It is crucial to work towards a view of God and his world that is shaped by the revelation that God has given to us. Failing to do this will result in us being formed instead by the foundational assumptions of our culture, in which humanity is exalted and God is marginalised.

One of the trickier challenges for Christians in any culture is disentangling our imagination from the framework given to us by the culture we live in. While Christians believe in God, call Jesus Lord, rest in the achievements of the cross, acknowledge the dignity of humankind, and so on, they may not be doing so in a way fully formed by the norming norm of the Bible. Our beliefs can easily be coloured more by the values of their culture. This has been a challenge since New Testament times—consider, for example, the view the Corinthians had of the human body—formed more by Greek culture than by Genesis. This highlights the necessity of being both acutely aware of how our own culture impacts on our faith and practice, as well as deeply familiar with Scripture.
A Human-Centred Doctrine of Sin
Consider the doctrine of sin. In a secular culture such as in New Zealand or Australia, humanity can loom much larger in the conceptual universe than God. Among other things, this can distort the doctrine of sin. One example of a doctrine of sin shaped in this way is Roger Wolsey’s essay “A Progressive Christian View of Sin & Sinners”. Wolsey describes sin as a failure to do what is right, and highlights the human proclivity to hurt others and to do so against their own better judgement. In his words, humans are “busted and broken”, “cracked pots”, “imperfect vessels”, “beautiful messes”, who make “mistakes”. Sin is “like an addiction” that leads to “self-sabotaging cliffs” from which Christian faith should guide us away. When we sin, “we are causing suffering to ourselves and others.”
Because of this framework, repentance for Wolsey is a process of transformation and reorientation, leading to such a dramatic difference in our persons that we can thus be said to be “born again.”
What is most noteworthy in Wolsey’s article is what is absent. He largely describes sin as an offence against others humans, or in terms of the harm it does to ourselves. True, he does describe sin as “missing the mark”, as transgressing God’s will; he later notes that when we sin we are “out of communion with God”.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Third, this is a persistent issue. There have been efforts to address this issue such as the recently affirmed human sexuality report. We do have our helpful standards in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Some contend this is adequate and no more needs to be said, especially the proposed amendments. But help me if I am missing something (I am the new guy) but apparently these resources are not sufficient for the very fact that the issue persists.

Through the years I always sought the impressions of new guests to my church. Not that the opinion of a longtime member was insignificant, but it was the fresh eyes of new people who saw things others somehow didn’t notice or always appreciate. So as a newcomer to the PCA I thought my impressions might be of value to some as we enter the home stretch of voting on overtures 23 and 37. Now I should point out I am not a newcomer to pastoral ministry. I am a seasoned (that’s code for old guy) pastor from several denominational backgrounds.
So the first thing that strikes me is this, a real issue has presented itself. That may seem too obvious to bother mentioning, but the point is these overtures are not hypothetical or arbitrary. Rather, they are responding to real life circumstances. Real people are really advocating for a position that involves embracing one’s ongoing identity as gay and a potential officer of the church.
The framers and defenders of the proposed overtures did not go on a hunt into people’s private lives to find these issues. I am sure they would much rather focus on other pressing matters of life and ministry. It is not unkind or uncharitable, therefore, to support these overtures that seek to provide clarity in response to this real-life issue.
Second, this is a complicated issue. The concern that the wording of the proposed overtures is complicated and introduces new language to the standards of the church should not be alarming. The presenting issue is complicated. And again, this issue was not chosen by the framers or defenders of the overtures. It was chosen by these who are supporting such a novel and complicated position.
If a secular court has to deal with a malpractice suit involving brain surgery, they cannot complain that it is complicated. Brain surgery is complicated. Likewise, human identity and sexuality are complicated. If the church courts are forced to struggle with handling complicated and novel issues like human identity there is no one to thank but those suggesting the position in which we find ourselves. Therefore, no one should vote against the proposed overtures simply on the grounds that they are complicated or deal with new vocabulary.
Third, this is a persistent issue. There have been efforts to address this issue such as the recently affirmed human sexuality report. We do have our helpful standards in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Some contend this is adequate and no more needs to be said, especially the proposed amendments. But help me if I am missing something (I am the new guy) but apparently these resources are not sufficient for the very fact that the issue persists.
It would be unnecessary to add specific cases to our constitution if it was sufficient to handle the real issue before us. But obviously something more is needed. And there are times when the constitution needs to be amended to make plain the will of the body. Therefore, no one should vote against the proposed overtures on the grounds that they are unnecessary.
And finally, it is an urgent issue. In a recent men’s Bible study at our young church plant the issue of the overtures and the position of “side B Christianity” came up. (Trust me, I was not the one who mentioned it.) Men were immediately alarmed and confused. They wanted to know how long this had been going on. I mentioned a couple years. What is being done? they wanted to know. I tried to explain the difference between the court cases and the proposed overtures. I tried to explain how the system of Presbyterian government works (or is supposed to work).
From the looks and comments that night, I am not sure our church plant will survive if these overtures are not passed, or some definitive action is taken to make clear it is not okay to be an officer of the church and embrace the identity of a gay Christian. But we’re a small bunch and this is not a threat. The point is I have been down this road before. As the pastor of a large church in the PCUSA, I saw the same look in people’s eyes. I heard the same questions and frustrations. I found myself saying the same hollow words- “It’s not exactly what it sounds like.” “We can make a difference.” “This doesn’t reflect who we are as a church.” You know how well that turned out.
Coming into the PCA I was aware there was a diversity of views and even movements within the denomination. But I also saw a denomination that had exciting prospects to fulfill an essential mission. I also strongly believed (and still do) that the vast majority of people within the denomination would not support the position of an officer of the church embracing an ongoing identity as a gay Christian. And while I have learned that people can appreciate debate and due process, they won’t endure protracted procedures that yield mixed messages, or when a system cannot accomplish what is the apparent intent of the constitution and the will of the body.
I have learned that people leave churches like churches leave denominations. Some in groups, some as individuals. Some leave in a huff, some quietly, still others may stay but don’t engage. We should be very concerned about the moment in which we find ourselves.
It is time to address this. If you feel it is appropriate at this moment in our denomination to allow for officers of the church to embrace the identity of a gay Christian, then vote against the overtures. Let me simply ask that you begin your comments whether in formal debates, in social media, or in any other venue with the fact that you do feel this is a viable position and you embrace it. And let me ask that you are forthcoming with your congregation and let them know your position as well. Don’t be like the many pastors and elders I have seen through the years who mislead their flock as to their views and positions.
If you feel this is not the right position for our denomination to be known for (and I can tell you from experience we will be known for it) or the position that allows us to fulfill our mission, but you still have some reservations about the specific overtures, please reflect on the fact that this is indeed an urgent and persistent issue that though by nature complicated, needs to be addressed. Even if you feel the proposed overtures are less than perfect, that is not a reason to vote against them.
It is not the lack of clarity of an overture or the uncertainty of its imagined outcome that we should be most concerned about, but the emerging lack of clarity about who are as a denomination and the uncertainty we will have in fulfilling our mission if these overtures do not pass that should most concern us.
Alan Hager is a member of New River Presbytery and the Organizing Pastor of Grace Church in Buckhannon, WV.

Written by Andrew T. Walker |
Friday, June 14, 2024
Making human existence reducible to our sexual desires, chromosomes, melanin, or geography without obedience to Scripture and its full-bodied anthropology grounded bearing God’s image is where today’s left wing and right wing horseshoe into similar worldviews. Without Scripture as our authority, humans are prone to valorize whatever gives them the identity they are looking for, whether homosexuality, transgenderism, misogyny, or racism.

Christian morality is a respecter of no tribe or alliance. Faithfulness to Christ requires that we apply Biblical truth to every dimension of life, including our political life and social media.
It is not simply that I agree with the content of Christian ethics. I love how Christian ethics works as a theory. Our ethical standards are timeless, objective, and impartially applied without fear or favor. Our values, understood rightly, should never change or evolve.
How Christian ethics work as a theory is best measured against how secular ethics work. If you pay attention to secular moral values, you will notice how they constantly evolve and catch up based on the current cultural mood. For example, 20 years ago, same-sex marriage was unthinkable, and Democrats universally opposed it. Twenty years later, if one is against same-sex marriage, one could never conceive of being a Democrat. So, the moral values change to meet the needs of an evolving political constituency. At root, it is a form of ethical subjectivism and relativism.
Read More
Related Posts: