Not knowing much about our path ahead keeps us dependent upon God, and means we cannot rely on ourselves. We need him every step of the way. Yes it is riskier this way, and we may feel quite insecure and uncertain at times, but if that drives us to our knees and makes us even more fully trusting in him, that is all for the good.

It is a blessing of God that he does not show us all that will befall us as believers in the years ahead. How many new Christians would be deterred from going on if they had a fuller picture of what they would have to go through in their journey with Christ? So in his mercy he seldom reveals to us early on all the things that we will go through and deal with.
Of course that does not mean we are never told of what lies ahead. Sometimes God does offer his saints a pretty solid glimpse of what will be their lot. For example, in Acts 9:10-16 we read this about the conversion of Saul:
Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.” But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name.” But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”
We know that Paul suffered massively for his faith and he endured heaps of persecution and opposition. So in this case God actually warned him well ahead of time that this would be the path he must travel on. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
But generally speaking most believers are only given as much light as they need for their immediate future. As is often mentioned, when we read passages like Psalm 119:105 (“your word is a lamp unto my feet”), we understand that we get enough light for each step we take and not for miles ahead.
We have the general word of God always with us but specific guidance and particular divine leading may well be piecemeal and partial. Obviously if we knew all the details of our overall journey beforehand, we would have little need for faith and trust in God.
Not knowing much about our path ahead keeps us dependent upon God, and means we cannot rely on ourselves. We need him every step of the way. Yes it is riskier this way, and we may feel quite insecure and uncertain at times, but if that drives us to our knees and makes us even more fully trusting in him, that is all for the good.
Also, if so much about the upcoming years was revealed to us long ago, most of us would have been too freaked out to want to go on. We would have complained to God and told him that those upcoming burdens and trials would be too much for us to handle. We would tend to want to tell God, ‘thanks, but no thanks.’
When I became a Christian nearly 52 years ago, little did I know what would happen over the decades to follow.
Read More
Related Posts:

As Christians we must ask what the future holds. At the end of the Sixties Revolution, Jungian psychologist and Gnostic spiritualist, June Singer, wrote a 1997 book ‘Androgyny: Towards a New Sexuality’. At the end of the Sixties Revolution, she saw and affirmed that the spiritual age of Aquarius was also the age of “androgyny” (the blending of male and female in bi-sexuality, homosexuality and transgenderism). She also correctly predicted the coming cosmology of a “new humanism,” a radical rejection of the biblical God and the cosmology of the Western Christian past.We now see the far-flung effects of what Singer saw so long ago. 

The Queering of the American Child: How a New School Religious Cult Poisons the Minds and Bodies of Normal Kids by Logan Lancing and James Lindsay
A Definition of Queer Theory
I looked forward to reading this book’s definition of Queer Theory (QT) and its effects on our children. (QT refers to “queer homosexuals” and LGBTQ ideology.) I hoped the book would give clarity to a movement that exposes LGBTQ+ thinking, which justifies disordered sexual practice among children as well as adults.
A definition of QT appears in the Introduction. QT seeks to “push children to destabilize tradition, eliminate social norms and poison their minds…(ix).” The book denies the value of trangenderism (xvi), as well as recent theories of gender and gender identity (xviii). Apparently, this is a conservative book. A decidedly gay reviewer states that: 
…there is nothing in this book that is accurate, it’s full of hate mongering, misinformation and propaganda. It promotes a Christian white nationalist agenda and is harmful to every LGBTQ person. 
This is indeed a book of conservative convictions except in one area—it justifies homosexual practice. The author defines “queering” as the rejection of anything normative, including binary sexuality (that is heterosexuality) (99), and shows how Drag Queen Story Hour affirms this destabilizing effect on children. Lancing’s theory is that when a society has not agreed on reasonable, healthy sexual norms and behaviors, then unreasonable and unhealthy ideas will fill the vacuum—like men becoming women. But Lancing wants to grant that homosexuality is part of normative living. He states: 
Queer Theory has nothing to do with being gay or lesbian. Gay identity…is rooted in the positive fact of homosexual object-choice…(proposed as) a stable reality.[1]
Citing gay author, David Halperin, the book accepts homosexuality as a positive (thus normative) stabilizing factor in a child’s mind, unlike the noxious results of Queer Theory (114-15). Unfortunately, many conservative thinkers consider homosexuality in exactly this way.
The Idol of Our Time
As this book shows, our culture does not know how to deal with LGBTQ reality, which it seeks to normalize. In her Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age, Rosaria Butterfield calls LGBTQ+ ideology “the idol of our time.” Her Lie #1 is “treating homosexuality as normal.”[2] Progressives and many conservatives happily affirm this lie. Carl Trueman wrote recently, 
In the coming decade every single church still calling itself Christian will face a choice: Do we follow Scriptural revelation, or the Sexual Revolution? The cross, or the rainbow flag?[3]
Many evangelicals fail to realize this stark choice. Evangelical pastor, Ken Wilson in his influential book, A Letter to My Congregation (2014) states: “We’re all—male and female—part of the bride of Christ.” He adds: “Maybe we are being asked (by the Spirit) to relax around gender distinctions a little (my italics).”[4] “Evangelical” Preston Sprinkle, a well-known exponent of the so-called Side B position on homosexuality, holds great influence on the student ministry CRU. He states: “I would say being same-sex attracted, while being a part of one’s fallen nature, is not a morally culpable sin that one needs to repent for.”[5] Modern culture, like certain evangelicals, normalizes and justifies gay behavior. This was not always the case.
As late as 1960, all fifty states maintained laws criminalizing sodomy. But things are changing. A strong majority of Americans now says that homosexual relations should be legal, and that the lifestyle is acceptable.[6] “Nearly every major U.S. brand promulgates the LGBT agenda.”[7] The government’s Center for Disease Control gives further present acceptance of LGBTQ practice: the number of LGBTQ students went from 11 percent in 2015 to 26 percent in 2021.[8] During the 2023 American baseball season, the Los Angeles Dodgers honored, not merely featured, an LGBT activist group, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, composed of men dressed mockingly as Catholic nuns.
This lifestyle affirmation became more formal at the end of 2023, with the “Proclamation on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Pride Month.” President Joe Biden declared the month of June to be a time for all Americans to “recognize the achievements of the LGBTQ+ community, to celebrate the great diversity of the American people, and to wave their flags of pride high.”[9]
It is little wonder that the LGBTQ community is coming for our children. Lesbian author Patricia Nell Warren put it most succinctly: “Whoever captures the kids owns the future.”[10] The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus sings:
“We’re coming for your children.
“We’ll convert your children
Happens bit by bit
Quietly and subtly
And you will barely notice it…
You won’t approve of where they go at night.”
This agenda operates against the backdrop of a new movement called MAPS, Minor Attracted Persons, that is, pedophiles. Microsoft Co-Founder Bill Gates, has invested tens of millions of dollars into a radical nongovernmental organization: The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which is endorsed by the World Health Organization, a group pushing for young children to be considered “sexual beings.”
Read More
Related Posts:

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: