Speaking of the church militant is fitting because it summarizes a significant theme that is woven throughout the Scriptures. The church on this side of heaven is engaged in spiritual conflict whether we like it or not. This has been our reality since the fall, when God said to Satan, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring” (Gen. 3:15). “Enmity” is a strong word. It relates to deep hostility and hatred. We are sworn enemies of sin and Satan. We do not live in a time when we can let our guard down and rest. If the church is not militant, it will be conquered.
It is when we surrender to sin that evils such as literal violence break out. God warned Cain that he should be at war with sin, and his calling was to rule over it (Gen. 4:7). Cain’s subsequent sin of murder grew out of his failure to obey God’s call to be properly militant. This failure to fight sin multiplied into a world filled with lust, violence, and vengeance before the flood (Gen. 4:24; 6:11–12). Humans were losing the battle with Satan, for he had turned them against God and against one another. God cleansed the earth with the flood as a gigantic picture of our need for deliverance in this battle.
We could work through the Old Testament and find many other examples of failures in spiritual warfare that led to hard consequences. Failure to resist temptation led to sin, which led to slavery, war, and exile. Think of the personal defeats that Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David suffered when they let their guard down or wavered. Satan won many Israelites over to idolatry, and dark times of national enslavement to empires such as Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Rome followed. Throughout Bible history, there were also victorious times of reformation. The Psalms, Proverbs, and the Prophets expose and wrestle with Satan’s tactics, giving the church the outline of a battle plan. Men such as Hezekiah, Daniel, and Nehemiah stood boldly against evil. The Old Testament, however, contains quite a few grim tales of defeat. Sometimes only a tiny remnant of the church held its ground. The Old Testament ends with a church that is enslaved, confused, and scattered. The church militant appeared to be the church conquered.
All this history was preparing the battlefield for the coming of Jesus. When ancient Jews heard the Greek name Jesus, they would think of its original Hebrew form Joshua, which means “Yahweh saves.” In the Old Testament, God called Joshua to lead the invasion of Canaan. That invasion was a unique example of a call to literal militancy. Idolatrous, decadent, and depraved nations were driven out of the promised land. Joshua provided a place of rest and righteousness for the people of God (Josh. 24:31). Joshua was the greatest of military conquerors in Bible history, but it was Jesus Christ who would become the greatest of all militants.
The life and ministry of Jesus are the ultimate example of resistance against and victory over Satan. Though Satan tempted Him in the wilderness with a series of shortcuts, Jesus chose the narrow way of suffering as the path to ultimate victory (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). His gospel campaign took Him throughout the entire land, confronting every semblance of sin, evil, sickness, and curse. He taught righteousness and confronted false teachers. He brought the message of the law in all its power (chs. 5–7). He called for repentance and faith. His ministry of reconciliation ushered in a new era of victory for the church.

I know that legalism exists in a lot of forms. Self-Righteousness is insidious and must be repented of wherever it rears its head in every wing of the PCA.  But this issue of loophole legalism and obfuscation in the use of language is insidious.  While men are playing fast and loose with language the sheep are becoming confused and the watching world isn’t told the truth.  Brothers, “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.”

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word with With God, and the Word Was God. – John 1:1
God is not a God of confusion but of peace. – 1 Corinthians 14:33
Much ink, um, keystrokes have been typed regarding the source of the divide in the PCA.    We have been told by Progressives (in the Bryan Chapell sense of the term) that we are just misunderstanding each other and that we actually agree.  All of these never-ending disagreements are actually agreements.   We supposedly agree on what the Westminster Standards mean as well as the AIC Report on Human Sexuality and the one on Women in Ministry also.  We supposedly agree to follow the BCO.  That does of course depend on what you mean by the word “agree.”
We don’t even agree on what words mean, let alone complex systems of doctrine or AIC reports that simply provide guidance.  The two wings of the PCA are completely divided on women deacons, women preachers, human sexuality as it relates to identity, appropriate missional posture, Revoice, CRT, Side B Gay Christianity,  and clarity of speech.  You object?  It all depends on what one means by preaching, deacon, corporate worship, and every other word in this article.
This whole thing is reminiscent of when Bill Clinton uttered the brilliant words “it depends on what the meaning of the word is is” nearly 25 years ago.  It would be funny if it weren’t so serious. Playing fast and loose with words and clarity in our Lord’s Church is no laughing matter.  Quite frankly, it’s sad.
How long before “Let your yes be yes and your no be no” becomes “well that depends on what you mean by yes and no. In one sense it is yes and in another sense it is no.?”  Brothers and sisters, sadly, we are already there.
It is Pharisaical Legalism at Its Core
Seeing the letter of the law in our Standards, the BCO, AIC Reports, and Scripture itself then looking for ways  to do what one wants to do is Pharisaical legalism.  It is legalistic to look for workarounds, loopholes, and wiggle room to do mission.  No amount of law or guidance will prevent a legalist from pursuing these things. No language will either.
It is Pharisaical legalism to install women to the roll of Deacon and serving in the same function as a Deacon all done in a process that is almost undistinguishable from an ordained Deacon but say she is an Assistant.[1]
It is Pharisaical legalism to not have the office of deacon at all, but to have another made up board of men and women doing everything the diaconate is supposed to do.[2]
It is Pharisaical legalism to have women teaching and/or preaching assembled Christians at Corporate Worship and say she didn’t, but rather she exhorted at a study.[3]
It is Pharisaical legalism to host a Transvestite Celebration on property that is owned by the church through a ministry run by church leadership/members but say it was separate from the Church because the building it was held in was “decommissioned” and the organization that runs the ministry is separate from the Church.
It is Pharisaical legalism to plant non-PCA churches or start para-church ministries that are overseen by PCA churches, officers, and members that do all the things not permitted in the PCA.
It is Pharisaical legalism to look at the AIC Report on Human Sexuality and say we agree with it, but then ignore all that it advises against because it doesn’t say “shall not” or “shall,” thereby justifying the wholesale use of what the spirit of the report calls unwise and must be rejected.
Read More
Related Posts:

Impartiality is one of the most needed and maybe one of the most neglected aspects of faithful ministry. The closer our relational bonds are the more easily we can be tempted by line drawing, blind loyalty, party spirit, or clouded judgment. These things have no place among those who account themselves servants of Christ — and that includes within ministerial friendships.

The St. Crispin’s Day speech given by Henry V in Shakespeare’s historical play is well remembered. The French vastly outnumbered the English, and the King had one chance to persuade his men to do what none of them wanted — “to make us fight cheerfully.” And on the muddy fields of Agincourt the King roused and commanded his men for the fight:
From this day to the ending of the world,But we in it shall be remember’d;We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;For he to-day that sheds his blood with meShall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile.
The imagery of the band of brothers has been used for wartime propaganda. In popular culture it’s most recognizable by Stephen Ambrose’s record of Easy Company of the 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment assigned to the 101st Airborne Division in World War II. Those who have battled in blood together share a close kinship and loyalty that transcends many relationships in life.
From one angle it’s also reflective of the relationships cultivated in the service of the gospel. The Apostle Paul speaks of the ministry as warfare and the destroying of strongholds (2 Corinthians 10:4). He reminded Timothy to be a “good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 2:3). He commended Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:5) and Archippus (Philemon 2) as “fellow soldiers.” Aristarchus was Paul’s “fellow prisoner,” which more literally means a fellow-prisoner-of-war (Colossians 4:10). He also identified Prisca and Aquila as those who risked their necks for him (Romans 16:3) — and often made mention of many fellow workers, brothers, and kinsmen.
Pastors and elders can likely identify quickly with Paul’s love for his co-laborers. Writing to William Farell and Peter Viret, John Calvin said: “I think there has never been, in ordinary life, a circle of friends so sincerely bound to each other as we have been in our ministry.” Sharing the experiences and burdens of the pastorate, contending for the faith, and taking the kingdom of heaven by storm has a way of forging battle-like relationships, knitting Christians together in the bonds of love, courage, and loyalty. These friendships are needed in the ministry, and many pastors have been strengthened by such affectionate bonds. After all “a brother is born for adversity” (Proverbs 17:17).
But the band of brothers can have an insidious effect too. On March 16, 1968 it’s reported that 504 people — including elderly, women, children, and infants — were brutally murdered by United States troops in South Vietnam. This became known as the My Lai Massacre and remains the largest publicized massacre of civilians by US forces in the 20th century. Not every soldier in the company participated in the killings, but they also didn’t protest or file complaints with their superiors. Three US service members tried to stop the massacre and help the Vietnamese. These men were shunned, ignored, and denounced as traitors. In particular Hugh Thompson faced death threats and was vilified for his efforts….
…Sacrificing friendship for the sake of Christ isn’t easy. But sometimes it’s necessary. In March of 1887, Charles Spurgeon was drawn into an immense conflict known as the Down-Grade Controversy. He perceived that the Baptist Union was being threatened and it required him to set himself against some with whom he’d labored for decades. In the heat of the conflict Spurgeon wrote that he had “suffered the loss of friendship and reputation,” and went on to say “the pain it has cost me none can measure.”
Read More
Related Posts: