While I respectfully understand your position, I hope you understand mine as an elder in the PCA whose denomination's seminary is CTS that it is in my and every other PCA elders' best interest to know these things. I hope you can PM me or something with this information. Thanks.Respectfully, I'd rather not say.
Yawn, not surprising. Activist Misty Irons (PCA) has been teaching this for years, and her husband, found guilty of false teaching by the OPC GA, is back to teaching in NAPARC churches. So why would anyone be surprised by this?
Yes, I suffered through that mess. It was an eye-opener.Yawn, not surprising. Activist Misty Irons (PCA) has been teaching this for years, and her husband, found guilty of false teaching by the OPC GA, is back to teaching in NAPARC churches. So why would anyone be surprised by this?
Thanks for the article link. Very well written and ON-POINT.I think Dr. Trueman gets to the gist of what has to happen.
"Those concerned that ministers in their denomination were involved in Revoice and who believe that they have thereby crossed theological and ethical boundaries have a duty to prove that in an ecclesiastical context and not simply offer critical tweets or mint new hastags. They should look at their books of church order and, if the evidence warrants it, they should file disciplinary charges in accordance with the processes outlined therein. Blogs, articles, and alternative conferences may all have their legitimate place in helping the laity think through the matters Revoice and its critics have raised. But every minister has the right to due process. More importantly -- only decisive ecclesiastical action will actually deal with the problem. And if Revoice is a Rubicon and no such action comes, then, to quote Julius Caesar, the die is cast." http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/post...-and-the-return-of-an-old-friend#.W2Gqgmy0VPY
This is true. Remember that the church was almost overtaken by Arianism before it was dealt with at Nicaea. With God's blessing, disciplinary action can stem the tide of quickly-spreading heresy.I do not agree with the conference for many of the reasons stated above and more.
However, this event does not give reason for "Yawning" or "sitting back" or "death by PB posting".
Bottom line, as Christians, we should see this as an attack on the Church (not merely the PCA) of Jesus Christ. This is a very serious matter. in my opinion, the most important thing we can do now is devote ourselves to prayer and even fasting on this matter. It is very easy to post with "pointing fingers", but I beg we would consider praying and fasting on the matter as it will continue to unfold.
Faithful Presbyterian government can prevail against this rising storm Lord willing! We need to pray for discernment and wisdom of the PCA TEs & REs and that they would not be silent.
The Lord works in mysterious ways and could use this to bring the PCA to either being more faithful or less faithful to scriptures. I pray the former, but rest assured no matter what Christ is still the head of the Church (the elect) of which no storm will prevail, but will surely serve to further purify his bride (based on his faithful promises).
Please pray for this situation. If you are in a position in the PCA to raise official concerns once the conference is over... please consider taking the time and effort to do so.
This trying to redefine by the scriptures alternate lifestyles though has to be addressed by the Church at large, as it left to go unchecked, will end up as with Theistic Evolution and Chasanatic Chaos, shabby theology and people not being helped to deal with their sin issues.This is true. Remember that the church was almost overtaken by Arianism before it was dealt with at Nicaea. With God's blessing, disciplinary action can stem the tide of quickly-spreading heresy.
PM me.Does anyone have advice on writing a letter to one's session? I haven't done so before, but it's something I will be prayerfully considering and discussing with my husband after we've had the chance to review the conference sessions this weekend. (Yes, we're in that presbytery...)
based upon that, this church is going into full blown heresy in regards to how to view human sexuality and our standing before God.Listening to that first General Session... was hard.
In the testimony out of six reasons to praise God not one of them is because Christ died for us?
Or in the speaker's words, not one utterance of the Gospel (not even the Catholic utterance). To answer the question "How do I know God loves me?" is reduced to some incoherent allusion to God's love for us because David loved Jonathan (and Jonathan's love and death prefigures Christ's love for us)? And Ruth loved Naomi? And Jesus loved the beloved disciple (and that we are all now sons of Mary)?
And some really weird, weird doctrine... marriage will end after death but same-sex love will not and persist after death? The constant need to validate your own desires. Talking about how Jesus' lineage has two direct lines of same-sex love but refusing to actually describe what this same-sex love is (leaving it to the imagination of the listener)...
Did you know that the separation you have as a believer vs unbeliever is nothing compared to the "much more painful" separation you feel when you're feeling same sex attraction?
And the only guidance that is considered legit in the life of the church for the "marginalized" is that which is "empathetic, creative and responsive to your needs"? Where did this idea come from?
Did you know it's hard for an SSA person to know God's love without being in the "gay Christian community"? Not to mention how sad it is that Eve implies that only place where "gay Christians" can feel loved is in the "gay Christian community" rather than being ministered to by the Scriptures, the Church, the Sacraments...
Not to mention the fact that Eve is Roman Catholic and is espousing Roman Catholic thoughts...
Two more to go!
I do not know of any true prophet of God who would be living in known and unconfessed sin as he is doing, and who would be calling evil good and good evil.Quote of the day from Session 2:
"The last word tonight cannot end with lament. Lament is real because injustice is real. And for us that means injustice against gender and sexual minorities is real. But ultimately, the injustices we suffer come from others who must be forgiven... particularly when they are other Christians. We need the church. And the church needs us. This is the gospel. This is the church. This is us." - Nate Collins
I'm sorry, where in this paragraph is the gospel? I can't see it.
So basically Nate Collins's lecture on lament boils down to this: we have suffered enough. We are tired. We want this to stop. We are lamenting over our suffering as gay Christians just like Jeremiah lamented over suffering during his time as prophet or as Jesus lamented over Jerusalem. Nate declares that everyone there at Revoice are the prophets of today speaking "truth" to the Church because the Church is being led by bad shepherds and their false teaching. He literally says "if [what I am saying is true about our call], then we are prophets." This is literally a "holier-than-thou" speech. I can't characterize it in any other way than a self-aggrandizing call to action.
Nowhere in Nate's discourse do we see the other side of being a so-called prophet: Jeremiah identified himself as a sinner. In the entire book of Lamentations Jeremiah lumps himself in with the rest of the people of God as one in need of repentance, one who is in need of humility, one who is in need of saving. Isaiah is famous for his cry - "Woe is me, I am undone!" for no doubt a true prophet is keenly aware of how unworthy they are to be a vessel of the word of the Lord and how unclean they really are.
I see none of that in Nate's speech. I see pompousness, I see no indication that there is anything for the "gay Christian community" to repent of. All I see is pointing fingers... and then condescendingly taking the higher ground and forgiving Christians who cause them so much undue suffering. "The hardest thing about injustice and unjust suffering is that when it comes from believers our call is to forgive."
Again, Jesus is nothing more than an example of lament and suffering. No gospel. No hope.
One more to go!
I just wonder how they read and interpret Romans 1:24-32 though?Undoubtedly, this is one of the most bizarre things...
I want to feel compassion for such sinners as I want compassion and mercy for my own shortfalls, my sin (in case you are wondering, SSA is not my atruggle). I want to be free of shame and guilt too and hope others are merciful too. However, that is where the similarities end.
I want to be free from the power of sin! These people don't. They have a struggle and give up and want others to cater to their sinful desires.
Tushnet is (or was) RC. She's also a very bright but ultimately confused writer on homosexuality. I admit I haven't read her in over a decade but what you posted was par for the course. I got the impression she was and obviously still is extremely sexually attracted to to women and is going to tread as close as she can to those feelings without crossing some technical line. May the Lord have mercy.Wesley Hill was a breath of fresh air. He delivers. I feel like he is actually engaging the text, speaking more reasonably than the other speakers, and most importantly, he preached the Gospel. While literally every other talk I have heard so far gave Jesus nothing more than lip service, Wesley actually spoke about the grace of God through Christ's redeeming work. He acknowledges creation's order, acknowledges Romans 1. If only Wesley was speaking and this was the caliber of talks, I would still have problems with Revoice but not to the level that I have it currently.
Still, Wesley says some things that I'm not comfortable with. I'll highlight the part below. This is right after he goes through with the crowd the passage Romans 6:20-23, he says this:
I have one thing to note about this and I think it encapsulates Revoice as a whole.
"We've been set free from bondage to destructive forms of love, to distorted forms of love, to misshapen forms of love that don't live in to how God designed us to be. We're liberated from that. And we're free now to say yes to the kind of love he wants to give us.
I imagine that woman [caught in adultery in pericope adulterae after being set free]- tears perhaps running down her cheek like Whitfield's coal miners - she's walking out of the temple, and she asks herself, 'What do I do now that I'm free? I don't have to go back to that adulterous relationship. I can actually love men in chastity. I can love my neighbor in purity. I can now embrace a whole new way of life.
That's what Eve [Tushnet] was talking about our first night here. I love it! We can say yes to same-sex love. Same-sex love is not reducible to the sin that God forbids. If you're a gay Christian you are called to love people of the same sex. I am called to love people of the same sex. We're set free for that. A freedom to embrace a radically new way of life. Free to say no to sexual sin and to say yes to friendship, yes to community, yes to hospitality, yes to service, yes to beauty. We are liberated for a whole new way of being human in the world because of Christ."
My wife brought up a great point... what exactly is the woman going to do
now? How will she survive? The culture of the times probably means she isn't now contemplating how she can now live a fulfilling life. She needs a place to spend the night. She needs a means to eat and live. So the language Wesley employs to possibly describe her future actions is decidedly anachronistic
It is a reading in of "human flourishing" that isn't there. He admits that this is his imagination speaking but he then exegetes his imagination to give us the second paragraph.
What Wesley and Revoice calls human flourishing, I would instead redirect it to more biblical language... something that one of the speakers mentioned before - loving your neighbor as yourself.
Because the call of all Christians brought low from sin and raised up with Christ is to glory in their redemption and to take it to love their neighbor. The expressions of friendship, community, hospitality, service and even beauty - these are all things that are about how we love our neighbor - these are the good works that were prepared beforehand by God for us to perform. The language of flourishing turns the direction back on ourselves, whereas the Scriptures direct these actions not in language of self-fulfillment, but in total devotion and service to God.
And as good as Wesley's talk was, this self-fulfillment aspect was still apparent once he stopped talking about the Scriptures and turning it towards application. The entire engine of Revoice is driving towards giving LGBT Christians a purpose, a direction, a mission...
"So go be a prophet. Go be a pastor. Go change the world. Go do something great," they might say. I don't think Wesley's talk is going to change the overall thrust of that. And it seems to me that Wesley condones it since he loves Eve's message and seems to affirm the rest of the speakers as well.
Jesus died for the sins of the gay and lesbian and transgendered sinner if one of His own elect, but he saves them while in their sin, but commands them to not stay in that sin.Just listened to Ray's testimony. (From Session 2)
Wow. It's a tantrum. He's a victim. And now he's a martyr. I don't even have words to describe this guy. I feel sad that he was driven to near suicide, but I was even more sad to hear that he turned to the law and not the gospel as the reason why he did not commit suicide.
And once again, he compares all those "close minded" people out there (because that's what it is, right? We're just not enlightened enough?) to Pharisees. Wonderful!
By the way, this guy went to seminary and he still doesn't know what a pastor is.
"Maybe you and I are called to show the world the greatest love isn't always found in a marriage but in the laying down of your life for your friends."
Once again, not a single call to the gospel. Not a single description of the demonstration of Christ's love for us.