If you have the Bible, you have everything you need to minister to souls. You don’t need to become an expert in African American history, critical race theory, or the American criminal justice system to talk about ethnicity today…If the Bible is sufficient, then the Bible is what you need. 

I want to briefly address two aspects of Scripture that will affect our conversations about ethnicity: illumination and sufficiency. I’ll start with illumination.
If it’s true that the Bible doesn’t privilege certain human perspectives over another, then what is Paul getting at in 1 Corinthians 2:14-16? Paul writes:
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
On the surface, it sounds like Paul is breaking up humanity into the haves (“spiritual”) and the have-nots (“natural”) and then asserting that the haves are the sources of authoritative truth. But read that passage again carefully because that’s not exactly what Paul is saying. The truth resides in “the things of the Spirit of God” in “the mind of Christ,” which is to say, God’s revealed Word. And in quoting Isaiah 40:13, Paul affirms that God’s comprehensive knowledge is beyond any of us, despite the revelation He has given. Nobody can pretend to know everything like God does and so claim omniscient objectivity like God can.
But Paul also labors in this passage to make it clear that not everyone has the same kind of response to God’s revelation. The “natural person” responds with a rejection of God’s Word; he “does not accept” the truths of Scripture. The word in Greek for “does not accept” has to do with welcoming in, like you would a guest to your house.[1] And the natural man won’t do that because God’s Word is “spiritually discerned”—that is, it requires the indwelling Holy Spirit to be accepted.
What is it about God’s Word that non-believers always, without exception, refuse to accept? It’s not necessarily mental assent to the facts contained in the words. Plenty of non-believers agree that Abraham existed, that David was king in Israel, and even that Jesus was a real Rabbi in ancient Palestine. So, what won’t they accept? The unbelieving, natural heart will always reject the intended application of the Word of God because by their nature, they won’t obey God (Rom. 3:10-11; Titus 3:3). As Paul puts it, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot” (Rom. 8:7).
So, if we put that all together, what we hear Paul saying is that non-believers who do not have the Spirit of God dwelling in them are unable to accept the truths of Scripture, meaning that they will not respond with a right application of Scripture. On the other hand, believers can and will appropriately read and apply Scripture, though to varying degrees. We “judge all things” in light of the truth of God’s Word, illumined by the Spirit, and so we have the ability to see truth rightly. Nobody can understand anything rightly unless they see its relationship to the ultimate Reality—God—and only believers have the spiritual enablement to do just that. And we live in light of that understanding given to us by God.
So, in a way, the Bible does create a group of haves and a group of have-nots. There are those who bow their knee to Jesus, rightly discerning and obeying His Word; and there are those who refuse to obey and, in so doing, completely miss the purpose of God’s Word. It’s not that unbelievers can’t do accurate exegetical work, rightly arriving at the intended meaning of the authors of Scripture. The problem for anyone outside of Christ is that they can’t respond to that meaning rightly, and they can’t respond rightly because in their sinful, rebellious hearts, they won’t. It’s a problem of the will, not the mind.
It’s worth taking the time to walk through the theological dynamic of the illumination of Scripture because it has huge implications for how we talk about ethnicity in the Church. Many voices in the conversation about ethnic division in the Church would have us lean on not just the Word of God but also on the wisdom of minority groups as a whole, regardless of their spiritual condition. And while I heartily agree with my own need for wisdom from different perspectives, I disagree that “the non-dominant perspective should be given heavier consideration due to the nature of the understanding necessary and provided by minoritized status.”[2] Being part of a minority group doesn’t supply the applicational insight to Scripture that the Church needs—the illumination of the Spirit does! Likewise, European American Christians are no more privileged in their interpretation and application of Scripture than African American Christians. We all share the same Spirit, Who gives the same life and light to all regardless of our ethnicity.
Too often, non-believers and even the enemies of Christ have been lauded within the Church as wise guides on the topic of ethnic division.[3] But “what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:14-15). I’m not saying that I can’t learn anything from the non-believing world—much of my formal education as an adult has come from secular sources, for which I am extremely thankful. But we would be foolish to think that the world will give us answers for spiritual problems or that ethnic tension in the Church can be resolved by solutions from outside the Church, like critical race theory and intersectionality. If non-believers can’t apply Scripture by the power of the Spirit, then how are they supposed to help us “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3)?
Read More

It’s been commonly said that we don’t choose the people who sit next to us in the pew, but God does. Love requires, in response to the gospel, that we invest in the lives of those who are often most difficult and unattractive to us. It’s one of the saddest things to witness someone throw away their entire local church family for selfish reasons. Is our love sincere and absent of hypocrisy? This is an important question when it comes to church membership.

In recent years I have noticed the growing trend of people who leave their local church without any reflection as to whether their departure is a sinful one. To be sure, there are legitimate reasons to leave a local church. That’s what makes this article difficult to write; it’s not an easy task to get to the motivations of why people do what they do.
As a pastor, I have always believed that people should never feel forced to stay in a church where they are struggling. Departures may come for a variety of different reasons. Church leadership has to guard itself from cult-like behavior in seeking to put straight jackets on their members. I cannot imagine a more oppressing church environment than one that makes its members feel forced to stay in membership because the threat of discipline hangs over their head for departure. This creates a bunch of joyless servants in Christ’s kingdom and has a deadening effect on the whole congregation.
It does happen that even though people leave their local church for foolish reasons, they may flourish well elsewhere.
A wise elder once compared a disgruntled churchgoer to a plant that did not grow in his kitchen window. He cared for that plant, watered that plant, faithfully tended to the plant, but it always looked tattered and wilted. One day the next-door neighbor offered to take the plant with the hope that it would do well, and the man, rather reluctantly, offered the plant to the neighbor. After a short time the neighbor celebrated how well the plant was doing—it was vibrant, green, and producing new leaves. I’ve had to submit to this truth of Christian ministry more than a few times, humbling my own pride and recognizing that sometimes, though people leave for foolish reasons, they may flourish well elsewhere. That’s ultimately what we want for the sheep anyway.
Such a reality, however, does not excuse sinful departures from a local church. Pastors know all too well that when people come into their church sinfully running from their former church, it’s just a matter of time before the same problems resurface. The heart of the matter has not been dealt with. Further, it may be that a former church has neglected disciplining a member for unrepentant sin. As that member jumps to another local church—often unreconciled and bitter—and as this member celebrates the new church as the next best thing since sliced bread, the new church will soon realize how damaging the former church’s neglect is upon their own congregation. But that’s for another article.
In my experience, rarely does anyone sit down with their pastor and express their concerns when they want to leave.
With these things in mind, it’s important to think through what unbiblical departure from the local church looks like. Why do people leave the local church today? It would be one thing if a church is failing to preach the Word of God, is compromised on some point of doctrine, worship, or an article of the Christian faith, or there is some significant spiritual abuse by the leadership that is not properly being dealt with. These are legitimate reasons to speak with church leadership and depart the local church to a more faithful church in an honorable, Christ-like manner. But, sadly, doctrinal conviction and spiritual integrity in the truth are not at the top of the list when it comes to church departures in our day.
Read More
Related Posts:

We do no favors to the members of our churches, nor to those men themselves who are entangled in the sin of homosexuality, when we allow such men to be ordained to office in the church, contrary to our Lord’s appointment. It behooves us, then, for the sake of everyone involved, for the purity and peace of the church, and for the glory of Christ, that we seek to strengthen our BCO on this issue.

Overture 15 seeks to amend chapter 7 of the PCA’s Book of Church Order (BCO) as follows:
7-4. “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.”
The necessity and propriety of this particular amendment may be clearly demonstrated in a number of ways, only a handful of which will be considered briefly here. First and foremost, the most basic, fundamental biblical qualification for the offices of both elder and deacon is that a man must be found blameless. Our Book of Church Order must reflect the clear teaching of Scripture on this point.
The biblical qualifications for the office of elder or overseer are primarily found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. In 1 Timothy 3:2 Paul tells us that “an overseer must be above reproach . . .” (ESV). The rest of what follows (other than perhaps the ability to teach – v.2) is more or less an expansion and explanation of the kinds of things that such blamelessness entails.
The sin of homosexuality is one that clearly brings reproach upon a man’s character and reputation, and so it violates the most basic qualification for office in the church.
In Romans chapter one the Apostle Paul essentially singles out the sin of homosexuality as especially heinous in nature, even itself being “contrary to nature” (v. 26, ESV), and an evidence of the judgment or wrath of God. Romans 1:26 speaks of homosexual lust or desire in terms of God giving people over to “dishonorable passions,” and v.27 speaks of being given over by God to homosexual sin as a matter of such people receiving their “due penalty.”
Not only that, but God calls the sin of homosexuality an “abomination” (e.g., Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). That should get our attention. Now there are certainly a number of other sins that God’s Word refers to as abominations as well, but that should in no way lessen the force of the use of this word in relation to the various sins of homosexuality.
Are we to suppose that men who identify with the very sins that God Himself calls an abomination, and which are themselves in some ways evidence of His judgment, are somehow fit or qualified for office in His church? Do we think that we are wiser then God? What do we suppose God thinks – is He pleased with us if we approve of such things? It is the Lord Jesus to whom we will answer for how we conduct ourselves in the household of God (2 Timothy 4:1).
In addition to this, in Ephesians 5:3, Paul writes, “But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.” What does this mean? Simply put, it means that when people think of the reputation of those who profess to be believers in Christ (much less office-bearers in the church!), sexual immorality must not be what comes to mind. That must not be the reputation of Christians, and so this is even more true when it comes to those who would hold office in the church!
But is this not precisely the spirit of what has come to be known as “Revoice” theology or so-called “Side-B gay Christianity”? Do such as hold to this heresy not quite literally “name” the sin of homosexuality among the saints, and even among the officers of the church?
This being the case, simply refraining from the outward, physical act of sodomy alone is in no way sufficient to render a man blameless in this regard. Indeed, that is not the biblical standard for repentance and holiness. Even the inward lust and the desire itself are sins that are to be repented of and mortified. If such sins truly have been and are being repented of, then they certainly should not be considered as somehow being part of the believer’s identity or defining characteristics.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul writes:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (KJV)
Sexual immorality is not the only sin on the list, and of the various kinds of sexual immorality listed there, the particular sins related to homosexuality (i.e., effeminacy and sodomy) are not the only such sins that Paul mentions. All such sins, though, if not repented of, exclude the person from the kingdom of God. That is such a sobering truth that Paul adds, “Be not deceived” (v.9). It is far too easy, especially in our day, to be deceived regarding these things.
Thankfully, Paul goes on in that passage to speak of the power of Christ in saving even such sinners as these. In v.11 he writes, “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (KJV). And so those sins were now of their past, not their present. Why? Because by the grace and power of God through faith in Christ, they had been washed, sanctified, and justified by the work of His Holy Spirit!
Now certainly Paul is not saying that these believers never struggled against sin after coming to Christ by faith, but are those who hold to the Revoice heresy not making far too little of the grace of God in the salvation of sinners in this regard? Some in this camp explicitly teach that a change in one’s orientation and desires is extremely rare, and even that it is unnecessary for a believer.
So-called “side-B gay Christianity” contradicts the clear teaching, not only of the Scriptures, but also of the Westminster Standards, which are the doctrinal standards of our denomination (the PCA). The Larger Catechism, for example, states the following in Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.”
Not only is the outward act of sodomy forbidden by the 7th commandment, but so are “all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections . . . .” And so even the orientation itself (if we may use such a term) of homosexuality is in no way neutral, but is itself a sin, and so it is to be repented of as such.
The common approach to handling this sin among some in this camp is also directly contrary to our Standards here. How often are we told that a commitment to life-long celibacy (i.e., refraining from sex entirely) is the proper way to handle this sin? And yet look at Larger Catechism Q/A 139 (above). It plainly states that among the sins forbidden by the 7th commandment are such things as “”entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage,” etc.
Chastity, of course, is to be observed by all outside of marriage, but heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman (and not celibacy) is the biblical answer for those who do not have the gift of continency. Q/A 138 states that marriage is one of the duties of “those that have not the gift of continency,” as well as “conjugal love, and cohabitation” then within the confines of marriage. The Revoice approach to this issue much more closely resembles that of Roman Catholicism than it does of the biblical, Reformed faith and practice.
The biblical and confessional teaching on these things is clear. And our goal here as elders in Christ’s church must be faithfulness to Christ and His Word, regardless of how that may or may not be received by a world that is increasingly hostile to the truth.
We do no favors to the members of our churches, nor to those men themselves who are entangled in the sin of homosexuality, when we allow such men to be ordained to office in the church, contrary to our Lord’s appointment. It behooves us, then, for the sake of everyone involved, for the purity and peace of the church, and for the glory of Christ, that we seek to strengthen our BCO on this issue.
For all of these reasons and more, I commend this overture to you, that you vote to approve it, so that it may be ratified at our next General Assembly.
Andy Schreiber is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Ramona Valley PCA in Ramona, Calif.
Related Posts: