FV and Non-Falsifiable Accusations

 

Photo courtesy pixabay.com

I typically have a pretty full schedule every week, but it has been notably fuller since our Session responded to recent allegations that I am “a FV problem in the OPC” on January 10th. Many have reached out to express concern and support for me; others have reached out to express concern about me. There have been many good conversations—by phone, email, text message, and in person. I have answered a lot of questions. In fact, I don’t think there has been even one day since January 10th that I have not spent time communicating with others who contacted me about this issue. It has taken a lot of time, every day, and there are many more of these conversations both already on my calendar and on the horizon.

I am grateful to everyone who has communicated with me thus far. These questions and conversations are a welcome contrast to the original distribution of the packet which was compiled and distributed without anyone contacting me to ask questions about my views or obtain clarification on any point that seemed unclear. Specific questions are helpful and clarifying. General allegations that someone is “Moscow friendly” or seems to be “becoming Federal Vision” are not.

The most common question I have received in the last seven weeks has been, “What’s Federal Vision?” This is due to the fact that the vast majority of members in our congregation do not come from a Reformed church background, and most of those who do have not spent much time on Reformed social media. No doubt, this may explain how they have been so easily misled by a sneaky Federal Visionist.

Inquirers have asked about my view of the covenants—you may notice the plural, covenants, suggesting I am not the mono-covenantalist that some think I may be—as well as my views on justification by faith and baptism. I am happy to answer these questions, though it seems odd to have to do so since I regularly preach sermons in which I explain and defend my views. Moreover, those answers haven’t changed much since I was examined by the Presbytery in 2016. At the risk of sounding boringly orthodox rather than excitingly innovative, my views on these matters are nicely summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith. But the main question that keeps coming around has nothing to do with my views on biblical and theological topics and instead centers on my admiration for a certain jolly pastor in the land of potatoes.

I have written before of my appreciation for Lord Voldemort. I met Douglas Wilson in 2022. We spoke at the same conference and even answered questions on the same panel. I am sure he is thankful that I was there to draw a crowd for him. In all seriousness, I have no doubt that if someone asked Pastor Wilson about Joel Ellis, he would respond, “Who?” Doug Wilson does not know me, but I have been immeasurably blessed by his ministry for many years, and I am unapologetic in my appreciation for him.

The primary grievance that comes up, again and again, in the conversations I’ve had over the last seven weeks has been my unwillingness to admit that Douglas Wilson is a no-good, horrible, very-bad man. It does not seem to occur to any of my questioners or critics that their eagerness for me to concede this point only makes me less willing to do so. I might have been willing to take issue with Pastor Wilson on one or two points, but I’m less inclined to cooperate when disgruntled neighbors suggest it would be good for my health to do so. J. C. Ryle once said, “The best of men are men at best,” and I am sure this applies to Doug Wilson whose cowboy boots contain feet of clay. But alas, if we are to withhold appreciation and instead denounce those whose theology we consider to be flawed, I might have a word or ten to say about some of my critics. Instead, I will simply say that I thank God for them. Insofar as they are heralds of the gospel, I rejoice that Christ is preached. Insofar as they are thorns, I rejoice that God uses them as goads to my sanctification.

Those who claim that I promote Pastor Wilson cite the fact that I once recommended the Canon+ app in a weekly newsletter, wrote a rather favorable appreciation of his work for Kuyperian Commentary, allowed members of ROPC to move to Moscow, ID, and fail to clutch my pearls when confronted with excerpts from Wilson’s novel Ride, Sally, Ride. Concerning the latter, my family can attest to the fact that I and my wife and several of my children thoroughly enjoyed it. We have given copies away as a gift and recommended it to others. If this amounts to promoting Doug Wilson, I must say that my transgression in this regard pales in comparison to my enthusiastic appreciation for the works of G. K. Chesterton (an obese papist), Robert Heinlein (a pagan libertarian), and C. S. Lewis (an Anglican whom no self-respecting confessional Presbyterian would ever read). If the fact that we allowed members to move to Moscow without placing them under discipline is evidence that my orthodoxy is in doubt, I wonder what we are to think of OPC pastors who have seen members depart for Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, and various forms of progressivism. I had no idea that pastors had the power to tell members where they are allowed to move. My authority is much greater than I knew.

I have been told that my admission that I could affirm the content of the “Joint Statement on Federal Vision” is my “death warrant” in the OPC. Who knew that such an innocuous statement could justify such a violent outcome? Some seem to believe this confession obviates the need for specific charges against me, a type of Presbyterian seppuku, albeit less messy. But if that admission constitutes a confession of error, then those specific errors must be substantiated. I deny that I teach anything contrary to the Confession I vowed to uphold. I am open to correction, but first I must be convinced of fault from Scripture.

The current state of controversy is a proxy war, with rumors and gossip operating behind the scenes in an attempt to destabilize ROPC—which continues to grow and flourish, by God’s grace—and questions being suggested by men in shadows to those who are willing to communicate with me but who do not know the right questions to ask. The accusations are non-falsifiable. An assertion of categorical error is made without specifics or substantiation. It is like the man who was asked if he still beats his wife. He cannot say yes or no without indicting himself, and if he claims he has never beaten his wife, we’re pretty sure that is just what a wife-beater would say. I can simply assert that you are a Federal Visionist, and don’t ask me what that means or where specifically you have erred. That’s just what a Federal Visionist would say. –JME

The Lord's Day: A Gift We Do Not Enjoy

The Lord’s Day is not only a day of rest and rejoicing. It is a day to reset us, recenter and focus us, and remind us of what is truly important. It is easy to become distracted during the week by the myriad of responsibilities and opportunities that confront us. It usually is not a question of whether but how many different crises will arise that demand our attention right now. If our own lives are not sufficiently dramatic, then 24-hour news and the never-ending barrage of social media posts are there to demand and direct our anxiety, anger, and attention.

The Lord’s Day is a time to deliberately disconnect from the wicked busyness of this present world and reconnect with the Maker. It is to reorder our thinking along creational and covenantal lines, to cleanse, consecrate, and lead us into communion with the Triune God. God’s Word and Spirit come to remind us of what was always true but what we neglected or forgot in the chaos of those very important posts on Instabook and Facegram.

Those who do not honor the Lord’s Day are dishonoring God and harming themselves. Are my work, worldly recreation, and distractions more important than the gifts God is giving me on his holy day? The Lord offers us solace and joy in his presence, but we make other activities our priority. We will give God his holy hour and a half, but then the real-world beckons us. We cannot afford to play church all day. We are, after all, important people.

What is more important than spending a day rejoicing in the Lord, meditating on his word, fellowshiping with his people? What is demanded of me that I could not accomplish in six days if I had planned better and disciplined my mind and my time? We do not Sabbath faithfully because we did not work faithfully, and negligence in the latter will surely lead to the loss of the former. The Sabbath is not a burdensome duty; it is a gift and celebration of Christian liberty and divine blessing.

On the Lord’s Day, God descends to minister to and bless his people. He reminds us what truly matters. He resets our priorities, reframes our perspective, and renews our spiritual vitality and energy to labor more faithfully, effectively, and joyfully during the week ahead. The Lord is summoning us to Mt. Zion. He has come near to help us. He is greater than our sorrows, our sins, our suffering, and our silly sense of self importance. Let us cast aside our worldly cares and come to him with gladness to receive his grace. --JME

The Last Adam and God's Sons

It is not uncommon to hear Christ referred to as the “second Adam” in Reformed churches today, but technically this is incorrect. Paul does not call him the second Adam but the last Adam (ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ, 1Cor. 15:45). There were many characters between the first Adam and Christ who could be referred to as “second” Adams. Noah is the new head of the human family who enters a new world as lord, commanded to be fruitful, multiply, and fill it with life and glory. The nation of Israel is Yahweh’s “son” whom Pharaoh is commanded to release. God leads his (national) son to a “land flowing with milk and honey,” a new Eden which was to be subdued to the glory of God. David is also a type of Adam, a “man after God’s own heart,” the image of God ruling over God’s people and overcoming all of his and their enemies. But the second, third, fourth, and every other Adam failed to fulfill God’s covenant and bring the world to its eschatological (final) and teleological (designed) glory. Like the first Adam, every other man and nation fell short, proving they were true “sons of Adam” and not the faithful “son of God.”

When Jesus was born to the virgin Mary, he came as the Son of God, without an earthly father, descended from the “mother of all living” whose promised seed would crush the head of the serpent. Like the original and earlier Adams, Christ was cast out of the land of milk and honey, hunted by earthly kings, tempted in the wilderness, and confronted by giants of unbelief, hypocrisy, and idolatry. But whereas Adam and all of his posterity were overcome by these enemies and dangers, Christ conquered them all. He was faithful where Adam had been unfaithful, obedient where all of Adam’s sons were disobedient. He trusted God and conquered by faith, leading all who similarly trust in him to victory.

The Church is united to Christ; we are his Body; he is our Head. We were sons of Adam by nature, but we have become sons of God by grace and adoption. We once were dead in Adam, but now we are alive in Christ, the last Adam. There are two humanities, two covenants, and two ways. The former is the way of sin and death under the broken covenant of creation. The covenant of life became for Adam’s offspring a word of condemnation and death. But Christ’s work has fulfilled the demands of the first covenant so that all who trust in him are pardoned and glorified under a covenant of grace. The curse of that former transgression has been broken, and God’s saints now inherit the glory which Adam and all of his posterity were made to enjoy.

The story of creation and redemption is the context of our worship. We enter the assembly as Adam’s children, but we are welcomed not as law-breakers but as law-keepers, counted as righteous for the sake of Christ, cleansed by his blood and consecrated by his Word and Spirit. We commune with God in the garden-temple, enjoying the fellowship which Adam fled in his guilt and shame. We sing with joy as we hear the Lord walking in our midst. We do not hide from him because we know that we are hidden in him. The serpent cannot harm us, because the serpent-slayer has overcome. --JME

Black Licorice Matters, and My Repentance

Photo courtesy pixabay.com

I should have known that yesterday’s sermon might get me in trouble. Lessons on baptism always have the potential to create controversy. Contrary to recent reports, my views on the sacrament have not changed, and what I taught yesterday was consistent with the Westminster Standards and (the best representatives of) the Reformed tradition. But I knew it was possible some might express concerns or objections, and they sure did.

It started as soon as morning worship ended. Echoes of the Doxology were still in the air when I began hearing complaints. Our congregation has put up with a lot over the last ten years. They have weathered controversy surrounding their pastor before. It isn’t easy to love someone committed to wearing sweater vests in Arizona, especially ones that he’s owned since high school, but the longsuffering of the ROPC saints has known no bounds… until now.

In retrospect, I should have known I was pushing too hard, too far. I should have been content to simply abide in the language of Scripture and of the Confession. Eventually, it would be too much and even my dearest friends and most ardent supporters would be compelled to turn their back to me. I hoped we never would see that day, but it has finally come. Like Mel Gibson’s character in The Patriot, “I have long feared my sins would return to visit me, and the cost is more than I can bear.”

I thought the analogy I offered was appropriate and should have been acceptable. Granted, even the most spiritual of believers still experience the lingering effects of a sinful nature, so there is always the possibility that someone might feel convicted by my illustration. But who can honestly believe there ever would have been black licorice if Adam had not broken covenant by eating the forbidden fruit? We live in a fallen world, and I know of no better evidence than the celebration of embalmed vegetables, the domestication of uppity felines, and the existence of black jelly beans.

Alas, I cannot defend my statement in view of the controversy it has produced. I am confident I spoke the truth, but now I must question whether I did so in love. When I pointed out that the Body of Christ is a mixed bag and sometimes has black licorice in it, one of the young ladies in our congregation immediately observed, “That’s just what a Federal Visionist would say!” When I shared the rapidly erupting frustration with our church officers, several of them joined the chorus of complainants and proudly affirmed their appreciation for the flavor of black licorice. (Even now I can scarcely believe they did so, but I saw it with my own eyes.) Men who have endured questions about me for years indicated this was the final straw. They had supported me through fire and flood, but this was a bridge too far. They could not follow. In despair I shared my pain with my own family, and in a scene reminiscent of the opening lines of The Pilgrim’s Progress, one of my sons replied: “I would just like to state that I like black licorice.” That’s when I realized how serious the situation is. Not only have I alienated many of the brethren whom I love, but I may be disqualified from ministry by the disorder in my own house. I am undone.

All of us have learned a lot about public apologies in the last several years. I want all of you to know that I am committed to doing better. I am listening to you. I am entering a season of listening. I want this to be a safe space for you to share your feelings about black jelly beans and all of the other things that offend you. I realize now that my views are outdated, oppressive, and hurtful. Some people like black jelly beans, and they may even choose to eat them with pickles while stroking Fluffy, the CEO of their house. We should all be accepting of each other, and I must lead the way. Black jelly beans are jelly beans, and licorice (as I was educated last night) is derived from a plant, which means it is consistent with a pre-lapsarian, Edenic world.

I have erred greatly… even in how I pronounce the word erred, as many of you know… but I am committed to doing the work of rebuilding trust. It will not be easy. It may take a long time. I may have to step away from ministry for a while and build my brand on Facegram and Twit-tok before launching a new church in which all flavors of jelly beans are welcomed and accepted and those who hate pickles are shunned. Thank you, in advance, for your patience with me. I hear you. I will do better. I am grateful for those who love me enough to tell me when I am an idiot. This is the first day of the rest of my life.  –JME

Pastor Mitty and Unsettling Souls

In the first century, Jewish Christians from Jerusalem spread false doctrine among the Gentile churches and “unsettled the souls” of faithful brethren there (Acts 15:24). Two millenia later, another generation of self-important teachers unsettle the souls of brethren outside of their own region by correcting what they perceive to be the errors of pastors and teachers in other congregations. Of course, these men are certain they are not like the Judaizing teachers who needed to be corrected in Acts 15. They imagine themselves to be on the side of the apostles and elders who get to do the correcting. That is why they write letters, make social media posts, and send warnings to brethren they have never met about brothers they did not trouble themselves to talk to directly. They think they are battling a new Judaizing error, but in fact, they are perpetrating a very old and equally wicked error by sowing division.

Human beings always cast themselves as heroes in the story of their lives, and if not heroes, then as a tragic, misunderstood, and pitiable character, a victim to awaken sympathy. Either way, we are sure that when we are on-stage, ladies will alternately coo, swoon, and weep while the men admire, applaud, and are moved in an appropriately masculine way. Pastors are prone to this as well, imagining they are some combination of John Calvin and Jack Reacher when in reality most are closer to Mr. Collins and Dwight from The Office. We think that we are dashing, but most of us are dweebs. We might do well to meditate on James Thurber’s “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” as a penitential text rather than reenacting it behind a keyboard.

The fact is there is real evil and danger in this world. Orcs are amassing outside the Church’s gates, and we may feel somewhat restless and a little desperate as we look for the White Rider in vain. Our government is sanctioning the vivisection of children in the name of gender care. Television commercials glorify sodomy and normalize relationships that are no more marriages than dogs and cats are substitutes for children. The media is hellbent on demonizing Christian nationalism and characterizes any approach to politics that is consistent with biblical norms as white supremacy. And while all of this is being done, important Reformed leaders warn us of the grave danger of being involved in “culture wars.” The absurdity is not in imagining that there is important work to be done. The absurdity is picking a fight with the brother on your right while an Uruk-hai climbs over the wall. Even Gimli and Legolas knew when it was time to put aside their ethnic rivalry and pick up battle-ax and bow and begin cleaving skulls.

The solution to our cultural calamity is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our only hope is simple repentance and trust in the Lord of all. We will never have social justice until we become committed to biblical justice. We have appealed to the better instincts of goblins and sought to find common ground with them on natural law in vain. We must preach the truth, all of it, without apology, embarrassment, or reserve. We must not only preach the Bible, we must tell the world what it means. Apollyon is standing in the path. We are doing Christian no favors by telling him simply to rest in his justification.

We can and should labor, reason, and, when necessary, fight for the truth of the gospel. We should be careful to articulate it as plainly and purely as humanly possible. The Westminster Confession is a good start and carries us a long way as a faithful summary of biblical religion. But we should beware that our enthusiasm for fidelity in theology does not become a justification for infidelity in ecclesiology. Questions about doctrine are good and can be helpful. Gossip about brothers is neither. We should aspire to be thorough and accurate in our theology, but we should remember that we are not thereby justified. We may appreciate the precision of Elven archery without denying the value of the somewhat messier methods of Dwarven ax and mace.

The gospel is not that we can be saved by our theology. We are saved by the righteousness of the Author of it—and I don’t mean a Westminster treasury of the accumulated merits of that assembly. The gospel is the message of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. He is the ascended and enthroned Lord of glory. He rules over all creation, and every knee will bow. Christ died for our sins and rose for our justification. His righteousness atones for our lust and laziness, our compromise and cowardice, our doctrinal mistakes and our self-righteous divisiveness. The gospel subdues and redeems it all. We are not saved because we articulated the gospel properly; we are saved because the gospel is true, and Jesus is Lord and Savior. –JME

Calvin's Geneva Catechism: On Baptism

Photo courtesy of pixabay.com

John Calvin, the great Reformer of Geneva and Strasbourg, developed an extensive catechism in the mid-16th century for use in training the children and untaught citizens of Geneva in the Christian faith. This Genevan Catechism was written a century before the Westminster Confession and Catechisms and roughly two decades before the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. Calvin expounds Faith, the Law, Prayer, and the Sacraments in four main sections and 373 questions and answers. You can read a brief introduction to the Genevan Catechism here (or download it as an ebook or read it online).

The following is an excerpt of the Genevan Catechism’s questions on baptism that may be of help and interest in thinking through a Reformed understanding of the significance and efficacy of the sacrament of initiation. --JME

310. What is a Sacrament?

An outward attestation of the grace of God which, by a visible sign, represents spiritual things to imprint the promises of God more firmly in our hearts, and to make us more sure of them.

311. What? Does a visible and natural sign have this power to assure the conscience?

No, not of itself, but in so far as it is ordained of God for this end.

312. Seeing it is the proper office of the Holy Spirit to seal the promises of God in our hearts, how do you attribute this to the Sacraments?

There is a great difference between the one and the other. The Spirit of God in very truth is the only One who can touch and move our hearts, enlighten our minds, and assure our consciences; so that all this ought to be judged as His own work, that praise may be ascribed to Him alone. Nevertheless, the Lord Himself makes use of the Sacraments as inferior instruments according as it seems good to Him, without in any way detracting from the power of the Holy Spirit.

313. You think, then, that the efficacy of the Sacraments does not consist in the outward element, but proceeds entirely from the Spirit of God?

Yes; for the Lord is pleased to work by these instruments which He has instituted: without detracting from His own power.

314. And what moves God to do that?

For the alleviation of our weaknesses. If we were spiritual by nature, like the angels, we could behold God and His graces. But as we are bound up with our bodies, it is needful for us that God should make use of figures to represent to us spiritual and heavenly things, for otherwise we could not comprehend them. At the same time, it is expedient for us to have all our senses exercised in His Holy promises, in order to confirm us in them.

315. Since God has introduced the Sacraments to meet our need, it would be arrogance and presumption to think that we could dispense with them.

Certainly: hence he who voluntarily abstains from using them thinks that he has no need of them, condemns Jesus Christ, rejects His grace, and quenches His Holy Spirit.

316. But what assurance of grace can the Sacraments give, seeing that good and bad both receive them?

Although the unbelievers and the wicked make of none effect the grace offered them through the Sacraments, yet it does not follow that the proper nature of the Sacraments is also made of non effect.

317. How, then, and when do the Sacraments produce this effect?

When we receive them in faith, seeking Jesus Christ alone and His grace in them.

318. Why do you say that we must seek Jesus Christ in them?

I mean that we are not to be taken up with the earthly sign so as to seek our salvation in it, nor are we to imagine that it has a peculiar power enclosed within it. On the contrary, we are to employ the sign as a help, to lead us directly to the Lord Jesus, that we may find in Him our salvation and all our well-being.

319. Seeing that faith is required, why do you say that they are given to confirm us in faith, to assure us of the promises of God?

It is not sufficient for faith once to be generated in us. It must be nourished and sustained, that it may grow day by day and be increased within us. To nourish, strengthen, and increase it, God gives us the Sacraments. This is what Paul indicates when he says that they are used to seal the promises of God in our hearts (Rom. 4:11).

320. But is it not a sign of unbelief when the promises of God are not firm enough for us, without support?

It is a sign of the smallness and weakness of faith, and such is indeed the faith of the children of God, who do not, however, cease to be faithful, although their faith is still imperfect. As long as we live in this world some elements of unfaithfulness remain in our flesh, and therefore we must always advance and grow in faith.

…

324. That the meaning may be more clear to us, let us treat of them separately. First, what is the meaning of Baptism?

It consists of two parts. The Lord represents to us in it, first, the forgiveness of our sins (Eph. 5:26, 27) and, secondly, our regeneration or spiritual renewal (Rom. 6:4).

325. What resemblance has water with these things in order to represent them?

The forgiveness of sins is a kind of washing, by which our souls are cleansed from their defilements, just as the stains of the body are washed away by water.

326. What about the other part?

The beginning of our regeneration and its end is our becoming new creatures, through the Spirit of God. Therefore the water is poured on the head as a sign of death, but in such a way that our resurrection is also represented, for instead of being drowned in water, what happens to us is only for a moment.

327. You do not mean that the water is a washing of the soul.

By no means, for that pertains to the blood of Christ alone, which was shed in order to wipe away all our stains and render us pure and unpolluted before God (I John 1:7; I Peter 1:19). This is fulfilled in us when our consciences are sprinkled by the Holy Spirit. But by the Sacrament that is sealed to us.

328. Do you think that the water is only a figure to us?

It is such a figure that the reality is conjoined with it, for God does not promise us anything in vain. Accordingly it is certain that in Baptism the forgiveness of sins is offered to us and we receive it.

329. Is this grace fulfilled indiscriminately in all?

No, for some make it of no effect by their perversity. Nevertheless, the Sacrament loses nothing of its nature, although none but believers feel its efficacy.

330. From what does regeneration get its power?

From the death and resurrection of Christ. His death has had this effect, that through it our old Adam is crucified, and our evil nature is, as it were, buried, so that it no longer has the strength to rule over us. And the renewal of our life, in obedience to the righteousness of God, derives from the resurrection of Christ.

331. How is this grace applied to us in Baptism?

In it we are clothed with Jesus Christ, and receive His Spirit, provided that we do not make ourselves unworthy of the promises given to us in it.

332. What is the proper use of Baptism on our part?

It consists in faith and in repentance. That is, assurance that we have our spiritual purity in Christ, and in feeling within us, and declaring to our neighbours by our works, that His Spirit dwells in us to mortify our natural desires and bring us to follow the Will of God.

333. If this is required, how is it that we baptize infants?

It is not said that faith and repentance should always precede the reception of the Sacrament, but they are only required from those who are capable of them. It is sufficient, then, if infants produce and manifest the fruit of their Baptism after they come to the age of discretion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Links -- Calvin's Institutes: On Baptism (Feb. 2021)

Sunday Meditation: Robert's Rules and Yahweh's Rules

I’ve been spending a lot of time lately studying Robert’s Rules of Order. It is necessary for my work as Moderator of our Presbytery, and I will admit the material is interesting… to a point. The various rules for order, debate, and conduct of a meeting are grounded in principles of reason and fairness, consistent with the Bible’s own concern for the rights of the majority, minority, and each member of an assembly. I have no desire to become an expert parliamentarian, but insofar as this study is helpful in my service as a presbyter, I am happy to add such knowledge to my skill set. At the same time, I cannot help but regret, just a little bit, how many other books I could have been reading while studying the rules for deliberative assemblies.

One thing that is fascinating about Robert’s Rules is their generally objective nature. I’ve attended Presbytery and General Assembly long enough to have seen debate and disagreement over how to interpret a specific rule, but in most cases the order to be followed is straightforward and admitted by all, even when it leads to an outcome that a minority of the assembly may disapprove. The book says what it says, and once the citations are examined, all sides will submit to it most of the time.

It occurred to me recently how very different this is from how we approach Scripture. Now, let me quickly acknowledge that part of the reason is that the Bible is not written like Robert’s Rules, with explicit prescriptions and indexed rules outlining almost every possible scenario a deliberative body may face. The Bible is God’s self-revelation in the form of story, poetry, prophecy, preaching, epistles, and law, yet even the law portions are not exactly like Robert’s Rules. The various genres in which Scripture is written allows the kind of interpretive anarchy that is all too common in Christian circles.

At the same time, it seems to me that we often are a bit more honest in our interpretation of Robert’s Rules than we are about the Bible. There are some things in the Scripture that are debatable or unclear, but there is a great deal that is far more straightforward than we might care to admit. Christians might quibble over the proper mode of baptism or even over its proper subjects, but there really is no grounds for saying that the Bible’s prohibition on women preachers (2Tim. 2:11-12; 1Cor. 14:34-35) is at all unclear or means something other than what it seems to so clearly say. I realize some Baptists may immediately insist the Bible’s teaching requiring immersion and precluding the baptism of pre-verbal children is just as clear, but I hope most of us can admit there is a very real difference between those questions of interpretation regarding application and the plain teaching of Scripture on matters like gender roles. Bible believing Christians may disagree on a host of things, but matters like the historicity of biblical miracles, the resurrection of Christ, the inspiration and authority of Scripture, biblical ethics regarding sexuality, the creation and existence of man and woman in two distinct and unalterable sexes, these kinds of issues are so plain in the Bible that no one who professes to be a Christian and yet dissents from the teaching of Scripture on these matters should be taken seriously.

If we are to believe the Bible, we cannot imagine that we are permitted to pick and choose what parts we will believe. Either it is all the word of God, inspired, infallible, and authoritative, or we cannot have confidence that any of it is. A female pastor is an oxymoron, the same as a same sex marriage or a transgender person. If we believe Jesus died and rose again, then we are obligated to say, “Yes, and amen” to everything in the Bible, all of it, no matter how out-dated or politically incorrect or personally inconvenient it may seem.

Tomorrow we will gather for worship, and when the Bible is read we will say, “Thanks be to God!” But we will not only say it; we will mean it. Because the Bible is the word of God, written down and preserved for our edification and instruction, and we are committed to treating it with reverence and seriousness. We will not merely be presbyterians interested in carefully following Robert’s Rules. We will be children of God, servants of Christ, those led by the Spirit, and so we will receive Yahweh’s Revelation with reverence and joy, following it more diligently, carefully, and cheerfully than any rules given to us by men. --JME