Shapeless homes and interchangeable churches lower the drawbridge for Korah to invade. The likes of feminism, socialism, LGBTQ+, and smooth-sounding egalitarianism might tell us how special we all are, even co-opting the imago dei. But the plain instruction given to Christian husbands and wives, fathers and children, kings and citizens, masters and servants, shepherds and individual sheep survives. In Christ, we do not chafe at this. Of all people, we best love just sovereigns, good heads, righteous authorities and their rule. We will not follow Korah’s sweet talk into the earth’s core. If tempted by his rhetoric, hear Christ himself ask us, “Is it too small a thing to you that the living God has loved you, chosen you, redeemed you, and graced you to rule with me in the endless world to come?”

Outrage against God’s men never sounded so heroic.
“You have gone too far!” they shouted at Moses. “For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” (Numbers 16:3).
The hundreds of men at the entrance lobbied for the people. They demanded notice. Far from peeking around avatars and fake names, these men confronted Moses as men — “well-known men,” in fact, chiefs in their communities, shepherds of families and clans (Numbers 16:2). Their charge: Moses and Aaron have exalted themselves; they rule with confiscated authority. Their logic: all of Israel is holy, every last person. Who is this Moses and this Aaron to speak from on high? This was “Power to the People.”
Did they have a point? Moses, after all, wrote that Israel was to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6). Did “kingdom of priests” actually mean “sons of Aaron”? Did “holy nation” actually mean “holy prophet”? Had not Moses and Aaron “gone too far” in asserting their authority?
Korah, the people’s champion, thought so. He placed himself at the head of this small army. Shouts swelled, “All in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and Yahweh is among them — come down from your castles!”
Moses, the meekest man on earth, gives us a lesson for today with his reply.
Motives Unmasked
Moses responds with the following steps.
First, he falls on his face. He grew weary of his life as a constant game of thrones. Would Moses have ever chosen this staff for himself? He tried his best to deny it from the start — “Oh, my Lord, please send someone else” (Exodus 4:13). Since then, he has heard the thankless voices repeat, “Who made you a prince and a judge over us?” (Exodus 2:14). He collapses in prayer.
Second, he challenges Korah and his company. He bows before God; he stands before men. He challenges Korah and the other sons of Levi to return tomorrow: “In the morning the Lord will show who is his, and who is holy, and will bring him near to him” (Numbers 16:5).
Third, he unmasks Korah’s motives. Here, Moses gives us our lesson. He diagnoses what Korah’s rebellion is really about — something very different than presented. Korah shouted of equality, of fairness, of removing mountains and lifting valleys. But what did Moses hear?
Hear now, you sons of Levi: is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself, to do service in the tabernacle of the Lord and to stand before the congregation to minister to them, and that he has brought you near him, and all your brothers the sons of Levi with you? And would you seek the priesthood also? (Numbers 16:8–10)
The revolutionists said, “Sameness for all! All of us are holy! The Lord walks among us — why should Moses and Aaron reign?” But Moses heard, “We want the priesthood.”
Korah and his company were Levites (like Moses and Aaron) but not priests. Priesthood belonged to Aaron and his sons. The Levites helped the priests and served in the tabernacle, but they did not possess full access. Discontent festered.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by B.C. Newton |
Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Even as we rightly aim to destroy demonic ideologies, we should labor to make it known that Christ calls those ensnared within them to come in repentance of their sin and find life and joy in Him.

I have said once or twice that the Woke and LGBT ideology is a present manifestation of the spirit of the antichrist. And I double down on that belief, for time has only continued to unveil its beastliness.
Yet while the culture war continues to rage, I would like to very briefly ask my brothers and sisters in Christ to poke our heads above the fray of headlines and to consider the years ahead and how they might impact our actions today.
First, although society at large has apparently decided to treat 2 Timothy 3:1-7 as a list of aspirations, we should take comfort that every little horn is eventually cast down. Every Ashurbanipal is eventually slain. Every Nebuchadnezzar is eventually humbled. Every Antiochus is eventually disemboweled. Every Herod is eventually eaten with worms. The King of kings will not allow His glory and truth to be thrown to the ground and trampled forever. Therefore, every ruler or ideology that places itself directly against the Most High will be defeated. And that certainly goes for the Woke ideology that promotes as virtuous the slaughter of babies, the butchering and neutering of the children, and the mockery of marriage. Such a blatant rebellion against God’s will and design cannot stand forever.
We must believe that truth, difficult as it may be while in the midst of the beast’s reign. While drug traffickers being allowed to confess openly on social media without repercussions because they now belong to the sacred class and the exponential yearly increases of those who identify as being LGBT may make it seem like the contest of worldviews has already been decided, we should meditate on God’s Word and remember that this Babel shall also be brought down. Indeed, Wokeism must eventually be seen for the vanity that it truly is and for the societal regression that its “progress” is creating. And as the enchantment of the devil is broken, the body of Christ must be ready to do what our Lord Himself modeled: lead weary sinners to the Living Water.
Read More
Related Posts:

Culture and even the church, has been influenced (propagandized) through television, music, films, and public education by claiming that homosexuality is not sin and should be accepted. It’s now just another legitimate choice. Not only is it possible, but it is entirely likely, that candidates for church office may not even consider their views to be contrary to our Standards. The notion that homosexuality is to be considered sinful is no longer an issue, thus the wording of O29 would be satisfied nicely. Thus, O15, with its clarifying wording, is needed to ensure that candidates for church office must examine their character based on Scripture and not common cultural definitions.

In a recent article (https://www.semperref.org/articles/why-i-am-voting-against-overture-15), Pastor Jim Weidenaar gave his reasons for voting against Overture 15 on the grounds that it “is too general and undefined to offer constructive guidance here. Beyond this, the addition of Overture 15’s language [“Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.”] to the Presbyterian Church in America Book of Church Order (BCO) would be destructive by wrongfully depriving the church of godly and qualified shepherds, by creating an atmosphere which stifles rather than guides biblical repentance and fellowship among those who experience this category of sinful temptation, and by encouraging the church’s ordained elders to model a heretical understanding of the gospel in which the spiritually mature have moved beyond the need to confess sin.”
He begins by asking four questions about another overture, specifically, Overture 29, since it deals with the same topic of qualifications for church office. He asks, “What does Overture 15 add to Overture 29 that makes it a necessary addition to the BCO?” His four questions, which are actually objections, are:

Is it the literal use of the term homosexual in his description of himself? 
Is it the fact that the candidate tells anyone about this aspect of his sin/temptation/sanctification experience? 
Is it to single out this sin (or, that someone has this sort of temptation experience as opposed to any other)?
Is it about ontology?

In his first objection, Pastor Weidenaar claims that Overture 29 (O29) covers what is required in the character of an elder. According to him, all Overture 15 (O15) adds is the word homosexual and a few other phrases. But his objection rests upon a like-minded culture shared by the church and the culture at large. That may have been generally true 40 years ago. But over all these years, there has been a shift in how homosexuality is defined and accepted. Culture and even the church, has been influenced (propagandized) through television, music, films, and public education by claiming that homosexuality is not sin and should be accepted. It’s now just another legitimate choice. Not only is it possible, but it is entirely likely, that candidates for church office may not even consider their views to be contrary to our Standards. The notion that homosexuality is to be considered sinful is no longer an issue, thus the wording of O29 would be satisfied nicely. Thus, O15, with its clarifying wording, is needed to ensure that candidates for church office must examine their character based on Scripture and not common cultural definitions.
In his second objection, Pastor Weidenaar claims that O15 is designed to silence individuals from confessing their specific sins. He claims that Paul’s example of calling himself the chief sinner is scriptural proof that we must do the same. Thus, with this understanding, not only is O15 wrong but it is heretical. My sense is that  there is some exegetical sleight of hand in using this argument. Paul’s intent is not to mention his specific sins but to express his sinful nature, much like how expressed it here: “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all” (I Tim. 1:15, NASB).
One cannot prove the specific from the general. I did find Pastor Weidenaar’s summary conclusion concerning this point troubling. He states, “And by encouraging the church’s ordained elders to model a heretical understanding of the gospel in which the spiritually mature have moved beyond the need to confess sin.” Does this mean that those who support O15 are heretics? Is this a veiled charge that serves as a warning?
In the third objection, he asks whether O15 intent is singling out one sin as opposed to other sins. The simple answer is, Yes, it is. I take great comfort in the scriptural wisdom of the Westminster Divines. Consider these two questions from the Larger Catechism:
Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.Q. 151. What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?A. Sins receive their aggravations, (Reasons 1, 2, and 4 omitted here.)…3. From the nature and quality of the offense: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.
Homosexuality is an offense against the light of nature. It violates the creation ordinance concerning marriage, family, and filling the earth. It violates the seventh commandment (see Westminster Larger Catechism, question 139).
So, yes, Pastor Weidenaar, it is good and proper for the church to single out this sin, regardless of how it is accepted and defined by secular culture.
Pastor Weidenarr reserves the bulk of his article in question four. He states, “We are all familiar with the rhetoric of our culture which closely ties the personal experience of gender and sexuality to the essence of personhood.” The statement “I am,” can be a mediocre statement denoting a fact, such as “I am tired.” That has no bearing on who I am as a person. But it can be a powerful statement that communicates inner truths.
Jesus used the phrase to describe himself and to communicate deep truths about his person and work.

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst” (John 6:35).
Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life” (John 8:12).
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58).
So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep” (John 10:7).
“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (John 10:11).
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6).
“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser” (John 15:1).

When I say I am an America, I’m not just saying that I was born in a certain country in North America. I’m saying that I am proud to live in this country and that I love life, liberty, and justice for all. When I say that I’m Italian, I am not saying that I was born and raised in Italy. I understand that I am proud of my ancestry; that my grandfather, as a young teen, made his way to the U.S. and made a life for his family.
Given all the lack of clarity on ethical issues in our society, a person who says, “I am gay’” or “I am a gay-Christian,” is communicating that he has chosen a certain way of life. Like Lot’s wife, who looked back to Sodom, he’s communicating where his true heart and allegiance are. To pretend otherwise is sophistry.
In his summary Pastor Weidenarr states that O15 “would be destructive by wrongfully depriving the church of godly and qualified shepherds.” This is a pragmatic rationale and must be rejected. Jesus Christ is the head of his Church and he will see to its care. I am indebted to Pastor Weidenaar for this article in that it highlighted for me how the church is losing its sense of biblical grounding. And it shows me how important it is for me as an elder to instruct the members of the church in the foundational truths of Scripture. If we fail to provide and act on this ethical grounding we will lose the next generation.
O15 is needed at this point in the history of the Church to provide clarity on biblical sexual ethics.
Al Taglieri is a Ruling Elder in the Providence Presbyterian Church (PCA) in York, Penn.
Related Posts: