A New Song for the PCUSA

Since 14F has passed, we all know where to go if you:
1) Are married, but don't think your sex life should be confined to your spouse.
2) Can't abide being married to just one person at a time.
3) Are single and want to "test the milk" before you "buy the cow."
4) Reject the basics of human biological gender.



Let's face it. Gay clergy isn't the problem. Making the fundamentals of the faith optional is the disease...confusion over the sexes is just a symptom. As professor Alice Linsley reminds us: "Dialogue with revisionists is impossible."

“Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men - when we can do it - is no less a sin than to encourage them”
St. Felix III, Bishop of Rome, 483-492

Best wishes, though, to all my friends of evangelical persuasion still on that ship. May you find a lifeboat soon.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) an apostate denomination

Here lies the boundary of a Christian church that knows itself to be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. ("Should We Support Gay Marriage? No") Wolfhart Pannenberg

More analysis at Viola Larson's blog...

I'm pleased to see that others are pointing out what we've known for a long time. This is the end game for egalitarianism. When men and women become interchangeable in the liturgical context of authoritative public ministry, you can't stoop the implication that other liturgical / public authoritative acts are bound by sexual/gender distinctions. END

I'm 

A New Song for the PCUSA

Since 10-A passes, we all know where to go if you:
1) Are married, but don't think your sex life should be confined to your spouse.
2) Can't abide being married to just one person at a time.
3) Are single and want to "test the milk" before you "buy the cow."
4) Reject the basics of human biological gender.



Let's face it. Gay clergy isn't the problem. Making the fundamentals of the faith optional is the disease...confusion over the sexes is just a symptom. As professor Alice Linsley reminds us: "Dialogue with revisionists is impossible."

“Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men - when we can do it - is no less a sin than to encourage them”
St. Felix III, Bishop of Rome, 483-492

Best wishes, though, to all my friends of evangelical persuasion still on that ship. May you find a lifeboat soon.

It must be GA time again!

This is what happens when the PCUSA's General Assembly commissioners get together and pray for a sign about what to do on TEH GAY.

If they'd just quit asking themselves what their members want, and instead listen to what God commands there would be a much simpler answer.

J C Ryle to the upcoming conventions

It's summer time, which means "mainline church synods." Believe me, I'm deeply grateful not to have to anticipate dealing with the fallout from these anymore. But since there are some coming up (especially for the PCUSA and TEC's House of Bishops), I thought I'd pass on the incomparable Ryle's advice about what makes (or unmakes) a barren church.

If ministers do not teach sound doctrine, and their members do not live holy lives, they are in imminent peril of destruction. God is every year observing them, and taking account of all their ways. They may abound in ceremonial religion. They may be covered with the leaves of forms, and services, and ordinances. But if they are destitute of the fruits of the Spirit, they are reckoned as useless clutter on the ground. Except they repent, they will be cut down.

+J. C. Ryle, D.D.

Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: Luke volume 2 , [Carlisle, PA:Banner of Truth, 1998], 114, 115.

Remembering Egypt

I've been interacting with my dear friend and sister in Christ, Viola Larson, at her blog. She broke the heart-wrenching news that heresiarch John Shuck has been named interim campus minister at ETSU's Presbyterian Student Fellowship (PSF).

It breaks my heart with the irony. PSF was an outgrowth of the college ministry that First Presbyterian Church undertook to college students way back when my mom was on campus (and it was called ETSC)! When I went to ETSU, I didn't even know that my parents had been Presbyterians! (Dad wanted to go to the Methodist church of his boyhood, and that's what was happening by the time I came on the scene.)

Later, it was at PSF that my sense of Christian community had been restored. (After wandering in the wilderness, I was trying to have a go at "lone ranger" self-styled Christianity - which was a mess!) There, I experienced a call to gospel ministry. There, I participated in faith-community leadership. There, I met my wife and made friends. There, I learned and taught the faith found in the Scriptures and articulated in the Creeds and Catechisms and Confessions of the Reformed Churches.

The irony comes because it was my presbytery's impotence (juridically and personally with the elders) to act when faced with someone who is undeniably a heretic in the ministerial office that drove me out of the PCUSA. At that moment, I recognized that my presbytery was not a true local expression of the Christian Church - even if there were true individual churches within it. (Ordination is granted by the presbytery, and ministers are members of the presbytery - not an individual church.) That left me with two options: moving to another presbytery for relief of conscience, or leaving the PCUSA for a true Church. I opted for the latter, as there are virtually no presbyteries that take an interest in doctrinal rigor (even the so-called conservative ones, who year after year feign ignorance or disinterest in what happens around them).

I'm glad to be out of Egypt, though her fleshpots are still remembered. I'm also glad that there are still people like Viola, Toby, Dave, and many others who soldier on in enemy territory. God speed to them. We are united by something far deeper than a denomination or distinctive. We share the faith once delivered in the Scriptures and expressed in the catholic creeds and definitions.

And that makes all the difference in this world, and the next.

Denominational Schizophrenia

Ever noticed how the stuff coming from the highest levels of church government in the mainline (or legacy) denominations always seems to skew left, while the folks in the pew underneath keep tellin' em to keep right?

Presbypiscopal or Episcopresbyter?

I'm catching some flack from a numpty (not this numpty, but one of his devotees) about my having switched teams (left the PCUSA and joined the Anglican Communion). He's very upset that I "have decided to renounce not only the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, but the presbyterian form of government itself in favor of the papacy" and "ditching Westminster and the presbyterian form of church government."

I see. So broad swaths of the PCUSA can ditch Westminster as a whole (which it did in C-67) and let presbyterian government largely be undermined in favor of denominational lackeys (when it's not being ignored by "non-schismatic pastors" that choose to abandon constitutional restraint - acting as though their local congregations and presbyteries are able to act without waiting for GA to ratify constitutional ammendments) - but if I hold to the essence of the Reformed faith as put forward in Westminster and seek an ecclesial structure where the highest-ranking clergy seek the consent of their subordinate clergy and the laity, while acting in concert within a college of equals, then I'm apostate and abandoning biblical polity? (Excuse me...he actually lumps me with "orthodox schismatics" ilk.)

Let's set the record straight. I know that there's a lot of history between the Presbyterian Church (i.e., the Reformed Church as it developed in English-speaking countries) and the Anglican Communion (i.e., the Protestant Church that continued some form of episcopal succession). It's generated no small amount of animosity. In fact, the Reformed Episcopal Church seceded from the Protestant Episcopal Church precisely because the latter - taking on Anglo-catholic leanings - began impeding the cooperation that had marked Presbyterian and Episcopalian relationships for the preceding 150 years. But we should echo the cry of the Reformers - Ad fontes! - and go back to our sources if we are to see clearly the challenges of the present.

Presbyterianism is a creature of the supreme orthodoxy shown in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the rejection of monarchical claims (whether by kings or by bishops). Its political history is checkered with moments of assent to and dissent from an episcopal polity. John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer were corresponding about the restoration of the historic episcopate to the Church of Geneva. "Power-mad" Calvin declined episcopacy for himself, and his successors and the successors to the archepiscopacy of Canterbury lost touch in the ensuing decades of turmoil. Eventually, both parties hardened into positions that their founders eschewed. Calvin's objection was to a sacerdotal system* - not to rule by bishops. We should also note that Calvin was not objecting to a sacramental system - but insisted on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (cf. B. A. Gerrish's Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin).

Father of Presbyterianism, John Knox, gave assent to bishops in the Convention of Leith in 1572 (cf. Ian Haslett's The Reformation in Britain and Ireland for brief analysis). The Reformed (Presbyterian) Church in Hungary continues to be headed by synodical bishops who have a non-pressed but very real succession from the historic episcopate. The Reformed Church in France (Calvin's homeland) also uses bishops to maintain their synodical government - though they do not claim an unbroken succession. Similarly, the Churches of Sweden and Finland (Lutherans) maintain an unbroken episcopal succession - just as the Church of England did.

An excellent study of the many issues involved in church polity - from biblical, theological, historical, and practical perspectives - is given in a book called Who Runs the Church. Therein, representatives of episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational systems give their side and graciously critique the positions of the others. I'll let you decide who wins....

For what it's worth, I'm an Anglican because I think that it has the greatest chance of bringing about catholic unity - not by bridging the divide between Rome and the Protestants, but by reuniting every Christian Church with the past and the present (including the Eastern churches) in practice and polity, as well as in barebones orthodoxy (via the Nicene Creed) - without the dogmatism on developments after the first ecumenical councils. And I'm proud to stand next to defenders of the faith like these guys.

* Don't let the English word priest be confused with the sacrificing priest pictured in the Roman sacerdotal system. The word priest is just the Old English pronunciation of presbytĕrātus, the Latin transliteration of the Greek presbys (πρέσβῠς ). It refers to one holding the office of the ministry of Word and Sacrament. It is emphatically not a translation of the Latin sacerdos or the Greek ἱερεύς!

Why I'm not in the PCUSA

Some people still don't understand why I set aside over a decade of preparation for ministry and official status in the high-paying PCUSA. It is fundamentally this: the PCUSA refuses to provide basic care to the people in the pew, especially when it comes to giving pulpits to false-shepherds who actively undermine the confidence God's people should have in God's Word. While I should have seen it long before I did, it took the flagrant scorn towards the Scriptures evidenced by an ordained clergyman in my (now former) presbytery of care to show me that even the best presbyteries were unwilling to do anything about the spreading cancer.

I am so sick and tired of these people pretending to have some sort of humility while also standing up, shaking their fists at the heavens and saying: "My God wouldn't do X or Y or Z like the God of the Old Testament does, so obviously the Bible is wrong!!!"

The best part is when these pretenders to the pastorate claim that an orthodox view of Scriptures is - at best - juvenile and naive. Of course, it doesn't take long for them to jump on the "okay...it's just a white male heterosexualist power trip in disguise, you meanie!"

To them, I'll say this: I've been deeply wounded by the words of Scripture. But those wounds were for my good. My pride has been pommeled. My lust has been lambasted. My sloth has been slapped. My avarice assailed and my gluttony gored. My wrath routed and my envy immolated.

Yes...Scripture hurts us. Scripture wounds people.

If it didn't, we couldn't be healed.

“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” John 6

H is for Hypocrisy

On Wednesdays, I try to blog on a worship topic. However, my seminary has decided that the worship of perverse sexual acts and child rape is appropriate, so I'm interrupting my regular schedule.

(Sort-of...they promote it with the title V is for Venite. And venite is a legitimate liturgical topic which I'll need to return to at some point.)

Q is for Questionable Judgment

Here's the link to their site discussing the upcoming campus-sponsored production of Eve Ensler's The Vagina Monologues.

R is for Risible

Here's my response (which may or may not be on the site...they moderate, and I was censored in public discourse throughout parts of my seminary career):

I'm personally saddened to see the Women's Center sponsoring this play. In a notorious section, "The Little Coochi Snorcher that Could," a woman recounts how as a 13 yr old girl she is given alcohol and then seduced by a 24 yr old woman. In the original form (which has been unsatisfactorily redacted to omit it and change the age from 13 to 16), she dismisses the substance abuse and statutory violation by saying: "Now people say it was a kind of rape.... Well, I say if it was rape, it was a good rape...." In another segment, a six year old is queried about her genitalia (smells, names, etc.). As the father of beautiful little girl, I would be hard pressed to stay in my seat through such a performance.

The rest of the play wavers between diatribes against men and male-female sex as inherently violent, or about sexual practices that really deserve to stay in the bedroom. How this play actually addresses violence against women (especially when it is celebrated in the above scene), or opens frank conversations about the role men - and women - have in the sexualization of children and women (objectification is a prologue to rape and oppression) is perhaps beyond the scope of Wimminwise to answer. But it would be helpful to reflect on why this play at this seminary - of all the venues and content available - is appropriate and effective.

O is for Objection

Beyond the politicization of a day that Christians should remember for martyrs, they overturn a divinely-ordained institution (heterosexual marriage). Worse, marriage is meant to be a mysterious - almost sacramental - expression of the union of Christ and His Church. What are we to make of this from a seminary?

B is for Bias

Why is homosexual rape given a pass by an event promoted as anti-violence-against-women?

H is for Hypocrisy

We have a mandate to reform the culture to the Scriptural norm (the norming norm), not let culture corrupt the message of the Scriptures.

E is for End!!!

U is for Update: They posted my response. It was the same old "You don't know what you're talking about." However, I have it from an eyewitness that the attendance at these events has been blissfully low. As some one once termed roughly 1/3 of the campus population: "middle-aged bitter divorcees and their dogs."

Sad, really. Men need to be molded by their interactions with the pain of women....this just stops with scolding.

Worship Wednesday - Psalmody

In case it isn't clear from my blog, I'm made from a blend of Christian traditions. I was baptized as a Methodist (twice!), raised (razed?) a Pentecostal, then (after a stint in neo-Paganism / Panentheism / Agnosticism) became a Presbyterian. It was in the Presbyterian / Reformed tradition that I gained a sense of who I was in Christ, so I owe a depth of gratitude that I'll never be able to pay.

However, now - by immutable decree of Almighty God in His good providence (and, I suspect, humor) - I am an Anglican. And we pray through up to three Psalms in each of our daily offices. This has rejuvenated a portion of my Presbyterian posterior - psalmody. I'm trying to find (or arrange) our Sunday Psalm readings into singable formats. Luckily, there are some really great Psalters out there - mostly from the Scots-Presbyterian tradition. CGMusic hosts three of them online, with playable MIDI formats! It's become one of my favorite tools.

But it let me down slightly for this Sunday's BCP reading (which - while allowing the whole psalm, focuses on David's establishment of a house of worship - and the LORD's establishment of David's house). So I came up with a new one - somewhat eclecticly chosen from what was there, and some of it the work of my own fevered imagination.

8 Arise, O Lord, inhabit now
your constant place of rest.
You and the ark of your great strength,
with us your presence bless.
9 Let all your priests be cloth-èd, Lord,
with truth and righteousness.
Make all your saints with songs of praise
Shout loud for joyfulness!

10 And for your servant David’s sake,
suffer not, Lord, I pray.
The face of your Anointed one
to ever turn away.
11 The Lord to David did make oath,
sworn on His name alone:
12 “A son from your own body shall
I seat upon your throne.”

13 And if your sons my cov’nant keep,
and to my laws submit,
Their children too, forevermore
Upon your throne shall sit.”
14 The Lord himself has Zion chose,
there He desires to dwell.
15 “This is my ever-bless’d abode,
for I do love her well.”

16 “And I will bless with great increase!
Her food stores everywhere.
With living bread I'll satisfy
The poor and needy there.
17 With salvation I’ll robe her priests!
From saints, my praises flow.
18 There David’s son shall ever reign,
the Lamp ordained to glow.

I'm thinking this goes nice with Ellacome ("I Sing the Mighty Power of God!") which is very familiar. However, Forest Green would also be lovely (though less familiar).

Monday Ministry Musing

I know lots of people going through the ordination process in the PCUSA. Someone from the presbytery that oversaw my own process is facing some of the same challenges of being stuck. This individual wrote a poem that got me thinking about my own process. I didn't ask permission to post it, but I used it as a reflection piece - for myself and for those who are stalled out in the process. I changed the wording, but kept the structure and the overall theme. This is like an epistle - if you listen to this end of the conversation, you can probably hear what's going on in the original poem.

What happens if I focus on the ordination process,
becoming callous (non-reverent) from the handling of holy things?
Or, in a desire to be called “Reverend,”
ignore the adjective when it doesn't come from a committee?
What if I miss the everyday chances
to live into my own baptism
because I'm focused on someone else
as a child of the covenant?
What if I never break the bread of hospitality
and pour the cup of tea at my own table,
or if I don't recognize them as “the gifts of God for the people of God”?
What if my voice is never heard (in a choir)?
What if I don't listen to those who set foot in a pulpit?

What if I made seminary about a piece of paper,
Whether a diploma,
or an ordination certificate,
and therefore wasted my time
and all our resources?

What if I believe that my usefulness to God
is equivalent to my usefulness to a denomination,
a local governing body,
a committee,
or a single congregation?

What if I think I'm not good enough,
even though the Lord of the Universe
took on flesh and died in my place,
then sent His Spirit to reassure me
of my place at His table?

What if I used seminary
as a buffer against following God's call?
What if I missed growing during that time
because I was waiting on something at the end...
...instead of waiting on God?

What if I lost sight of the glorious
ministry of the covenant people of God
because I wanted to be in the lead?

What if I missed out on the call to serve
a congregation from out of the midst of them
because I would only listen to a call if it
were duly authorized and passed through
paper channels.

What if I passed over the garment of praise,
the garment of salvation,
and the robe of Christ's righteousness,
because it didn't look like a Geneva gown?

What if I made the mistake of taking a good thing
and missing out on the best thing.

Lord, I believe.
Help my unbelief.

Lord, You have called.
Help me follow You wherever You call.

Here's Martin Luther's prayer for his own ordination:

Oh, Lord God, Thou hast made me a pastor and teacher in the Church. Thou seest how unfit I am to administer rightly this great and responsible Office; and had I been without Thy aid and counsel I would surely have ruined it all long ago. Therefore, do I invoke Thee. How gladly do I desire to yield and consecrate my heart and mouth to this ministry! I desire to teach the congregation. I, too, desire ever to learn and keep Thy Word my constant companion, and to meditate thereupon earnestly. Use me as Thy instrument in Thy service, Only do not Thou forsake me, for if I am left to myself, I will certainly bring it all to destruction. AMEN.

May all who seek leadership among God's covenant people say Amen!

Losing God the Father

Last Spring, a seminary friend of mine was invoking his privilege as a senior to give one sermon at the midweek chapel service. The senior sermon serves as an opportunity to share something of your faith with the community that, for two or more years, has been part of shaping that very faith. There are basic, "broad middle" sermons. Some sermons that question the person's call after 2.5 years of education. Many sermons that criticize the Bush administration. And a plethora of GLBT, Social Justice, or other standard Christian Left sermons. Fine and dandy.

But my friend was called in to the dean's office. His crime? He dared to use masculine pronouns and speak of God the Father. Apparently, inclusive language isn't meant to include half of the population.

Don't get me wrong. Inclusive language in regards to humans is a good thing (though it can make for poor writing in the hands of less-skilled writers). It's a seminary policy to use inclusive language.

But a recent Touchstone article asks, "What are we losing?"

A lot of feminist and post-modernist theologians talk about how people have felt excluded by masculine god-talk. (Which, let's be clear, is MASCULINE, but not necessarily MALE.) They want to jettison 4,000 years of linguistic reflection on the basis of 40-60 years of empowerment talk. But I don't think they've thought through all the implications. They can tell you why they don't want masculine god-talk, but have a harder time justifying the alternative they propose.

Do you know why masculine god-talk is important? Please feel free to use the comments section to elucidate. And stay tuned...the vicar is about to stir things up.

Epistolary Epiphany

Sunday was Proper 22A, and the appointed epistle reading was from Paul's letter to the Philippians. The passage begins so familiarly - "But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." With texts like these, the sermon simply writes itself. The parable of the tenants was the more challenging text, and it's what I preached.

Yet, I found myself struck anew by Paul's words...or rather, his emotion, as the epistoler read the lesson this morning.

"For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ."

While he later mentions a striving between Euodia and Syntoche, I don't think that's what is in view here. Rather, I think Paul is grieving for people who have fallen away from the faith.

We read the letter to the Galatians and think that Paul is just ready to give both barrels to anyone that dares sniff of apostasy. And in 1 Corinthians, he doesn't hesitate to hand a notorious sinner over to the devil for judgment. Yet here in Philippians, Paul is talking about someone who used to strive to attain the heavenly calling...and then fell.

Heretics.
Liberals.
Apostates.
ReFORMERlies.
Mainliners.
Corpse-churchers.

Whatever you've said about them in the past, did you do so even with tears?

I know I haven't...not until this morning.

Thank you, Jesus, for still speaking to those of us you've called to speak for you.

Being Right When You Wish You Were Wrong

This is what it feels like to be one of the conservative observers of the mainline decline.

In other words...being right isn't the same as being happy about it.

(I do have to say, though, that some are reveling in Schadenfreude over the recent announcements from Anglican and Presbyterian meetings...and they're like the guy in the last frame.)

h/t: AmazingSuperPowers.com

Multi-generational Churches

There's a lot of talk about creating a multi-generational, multi-cultural church. It's half good and half bad. If you mean multi-generational in terms of all ages, I'm for it. If you talk about multi-cultural in terms of the redeemed (who are one race, one nation - spiritual Israel, and one blood per Acts 17), I'm for that, too.

But what about remembering that we're called to be a REGENERATIONAL church before any of those other things. Love for people that are unlike us is not an inherited trait. It is learned in each generation - and it helps when we come to the realization that all the redeemed are already alike in the most eternally important way.

What we need are REgeneration churches! So I was pleasantly surprised when I came across this post. It reminded me of the half-way covenant that was a feature of compromised (mainline?) puritanism:

In the first generation truth is a conviction.

• Those who hold that conviction, hold it dearly.
• They do not know the meaning of compromise.
• They are willing to die for what they believe to be true.

In the second generation the conviction becomes a belief.

• Sons hold to the truths they have been taught by their fathers,
• and defend their beliefs in discussion and debate.
• However the keen edge of conviction has been blunted,
• and adherence to a body of beliefs inherited from the fathers is not so much a passion as a persuasion.

In the third generation the belief becomes an opinion.

• By then some members of the movement are willing to trade in their opinions.
• They feel it is time for a change.
• They start talking about renewal,
• but they may look to the world for ideas.

If there's a fourth generation, it's what you see in the legacy denominations (note: I rarely use "mainline" anymore because they neither represent the mainstream of Christianity in beliefs, values, or numbers).

PS: Please remember that it was the half-way covenant (the compromise that it bred) that so upset godly men like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, and the Wesleys, setting off the first great awakening. During that time, denominational barriers broke down and like-minded men and women came together for the sake of the Gospel! Like others, I believe God is ready to do just that same thing again in our day. Realign, brothers and sisters, with those who name Christ - not just those who share your name brand!

Shamelessly ganked from FIDE-O

What I didn't learn in CPE

Sometimes, less is more...

In all seriousness, in seminary we're given a psychological model for handling all pastoral crises. It has its legitimate and godly function within our churches. I've had the benefit of some training in these resources and have used them in counseling (formal and informal). I've also been shown that there are limits to my abilities and have made successful referrals to those more competent in therapy than myself.

However, I have been surprised at the number of issues raised (normally by middle-class+ white educated people) that could be solved with a more direct, straightforward, and biblical rebuke to quit sinning!

Westminster Confession of Faith in chapter XXX "Of Church Censures " in sections 3-4 proclaimed Biblical teaching of rebuke of sins:

III. Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethres, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders. (scriptural support)

IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person. (scriptural support)

Many times Bible exhorts us to judge righteous judgment (even mean old Jesus) and rebuke sins before all (classic "meanies" like Paul, who probably learned it from that nasty Old Testament... or from archmeanie Jesus). Bible says there that sin must be condemned and judged. In Lev. 19:17-18 we see that love and rebuke are together and cannot be divorced. In fact, true wisdom (listen up, those who love Sophia) declares that rebuke is a loving act!

I end with a collection of verses that have been hidden in my heart for a long time. They're in KJV because that's what I used when I came back to the faith, and it's the official translation of my new ecclesial body...so stuff it (yeah, I mean that with love).

"Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear" (1 Timothy 5:20)

"Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins." (Isaiah 58:1)

James 5:19-20 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1).

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent

John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Proverbs 9:7 He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.

Proverbs 9:8 Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

Proverbs 10:17 He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth reproof erreth.

Proverbs 12:1 Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.

Proverbs 13:1 A wise son heareth his father's instruction: but a scorner heareth not rebuke.

Proverbs 15:5 A fool despiseth his father's instruction: but he that regardeth reproof is prudent.

Proverbs 15:10 Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.

Proverbs 15:12 A scorner loveth not one that reproveth him: neither will he go unto the wise.

Proverbs 15:32 He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

Proverbs 19:20 Hear counsel, and receive instruction, that thou mayest be wise in thy latter end.

Proverbs 19:25 Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware: and reprove one that hath understanding, and he will understand knowledge.

Proverbs 24:25 But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.

Proverbs 25:12 As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear.

Proverbs 27:5 Open rebuke is better than secret love.

Proverbs 28:11 The rich man is wise in his own conceit; but the poor that hath understanding searcheth him out.

Proverbs 28:23 He that rebuketh a man afterwards shall find more favour than he that flattereth with the tongue.

Proverbs 29:1 He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Ecclesiastes 7:5 It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.

Amos 5:10 They hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly.

That last one I can attest to in my dealings with adultery and apostasy and financial chicanery in my old presbytery. When you start pointing out problems, you become the problem.

If you can't beat'em, join'em

Well...it looks like it's time to join the Covenant Network. I think conservative Presbyterians should rush in droves to join the Covenant Network. Here's the link to the Covenant Network that discouraged PCUSA Presbyterians need to join.

Abortion and the Presbyterian Washington Office

Here's another one from the vaults, when I thought that I would be allowed to live out my calling in the PCUSA. I thought it appropriate in light of the recent pleas for fair representation of the diversity of PCUSA opinion on abortion. Originally written in August of 2007.

A commentator recently mused over the impartiality and even-handed representation that the Washington Office provides the PC(USA).

Somehow he missed the June 25th edition of Presbyterian Washington Weekly where the Washington Office urged members of the PCUSA to support HR 2596's unfettered access to abortifacient megadoses of hormones (otherwise known as Plan B).

A week prior to that (June 18th), I was asked to support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. That would make me - a taxpayer - responsible for the destruction of human life for research purposes.

The April 23rd edition gave more sabre rattling and fearmongering over the SCOTUS decision declaring constitutionally allowable limits on partial birth abortions. Our GA has spoken quite clearly about the moral danger of this procedure (and our there is plenty of medical testimony against its necessity or safety). Nevertheless, anything that could infringe on a woman's "right" to force taxpayers to pay a malicious medico to deliver all but the head of the baby, jam scissors into its skull, and vacuum its brains out must be met with resistance according to the Washington Office.

It continues to amaze me that most of their advocacy is for causes aligned with the Democrats when over half of members and elders in the PCUSA identify as Republicans and less than 30% as Democrats! (PDF proof here) There's a lot of work that the Washington Office could focus on - things that Presbyterians across the spectrum agree on and would support - if they would give up their unmitigated support for limitless abortion access.

Follow the Money

The PCUSA tried to say that the impersonal force Allah and the Trinitarian God we know in Jesus Christ are one and the same. It was substantively changed (for the better). But let's be clear: this isn't about welcoming Muslim brothers. It was professional real-estate networking.

Demichristianity for Dhimmitude!