderator, Rev Dr Ian Greenshields, explained why this had taken so long.
“The Church of Scotland is a broad church and there are diverse views on the subject of same-sex marriage among its members.”There has been a lengthy, prayerful and in-depth discussion and debate about this topic for many years at all levels of the Church to find a solution that respects diversity and values the beliefs of all.”
There was considerable concern at the beginning of this process that the evangelicals would leave. Given the decline in the Church, the Church leaders were well aware of the devastating impact this would have – so they played the long game using a mix of carrot and stick.On the one hand they appointed evangelical moderators (whose job was to ensure that the evangelicals stayed on board and ensured that there were theological commissions with evangelicals on board – although always a minority). On the other hand, they made it difficult for evangelicals to leave – for example playing hard ball over buildings and finances.
These tactics worked. Although a number of evangelicals did leave – including almost all the big evangelical congregations in the cities – there was not a mass exodus. Indeed, some evangelicals facilitated the change.
What does it mean?
The politicians approve. For example, the SNP tweeted their delight: “Congratulations to the Church of Scotland – to all those campaigners for today’s historic moment! An overwhelming majority in the General Assembly in favour of allowing ministers to conduct same-sex marriages.”
And of course, the media are on board. It is incomprehensible to most modern journalists how anyone could be opposed to same-sex marriage. To them it is like being opposed to love! The trouble is when you ask them to define ‘love’, they struggle.
The Church of Scotland is now fully on board with the progressive ‘values’ that run contemporary Scotland. This week they also passed a motion supporting the government’s ban on so called ‘conversion therapy’. It’s strange that they appear to be silent about the other great social issue currently dividing society – transgender ideology. It would be good if the Assembly told us what a woman is and acted in defence of women.
Where is the Church going?
The answer is: to extinction. The Church of Scotland has seen a fall of a third of its membership in the past decade. The Trustees report stated: “A 34 per cent reduction was seen between 2011 and 2021, with no indication of this trend reversing from 2021 congregational data.” Over the past 60 years, the Church has lost a million of the 1.3 million members it once enjoyed.
Read More
Related Posts:

Instead of the family of God requiring “an agreed-upon fiction to sustain itself,” it will act out an agreed-upon principle which is heaven given.  Reconciliation may be the most redemptive act we are at liberty to perform.  God has not been created for our needs, but Christians have been recreated for His pleasure.  Reconciliation pleases God.

A reviewer of a French movie wrote, “The family, like any other institution, requires agreed-upon fictions to sustain itself.”  I was struck by the fact that there might be more truth than fiction to that statement vis-à-vis the family of God.  We might wish that the world could view Christians as one big happy, loving family.  But if we are honest, we must recognize and acknowledge that we hardly imitate our heavenly father or His Son, Jesus Christ, in the area of reconciliation.
It is sad, but true, there are believers who won’t speak to other believers and are unwilling to resolve the problems between them in either a biblical or healthy manner.  Such cases exist in the same church or fellowship as well as in the same Christian circles.  Lest anyone not get the point, this is, unfortunately, true of evangelical Christians and organizations, including some who exercise spiritual leadership.  Besides appearing hypocritical to the world, such situations most certainly bring tears to our redeemer’s eyes and anger to our heavenly Father who has forgiven many more grievous sins and offenses than we could imagine possible.  As to reconciliation, Matthew, the Evangelist, aims his words well and hits the mark squarely.  He writes: “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and then remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar.  First go and be reconciled to your brother, then come and offer your gift.”  (Matthew 5:24) Reconciliation is a prerequisite for worship.  A few verses earlier, Matthew warns: “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.”  (Matthew 5: 22) What greater proof of anger can there be than a total shut down of communication?  It is obvious that Matthew is speaking of believers because he calls them “brothers” rather than neighbors.
Jerry Alpert of the Central Christian Counseling Center contributed an article to the April Centralian entitled: “Verbal Terminosis.”  In it he succinctly defines what can be termed the extreme opposite of reconciliation.  He defines “Verbal Terminosis” as “Termination of open and honest communication between spouses, parents and children, and friends.”  He also notes that “it is highly contagious and should be treated at first sign of infection.”  Perhaps the definition can be expanded to include Christians of any degree of affinity.
Some consider forgiveness to mean, “I won’t hold it against you or bring it up again, but I don’t want to see you again, or I won’t talk with you anymore.”  This is neither forgiveness nor reconciliation.  Forgiveness includes restoration of fellowship as existed previous to the breakdown in communication.  Isn’t that true of God’s forgiveness toward us?  Can it be any different in our relationships with one another?
When Matthew carefully chose the word “reconciled,” he picked a word that means “to renew friendship with one” in the original language.  When Christians obey God’s Word and become reconciled with one another, they prove to the world, as well as to one another, the power of the Gospel in their lives and model transparently God’s love to an incredulous, mocking world.  Reconciliation is what redemption is all about, and our willingness to be reconciled with others may well be one of the most trustworthy indicators of our own redemption in Jesus Christ and reconciliation with God the Father.
Let’s be careful not to grieve God’s Son or to anger our heavenly Father, inviting judgment on us by our unwillingness to be reconciled with one another.  May the world scratch its head as it ponders the power of the gospel lived out through believers and notes, “See how they love one another.”
Instead of the family of God requiring “an agreed-upon fiction to sustain itself,” it will act out an agreed-upon principle which is heaven given.  Reconciliation may be the most redemptive act we are at liberty to perform.  God has not been created for our needs, but Christians have been recreated for His pleasure.  Reconciliation pleases God. 
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.

As dreary as a study on depravity might sound. It is very theologically rich and beneficial. It is not until we have genuinely grasped the reality of who we are and what we have been saved from that we can see the riches and depths of God’s grace. 

In the first article of this series, I worked to dispel some of the common misconceptions related to Calvinism. Moving forward, I will begin addressing the doctrines individually using the commonly known acronym, TULIP, as a guide for our discussion.
The TULIP acronym represents:
T – Total DepravityU – Unconditional ElectionL – Limited AtonementI – Irresistible GraceP – Perseverance of the Saints
It’s worth noting from the outset that the phrasing above doesn’t always do the best job in describing what each doctrine teaches. Some of the terminologies can be a little misleading. For example, the phrase “Limited Atonement” doesn’t outline who or what is limited (more on that in a later article), and that has led to some confusion over the years. Nevertheless, because TULIP  is so well known, it makes sense to use it for our study. In cases where the terminology is weak or unclear, I will do my best to explain why and offer some supplementary phrasing that better captures the accurate teaching of the doctrine(s).
Total Depravity
If one wishes to understand Calvinism rightly, there are a couple of core, bedrock principles to grasp. Total Depravity is one of them. I contend that every other doctrinal point in the TULIP acronym hinges on a correct understanding and application of Total Depravity. If you miss this one, it will likely skew how you process and apply the others. Though each doctrine is fully supported in scripture, the interworkings of each form a holistic understanding of biblical soteriology. Total Depravity is, in many ways, a systematic, theological linchpin for Calvinism.
Before moving on, I want to make it clear that Calvinism is biblical before it is systematic. Many critics point to the systematic nature of Calvinism as a fault, stating that it’s a forced reading of scripture in an attempt to fit doctrine into a system. This is simply not true. Reformed thought holds scripture in the highest regard, and any observed systematic reading in scripture is read because it is simply that – observed. The reformers were adamantly opposed to forcing doctrines, traditions, etc. Scripture is, and always will be, the final rule of Calvinism.
A right understanding of how sin has impacted the positional standing of mankind before a just and holy God is elemental to biblical and reformed thought. If we think too much of ourselves and our good works, we miss the entire point of the bible. This is because the true cornerstone of our faith, our salvation, our hope, and our glory is only found in Christ. He is the focus and glory of all of human history – not us. I once heard a theologian remark, “If your sin is great, your Savior will also be great.” This is how a study of Total Depravity helps us. It teaches us, who we are and what we naturally deserve: wrath. Total Depravity is a critical, first lesson that one must learn if they are to truly grasp the depth, beauty, and richness of God’s sovereign grace.
Stated plainly, Total Depravity teaches that original sin impacts and taints every person in every aspect of our being. In other words, the whole person is affected and dead in sin – the sum total of the person. Adam’s fallen nature was passed down to all of us when he sinned in the Garden of Eden, and ever since, humanity has had a genetic disposition towards sin. Our nature loves sin and hates God.
One should note that Total Depravity doesn’t teach that we’re all as bad as we can be. This is a case where the phrasing of the doctrine can be a little misleading. Many read “Total Depravity” and understand it to refer to the extent of one’s sinfulness. This is clearly not the case. Anyone, even Hitler, could conceivably be eviler. I believe it was the late R.C. Sproul, the Presbyterian theologian and pastor, who said he preferred the term “radical corruption.” I tend to agree. This wording more aptly describes the meaning of the doctrine.
Having said that, the severity of this depraved reality cannot be overstated. In a spiritual sense, we all are born dead in sin. When Adam, our federal head sinned, we died in the garden with him, and outside of God’s regenerative works, we do not inherently possess the ability to do good. Genuine piety, faith, repentance, and the like are completely foreign to our natures. Naturally speaking, we want nothing to do with God.
Consider this for a moment: have you ever had to teach a young child to be naughty or do they simply come by it naturally? Any parent will tell you that a kid’s nature is prone to disobedience, selfishness, and disrespectfulness. They must be taught how to behave. Like you and I, their hearts are enslaved to the power of sin and radical corruption. This is what the bible refers to when it speaks of us being slaves to sin (Romans 6:6).
Read More
Related Posts: