It seems that many Americans have lost the work ethic that we used to be famous for.  Americans have also lost the doctrine of vocation, which gives work of all kinds meaning, value, and spiritual significance.

Last year we blogged about what was being called “The Great Resignation,” the phenomenon of people quitting their jobs and not returning to the workplace.  Much of that was a response to the COVID epidemic, with the lockdowns giving people a taste for not going to work and the government relief payments (including unemployment benefit supplements that paid many workers more for doing nothing than they were earning on their jobs) making that, at least for awhile, financially possible.
But now, most of those who voluntarily left the workplace back then still have not come back.  The workplace participation numbers are essentially the same as they were back in August of 2020.  This, even though pay has shot up, as companies are growing desperate for workers.  The labor shortage is throwing off the economy, but it also bodes ill for those who are cultivating idleness and for the culture as a whole.
So says an article by By Mene Ukueberuwa in the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall) entitled The Underside of the ‘Great Resignation’.
In 2000, the labor force participation rate–which includes everyone in the population, including the retired and unable to work– reached a high mark of 67%.  Today, it is 61.9%, a drop of 5%, the same that it was last August.  Among men in their prime working age, from 25 to 54, only 88.2% work.  In 1961, the percentage was 96.9%.  Put another way, among men between 25 and 54,  the proportion of those who do not work for a living is 1 out of 8.
For women of the prime working age, the high point in 2000 was 77.3%, dropping to 75% today.  The overall percentages are lower, since women often opt out of the workplace to have children and to take care of them, but the decline is also lower compared to men.
The work rate today is lower than it was during the Great Depression.  Thirty years ago, according to the article, Americans had a 10% higher work rate than the European Union, but today Americans have fallen “a couple of points” behind the supposedly easy-going Europeans.
Read More

At its core, parliamentary procedure is a set of rules designed to guide us in our deliberations as a church. This is important since deliberation is central to the nature, purpose, and function of church courts. Fundamental to biblical polity, then, is that we enter the courts of the church with a determination to make our decisions there, in conversation with all the other presbyters of the church gathered there. As we listen to one another, God commands us to speak to one another with God’s own Word, “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:19–21).

“Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!” (Ps. 133:1).
Life in Christ’s church can be hard, especially when we must deal with complicated, difficult, and controversial questions. Nevertheless, we purposefully close every General Assembly by singing Psalm 133 together as a prayer that God would continue to weave this unity into the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
Ours is not the first generation in which  the church has struggled for unity. What, though, are we supposed to do when “no small dissension and debate” (Acts 15:2) arises within the church?  What does the Bible teach us about resolving such dissensions and debate?
I want to argue a controversial idea: if we were to tease out all the principles that the Bible teaches for resolving our disagreements in the church, we would end up with a system that looks very much like what we call parliamentary procedure. Rather than seeing parliamentary procedure as arbitrary or arcane, and far from seeing parliamentary procedure as a hindrance to the work of the church, I want to argue that parliamentary procedure reflects the Bible’s own teaching for how to make decisions as a church.
The Bible teaches, then, that our church government should derive from the same principles of biblical wisdom that we use to structure our worship: “Let all things be done for building up….But all things should be done decently and in order.” (1 Cor. 14:26, 40; see WCF 1.6). In this article, I  explore three major ways in which the main principles of parliamentary procedure follow the general rules of the Word, “which are always to be observed” (WCF 1.6).
1. Parliamentary Procedure Gathers an Assembly to Deliberate
Let’s start with a foundational principle: in order to make decisions, we must gather together in the same place, at the same time. Just as we recognize the importance of gathering together for worship, as suggested by the routine use of the words for “come together” (sunerchomai; sunagō) in passages about corporate worship (e.g., Acts 11:26; 13:44; 14:27; 16:13; 20:7–8; 1 Cor. 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26), so too should we acknowledge the importance of gathering together for deliberation and decision-making.
When the Jerusalem Council had to consider the ongoing relevance of circumcision in the Church, we read that “[T]he apostles and the elders were gathered together (sunagō) to consider this matter” (Acts 15:6). We don’t make decisions from afar or by correspondence, but by gathering together at one place, and at one time, to talk together about the questions before us.
To some degree, this principle can be extended into virtual meetings; however, Robert’s Rules of Order requires “at a minimum, conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participating members equivalent to those of meetings held in one room or area” (RONR [12th ed.] 9:31). Even if we meet on a Zoom call, we can make decisions if and only if we can, at the very least, hear one another.
2. Parliamentary Procedure Prioritizes our Listening
The reason that the Bible requires us to be together at the same place, at the same time, is to prioritize listening. While we often overlook it, the centrality of silence and listening in both Acts 15 and 1 Corinthians 14 is astonishing:

And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. (Acts 15:12)
After they finished speaking [lit., “fell silent”], James replied, “Brothers, listen to me.” (Acts 15:13)
But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. (1 Cor. 14:28)
If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. (1 Cor. 14:30)
As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. (1 Cor. 14:33b–34a)

Read More

Rejection from the world because we teach and preach biblical truth is typical; why do we continue to think that otherwise? While I believe all officers in the PCA affirm this principle intellectually, it seems that some of us experientially may become unsettled by the potential rejection of our faith by the culture around us.

In previous articles we addressed the first two “U”s against Overtures 23 & O37 presented in the  “National Partnership Public Advice for Voting on Overtures 23, 37” (see Part 1, Part 1 continued, and Part 2), specifically the claim that the overtures are unclear and unnecessary. In this article I assess the third basic argument presented against O23 & O37: that the overtures are unloving toward those who struggle with same-sex attraction (SSA). The National Partnership (PA) Advice for Voting opens and closes with two primary concerns. First, how the world outside the PCA will respond to O23 & O37, and second, how SSA strugglers within the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) will respond to O23 & O37.
Under this second primary concern I will highlight a number of public statements made by Dr. Greg Johnson, pastor of Memorial PCA in St. Louis, who is arguably the most vocal opponent of O23 & O37. My comments are not assessing his Christian character, not discounting the grace of God which is evident in his life of celibacy, or mischaracterizing his theological formulations. Doing so would be unnecessary and inappropriate. Instead, my comments are intended to demonstrate that frank and sincere disagreement and Christian love are not mutually exclusive. In this present debate before the PCA, we can take issue with an adversary’s rhetoric without being accused of holding to a “harsh and adversarial fundamentalism,” that, unfortunately, has been attributed to some in the PCA.[1] May God grant us all the ability to disagree with grace and humility.
Concern #1 The Response of the Unbelieving World
In the second sentence of the PA, the writers mention the Washington Times as being among the publications that “struggled to interpret O23 (BCO 16-4) and O37 (BCO 21, 24).” [2] In an age when journalistic integrity and objectivity are circling the drain, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the writer engaged in virtually no interpretation but simply recounted the events of General Assembly (GA) and cited various perspectives on the outcome.[3] The only “struggle” that I could identify was found in the title itself, “Gay men not qualified for ministry, Presbyterian Church in America votes.” Admittedly, the title could have been clearer. At face value, the title could give the impression the PCA had a standing practice of ordaining practicing homosexuals and that the 48th GA voted to do so no longer or that any person who admits to struggling with homosexual desires at all was automatically disqualified by these overtures.
So yes, the article’s title is confusing and subject to misunderstanding but is this necessarily the fault of O23 & O37 as the PA insinuates or is it possible that the reporter simply chose an unclear title for his article? By extension, should the PCA shoulder the blame any and every time a secular news outlet misinterprets or misrepresents the teachings and rulings of our denomination? The answer must be “No.”
Kellner’s article was by no means a tongue lashing and the concern surrounding it feels overblown. But, what if it had been a tongue lashing? What if Kellner did interpret O23 & O37 in the worst light possible and took the PCA behind the woodshed for its “homophobic crusade against SSA strugglers?” Would such strong pushback from a secular news outlet be clear proof that the GA failed to love SSA individuals by voting in favor of O23 & O37? No, in fact, it would be yet another realization of what the Apostle Paul said will ordinarily result when the Church faithfully proclaims the gospel of Christ—opposition.
Paul reminded believers in the church of Corinth, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14). The very meat and marrow of our message, the cross of Christ, “is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor 1:18). We are not to expect the unbelieving world to apprehend or appreciate the spiritual truths we confess, no matter how clearly and carefully we communicate them. For spiritual truth to be understood rightly one needs to be spiritually discerning, and for one to be spiritually discerning he needs to be regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 3:3, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God”). Without this sovereign intervention of God’s Holy Spirit in the heart and life of sinners, faithful Christians will, in fact, come off as “a fragrance from death to death” to those who are perishing (2 Cor 2:15, 16).
Be that as it may, we are not to use the above passages as license to be as obnoxious or offensive as we please. The gospel by its very nature is already offensive to unbelievers; it is contrary to the world system and the two systems clash every time they meet (Eph 2:1-5). Indeed, Christians should be mindful of the manner in which they communicate the gospel. I’ve personally found it a helpful and humbling exercise when reflecting on an evangelistic conversation, to ask myself, “Did my tone communicate concern or contempt for the person to whom I was speaking? Were my words intended to heal or to hurt my neighbor? Was my neighbor offended by me or by the gospel?” Such self-reflection can be painful, but essential to effective gospel engagement.
Yet, as true as this is, we must not let the unbelieving world’s feelings about our message become the standard by which we measure the faithfulness of our witness. Consider the prophets (Matt 23:37), Christ himself (John 1:9-11), and the warning that Christ gave his disciples in the Upper Room Discourse:
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 14:18-20).
We are not greater than our Master and so we should not expect a warmer reception from the world than Christ received himself. Rejection from the world because we teach and preach biblical truth is typical; why do we continue to think that otherwise? While I believe all officers in the PCA affirm this principle intellectually, it seems that some of us experientially may become unsettled by the potential rejection of our faith by the culture around us. At times, when our commitment to biblical truth is misunderstood by those living in darkness, it may result in losing book deals, or followers on Twitter, or forfeiting a seat at the table with cultural thought leaders. But when compared to the unfading glory and the riches of the gospel, we should consider all these earthly, fading treasures as rubbish. God’s approval is infinitely more valuable than the approval of man.
Concern #2 The Response Among SSA Strugglers Within the PCA
In the final paragraph of the PA, the writers argue, “These overtures will be heard and read by many faithful same-sex attracted congregants in ways that will make them feel more alone and isolated in our congregations.” This possibility should be taken very seriously by every shepherd in the PCA; it is an outcome that we want to avoid at all costs. And such a reading is indeed avoidable if ministers and elders in the PCA would accurately represent the spirit of the O23 & O37 and display their substantial agreement with the Ad Inerim Committee Report on Human Sexuality (AIC). In step with the AIC, neither overture automatically disqualifies a man who struggles with SSA from pursuing ordination in the PCA (see O23). Neither O23 nor O37 single out or “isolate” homosexuality or the attraction to members of the same sex as though they were unpardonable sins.[4] Like all the other sins listed in O37, if a candidate who confesses to struggle with SSA can demonstrate that his life is not dominated or by his sin, and that he is living an exemplary life of holiness through the power of the Spirit, then there is nothing stopping him from serving as a deacon or elder in good standing in the PCA. What SSA member of our congregations wouldn’t be encouraged by this? O23 & O37 cut through any confusion that may have been hanging over the heads of SSA strugglers in the PCA for years, “Can I live a life of holiness that is pleasing to God though I still struggle with this particular sin?” O23 & O37’s answer is a resounding “Yes.”
However, this positive perspective has been largely ignored by those who oppose O23 & O37. In fact, though they accuse their opponents of “fear mongering,” marching to the “drumbeat of fear,” and resorting to “Humpty Dumpty verbicide,” these same men have likely produced tremendous angst within SSA strugglers with their inflammatory language.[5] If Greg Johnson and David Cassidy so object to being called theological “liberals” on the grounds that it is untrue and uncharitable, then why do they continue to refer to those who disagree with them as “fundamentalists” and “pietistic Southern moralists” when this, too, is patently untrue and unloving?[6] If you are going to call on your brothers to love and assume the best of you, then please be consistent and extend the same love toward your brothers. If “liberalism” is off the table, then “fundamentalist” should be, too.
And this gets us to the heart of the issue—who or what determines whether our words are loving or unloving? The ultimate standard must be the objective truth of God’s Word (John 17:17). Whatever is prejudicial to truth is, by nature, unloving. We hate our neighbor when we lie or conceal the truth from him. Speaking the truth is a must, but it is only half of what we must do. Paul calls on believers to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). But this brings us back to the original question, “Who gets to decide whether my words are loving or not?” According to Greg Johnson, love is determined primarily by the ear and feelings of the listener and not the mouth or heart of the speaker. In a tweet published on July 16, 2021, Dr. Johnson wrote:
Dear pastors and elders. No matter how well intended, I’m rather afraid that your words are not always heard the way you think. Here, let me translate. (If you’d like to educate yourself, you can start here: http://stilltimetocare.com)

“You shouldn’t identify with your sin” = “Get back in your closet”
“Your identity is in Christ” = “Fake it ’til you make it”
“God won’t leave you there” = “You haven’t tried/prayed/believed hard enough”
“You’re minimizing the power of the gospel to change you” = “You’re unbelieving”
“You can’t be gay and be a Christian” = “You are not saved”

In effect, Dr. Johnson’s tweet leaves virtually no possibility for a well-intentioned brother in the Lord to disagree with him or Side B Gay Christianity without inflicting emotional damage in the process. The tweet leaves the speaker with no words, no possibility of mutually beneficial dialogue. And because the hearer will inevitably hear “get back in your closet” or “fake it ’til you make it,” when we use the above language, it seems that we are left to conclude only the following: we must stop critiquing Side B Gay Christianity altogether lest we offend the SSA struggler and thereby be guilty of failing to love our neighbor. Far from a meaningful contribution to the furtherance of peace and unity in our denomination, Johnson’s comments read like a gag order to silence all objections. Such rhetoric only compounds our problems.
Dr. R. Scott Clark noted in an insightful blogpost on the above tweet,
“The receiver of the message is also morally bound to do his best to interpret the message sent in the way the sender intended…Where the receiver simply refuses to fulfill his part in the process, communication necessarily breaks down. This refusal is known as bad faith. Just as the sender is obligated to communicate in a way that can be understood by rational people…so the receiver is obligated to act in good faith by seeking to interpret the message as intended.”[7]
So long as the speaker is tuned to the frequency of biblical truth, clarity, and Christian love, any breakdown in communication is the sole responsibility of the hearer who refuses to tune to that same frequency. As I read Johnson’s tweet, the words of Heidelberg Catechism 112 came to mind,
“What is required in the ninth commandment? A: That I bear false witness against no one; wrest no one’s words; be no backbiter, or slanderer; join in condemning no one unheard and rashly.”
In my mind, the text that settles the issue over love as it relates to speech is Mark 10:17-22. Mark’s account highlights the heart of our Savior toward the rich young ruler:
“And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, ‘You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.’ Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.”
Should Jesus have been more careful with the words he spoke? Was he somehow at fault for the rich young ruler’s rejection of his exhortation to mortify his besetting sin of materialism? If the hearer has the final say on what is and is not loving, then we must conclude that Jesus didn’t really love the young man as Scripture claims he did. It is crucial that we do not allow crooked, sinful man to be the plumbline of truth and love.
Finally, Scripture teaches elsewhere that frank reasoning among Christians is not contrary to, but a genuine expression of, brotherly love. Often, when people cite the Golden Rule from Leviticus 19:19, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” they isolate these words from those that immediately precede. Beginning in verse 17, God said to Moses:
“You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.”
According to Scripture, remaining silent while a prominent voice in our denomination continues to align with the troublesome Revoice conference would be a form of hatred. Failing to speak the truth to him and those who follow him would be cruel. This is why I, and countless others, have reasoned as frankly as we have online, out of love for a brother in Christ and love for those sheep who look to him and to us all as their shepherds. It is my sincere hope that my brothers in the PCA will receive my writing in the spirit that it was intended: love for Christ and love for his church.
Stephen Spinnenweber is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Westminster PCA in Jacksonville, Fla.

[1]https://www.semperref.org/articles/the-gay-threat-to-the-pca
[2]https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jul/2/gay-men-not-qualified-ministry-presbyterian-church/
[3] Kellner is the Faith & Family reporter for the Washington Times. Previously, Kellner served as News Assistant Director and News Editor for the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. From what I gather I assume him to be a sincere brother in the Lord.
[4] Some have argued that O23 does, in fact, single out SSA strugglers because it only mentions those identities by name that refer to homosexual sin. However, the language of the overture indicates that there are other identities that could undermine one’s identity in Christ (such as, but not limited to, “gay Christian,” “same sex attracted Christian,” “homosexual Christian,” or like terms) and furthermore, no one is presently identifying themselves as “child abusing Christians” or “racist Christians” and so it would be superfluous to include these in the wording of the overture.
[5]https://www.davidpcassidy.com/blog/pca-at-the-crossroads
[6] Add my name to the list of those who object to anyone being called a theological liberal. There are no liberals in the PCA and such language is uncalled for. Though Dr. Johnson did not say “pietistic Southern moralists” but “pietistic Southern Moralism” in his July 2, 2021 tweet, I agree with Dr. Carl Trueman who wrote on Ref 21, “If someone claims that pietistic moralism is attacking the Reformed faith, as exemplified by the PCA GA decisions, then it is not misrepresenting that person to portray them as claiming that pietistic moralists are attacking the Reformed faith, as exemplified in the PCA GA decisions.” Full article: https://www.reformation21.org/blog/a-friendly-correspondence
[7]https://heidelblog.net/2021/07/this-a-trap/