In the same sense, why does a minority insist on allowing the false teaching of ordaining self-described homosexual men to be pastors and church officers in the PCA? Why don’t they simply seek ordination and service in a denomination that is already set up to welcome them?

In 1967 the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA), in an attempt to compromise with the culture, changed the wording of its Confession of Faith. A key statement from PCUSA’s Confession of 1967 is as follows:
“The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God’s work of reconciliation in Christ. The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current. The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical understanding. As God has spoken his word in diverse cultural situations, the church is confident that he will continue to speak through the Scriptures in a changing world and in every form of human culture”  [Book of Confessions 9.29].
That statement directly contradicts Scripture.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NIV).
“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21, NIV).
If Scripture is nothing more than “the words of men,” then Scripture can be twisted to fit any agenda. Matthew A. Johnson, Chairman of the Board of the Presbyterian Lay Committee stated:
“The Confession of 1967 was the first step of many in a departure from the historical standards of the Presbyterian Church (USA) as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith. It took the denomination from relying on Scripture as its source of authority to everyone doing what was right in his own eyes.”
And that is exactly what happened.
A pastor in the National Capital Presbytery, Mansfield Kaseman, was charged with apostasy because he denied Christ’s sinlessness, bodily resurrection, vicarious atonement, and deity. When the case was heard before the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly Mr. Kaseman was acquitted. He was allowed to remain in good standing as a pastor in the PCUSA and allowed to continue teaching heresy. By acquitting Mr. Kaseman, the Judicial Commission itself became complicit in apostasy as well.
With the door open for pastors to teach as they pleased without regard to the Word of God many churches voted to withdraw the PCUSA. Many joined the newly formed (1973) Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which affirmed that the Scriptures are the Word of God and affirmed the Westminster Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures.
However, now almost fifty years after the formation of the PCA it finds itself tempted to compromise with false teachers. At the PCA’s 2021 General Assembly, one of the issues appeared to be a growing number of PCA church officers who self-identify as homosexual. These men claim to be committed to celibacy and refer to themselves as same-sex-attracted as their “sexual orientation.”
In July 2018, Memorial PCA in St. Louis, pastored by Greg Johnson, hosted the first Revoice Conference celebrating “Gay Culture.” Since that time Pastor Johnson has continued to participate yearly in Revoice conferences in order “to support and encourage gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other same-sex attracted Christians.” In his recently published book, “Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality,” Pastor Johnson writes about “the relative fixity of sexual orientation” teaching, as his subtitle implies, that the Holy Spirit cannot change his “sexual orientation.”
Because of Greg Johnson’s association with the Revoice Conference, several presbyteries, sessions and individual PCA members requested Missouri Presbytery (MOP) to investigate his views. MOP claimed that there was not enough evidence to formally charge Dr. Johnson for his views and teachings.
I am reminded of the situation in Micah’s day when he asked: “What is the disobedience of Jacob? Isn’t it Samaria? (Micah 1:5).
In the same vein I ask: What is the disobedience of the PCA? Isn’t it Missouri Presbytery?
We must remember that the Scripture repeatedly refers to homosexuality as an abomination (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:27); that the Scriptures teach that pastors and other church officers are to be above reproach (Titus 1:7); and that Christians are a new creation in Christ, by the incomparable power of the Holy Spirit, and are no longer in union with their old sinful nature (2 Corinthians 5:17). And now the PCA General Assembly is currently considering two overtures to amend its Book of Church Order to clarify that those being considered for church office, who insist on self-identifying by their continued union with their old sinful nature, are not qualified to be ordained.
At this point the outcome of this debate is unclear. Despite overwhelming support for the proposed amendments at the General Assembly, it is clear that there is a small but determined group of pastors and elders working to defeat the proposed amendments. Some have even strongly suggested that if this minority prevails in preventing the amendments from being approved, there may be a fracturing in the PCA.
Referring to Micah again when he asked: If the people wanted to worship Baal why not simply go to the temple of Baal and worship him there? Why insist in bringing that abomination of false worship into the Lord’s Holy Temple?
In the same sense, why does a minority insist on allowing the false teaching of ordaining self-described homosexual men to be pastors and church officers in the PCA? Why don’t they simply seek ordination and service in a denomination that is already set up to welcome them?
Richard Loper is a member of Chapelgate Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Ellicott City, Md.

In contemplating the anger of God, we are drawn into a more profound and reverent worship of Him. It is a solemn reminder of our sinfulness, the holiness of God, and the incredible gift of salvation through Jesus Christ.

When attempting to know God, believers are sometimes confronted with attributes and aspects of His character that challenge our finite minds. If it were up to us, we would get to know God by the traits and qualities we enjoy most, such as His grace, mercy, and love. But what about when we are confronted with other attributes wholly central to understanding who He is that chafe a bit more against the soul? What are we to think then? Today, I would like to discuss an aspect of God’s character that many, including weak-kneed preachers, totally avoid. That is His perfect, all-consuming, and righteous fury.
The Nature of God’s Anger
God’s divine wrath, as the psalmist declares, is neither capricious nor born of the frailties that often mar human emotions. He is a righteous judge (Psalm 7:11) whose holiness is demonstrated in all He does (Isaiah 5:16). As Habakkuk so aptly testifies, God’s anger emanates from the pure and undefiled nature. His eyes are too pure to approve of evil or to look favorably upon the wicked (Habakkuk 1:13). When His anger does break out, it is not quick-tempered or wreckless (Nahum 1:3). It emanates, instead, from a long-suffering, compassionate, and gracious countenance that demonstrates His lovingkindness to thousands but who will by no means leave the guilty unscathed (Exodus 34:6-7).
In His sovereign and holy displeasure, God responds with terrifying fury upon the ones who provoke Him with their sin and idolatry (Deuteronomy 9:7-8). Indeed, God is endlessly enraged over all ungodliness (Romans 1:18-23), covenant disloyalty (Joshua 7:1), religious hypocrisy (Matthew 23:27-28), and social injustices (Zechariah 7:9-12). Yet, as fearsome as His anger is, it perfectly accomplishes the will of God (Jeremiah 23:20) and is ever in harmony with His unfathomable holiness and love (Psalm 85:10). The Scriptures, particularly in Romans 2:4, reveal the redemptive purpose behind God’s wrath, which is not solely punitive, but also restorative, leading the sinner to repentance. For those who harden their hearts against Him, His vehement opposition towards them will consume them for His own glory (Deuteronomy 32:16-17). For those who repent and turn back to the Lord, His anger is only for a night, with new joys and mercies coming in the morning (Psalm 30:5).
In the Scriptures, the redemptive arc of God’s anger spans from the very first moments of history (in the fall of man) to the eschatological future when everything that provokes the anger of God will either fall into destruction or find perfect healing in the eternal state. His wrath encompasses the coming judgments upon all nations who oppose His reign, as Jeremiah 4:7 and Psalm 2 reveal, and also extends to the cosmic consequences of sin leveled onto the wicked individual, as Colossians 3:6 so solemnly warns. Yet, in this wrath, there lies a protective purpose for His chosen people (Exodus 32:10), an impartiality that transcends human notions of fairness (Romans 2:11), and an inevitability that marks the certainty of His justice (Nahum 1:2-3), which ought to lead us to repentance. God’s wrath stored up for believers is not a trumpet call for God to blisteringly wage war against them (as He does against the wicked) but a clarion call for our repentance, an invitation to return to the paths of righteousness, as echoed in Revelation 3:19.
Read More
Related Posts:

More than a decade before Newsweek declared 1976 the “Year of the Evangelicals,” the coalition of conservative Protestants had already begun to break apart…Evangelicals were engaged in a Battle for the Bible.

Few periods of the last century were more destructive, realigning, reshaping, and redefining of Evangelicalism than the decade and a half beginning in the mid-1970s. The evangelical coalition was taut and threadbare, in danger of tearing asunder by scholars who disputed a fundamental of the Christian faith, Scripture’s inerrancy. Ironically, the ripping occurred the same year that Evangelicalism unexpectedly received national acclaim linked to a presidential election.
Arising from this period were two closely correlated questions: (1) Who are the Evangelicals? (2) What do Evangelicals believe concerning the authority and truthfulness of Holy Scripture? Both questions were thrust upon Evangelicalism in 1976, the year that Newsweek deemed the “Year of the Evangelical.” In what follows, I will show that 1976, while seemingly a high water mark for Evangelicalism, actually exposed serious fractures which proved beyond repair, despite valiant efforts by leading evangelical scholars. Many who abandoned the foundational evangelical belief in the inerrancy of Scripture took the evangelical label with them and expanded it to allow for their belief in “limited inerrancy.” They published numerous essays and books challenging the long-held belief that the Bible is without error in the original manuscripts. The battle was on; would Evangelicalism survive?
1976: A Pivotal Year for God’s Word
In America’s bicentennial, Jimmy Carter ran for United States president as self-professed “born again” Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher, The incumbent, Gerald Ford, a reserved Episcopalian, professed the same. At that time, Episcopalian and Southern Baptist leaders identified their denominations as distinct if not separate from America’s evangelicals. With the presidential election only a week away, these distinctions were too intricate for Newsweek’s editors to acknowledge or comprehend when they designated 1976 the “Year of the Evangelical” (October 25, 1976). For example, Carter’s praise for Paul Tillich, a Neo-Orthodox theologian from whom evangelical scholars stood aloof, did not temper Newsweek’s equating Carter, the Southern Baptist, with Evangelicals.
Harold Lindsell, also a Southern Baptist, took a vastly different posture toward the SBC leadership than Carter, who identified with them. Lindsell published The Battle for the Bible in 1976 and by June it was already in its third printing. Formerly Lindsell was a faculty member at Northern Baptist and Fuller Seminaries and Wheaton College before he succeeded Carl F. H. Henry as editor of Christianity Today (1968–78). So, when Lindsell wrote his book he did so as the editor of a major Christian magazine, not as an academic. Thus, he appealed not to scholars but to “evangelical lay people in the pews who may not be aware of the central issue that faces them, their denominations, and their institutions.”[1] What distressed him was stated at the outset, as he regards
…biblical inerrancy to be the most important theological topic of this age. A great battle rages about it among people called evangelicals. I did not start the battle and wish it were not essential to discuss it. The only way to avoid it would be to remain silent. And silence on this matter would be a grave sin.[2]
Of his own denomination, he notes, “Probably 90 percent of the people in the pews believe in biblical infallibility.”[3] His concern is with the academic institutions: “Among faculty members of Southern Baptist colleges and seminaries where do you find articulate spokesmen who come out in favor of inerrancy? The silence is deafening!”[4] He laments that as academics “retreat from inerrancy,” denominations abandon vital ministries and displace them with “socio-political-economic concerns.”[5]
Lindsell’s principal distress was over Fuller Seminary’s revising of the doctrine of inerrancy by endorsing their own coinage, “limited inerrancy.” He also called attention to an ethical issue; Fuller Seminary administrators publicly portrayed the seminary as holding to its founding doctrinal affirmation, which included Scripture’s infallibility, even after some of its faculty “ceased to believe in an infallible Bible.”[6] They contended that Scripture’s inerrancy is restricted to matters of Christian faith and practice with allowance for errors in matters concerning the observable world, geography, history, and science.[7]
It is significant, then, that Harold J. Ockenga, first President of Fuller Seminary (1947–54) and still serving on the seminary’s board, launched the initial volley from Lindsell’s arsenal by writing the foreword. Ockenga drew attention to Fuller Seminary, sharing Lindsell’s concern that Scripture’s “inerrancy is the watershed of modern theological controversy” because “those who give up an authoritative, dependable, authentic, trustworthy, and infallible Scripture must ultimately yield the right to use of the name ‘evangelical.’”
This is Lindsell’s burden when he makes his final appeal:
It is my conviction that a host of those evangelicals who no longer hold to inerrancy are still relatively evangelical. I do not for one moment concede, however, that in a technical sense anyone can claim the evangelical badge once he has abandoned inerrancy…It is true that a man can be a Christian without believing in inerrancy. But it is also true that down the road lie serious pitfalls into which such a denial leads. And even if this generation can forego inerrancy and remain more or less evangelical, history tells us that those who come after this generation will not do so…I do not look for or expect a time in history as we know it when the whole professing church will believe either in inerrancy or the major doctrines of the Christian faith. There will always be wheat and tares growing together until the angels begin their task of reaping the harvest at the end of the age.[8]
Read More
Related Posts: