Blog update

 If anybody is following my blog here, I want to fill you in on what I have been doing.

I had an eventful few years that took me away from blogging.  Health issues, pursuit of ordination, it's been a long run. 

Recently I started blogging again but changed venue.  My new site can be found here

The Write Place

You will find some of the same type of material, as well as poems and short stories.  

Hope to see you there.

God bless.

"Gay Christianity" Revoice, humanism, and Faithfulness

This was painful, and I had some thoughts about whether to speak on this or not.  But it needs to be said, and needs to be understood.   You may or may not have heard of this, but a PCA church held a conference called "Revoice." (and indeed another one followed among evangelicals).  There's a creeping humanism allowing cultural norms and categories into the church.  Underlying this is issues of authority, what it means to be human and in attacking the effects and the fruits of salvation, the Gospel itself.  Ultimately it ends up not wanting to rid you of your sin, not to free you from your sin, but to free you from it's penalty.

So what does the bible say? 

Without spending forever being exhaustive, Genesis 1-3 paints a picture of creational design and the complimentarity of the sexes. Sun and moon, earth and water, God and man, mankind and animals, male and female.  This is not about personal happiness, particularly post fall where e can be happy in evil.  Rather it displays our nature as part of a greater plan and living in God's design.
The fall taints this, even our very desires are called evil.  Romans 1 reiterates the fall, and includes fallen sexual desires, even homosexuality.
The Westminster Confession affirms the fallenness of man after Adam's sin in Genesis 3
To get into what proponents teach by their own words let's examine a few.
Things to note is, beyond his attitude of ongoing revelation through his "prophetic witness" is the very plain bitterness that led him to his position.  Further he is using the wrong definitions of humanity, design, marriage, sex, etc but it seems first personal.
Wesley Hill another proponent wrote an article for First Things It proves quite revealing, a tad heartbreaking but ultimately concerning.  It strikes me that in his article he cites people who weren't focusing on grace and identity rooted in the Gospel, so of course he failed. It became a work project, self-improvement not sanctification.  Though he may not realize,  what he claims he was handed was all works, which Galatians 3:3 has something to say about that.  We were not first born into a Christian life by works or our efforts, but by God's work in us.  We do better by realizing the Gospel and resting in it, and so realize it's fruit more in our lives as it changes us from the inside out.
It appears there is the very real issue of expectations and pressures felt by Revoice's proponents.  The expectation communicated concerning their "orientation" was that the sin with it's temptation and desire would be guaranteed to go away. With the indwelling sinful nature of our fallen world however, we have no such guarantee of complete removal but conquest. While I have heard account of some who did, and most who had a real trigger (exposure,desire for affection from their sex, identifying with the opposite) total freedom from even the thought sins we commit and desires we have is not guaranteed. In a real sense we learn to say no, but the desire is not guaranteed to disappear completely.  What they are describing as having received amount to a self help program.  Whether the fault of the church or not, realizing the application of the Gospel as biblically understood and not as a self-help program appears to be a real need.
  The church he as in likely failed to teach him the Gospel truly in regards to his sin sounds like he got behavior modification, not being as 2 Corinthians 5:17 a new creature.  He cites Paul's speaking in 2 Corinthians 12:1-10, and one can see Hill's anguish in his struggle.  However Paul's thorn in the flesh is likely not sin, otherwise Christ would tell him to mortify it  Paul's experience in Romans 7 is a perfect description of a Christian experience with sin. Paul is speaking in 2 Corinthians to defend his ministry and in humility is speaking of a weakness or infirmity, not of an indwelling.
These ideas Revoice espouses ultimately come from Freudian thought in the 19th century, itself founded upon humanism.  The idea that man is the measure of all things, and can arrive at truth with himself as the basis. Man of course is a finite creature, even a fallen one so this makes little sense. Freud made sexuality a category of identity, not something to describe activity. Whatever your sexual impulses are became defining of your humanity, due of course to Freud's atheism and no doubt own obsession with sex.
It is essential to recognize the PCA is missional and focused on reaching particular groups
Revoice is the most recent example of the creeping humanism in the PCA.  There are others, maybe I will mention them some other time but the drift of the PCA is evident.
A story of Augustine's time as Bishop cometo mind.  A young deacon was espousing what was an Arian definition of Christ Augustine took time to speak with the young man, listen, and explain to him the scriptural reality and credal testimony.  The man became a faithful Christian.
Having been a key proponent and having formerly lived with an LGBT identity, Rosaria Butterfield as always, has much that is true and helpful to say.
The lack of biblical authority and literacy has created a functionally low view of scripture.  While the PCA has reiterated in a statement the past the historic theology of the Westminster Confession and Book of Church Order are there has been no declaration on obergfell v hodges (though they have issued statements affirming traditional marriage) while wasting no time to issue statements on racial issues.  Nothing officially/constitutionally has been done since at least Obergfell v Hodges decision.  A motion to make the biblical definition constitutional in the PCA was rejected, under the claim that it would do nothing to help politically.  I would expect, at least to reassure many faithful a statement concerning it and on a base level anthropology would be issued but nothing has of late, stoking fears in the denomination. Now there has to date been no statement or discipline by the denomination concerning Revoice. Without condemning Revoice, the fear (reasonably in my opinion) is "how long will it be till those engaging in it affirm that homosexual practice must be God honoring as well?"  and how long will this till The slope is indeed slippery, as it would only be consistent.  I haven't even heard appeals to scripture to be applied pastorally, or what it commands of a Christian life by those defending Revoice.  If they exist it's not the emphasis.  All I'm hearing is the argument to make them feel fine, not encourage growth biblically.  You can't be helpful or pastoral without following what scripture says over such a "pragmatic" approach.  To truly love someone is to seek the good for them, even if it's uncomfortable.
Those opposed to Revoice are accused of not wanting or helping those identifying as Same-sex attracted to live faithfully (bigotry really) or working against it. But none of us are saying that, and if a person is not mortifying their sin are they really living faithfully?  It's that this is unbiblical, and therefore dangerous for those within and without the Revoice conference.
 Ultimately the theology of Revoice is also the culture's materialism and view of the world as closed, and an attack therefore on the revelation God has spoken, and the Gospel as enough.  This also reflects on their understanding of God, as a God who could create someone with disorder as part of the created order. 
The church really does need to talk anthropology, the effects of the Gospel,  revelation, biblical authority and even about the authority of societies experts/professionals.  And under all of this, who God is and how he intends the universe to be.
The issue is actually one of authority  Either man gets to look at this world and determine truth for himself and even invent it, or he is bound to God and his word.  This all really did arise out of early modernity's attempt to "professionalize" everything, placing authority in "experts/professionals."  To so they felt the need to discredit the clergy, who had the habit of loving God and practicing science to worship him (see TGC's article).
Some have already left the PCA, others are considering it  I would advise what Luther and Machen thought, stay and witness until they kick you out.
Fear not though for he who is in us is greater than the world (1 John 4:4)  Because Christ reigns and because this movement is founded on untruth, it must collapse, lord willing sooner rather than later.
Pray for the PCA

Revoice is the fruits of many different thoughts from the same source, all culminating in the "Gay Christian movement." The teach comes from "spiritual friendship," the celibate gay Christian movement, and contra-biblical worldly professionalism (more on that later).  The reasoning for it is to integrate these identifying gay Christians in to the church by leaving their sexuality as an integral part of their identity.  While bringing them into the church and making them disciples is a very Godly thing it matters upon what ideas this is done, otherwise we risk harming them and not making the Christians but in name only.

In short  Revoice teaches that their sexual desires (or aesthetic as they call it often) for those of the same-sex is pre-fall and God ordained.  Only acting on this is wrong.  Non-volitional sins, or sins of the heart are said not to exist (a Catholic not Reformed teaching) and being LGBT is claimed to really be a disordering of friendship, not sexuality.  This poses many problems, and defenders appear to be talking about preventing harm.  Of course if it's not true it causes even more harm in the end and feelings aren't of utmost importance.  In any case this is a recent development that attempts to call itself not only historic but biblical though it is a recent and distinct development.

Some such as Wesley hill talk of wanting to spend their life with a close male friend, even to adopt children with them in a "covenanted friendship."  While they note the very real issue in the culture of the death of same sex friendships in favor of making all affection sexual,  what is often expressed by them in "covenanted/spiritual friendship is a marriage by another name Gay culture is said to be brought with all it's treasures into heaven.  This does not mean as redeemed from an experience but the experience itself, and of course sexualities still considered disgusting by the culture are assumed to be excluded. While I have not heard it stated plainly, it appears quite the assumption that they will remain gay in heaven.

Not to mention Jesus condemns "porneia" a term for breaking the Levitical sex laws (Matthew 1:1-8), and condemns lusting after someone in your heart (Matthew 5:27-30).Jesus condemns lusting in your heart, so even breaking the law in your heart is condemned (Matthew 5:27-28)
The Pastor of the church in question was interviewed by CrossPolitic and it as quite informative.

Dr Nate Collins, who is leading the conference spoke as well and it was quite revealing (the intro is up to about minute 25 and then Dr Nate Collins' speech is shown and analyzed

I do wonder what he feels expectations are for him, and he seems to have resigned to a defeat
He can't give up his desires here on earth, so they must be for eternity  The Church just has to deal with him  If you don't feel like you can live up to something, the human mind almost always tries to accept itself as is  His resentment of the "idolatry of the nuclear family" and desire for a man to spend his life with is particularly painful, as he is a married man who identifies as Same sex attracted
This displays the underlying humanism, starting with man and his experiences. Collins is projecting his sin back into the created order as if it is what God intended and projecting it's presence forward into eternity.  It's a sad state of affairs indeed to see someone so hopeless.


How can Wesley Hill expect to succeed if he's taught a "try this method" and not the preaching of the Gospel? To develop sanctification we begun with the Gospel, starting with being and identity then work out from there into action.  At least from his testimony, it makes sense he would feel no other option.
He's really looking to be fine with himself, so he's resorted to "whatever is about me is right" concerning his feelings. You will also find among Revoice's proponents the theme of shame is repeated time and again.  We all sin and should all be ashamed, the question is where do we go from there.  We go to the Gospel and rest in what Christ has done for us and the rich inheritance we have in him (Ephesians 1-2).  Shame isn't the end, it is intended to draw us to Grace. The only alternative is the pop psychology "accept yourself" that pervades today.
The question as ith all things must start with who God is, all things follow.  Is God so pure even thoughts are to be judged (Jesus judged the pharisees thoughts in Matthew 9:1-5).  The evil of man's heart is acknowledged in Genesis, both before and after the flood (Genesis 6:4-6, Genesis 8:20-22).  

So much of this appears to be an attempt at being fine with oneself under the belief this desire cannot change.  1 Corinthians 6 disagrees, and ultimately this conclusion is reached from not understanding the application of the Gospel.  I would even say,beyond it being an escape from God's wrath into the world to come.


To do they have knowingly or unknowingly drawn from the philosophies of the world or the unsaved group they are trying to reach.
This has as always, reached the seminaries and it's from there it's spreading out
While I have heard from one attendee the professors do not support it, students very much do
Covenant Seminary's statement addresses denies that it endorses Revoice  What people say is important, what they fail to mention is equally so though.  Covenant doesn't condemn wrong desires as sinful.  Reportedly from online acquaintances however the staff is against it. Among the students however, it is quite popular.

While many in Revoice believe the Gospel or profess too, it is evident they don't know the implications of it fully  These issues come from a failure to teach the biblical anthropology of what a human is, not just giving direct answers on what and what not do. Revoice may aim to "help" by curbing emotional pain but since it is a falsehood set to failure, it only does more harm than good.
The time to lob heretic bombs may come, and for some it should In the meantime I suggest faithful witness, teaching the areas of need such as anthropology and of course faithfully teaching the fullness of the Gospel to those in our churches Revoice included.

Revoice, where they teach the Gospel has the seeds of witness however horribly in error and contradiction they are in other ways.  The Gospel is incompatible with the philosophies they are bringing in from the world, and when pressed and taught such a flimsy philosophical half breed always dies.  People become more consistent with the underlying wisdom to which they subscribe  The heretics will expose themselves, and the believers will as well.
I've heard so many support and defend this, what seems most devastating to me is the lack of knowledge of the Gospel.  Biblical literacy is appallingly low, and people are living with the bible outside of the center of their lives.  So much of this really does flow from the failure to see the bible as speaking to all of life, and having no real clue as to what it says.  The bible needs to be the authority, not an authority.  The bible speaks to all things and our first categories must be from it.  Now it's time for the conservatives to organize to turn the tide, teach in civility and above all be biblical.   I recommend works like John Owen's The Mortification of Sin.  "
"Do you mortify? Do you make it your daily work? Be always at it whilst you live; cease not a day from this work; be killing sin or it will be killing you."- John Owen

I've heard "they're trying to be faithful" but if they're not willing to mortify their sins, are they? The question of what is faithfulness is one of the main questions, and only scripture gets to tell us.

If we try to make it more palatable and mix the Gospel it with worldly wisdom as the church of Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-30) did we don't win people to the Gospel but the world.   Useful thoughts Per Brad Littlejohn.

Ultimately though it bears more discussion elsewhere, you can only have experts if you believe in the priesthood of all believers  Either we stand on God's wisdom to explore the world and ground our expertise in something of value and truth or it is worth nothing. It simply becomes all man's opinion.

To do so they saw fit to divorce society and their practices from scripture.  In such a materialistic and closed universe, whatever is is right. And in a world where all are simply human (and chemical) nobody can really have any value, and all becomes opinion.  To have experts and professionals at all (which I am for) we need to have the priesthood of all believers and subjection to scripture.A return to biblical categories as foundational (including terms such as porneia and sin) are vital to not just this issue but human flourishing.   The bible is the authority on all things for it speaks to all things, so why not use the terms and categories God gives us?  The big question is one of faithfulness, and how to be faithful. We cannot be faithful to God if we are not to scripture.

To be right with God

I remember a camper I worked with one summer, good young man who came out of a sad situation.
His mother at this point was a single mother. His father was not in the picture and the youth group at a church he attended led him to Christ and a community he longed for. His mother however, would not set foot in a church. In her words, if she set foot in the doorway of a church she'd burst into flames. The things she'd done she believed were so horrible she could never be in God's presence.

She is definitely someone to pray for.

Such guilt and feelings of alienation are impossible to live with.
Heartbreaking as the story is, it reveals a lot about her beliefs and her heart.  I wonder as to what she thinks of those in church, but what this reveals is that she believes she is unforgiveable.
She's half right, and so entirely wrong.  The Gospel offers a rather puzzling as it doesn't end there, and freeing understanding that has led pastors  Tim Keller, and Jack Miller before him said "Cheer up, you're worse than you think."

To say that God can't save you is to say that your sin is too great, and is either arrogance or ignorance and no doubt fear. To say you are heading for something doesn't mean you are destined for it.  Romans on the whole is the most systematic theology in the New Testament, as it is Paul's explaining the Gospel to a church he has not planted  So here he provides a curt and to the point explanation.
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:19-28, note too Paul includes himself, and in Acts we see his hatred for the church before his conversion).   Indeed any sin, in thought word or deed no matter how small we declare it is horrific to a perfect and just God, who himself is
timeless and so likewise the penalty would be.  So as Paul notes all have sinned, and yet there is a hope. Even the Law is not intended to make us perfect, but expose a need and teach obedience.  Merit is not possible from the law, as obedience is simply required, and God gives it to point us to something else, his goodness and his plans for our salvation.

In Romans Paul answers the real question, how can anyone be saved.  It is not on what we've done or could do, it would never be enough.  Our works are tainted with sin apart from Christ, and could not truly please him neither could they undo the evil we've done, or legally make us in the right (I helped an old lady cross the street, and think of all the people I didn't kill not just the ones I did).
Rather it rests on what this infinite, just and loving God has done for us.

When Paul speaks of Christ being the propitiation, it is to say that Christ "propitiated" the wrath of God, simply put he satisfied God on the issue of punishment for our sins. Christ on the cross proclaims the finishing of his work to atone for his people and bear God's wrath when he says in the moment before he dies "it is finished."(John 19:30).Christ being the only sinless one was the only one righteous before God (Heb 7:26, 2 Cor 5:21), and the only one who could possibly take our place.

Exodus 33 shows how a holy God indeed can't dwell with a sinful people, yet we find that God justifies a people to dwell with restoring and even surpassing the original fellowship in Eden, he freely gives by his own work a future founded on a certain hope a future with no more sin, sorrow, or suffering (Revelation 21:4).

If anyone is too far gone for God, then God is far weaker than he says. When we do so may even be claiming to be a more righteous judge, even in declaring we are a better judge of our own sin.
No one's sin places them beyond God's ability to save them, to say so is either arrogance (thinking yourself a more righteous judge) or ignorance or fearfulness. But we can rest secure, he made a way.
This leads to Paul declaring how secure we are in the greatness of the riches of God's love for us (Ephesians 1:3-8)  I certainly recommend reading the whole of Ephesians, and marvel at how the Gospel provides us not only a deep sense of our sin, but a deep sense of forgiveness and belonging that nothing else can.  That salvation is possible for her, and anyone no less than it was for me.


“The gospel is this: We are more sinful and flawed in ourselves than we ever dared believe, yet at the very same time we are more loved and accepted in Jesus Christ than we ever dared hope.”

Timothy J. Keller, The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God

So cheer up, you're worse than you think.

Abortion and a Challenge to Bring Christ into the Public Sphere

Since it’s an issue that is heavy on my heart I will use abortion as a test case.  I have shown how we’ve taken the sacred out of public life as a culture, and how this is extra-biblical in practice.  Government always legislates on moral authority, otherwise it couldn’t declare murder illegal.  God judges nations and people in this life as well for their sins.  Society benefits when Christians act as Christians.  That said to the issue itself.

The 6thcommandment tells us life is important, taking of it outside of war or penalty is murder.  Moreover the Law in the OT treats it as murder and commands the death penalty for anybody who kills a child in Utero.

This issue is culturally ingrained and we are largely ignorant of the scope and horror let alone inconsistency of abortion (abortion clock).  60 million infants have been slaughtered in the name of “choice” which really amounts to self-determination to avoid responsibility.  All authority has been given to Christ, we must honor him in this issue.  For the sake of 60 million murdered infants you have to take a stand.  Even secularly, it makes little sense.  The argumentation for it is wholly weak and arbitrary.

Even secularly the issues are incredibly numerous and the reasoning disjointed at best in support of abortion.

For a Christian, we can make several points.

The 6th commandment tells us life is important, taking of it outside of war or penalty is murder.

At what point was Mary’s pregnancy an incarnation?  From the very beginning, otherwise that stage of human development would not be redeemed, and hypothetically she could have aborted the child for more reason than that God willed it to become a life.  At the moment of conception the infant is genetically distinct, taking in sustenance and growing capable of feeling pain.  If that isn’t life, then life doesn’t exist.  Designating a point as the start of life after this would become arbitrary.  

John lept forjoy in his mothers womb, Esau and Isaac fought in utero.

Abortion also elevates the woman over the life of the unborn, or the rights of the father.  I have had discussion where the person disagreeing with me asserted that the males rights end when he climaxes. Ever wonder whey men have to pay child support if it's not their body and they have no say? He is held responsible for what his body did but the woman is no longer after birth.  These distinctions seem sense but are founded on nothing but baseless assumption.
There exists the question essentially at what point does it become your body not your mothers? My answer is it is foremost a possession of God, and the moment of conception a new life begins.  You are in her body, not her body itself.  The infant is distinct from the moment of conception and both parents bare responsibility equally.  Having divided the family and sex from marriage, we've lost this cohesion and that's why men lose rights but must pay and women are in their position.

Murder of children was biblically condemned; both this and abortion were common practices in ancient Rome.  A child could be slain until the right of passage into adulthood by the parents (among other horrifying practices).  It is no surprise that in a post Christian culture these practices returned.  Children, the weak have become commodities.  They have value only if wanted, and that accessorizing of children (and the weak) is a huge part of the issue we aren't talking about.

Abortion has led to horrific practices, it’s a business and the practice is inexcusable.

Planned parenthood poured their body parts down the drain.

Bonfire suggested to dispose of aborted babies.

Aborted infants were placed in the garbage disposal and incinerator.

Planned parenthood actually kept abortion babies alive to harvest their brains.

Women getting abortions face emotional abuse beforehand

It results inphysical and mental health issues.  A miscarriage does too, so this should be no surprise since bioligically they are much the same, an abortion is more invasive and violent.

To say that abortion is fine in cases of rape and incest misses the question, the issue is the sanctity of life.  If the child is alive, it's murder regardless.  People who were conceived in rape are rare but exist and their lives aren't valued only if they were wanted.  You'd have to say their life was a liability and therefore their humanity less.  I have seen pro-abortion activists be consistent on this, and say "prove your life was worth it" to rape babies.  In fact many woman in such a situation want their babies, a thought that seems to be lost on abortion advocates.  It would actually compound the tragedy.

This can be turned right back at them, how do they know their lives were worth anything?  And by what standard?  It's utilitarianism, demeaning, degrading of human life and thoroughly disgusting.  Ultimately it makes life and the value of a human individual contingent on whether the strong want it.  It favors the strong, and I’ll say that repeatedly.

To bring up the issue of “who will take care of the child” is to make an emotional and special pleading fallacy.  This doesn't address the logic of my argument.  Further it makes the child's life and value contingent. Which consistently, does so for yours and mine.  A fetus is distinct genetically from the mother.  Further the unborn cannot be claimed to  not be alive.  Something not alive does not grow or require sustenance.  If the fetus is a distinct human being then simply put abortion is murder.  To the Christian who says they can't legislate it I must ask.  If the child was outside of the mother would you do all you can to stop the murder of that Child?

The issue of legislating morality is often claimed but government by it's nature is exercising moral authority.  You have to legislate from morality, otherwise you can't make murder illegal.  It's simple, and biblical this is why God gives the moral law in the ten commandments first.  Everything else he gives is founded on them, and he cites them frequently in the books of the law for that reason.  

Abortion is the literal killing of the future.  When we practice abortion we live an empty world behind us. If you are fine with that or feel like Christ should be left out of this you have told God where he can't go and what lives he has given are actually valuable. So if you believe it's murder, that a fetus is a human life how can you be fine with that or with living in a society where people don't try to prevent murder because they don't want to impose their religious beliefs?

Because the culture has imposed it's secular humanist religious beliefs on you.

Everytime an attempt is made on the life of children in the bible, it’s spiritual warfare.  An attempt was made on the life of Moses by Pharaoh, or Jesus by Herod shown also in Revelation as Satanic.

Voddie Baucham: A biblical view of abortion and adoption

It is an attack on God’s command to be fruitful and multiply.  Frankly, it’s legalized murder and it’s satanic as it gets.

Whatever happened to the human race episode 1

Scripture says to value life and God is King over all of creation, your culture says it’s not life and to keep it to yourself.  Which will you listen to?

Levitical laws testify to why we should care about how unbelievers live

This one will likely be very short but it’s worth noting.  There is OT precedence for God judging those outside the covenant community by the same morality in this life.

Leviticus 18

The introduction section of v 1-4 contains a command to not do as the nations surrounding Israel, sins for which they’ve been judged

Incidentally, they are sexual, and the laws which Paul cites in 1 Corinthians 5-6(1 Corinthians 5-6)  concerning the man sleeping with his mother in law.  The same moral law is assumed even demanded today for believers, but also is the standard the unbeliever is held up to.  The word is the term for sexual sins against OT law ( the judgment discussion is about church discipline not a command to not witness to or influence the world around you).

Moses concludes in 24-30 Saying God mad the land “vomit out its inhabitants” for committing these very sins.  It should be no surprise our society is collapsing today, though we’ve suffered the penalty for all our sins in the body.  Ultimately the collapse of civilizations comes when through idolatry.  God holds nations to the same moral standard, you do them no favor in refusing to influence the culture

Prophetic witness and Functionally secular humanist Christianity.

Follow me on this, I will lay out my objections and then what I think you're intending

When you say Christians can't expect the unbeliever to live a Christian life so we ought not tell them to live morally, you are saying Christ has no authority over their lives. Intended or not you are saying he has no place in the public sphere and is not their king. they are judged by the same standard as we are and can benefit from honoring God, moreover Christ is God not just in the church or over it's people but over all sphere's of life and over all people.  Essentially without meaning to you are caving to the culture's definition and narrative.  God is not in the public sphere, self-autonomy is everything and leave us to do what we want. It's the assumption of freedom of religion as simply freedom of worship,yet that's the problem. All of our lives and all of creation is to worship God in honoring him always in all things. Saying otherwise or placing a limit on how Christian's can influence society in their witness to honor God (short of engineering perfection) which transforms the culture is not honoring to God as the arbiter of all truth and the lord of all Creation.

 That surrender has led to the death of Christendom and the society's decline.  We are called to be the salt of the earth.  Don't engineer perfection, you can't.  Do what you're called, and honor God with your voice in all areas of life, saying we can't tell others to honor God is really abbhorent.  In worrying about making us look bad, you leave people in their sin and leave soceity to suffer.  In trying to be kind, you leave people without a witness and society without a restraint.  You can’t watch someone in their depravity and throw your hands up “oh well, let them go” anymore than you can see a loved one digging a knife into their wrists and leave them be because “they don’t think their life is important.

What are you reacting out against?  Is this you're objection to the turn or burn mentalityAmerican Christianity?  It need not be so.  The Prophets of the Old Testament certainly did not, and neither did Christ or the Early Church. We can't conflate poor evangelism that degrades without pointing to God's grace with what is really a Godly influence on soceity and part of  God's call on us to be the salt of the earth.  Take even Jonah in the OT for example who spoke out to a pagan empire, and the other prophets who certainly spoke concerning them.

Where we agree and where the solution is: Evangelism is to be in relationship without neglecting the Grace of God.  This does not negate the duty of Christians to influence society or mean Godly influence isn’t evangelism.

Central tenets to think on

1.      God is the source of all authority and moral law

2.      the Government has moral authority and is instituted by God

3.      Therefore Civil Authority must honor God in it's law or practice, or be judged accordingly.

4.      People saved or unsaved live under God's law and face consequences in this life and the next.

5.      You have influence you can use to the end of increasing the honoring of his authority by the government and private individuals

6.     do it.

From those of seen, and this may not fit you I’ve noticed two things.

You are confusing persons with opinions when you make it personal, this is postmodernism

Or

You are saying the culture can expect or make us act like secular humanists and can do what you are telling us not to while we can’t ask them to live according to Christian moral principles.

Christian’s aren’t somehow the bullies, moreover we are even the minority now.  Applying a double standard like those mentioned is anything but helpful. 

The culture has a consensus by which is legislates, ours is secular humanism. You are not acting as a Christian when you tell Christians to stop advocating social causes or telling nonbelievers not to sin.  You are acting as a secular humanist and absorbing the sinful character of our culture.

The Church always spoke out politically.  Everytime they said Jesus is lord not Caesar, or when they refused and discouraged worship of idols.  Rome was only concerned with politically unity, and Gods were considered local.  To refuse to worship the God’s where you were was considered treason since the God’s were so identified with the state.  Rome saw refusal to worship the God’s as “atheism”, a political charge of treason.  It was believed this failure on the part of Christians would cause the wrath of the God’s to fall on them.  So evangelizing in and of itself was politically charged.

So if you refuse to vote or speak out your Christianity to the culture, you aren’t living as a Christian.  You are living as a secular humanist.

Abraham Kuyper spoke well on the issue.  There are different spheres (in one sense) But
"There is not one square inch in the whole domain of Human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all does not cry out MINE!"

Think of it as an interlocking puzzle.  Without Christ in all as lord of all you are missing a piece and unable to see the full picture.

Christ and Culture

While we struggle to make sense of how to live out our faith there are really only five positions you will see regarding Christ and culture.

1.      Christ in culture (transformer of culture)

a.       Focus is on influencing not engineering.  Christians endeavor to convert and redeem all man’s cultural life for the glory of God.  Focus is on influencing.

b.      Man’s cultural pursuits are a good but infected by sin.  Needs restoration and redemption.
Model is about living out the Gospel, permeating it through changed lives and living out the Gospel in all aspects of life

2.      Christ away from culture, living in paradox

a.       Christians live in the world but are oblivious to it, resting on tradition and waiting for God’s kingdom.  Appears to have a premillennial tint in some respects.

3.      Christ over culture/above culture

a.       Very puritanical, battling culture

b.      An attempt to live in both realms bringing them together asserting Christ’s dominance.

c.       Ends in trusting human means and even government, frequently theocratic in expression

d.      In the Erastian form where Government runs the church and appoints it’s officers it can shackle the church.

e.       often leaves little room for the church to speak prophetically to the culture confusing institutions

4.      Christ away from/against culture

a.       Antithesis/protecting

b.      Christian’s must break from their culture radically

c.       Anabaptists such as the Mennonites.  Out of the world but not in it in the least.  Does not allow to be the salt of the earth or light of the world.

5.      Culture of Christ, Christ of Culture

a.       Equates and assimilates.  Christians find in Christ the high ideals for their cultural life and values.  The moral example, whatever that example may be.

b.      Typical among theological liberalism.  God is perpetually speaking of his changing/continued revelation through the culture’s observation (this word often is key).  With scripture, views it as observations or thoughts on God absent of God’s revelation of himself, he is outside of and not in the text.

Every Legal system assumes and even demands a moral framework upon which it is founded.  Moral frameworks are inherently religious and philosophical because they define themselves answering several basic questions.  They have an assumption about the nature of man, the nature of God and the conduct that is demanded of man.  The Torah in Judaism, Confucius and Buddha in China, Hinduism influences India and most telling to us today the Quran stands as perhaps the biggest example that comes to our minds.  Whereas Jesus gave the moral law of the Old Testament the Quran gives a legal one as well and it was intrinsically political which is why Islam is in the turmoil it is today and has produced militant interpretations such as Daesh (ISIS).  Those countries that have a concept of “human rights” have directly or indirectly borrowed the concept from a Christian framework which is why the West is so concerned with it and why its former colonies claim the same.

The bible understands this framework as a given. The injunction to Adam and eve was a moral and legal demand to obey God and not eat of the forbidden fruit.  The legal penalty was death.  Nothing has changed.  All are subject to God’s laws, hence all suffer the penalty of sin.

When God brought Israel into the wilderness he followed this understanding.  The first thing God did wasn’t give the in depth legal law code that would form Israel as a political entity.  He instead gave a moral law, the 10 commandments upon which to base what would come after.  He reiterates this process again and again, after telling Israel “I am the Lord your God.”

The giving of the 10 commandments in Exodus 10

The unbeliever is found guilty by God because they are still under his dominion and under his laws, we need to remember this while still understanding they aren’t saved.

Our culture today has an agreed upon postmodern ethic that demands we not bring religion into our politics, and I’m hearing this from Christians.  Submitting to this we are really letting ourselves have an authority other than Christ.  We are allowing a pagan ethic to dictate our public interaction in the public sphere.  In short we are telling Christ his power and dominion ends at the ballot box or with public debate.  How are we to be the salt of the earth?  Furthermore, won’t society benefit from the Gospel being applied to their laws?

Psalm 2

The Psalmist tells the governing officials to “Fear the Lord’ and to rule justly.  You cannot honor the lord without consenting to him as God, and without keeping his law.  The magistrates serve as models for God to his people and agents placed to serve him.  The Government and rulers are judged if they fail, and they're people with them.

Matthew5:17

He came to fulfill the law for us, but doesn’t abolish them for the Moral law reflects God's character. Paul clarifies this.

Romans 3 describes the law as showing us what sin is, it is still a good instruction on how to live while showing us our own moral failings. As we grow Romans 6 shows us we follow the law of righteousness (morally) more and more.  The Law student's question and Christ's answer is a summation of the laws of God in Matthew 22:34-40, and the giving of them to us affirms the OT.

The Ceremonial laws are gone, but the moral law still abides.  This ties to the Gospel going out to all the nations.  We are a Holy Kingdom, but there is no longer one national identity that God’s people must be conformed to.  Now the Germans can be Germans, the English English, the Chinese Chinese and all God’s one holy people without having to become Israelite.  The only laws that are rescinded are the ceremonial such as circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem, no such rulings or declarations are made concerning moral conduct like murder, theft or any of the sexual ethics given in scripture.  It needs to be said as well that such issues assume the sexual revolutions definition of what it means to be human, not that given in scripture of which reflects the created order.  It is a perfect test case for showing how every legal system has moral assumptions, even religious ones (secular in this case).

The bible is one body of work, the moral law is a consistent command and reflection of God’s character throughout.  The 10 commandments and the moral laws that came from it were foundation for God’s people in the Old Testament, they are still valid today for the Israel in the New covenant.

God’s law is incredibly centered on Shalom, the fullness and peace of God’s created order. Sin is a break in shalom, as is natural disaster.  This is why any deviation, even a “victimless crime” from God’s design for the world is a break in Shalom.  In the book of Jeremiah he warns the king for failing to keep the shalom “peace peace, there is no peace”, the word is Shalom.

Jeremiah 8:11 

The passage gets pretty rough describing the penalty for the wisemen of Israel misleading the people.

As Christians we work towards the healing of the nations, a re-conquering shalom of God.  Our definition of Freedom and liberty for all as Christian’s comes from this understanding.  The law guides us into seeing what is a break in this shalom, and in ways to mitigate it in a fallen world.

Government exists to punish crime and restrain evil, and are naturally then subject and responsible to God.

This understanding is tied by Christ himself to the great commission.

Matthew 28:18-20

We know Christ will succeed, for Christ has all authority on Heaven and on Earth.  Knowing that he stands behind his commission with authority over all things we can make disciples and teach them to follow Christ's commands.  For centuries Christian monarchs possessed "sovereigns orbs" with the cross upon them signifying their authority and fealty to Christ as king.  Their responsibility to him to rule justly included making laws and policies that honored him. 

Revelation 1:4-5
Matthew 25:31-33
Revelation 3:20-22

Charlemagne and Elizabeth holding their "sovereign's orb's" or "globus Cruciger"

This is also the biggest issue Rome had with the Christians.  We forget that the early Christians were very active in civil disobedience.  To Rome calling anybody but Caesar lord was treasonous.  Those in Ephesus faced this most harshly as Ephesus was the seat of Emperor worship in Asia.  They were commended for resisting "where Satan's throne is."  The power behind bad governments and systems that oppose the Gospel is always clear, the devil himself.  Christians claimed a different lord and it was for this they were persecuted.  The early Christians were faithful in their politics to death and we should be too.

Our culture has it's own secular shibboleths which we must stand against.  They will hate us for it, but we are called to stay faithful.  I appreciate the difficulty and know that we must look to all scripture and the history of God's people.

So how do the five models tie into this?  You may think I’m going for Christ over culture, but this ends in confusing the Church with the State, and potentially the Gospel for social causes and programs.  It makes the government the savior.  Ironically so does Christ under culture, which makes the Gospel all about human progress and cultural perfection over the salvation of the culture. It forgets its own cause making a fruit of the Gospel the Gospel itself.

Christ away from leaves no ability to be the salt of the earth and forgets Christ is already king in the now and not yet that is the church age.  We can easily leave God out of politics, but more importantly he becomes blocked off.  The kingdom will come in fullness, but it is very real even now.

Likewise Christ against culture is escapist altogether and leads to saving nobody but simply separating.

Christ in culture understands perfectly being in and not of the world.  Being the salt of the earth and the light of the world requires both.  Civilizations transform one person at a time, from the inside out.  A Christian culture will simply make Christian laws by it's own nature.  The early Church built Christendom by being faithful and saving sinners who then lived faithfully speaking prophetically to the culture around them to repent.  We ought to do the same.

The breakdown in civil discussion today is due to the underlying thread of our culture being taken away.  No longer is there a Christian consensus in the West.  Different as we were we were arguing from the same book.  The regional and demographic issues stem from those consenting to Christianity and those not, whether they really believe it or not. 

Regardless all told today with our sectioning of off all things whether liberal or conservative. Faith from “Science,” Religion from politics, individuals from society as society natural comes undone. The Church (as the believers) is to be an active agent, and we have largely outsourced this and told God at the door of our homes and churches “come no further, you must stay inside.”  As a Christian we are commanded to honor God in all things, and therefore it is imperative we act in the public whether politics or otherwise as Christ would have us and take a stand for the things of God.

Next I will plan to show you the history of God’s people acting as a prophetic voice to the culture.  The church failed to act as a prophetic voice to our culture, and in many cases caved and embraced secularism.  Many took the Christ of/under culture approach, and ceased to become salty.