Written by Jon D. Payne |
Thursday, November 18, 2021
Don’t give up on the PCA. Double down in your commitment to pray, stay informed, and get involved. Obviously, there may be a time in the future to organize and depart together as a large group of confessional churches. But now is not the time. There is much to be encouraged by after the last General Assembly. Will you, therefore, along with the GRN, seek to prayerfully, winsomely, transparently, boldly, compellingly, and with integrity, contend for the future faithfulness of the PCA?

It’s a question that more than a few PCA elders and members are asking right now. The recent Standing Judicial Commission’s (SJC) decision to reject the complaint against Missouri Presbytery has left many disheartened. Moreover, the current presbytery voting tallies on Overtures 23 and 37 show that there is no guarantee they will meet the two-thirds threshold necessary for a vote at next summer’s General Assembly. What if the overtures fail? Would this mean that all positive momentum gained this past June at the 48th General Assembly is lost? Has the time to depart the PCA finally come? The answer is a resounding NO!
It is not time to depart the PCA. It’s time to contend for the PCA—to humbly contend for the biblical and confessional faithfulness of our beloved church.
Divergent Visions for the PCA
The recent disclosure of National Partnership (NP) emails punctuates the fact that there are vastly divergent and competing visions for the future of the PCA. Most are now recognizing that these disparate visions are highly incompatible. The cache of NP emails also reveal that there are profoundly different methods of seeking to advance those visions. Over the years we (the GRN Council) have been encouraged to adopt similar political machinations as the NP, but we’ve firmly resisted. It’s not our way. It never has been.
The progressive wing’s sympathy with, or doctrinal indifference to, various tenets of Side B gay Christianity has been a major contributing factor to this sad incompatibility and division. It’s caused a heartbreaking rift in the PCA. To be sure, there are other matters fostering discord. It hardly needs mentioning, however, that Revoice doctrine is the most divisive issue at present. Even with the adoption of the excellent Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality there remains significant confusion, obfuscation, indifferentism, and fracturing over whether officers in the PCA should be permitted, for any reason, to retain and promote a settled gay identity. From my perspective, a split is inevitable if Revoice doctrine finds a permanent home in the PCA. Christ’s followers are called to renounce, hate, and mortify their sins, not foster and promote an identity with them.[1] We are called to kill our sin, not manage it. Those in the PCA who believe otherwise should repent or peacefully depart and find a denominational home elsewhere.
A Compelling Reformed Vision for the PCA
Over the past several years the Gospel Reformation Network has sought to publicly promote a compelling vision for the PCA—a transparent vision to cultivate warm-hearted biblical and confessional Presbyterianism in our churches and presbyteries. Through public articles, videos, conferences, lectures, seminars, booklets, seminary chapels, and luncheons we’ve aspired to encourage fellow elders to hold fast to the PCA’s founding vision—to be Faithful to the Scriptures, True to the Reformed faith, and Obedient to the Great Commission. We haven’t always done this perfectly, but from the beginning, it’s been our aim and focus; and by God’s grace it will continue to be.
The GRN’s purpose and distinctives are published on our website, in case you haven’t seen them. Moreover, we will host our second GRN National Conference, May 4–5, 2022 in Birmingham. Mark your calendars for this wonderful time of worship, teaching, and fellowship. We would love for you to join us. All are most welcome!
Members of the GRN Council have maintained regular interaction with our brothers on the opposite side of controversial issues facing the PCA. This is something for which I’m deeply grateful, despite the frustration that we (and they) often feel in our conversations. What many around the denomination do not realize is how much discussion actually occurs behind the scenes. I’ve personally grown from these interactions. They’ve helped me to understand better where my brothers are coming from, and what their positions truly are. These exchanges have also helped me to recognize the sin lurking in my own heart.
What Now? 
Perhaps you are thinking, “So, if it’s not yet time to go, then what must be done? What can be done? What should I do personally? What should my session and congregation do to contend for the future faithfulness of the Presbyterian Church in America?” Here are a few actions items that I would humbly ask you to prayerfully consider:
Read More
[1] Shouldn’t we all be gravely concerned when a PCA minister feels the freedom to publicly post #LGBTinChrist?

Based on the text of the [proposed] ordinance, counseling teenagers by telling them what God says about sexuality is a form of punishable heresy since it violates the sacred texts (e.g., statements by the American Psychoanalytic Association) of some West Lafayette city council members.

The Story
A proposed city ordinance in Indiana highlights why bans on “conversion therapy” can be a threat to the gospel.
The Background
The city council of West Lafayette, Indiana is considering an ordinance that would make it illegal for “unlicensed” counselors to counsel minors on human sexuality in a way that conflicts with LGBT+ orthodoxy. For example, if a teenager goes to a Christian counseling center about unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, it would be breaking the law to give them answers based on biblical sexual ethics. The penalty for violating the ban on so-called “conversion therapy” is a fine of $1,000 per day.*
The proposed ordinance defines “conversion therapy” as any practices or treatments that seek to “change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender.”
The law makes an exception, though, for counseling that affirms a minor’s embrace of homosexuality or gender identity. According to the ordinance, “Conversion therapy shall not include counseling that provides assistance to a person undergoing gender transition, or counseling that provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a person or facilitates a person’s coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual-orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices, as long as such counseling does not seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”
“Counseling,” as defined by the proposal, refers to “techniques used to help individuals learn how to solve problems and make decisions related to personal growth, vocational, family, and other interpersonal concerns.” “Unlicensed person” is defined as any person not licensed or governed by Ind. Code § 25-1-1-1 et seq. and the State of Indiana’s Professional Licensing Agency who provides counseling and/or psychotherapy. The ordinance makes no exception for pastors or other religious counselors.
Read More

Written by Richard D. Kocur |
Monday, October 17, 2022
Disney faced pressure from gender equity activists and employees for not doing enough to oppose the bill. Then, after coming out in opposition, Disney faced blowback from parents who believed the company should simply focus on providing family entertainment. On that issue, Disney management spun around more than a rider on the theme park’s iconic Teacup ride. And why? Because of ill-conceived social activism on an issue that was irrelevant to the primary role of the business. Now Blackrock finds itself in a comparable position as a result of a similar activist pursuit.

With the stock market down nearly 20% year-to-date in 2022, investors are paying close attention to the financial performance of their portfolios: seeking to protect 401Ks, looking for safe havens, and trusting that their fiduciary asset managers are making the right decisions with ever-shrinking nest eggs. The last thing any investor would want now is for asset managers to be investing in companies for any reason other than to maximize financial return.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what the world’s largest asset manager, Blackrock Inc., is doing through an emphasis on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing. This mode of corporate social activism has placed Blackrock in a difficult position, however, as pressure from both sides of the ESG issue close in on the company. Blackrock has become the latest example of a company experiencing the consequences of corporate social activism.
The movement to emphasize ESG within corporate structures and as corporate objectives first emerged in the early 2000s. ESG-focused investing directs capital to companies with stated goals on issues like climate change and social justice. Financial returns are a secondary concern to those who want to support or pressure companies to commit to ESG standards and enact policies to reach those standards.
With approximately $10 trillion in assets under management, Blackrock wields substantial power over where their assets, and by extension the assets of anyone invested in Blackrock, are placed. An August 16 editorial in the Wall Street Journal noted how Blackrock pressured companies to “avoid investing in fossil-fuel assets … and reduce emissions to achieve net zero by 2050.” In essence, putting pressure on the companies in which Blackrock invests to adopt ESG standards. If Blackrock’s blackmail is resisted, proxy shares are voted against management. This approach puts activism above shareholders’ returns. But Blackrock is beginning to see a backlash.
In late summer 2022, attorneys general from 19 Republican states sent a letter to Blackrock CEO Larry Fink seeking answers about potential conflicts between the firm’s ESG investing practices and his company’s fiduciary duty. In addition, states such as Texas and Louisiana have begun to bar state investment in any Blackrock fund that pushes ESG standards. With billions in state pension dollars and the investments of individual citizens at stake, the AGs and state comptrollers are calling Blackrock on the carpet.
In addition to this political reaction, market forces have also stepped into the ESG fight. A new investment alternative to ESG funds was recently launched by Strive Asset Management. Strive created a fund that mirrors Blackrock’s U.S. Energy Index Fund (IYE) but with a commitment to pursue non-ESG policies.
If pressure from those in opposition to ESG was not enough, Blackrock is also facing pushback from ESG advocates. In late September 2022, officials responsible for the public pension funds in New York City sent a letter to Fink pressing Blackrock to recommit to achieving net-zero emissions across its investment portfolio and to vote more in line with climate-related shareholder initiatives. Blackrock manages approximately $43 billion in investments for three New York City pension funds, according to a September 2022 article in the Wall Street Journal.
Blackrock could take a lesson from the investment adage, “past performance is no guarantee of future results.” In the case of corporate social activism, past performance is a guarantee of future results. One only needs to look back to the mess in which the Walt Disney Corporation found itself because of its stance on Florida’s Parental Rights bill.
First, Disney faced pressure from gender equity activists and employees for not doing enough to oppose the bill. Then, after coming out in opposition, Disney faced blowback from parents who believed the company should simply focus on providing family entertainment. On that issue, Disney management spun around more than a rider on the theme park’s iconic Teacup ride. And why? Because of ill-conceived social activism on an issue that was irrelevant to the primary role of the business. Now Blackrock finds itself in a comparable position as a result of a similar activist pursuit.
Pressured from both sides of the ESG issue, they have now put themselves between a Blackrock and a hard place.
The author thanks Alex Heisey for his help in gathering research for this article.
Dr. Richard D. Kocur is an assistant professor of business at Grove City College. This article is used with permission.
Related Posts: