The Church and its Christians are not respected on the public stage any longer. Both are being muscled out through mockery, furore, indignation and false humility, all at the behest of the new pagan ideals. The pagan adherents hate Jesus and they act on it by shaming and punishing his followers (Jn 15:18–25).

Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. (1 John 3:13).
God told us not to be surprised. But I’ll admit it, sometimes I’m still surprised!
We Australians have failed to teach our children in the nurture and admonition of the LORD, so subsequent generations have spurned Him. Like the Israelites, we have grown lazy in our wealth and not given proper honour to the Giver of all good gifts. What used to be a Christianity-infused nation is fast driving out anything Christian-related.

What will fill its place? We are creating a new national religion that is broadly a copy of the same religion being formed in other western nations. We are made to be worshippers, so if not the LORD God, we will find idols to worship.

Wherever you look around the world, people live in groups that often become nations. These groups are usually tied together by shared cultural, geographical and religious identities. Australia is part of the multi-cultural globalisation experiment, where we have tried to create a nation that has no shared cultural or religious identity, and, many of us are removed from our geographical roots. We have little that ties us all together except a citizenship.
The cliché says “nature abhors a vacuum,” and more pointedly, Satan will leverage any opportunity to oppose God. With the decline of Christianity and its cultural effects comes something else to fill its place.
We Christians were deceived. We thought that with the rise of more religions and more “alternative” points of view in Australia that Christianity would simply be a voice among the many, and a loud voice at that. After all, we can just be tolerant and respectful of differing views, right?
We thought that in the public sphere that it would be a true contest of ideas, where the best ideals for humanity would be vigorously tested and enshrined in law for the good of us all. Surely God knows best, so His ethics and ideals would always win, right? If it were a fair debate, with unbiased participants, that would be the case.

Alas, when the masses are left to their own devices, their carnal desire drives the agenda. It is only by the grace and design of God that anything but godless chaos can come out of us.

The fool says in their heart “there is no God, and I hate Him.” And so it is no surprise that when given the option, most people will trend away from the LORD and His Word. Fools despise wisdom and instruction (Pro 1:7).
What is this new religion being formed in our society? It is a new paganism. It is disguised as being no religion at all, it is portrayed as the progressive movement toward a utopian society (just like communism before Christians are oppressed, murdered or exiled).

The new paganism is much like the old versions, seen in animism, Hinduism or Greek/Roman religions. There is a proliferation of gods and associated idols. There are respected priests and temples. There are rituals to be observed. The state will endorse certain elements of the religion, and rejection of this religion is seen as being incompatible with one’s cultural identity. In fact, refusal to pay homage invites the wrath of the spirits or gods, and so people who won’t bow the knee must be excised from society for the safety of everyone else. Perhaps this paganism can tolerate our subversive faith, but only if we keep quiet and hidden.

It’s worth exploring the shape of this religious development further, but there is not the space here. Instead, let’s look at the fruit, or evidence of this shift that is quite visible to Christians right now.
The Church and its Christians are not respected on the public stage any longer.
Read More
Related Posts:

The vote for Recommendation #1 to dissolve Second Presbytery passed 254 yes to 43 no. Second Presbytery will be dissolved…. The Canadian Presbytery of the ARP Church, humbly petitions the 220th General Synod the ARP to release our presbytery for the formation of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in Canada beginning with our Fall Presbytery meeting, September 2025.

Moderator Alan Broyles introduced his Synod Emphasis for the year, “To the ends of the Earth together, Acts 1:8.” Agency Directors held a banner on stage to show the denomination working together.
The Special Committee to Study Church Officers and Secret Societies was discussed. The report showed a summary of findings from other denominations as well on Freemasons along with Bible proofs and Westminster Confession references. A motion was passed at this point, “That the Officers or Officer nominees who are members of a secret society be encouraged to consult with their session on the questions every believer must ask before they join a secret society.”
Following that motion, another one was passed stating, “That the 220th General Synod explicitly and forthrightly declare that Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity.”
The Special Committee to Study the Work of the Office of Deacon report was discussed.
The summary of the report says, Those whom Christ is calling to exercise spiritually-centered authority, He sets apart by gifts including an ability to teach (Ephesians 4:11; James 3:11). In order that those officers might focus on the ministry of the Word and prayer, Christ calls others to serve as deacons and care for the physically-oriented needs of the Chruch (Acts 6:3-4; 1Timothy 3:8-13).
The scope of the office of deacon is to undertake those tasks entrusted to them by the Session in order to facilitate the Session’s attention to prayer and the ministry of the Word (Acts 6:2). Such tasks may include, but are not limited to, caring for physical needs through the collection and distribution of goods/resources and administrative duties (Deuteronomy 16:10-15; Psalm 68:18-19).
The authority of deacons is the authority of Christ Himself, delegated to them through the giving of spiritual gifts from Christ and the laying on of hands (Acts6:6). Just as Christ the King came to serve rather than to be served (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45), so His lowly service is to be an exemplar not only to all Christians (Philippians 2:3-11), but especially to those who exercise authority while serving in His Name (John 13:14-17).
There was a motion to adopt this as an official position paper for the denomination. The discussion continued after dinner that if it was adopted, it would make it an authoritative position which women can not hold. The report was not made an official paper.
The Special Committee to Investigate Second Presbytery’s Handling of Allegations Against Chuck Wilson was next on the agenda.
The committee’s report expressed multiple challenges including the massiveness of the case and the difficulties in dealing with members and officers of Second Presbytery. The committee completed their investigation and presented 20 events that happened. Two of those were deviations from our Book of Discipline. Others were lack of records after requested and how things were handled. The recommendations from the committee were as follows

That Second Presbytery be dissolved as of September 1, 2024.
That the bounds of Catawba Presbytery be changed to include the entire state of South Carolina.
That the bounds of Tennessee-Alabama Presbytery be moved to include the entire state of Georgia.
That the General Synod encourage members of Second Presbytery to transfer their credentials to Catawba or Tennessee-Alabama presbyteries (depending on their geographical location).
That the Moderator appoint a commission in order to oversee the transfer of assets and dissolution of Second Presbytery.
That the General Synod encourage Catawba and Tennessee-Alabama presbyteries to use assets received the for purpose of church strengthening, already existing church plants, and new church planting, giving special consideration to the geographical areas of the former Second Presbytery.
That the General Synod review Catawba and Tennessee-Alabama presbytery boundaries after a period of three years.
That the Moderator appoint a committee to review and revise The Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Churchwith special emphasis on the church discipline process in the Book of Discipline and special emphasis on the Form of Government, as it relates to judicial commissions.

Due to the weight of this issue, James Almond offered prayer. There was heavy discussion as delegates worked through the understanding of this report. The question was called and the vote for Recommendation #1 to dissolve Second Presbytery passed 254 yes to 43 no. Second Presbytery will be dissolved.
Delegates heard from both Catawba and Tennessee-Alabama Presbytery clerks that their presbyteries are willing to accept men as long as their views have not changed. These Presbyteries cannot decline a church.
The following two motions were made to clarify the original recommendations from the committee’s report:

That the moderator establish a commission to oversee and distribute funds to fulfill and continue the existing financial obligations of Second Presbytery and that the same commission study the best use of the remaining funds for the furtherance of the gospel in our denomination. ­
That the moderator direct the commission to deal with funds of Second Presbytery and be allowed to deal with the dissolution of Second Presbytery and to handle any requests for churches in Second Presbytery to change from their new presbytery.

A report was heard from Iglesia Presbiteriana Asociada Reformada de Mexico and it was approved to move to Fraternal Fellowship. Scott Moore translated as three representatives addressed Synod. “Missionaries were first sent to Mexico in December 1879. It is our desire and prayer that fellowship can increase and be strengthened,” the IPAR delegate said.
Reverend David Walkup, pastor of Chapel by the Sea in Florida was elected Moderator Elect and Frank Hunt, III was elected Vice-Moderator Elect.
The Memorials Report was next with the reading of the Canadian Presbytery Memorial.
Therefore, The Canadian Presbytery of the ARP Church, humbly petitions the 220th General Synod the ARP to release our presbytery for the formation of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in Canada beginning with our Fall Presbytery meeting, September 2025.
This Memorial brought a lot of discussion. “We share the expression of affection. This has been a wonderful home for over 30 years. The only agenda we have is to be faithful to the Word of God. We pray to continue to have cooperative relations,” Jeff Kingswood said.
“I am thankful for the wisdom of these men. My heart doesn’t want to let them go,” Rick Anderson said.
The Memorial passed.
Source
Related Posts:

Ecclesiastical cases are fundamentally intramural proceedings brought in and for the church.  The proposed changes seek to expand the jurisdiction of our ecclesiastical courts into an area that, under the framework of our historic polity, has been the province of the civil magistrate.  Expanding the jurisdiction of our ecclesiastical courts by accepting unbelievers as witnesses would undermine the principle that our church courts’ authority is solely moral and spiritual, not civil.  We should defer to the civil magistrate the adjudication of those matters that are especially suited to his jurisdictional powers in matters that turn on the testimony of persons who are neither Christians nor otherwise subject to the discipline of the church. 

Two overtures to the 2023 PCA General Assembly pertain to who can be a witness in ecclesiastical cases.  Changes are proposed to BCO 35-1 and BCO 35-7 of the Book of Church Order: Overture 2021-41 from Tennessee Valley Presbytery (carried over from last year) and Overture 2023-13 from Northern California Presbytery.
The current language of the Book of Church Order reads as follows:
35-1. All persons of proper age and intelligence are competent witnesses, except such as do not believe in the existence of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments. The accused party may be allowed, but shall not be compelled to testify; but the accuser shall be required to testify, on the demand of the accused. Either party has the right to challenge a witness whom he believes to be incompetent, and the court shall examine and decide upon his competency. It belongs to the court to judge the degree of credibility to be attached to all evidence.
The Tennessee Valley Overture proposes to eliminate the first sentence, thereby removing belief in the existence of God or a future state of rewards and punishments as a qualification to testify.  The Northern California Overture makes the same redaction but adds “All persons generally are competent to testify as witnesses.”  The Northern California Overture also adds that the court “shall give consideration to age, intelligence, belief in God, relationship to the parties involved, and other like factors in judging testimony.”
The current oath of witness provision (BCO 35-6) reads this way:
The oath or affirmation to a witness shall be administered by the Moderator in the following or like terms: Do you solemnly promise, in the presence of God, that you will declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, according to the best of your knowledge in the matter in which you are called to witness, as you shall answer it to the great Judge of the living and the dead? If, however, at any time a witness should present himself before a court, who for conscientious reasons prefers to swear or affirm in any other manner, he should be allowed to do so.
The Northern California proposal would retain the form of oath but adds that the witness may also swear or affirm “with other language” – like writing one’s own wedding vows — “provided such oath or affirmation impresses the solemnity of this duty upon the witness’s conscience.”
The proposed changes would remove belief in God and belief in heaven and hell as theological preconditions for witness eligibility in PCA judicial trials.  The new rule would presume that any and every person is eligible to testify in our ecclesiastical proceedings, the only relevant consideration being that person’s credibility. Such a witness’s belief in God or of a future state, it is proposed, is merely a “factor” in judging the reliability or trustworthiness of the witness’s testimony, not a precondition to the testimony being heard or considered at all.
At first blush this may seem like a reasonable change.  After all, isn’t witness credibility the most relevant consideration?  We should assume that the judges of our church courts are wise and competent to sort out truth from falsehood and assign that degree of credibility to any witness’s testimony that is appropriate under all the circumstances, whether the witness is a believer or not. Why should we refuse to hear someone at all just because he doesn’t “believe in the existence of God” or in heaven and hell?
Of course, the changes proposed should lead us to think carefully about why our Rules of Discipline have long maintained belief in God and in a future state of rewards and punishments as a precondition for witness eligibility.  I believe those reasons remain sound, and they argue against the present proposals.
Preserving The Function of Oaths
Oaths bear an honored place not only in our polity, but our theology.  WCF 22.2 tells us:
The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence; therefore to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred. Yet, as, in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament, as well as under the Old, so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters ought to be taken.
Thus, not merely tradition but theological principle informs the conclusion that oaths ought to be taken “in matters of weight and moment” such as in testifying in ecclesiastical cases.  The theologian James Bannerman spoke of the oath as “the bond and seal of civil society,” a concept once commonly understood but that has gradually eroded from the national memory.   James Bannerman, The Church of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church (Edinburgh, 1868), Volume 1, page 137.  The oath is a “solemn appeal to God” Bannerman said, “as the present Witness of the truth, and the future Avenger of falsehood.”  (Page 140).
We remember that God took an oath to Abraham (Heb. 6:13-17), renewed His sworn promise to Moses (Dt. 1:8), and swore David an oath (Ps, 131).  We find that Israel was warned not to swear by the Lord’s name falsely (Lv. 19:12); an oath was used to determine the truth in cases where a witness’ veracity was all that could be relied upon (Nm. 5:16-28); Paul in Romans calls on God as “his witness” (Rm. 1:9 & 2 Cor 1:23); Paul took vows during his ministry (Acts 18:18).  John records his vision of an angel who swore an oath (Rev. 10:5-6).  Thus, the Bible repeatedly recognizes the appropriateness of oaths as solemn statements made in the presence of the Lord as witness, invoking as they do an increased liability for bearing false witness when solemnly invoking His presence in weighty matters of consideration.  The oath is grounded on the Divine Presence and Divine Righteousness.
However, we should recognize that the proposed change is mirroring a process of secularization that has eroded oath taking in the general culture.  I see no reason to disagree with the conviction of our presbyterian forebears that those who do not believe in the existence of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments are not competent witnesses in formal judicial proceedings.  After all, if the ecclesiastical courts will not insist on taking an oath in the presence of God, then who will? But a person who does believe in the existence of God cannot possibly take an oath that comports with our theological conception of them.
The secularization of oath taking took root in the national mind and civil law courts more than 100 years ago.  Thomas Rayburn White narrated this story in his Oaths in Judicial Proceedings And Their Effect Upon the Competency of Witnesses, The American Law Register, Volume 51 OS, 42 NS, July 1903, No. 7.  An evident twentieth century secularist, White declared it a “mystery” how Christian oaths became solemnized in English proceedings, ascribing the practice “to the spirit of intolerance which unfortunately seemed to dominate most religious people of early times,” and supposing that the Church, having come to dominate secular affairs, presumed “that all ‘heathen’ were wholly unfit to be believed.” .
Id. at 387. The idea that an atheist is ineligible to serve as a witness was instantiated in the common law of England:
The oath having become firmly incorporated into the machinery of the English courts, it was the theory of the common law that no witness ought to be allowed to give evidence unless he did so under the sanctity of an oath, which was thought to be the strongest possible guarantee of truth. It follows that if a man did not possess the necessary qualifications of an oath taker, heretofore mentioned, he would be excluded from the witness stand; that is, if he did not believe in a supernatural being who would, when called upon, witness the words spoken and punish a deviation from the truth. The only essential was that the witness should relate his evidence under the sanctity of a belief on his part in some superior power (no matter what) which was taking note of his words for the purposes mentioned.
Id. at 388-389.  The common law exclusion was later softened to allow “infidels” (atheists were still excluded) to testify.  Id.
In the civil arena fostered by historic Christendom it was first maintained that one must be a Christian to take an oath at all, and thus be eligible to participate in the judicial process.  Then, as the culture became more pluralistic, those who were not Christians but who still at least believed in a “Supreme Being” and a state of future rewards and punishments (like Jews and Muslims) were permitted to testify.  Eventually the significance of the oath, and the faith beliefs of the one who took it, disappeared altogether.  White represented for us the final step of full secularization when he said:
[A]n oath is avowedly but an imposition upon the ignorance or superstition of the witness. No intelligent man at this day pretends to believe that it is any greater sin to tell an untruth upon oath than upon affirmation —- it is the lie not the violation of the ceremony that is wicked. Page 436
That, of course, was more than a hundred years ago.  I fear the church is following the world slowly at a distance.   The instant overtures, as framed, propose a step toward secularization in our ecclesiastical courts by relinquishing the requirement of belief in the existence of God or hell in connection with taking an oath in ecclesiastical proceedings. If we adopt the proposal, we will be acceding to the logic of, and even imitating, our surrounding godless culture that has eviscerated the necessity of belief in God and the Final Judgment as a condition of witness eligibility.
Oaths as Gauges of Truth Telling
In our church courts the requirement of an oath is a way that we have historically assured ourselves that witnesses tell the truth in judicial proceedings.
Someone who does not believe in the existence of God or in a future state of rewards and punishment has no reason to have regard for the church’s ecclesiastical power when it comes to telling the truth in the church’s judicial proceedings.
The power of ecclesiastical courts is “exclusively spiritual” whereas the power of the state “includes the exercise of force.”  (BCO 3-4).  This disparity of remedy disadvantages church courts in incentivizing truth telling by witnesses in court proceedings.  Our ecclesiastical courts, lacking the “force” of secular courts, have no means to punish perjury in the way that the Civil Magistrate can. Lacking such power, our ecclesiastical courts have traditionally received only witnesses who believe in God, and therefore who at least exhibit the ground for a healthy fear of divine punishment for lying under oath.   Additionally, in the case of witnesses who are church members, the ecclesiastical courts possess the power of censuring them for bearing false witness, another assurance of and incentive to truth telling.
But neither of these incentives applies to those persons whom the new overtures propose to nominate as eligible to testify in ecclesiastical proceedings, namely persons who neither “believe in the existence of God” nor a “future state of rewards and punishments.”
Some might object that the oath is unreliable because believers and unbelievers alike can take oaths falsely, and we really have no means of measuring a person’s sincerity merely by virtue of their having taken an oath.
But taking this position would require us to renounce (or at least minimize) the place of oaths in our theological system as set out in WCF 22.2.  Believing in the theological propriety of oaths, our church courts rightly take assurance that a witness who has shown his or her willingness to invoke judgment upon his or her own head by taking the oath is more likely telling the truth.  Such a witness at least professes belief in the divine disapprobation of bearing false witness. By doing this our church courts both subscribe to and practice the important place of oaths in God’s government and in our theological system.  A witness’s willingness to invoke divine judgment on his or her head through an oath is really worth something to ecclesiastical courts, which is why it has long been a qualifier or a precondition to witness eligibility or competence to testify.
The adoption of the present proposal to allow a person who does not “believe in the existence of God” to take our oath will necessarily require a dilution of our theology and integrity of oaths together with the corresponding idea of witness eligibility or competence in a theological and ecclesiastical sense, leaving in place only to the already existing judicial task of measuring the credibility of witnesses. But if credibility is truly all that matters, why require or practice any kind of oath or affirmation at all?  The oath, like so many other post-Christian relics in our society, will eventually become only an echo of a Christian view of the world.  And indeed, that is what it is becoming or has become in our civil courts.  Such secularization ought not to be the trend in the courts of the PCA.
The Spiritual Nature of Church Courts
Another factor to consider in favor of insisting that a witness “believe in the existence of God” and a “future state of rewards and punishments” is the very nature of the power of church courts. “The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual”  (BCO 3-4). Of course, from one perspective the power of the church courts are very great indeed because they represent Jesus Christ.  Thus, their exercise of ecclesiastical power “has the divine sanction when in conformity with the statutes enacted by Christ, the Lawgiver, and when put forth by courts or by officers appointed thereunto in His Word” (BCO 3-6).  While that is a profound fact to the members of the church, it is not to persons who do not “believe in the existence of God.”
The spiritual nature of the church courts implies certain limitations on their authority. The apparent (and understandable) impetus for changing the oath requirement is to widen the scope of who may participate in ecclesiastical proceedings so that the ecclesiastical courts can adjudicate matters that might be out of its reach under our present polity.  Perhaps the overtures particularly have in mind matters that might involve key testimony from unbelieving witnesses as in cases involving sexual impropriety or abuse, and especially in cases where individuals victimized by members of the church may have resultantly abandoned the faith, rendering them ineligible to testify under present BCO 35-1.  Allowing unbelievers to testify would enable our church courts to take on cases in which proof may fail, under the existing rules, because an unbelieving witness is ineligible to inform the court of relevant facts.
It might be objected that If we don’t allow unbelieving victims to testify, then the church courts can’t do full justice.  But strictly speaking, our church courts are not called upon to do full justice.  Our church courts serve several functions, including “the rebuke of offenses, the removal of scandal, the vindication of the honor of Christ, the promotion of the purity and general edification of the Church, and the spiritual good of offenders themselves”  (BCO 27-3).  Our church courts are imperfect forums, and the “right” result is not guaranteed in any case.  Rules like the two-witnesses rule (BCO 35-3), founded in Scripture, sometimes work to prevent our church courts from discovering or declaring the truth, even assuming that the sole witness to a sexual crime, for example, is credible, reliable, and trustworthy.
The requirement that a witness must “believe in the existence of God” to be eligible to testify in our courts is like the two-witness rule.  As profound as any sin is, including sexual sin or abuse, it is also a sin to not believe in God’s existence, a denial that, if you think about it, is an unequivocal renunciation of the jurisdiction of the courts of Christ’s Church.  According to the unbeliever, the King of our courts does not even exist. Christ’s under shepherds serving in His ecclesiastical courts cannot coherently ignore unbelievers’ denial of the very premise of their jurisdiction and entertain such a person’s testimony in church proceedings against souls who, although charged with having committed an offense, at least profess belief in God and are still under both the jurisdiction and care of the church.
Thus the de facto renunciation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by unbelievers who would otherwise be determinative witnesses in an ecclesiastical case against a member of the church leaves the courts of the civil magistrate as the courts of exclusive jurisdiction in such matters.   It is not the church but the victim, by virtue of his or her unbelief, that has placed such matters out of the reach of ecclesiastical adjudication. The matter can be adjudicated, just not in the ecclesiastical courts.
Ecclesiastical cases are fundamentally intramural proceedings brought in and for the church.  The proposed changes seek to expand the jurisdiction of our ecclesiastical courts into an area that, under the framework of our historic polity, has been the province of the civil magistrate.  Expanding the jurisdiction of our ecclesiastical courts by accepting unbelievers as witnesses would undermine the principle that our church courts’ authority is solely moral and spiritual, not civil.  We should defer to the civil magistrate the adjudication of those matters that are especially suited to his jurisdictional powers in matters that turn on the testimony of persons who are neither Christians nor otherwise subject to the discipline of the church.
Jim Eggert is a Ruling Elder in Westminster Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Brandon, Fla.
Related Posts: