That any endeavor to soften the blunt message of Scripture that homosexuality is utterly perverse and shameful and ought to be forsaken entirely runs a risk of blurring the absolute difference between the Christian position and that of the sinful flesh, and thereby risks making repentance seem less urgent and of making redemption seem less liberating.

[Read Part One]

That affixing any adjective that describes a heinous sin or lifestyle to what we are in Christ is blasphemy. Well might a man tear his clothes and gnash his teeth to hear or read such a phrase used anywhere, but especially in the church of God assembled.
That the judicial powers of the church ought to be used to discipline and discourage such blasphemous speech.
That no new or special overtures ought to be necessary to prosecute those whose manner of life is so obviously contrary to the example Scripture requires of ministers of the gospel, especially when they have committed other sins (as blasphemy), that ought to be disciplined.
That the foregoing thesis is not limited to such adjectives as same-sex attracted, but that it would have equal propriety in condemning the blasphemous terms of movements to normalize swindling, stealing, reviling, drunkenness, or the other sins of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, if ever such movements should arise.
That the absence of such movements, coupled with the existence of a militant movement to normalize homosexuality, is the reason for the church’s present concern with sexual ethics rather than with those others.
That notwithstanding that no special overtures should be necessary to preserve the church’s purity in this matter, yet the practical exigencies of the situation commend the contemporary adoption of such overtures.
That the prevalence of other sins in no way deprives the church of its right and duty to condemn homosexual immorality.
That past failures in this or other matters in no way deprives the church of its right and duty to stand firm in this matter, but only indicate it has need to repent in such other matters.
That any endeavor to soften the blunt message of Scripture that homosexuality is utterly perverse and shameful and ought to be forsaken entirely runs a risk of blurring the absolute difference between the Christian position and that of the sinful flesh, and thereby risks making repentance seem less urgent and of making redemption seem less liberating.
That they who convert from homosexual sin to Christ will often be drawn because of the difference in experience between his service and that of their previous life.
That those who commit homosexual sin are no less human thereby, and are to be prayed for and ministered to no less than any other people, in keeping with the Lord’s admonition to love our neighbors as ourselves.
That all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and are absolute lawbreakers from the standpoint of his law, for every command of which they are responsible (Jas. 2:10).
That the foregoing being true, there is no occasion for believers to be proud or to look down upon or despise those who are ensnared in sexual immorality of any type. As an old adage says, ‘there but for the grace of God there go I.’
That God’s hand is not shortened that he cannot save (Isa. 59:1), and that it is his pleasure to effectually redeem his elect out of all types of sinful living (1 Cor. 6:11).
That the church, as such, should diligently witness to those ensnared in sexual immorality of all types.
That mercy takes different forms, depending upon the nature and needs of its recipients.
That it is no act of mercy to minimize the severity of a person’s sin, and that mercy too contains within itself the other virtues, such as hatred of evil. As Jude says, “save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh” (Jude 23).
That he is mistaken who imagines that mercy is only passive and meek, and who does not recognize that it is also, as befits the occasion, zealous and aggressive.
That it is an act of mercy for the church to declare, frequently and plainly (yet with tact), that those ensnared in homosexual sin ought to repent hastily for the sake of their present and future lives.
That it is no mercy to be inconsistent in these matters or to waver as regards fidelity to the historic position of God’s people.
That friendship with the world is enmity to God (Jas. 4:4), an inexcusable act of infidelity that profits nothing and brings only woe. The world has ever shown itself a fickle and cruel seductress, always intimating its acceptance and respect if this or that offensive doctrine is surrendered, but never giving such respect and always desiring more compromise and infidelity on the part of the church.
That a desire for the world’s acceptance lies behind much of what factions such as the National Partnership seek. The notion that the church might offend unbelievers seems to loom large in their thought, however much they might say that this is only a desire to be effective in reaching the lost.
That the contemporary language of many of our ministers is liable to corruption and to being used to excuse a lack of zeal in contending “for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). We are often told of the need to ‘contextualize’ the difficult teachings of the church. How easily this can come to mean that we compromise to avoid giving offense, that the one who ‘contextualizes’ so tempers his words as to attempt to make an unpopular teaching palatable to infidels. How different this is apt to be, in practice, from the direct and simple style of such examples as John the Baptist or our Lord and his apostles.
That he who avouches his orthodoxy ought not to be taken at his own word, but should have his actual teaching and, more than that, the fruit of his teaching, examined to see whether it is good or bad. For it is the mark of the heretic that he regards himself as right and faithful where everyone else has gone astray, and therefore self-testimony is always to be abetted by careful examination.
That he who holds to the orthodox faith is yet unfaithful if he does not defend it actively against those that would subvert it. For Scripture says that the maintenance of sound doctrine is a duty of elders when it says that an elder “must hold to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9).
That one should not listen to the wicked, nor give heed to the slanders of unbelievers, except it be to refute them. At the 47th General Assembly one pastor stated that hatred of homosexuals is believed to be the foremost characteristic of believers among contemporary youth, his point being that we should labor to modify this perception of us that the world has. Such a statement only proves that the world is ensnared in the lies of Satan and misunderstands us and our beliefs.
That to be thus misunderstood is neither surprising nor an occasion for modifying our presentation of the faith; for doing so would not release unbelievers from deception, and would likely only lead to them believing some other lie about us. And have we forgotten our Lord’s teaching that “blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Matt. 5:11), and that we are to meet such a prospect, not with embarrassment and a public relations campaign to rehabilitate our image, but are rather to “rejoice and be glad, for [our] reward is great in heaven” (v. 12)?
That the world lies in the power of the evil one is seen especially in this, that it misunderstands the nature of hatred. For the unbeliever regards any disapproval of the behavior of others as an act of hatred and unjust judgment, no matter its motivation or manner of expression. Yet hatred is not disapproval as such, but rather a feeling of strong antipathy which might be either wicked or righteous, depending upon its object and motivations.
That the respect of the world is neither good nor desirable, and that its presence would indicate infidelity to our Lord, whose words the world hates (Jn. 15:18-25). For he who chases the acceptance of the world chases a phantom, unless he be willing to surrender fully his service to Christ; and what does it profit a man to gain the world and to lose his soul (Matt. 16:26)?
That what is enjoined to increase the church’s effectiveness and size has ever tended to do the opposite.
That doctrinal decline is gradual and accomplished in phases. Seldom, if ever, does orthodoxy yield to obvious heresy in a single act of change. In small increments fidelity gives way to apostasy.

Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.

Believers of all maturity levels must remain consistent in reading and studying God’s Word, submitting themselves to sound doctrinal preaching and teaching within the local church. There are no shortcuts. There are no substitutes. There’s no fast-food that will achieve the level of maturity required for the turning-the-world-upside-down type of unified ministry Paul commands within the body of Christ.

In Ephesians 4, the Apostle Paul is principally concerned with unity in the body of Christ—how the church functions as one unit for the mission and purpose to which she has been called. Paul identifies this “one body” (Eph. 4:4) as those who:

Walk “worthy” of their calling (Eph. 4:1).
Bear “with one another in love” (Eph. 4:2).
“Maintain the unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3).
Equip others “for the work of ministry” (Eph. 4:12).
Build “up the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12).
“Attain to the unity of the faith” (Eph. 4:13).
Speak “the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).

These splendid features identify the body of Christ and distinguish all mature believers. Maturity is essential in achieving the purpose and call of the church. How do we produce mature believers?
Sound doctrine.
In an age when doctrine is marginalized and disdained, Paul reminds us that biblical, sound doctrine is the golden chain linked to all the characteristics listed above. Without sound doctrine, the chain falls apart, releasing a torrent of false teaching and an onslaught of immaturity. We could put it forthrightly: the church falls apart without sound doctrine.
Sound doctrine is fundamental “so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (Eph. 4:14). Paul isn’t mincing words here but distinctly points out that without sound doctrine, the church is susceptible to being carried away by cultural ideologies, false teaching, and deceptive methodologies.
Paul employs the analogy of children (immature) and adults (mature) to define the Christian life. In 1 Corinthians 13:11, he writes: “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” Those susceptible to being “tossed to and fro” are children, those immature in the faith who have not had a steady diet of sound doctrine and have therefore been stunted in their spiritual growth.
If it were up to me, I would have eaten Snickers candy bars for every meal as a boy. Children are undiscerning and must be carefully taught, educated, and formed.
Read More

I’m by From a practical standpoint, the onerous duties of the Stated Clerk would seem to be enough for any one man. From an appearance standpoint, serving on the 24-man judicial commission and as Stated Clerk would seem to lodge undue denominational power with one man.

Dr. Bryan Chapell, recently-elected Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), is a respected churchman with a sterling reputation, which is why he should immediately do two things: resign from the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) and disavow the secretive political organizing group, the National Partnership, which has claimed him as a member and an ally.
The Stated Clerk of the PCA has “no special role as spiritual leader or teacher to the denomination” (BCO 3-2 b), but does possess considerable influence and power by virtue of his duties. He routes overtures to committees as he deems appropriate, arranges the docket of the General Assembly, makes or directs most of the public communications of the PCA, and is the chief administrative officer of the Administrative Committee of the General Assembly—the committee that sets the agenda of the PCA more than any other. He also gives advice to the innumerable questions posed to him and his office, and renders non-binding opinions as called upon, some of which are related to judicial or discipline matters.
Because of the power described and duties outlined above, he should resign from the SJC, the denomination’s highest court of appeal.
From a practical standpoint, the onerous duties of the Stated Clerk would seem to be enough for any one man. From an appearance standpoint, serving on the 24-man judicial commission and as Stated Clerk would seem to lodge undue denominational power with one man. Also, the SJC is a commission of the General Assembly, of which the Stated Clerk is parliamentarian and for which he sets the docket. While actual conflict of interest might rarely exist, apparent conflicts are easy to imagine at a time of great division and controversy in the denomination. It is fair to ask if the attention generated by SJC service (Dr. Chapell voted in the recent controversial case involving teaching elder Greg Johnson and Missouri Presbytery) is something a Stated Clerk should prudently avoid.
While the Book of Church Order does not prohibit the Stated Clerk from serving on the SJC, wisdom and precedent suggest stepping down is the right thing to do. Retired Stated Clerk Roy Taylor had just begun a second term on the SJC in 1997 when he was nominated for Stated Clerk. He resigned his SJC post even before being elected as Stated Clerk in 1998.
Besides resigning from the SJC for the reasons listed above, Dr. Chapell should also make clear his past and current relationship (if any) with the secretive political group, the National Partnership. Recently disclosed emails (seen by hundreds if not thousands and now well and truly in the public domain) reveal that Dr. Chapell was considered a member (at least by National Partnership leaders) and an ally. He was referred to as an “NP member” in 2014 and his SJC nomination was supported. He was thanked for “not wait(ing) the extra second to hear calls for ‘division’” in his role as General Assembly moderator in 2014 as well. Apparently, this was considered a helpful parliamentary maneuver by the National Partnership. If his seeming membership in the National Partnership had been generally known at the time one wonders how others might have viewed his moderator performance.
If Dr. Chapell has cut all ties with the National Partnership, well and good. A public statement to that effect would be wise. It would be helpful to know when he cut those ties with the group and why he did so. Disavowing any relationship to the National Partnership, and secret political groups more generally, would certainly increase confidence in his ability to serve as a Stated Clerk for the entire PCA.
Charles Inverness is a member of the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as a ruling elder in a congregation in Tennessee.