The crumbling foundation of organized religion

The religious news world is abuzz with the news, long expected, that the Presbyterian Church-USA has paved the way for non-celibate homosexuals to serve as clergy in their rapidly dying denomination. This is from the official webpage of the PC-USA regarding the change to PC-USA ordination. The old language regarding ordination standards read as follows:

Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

That has been dramatically revised. Note the change:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G- 14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

What is clearly removed is the requirement that clergy be either a married in a heterosexual marriage or chaste. That requirement made sense and was perfectly Biblical. What replaces it is a complete lack of standards at all. Note also that any reference to repentance of sin is also removed.

Set aside the whole clergy issue for a second here. My position on that is quite clear. As I understand this, unmarried clergy are no longer required to be celibate. So someone who is a pastor and is single, of either gender and of any sexual preference, can be engaged in sexual activity outside of marriage and that is not only OK, it is celebrated?

So here are several scenarios.

One: An unmarried heterosexual male pastor lives with his girlfriend in a non-celibate sexual relationship. That apparently is OK.

Two: An unmarried homosexual female pastor lives with her girlfriend in a non-celibate sexual relationship. That is also OK.

Three: An unmarried bi-sexual male pastor lives in a home with an assortment of men and women, all of whom engage in sexual acts with one another. I guess that is OK too?

Forget gay marriage, if you don’t think there is anything wrong with your church leaders being in non-celibate unmarried relationships why bother with marriage at all? The only real reason for marriage becomes tax and legal benefits and getting stuff at your wedding shower.

I can’t see how anyone can read the New Testament and think that open and unrepentant sin, or to put it more bluntly the embrace and celebration of sin, is compatible with the church, a Body made up of sinners who have been born-again and made into new creatures. Creatures that struggle with sin for certain but never, ever that embrace sin as holy. What an upside-down situation!

This has ramifications far beyond just the death of mainline protestantism. All around us the structures of organized religion are falling. The so-called “mainline” denominations are dying by means of a slow suicide, trying to make themselves more “inclusive” but alienating the very believers who make up the church. Some segments of the traditional church seem ascendant at the moment but the cracks are apparent if you take the time to look. The Western culture that is defined in large part by organized religion that is a pale imitation of Christianity is in its death throes and what will remain in 20 or 30 years is going to look very different from the world we are accustomed to. As I have repeated ad nauseum I do not lament the death of Christendom but I do wonder if the Body of Christ is prepared to do the work of evangelism, mercy and ministering in a post-Christendom culture without the safety and security of the cultural acceptance of our faith. I am afraid that by and large that answer is no. Far too many of my brothers and sisters are stubbornly clinging to the traditions of the past in the hopes of rescuing the present. We still persist in trying to replicate Western Christendom in the mission field when in fact we should be looking to the mission field for clues to how we will need to function in the future. The future of Christianity in America is going to look a lot more like the 21st century church in China than it will the 16th century church in Geneva. We need to prepare our youth for that day instead of trying to integrate them into the fading Western church culture that never looked much like the New Testament church in the first place. The great theologians like Calvin, Edwards and Spurgeon still have a place in the church but we had better start looking to the martyrs and the persecuted church to a greater degree. Jim Elliot and Michael Sattler are going to have a lot to teach us regarding the days ahead.

(Dr. Mohler has an excellent essay on this subject from a different perspective: Following Jesus While Rejecting the Bible? Yet Another Tragedy in Mainline Protestantism )

Making disciples of all nations (as long as they act like us)

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make Presbyterian disciples of all nations, baptizing them and their infant children but only by a properly ordained Presbyterian elder in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you as well as the Westminster Confession. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age but while I am gone the Presbytery will be watching.” (Matthew 28: 18-20 , re-mix)

In a misguided attempt to figure out the very confusing world of intra-Presbyterian family feuding over the “Federal Vision” issue, I came across an unrelated post by one Wes White regarding the proper goal of mission work from a reformed and Presbyterian standpoint, Wedding Our Missiology & Reformed Ecclesiology :

Of course, we want to start the kind of church that will endure. So it is not enough to get Christian converts merely assembled into communities; they need to be discipled and they need faithful shepherds according to God’s design. They need spirit-filled shepherds who know their Bibles, submit to their Bibles and effectively apply God’s Word. Therefore we need to focus our energies on starting reformed and presbyterian churches.

The work of missions should lead to church planting and the ordination of elders in every church started. As the churches are organized and the elders shepherd the churches, then the spread of the Gospel in that nation will continue long after the missionaries are dead. That nation’s churches will themselves begin to send missionaries around the world.

The point bears repeating: Churches need to conduct missionary work in such a way that the end result is to organize reformed and presbyterian churches in the different nations and among the different language groups.

Huh.

So an overarching concern is that reformed and Presbyterian missions be focused on planting reformed and Presbyterian churches. We certainly cannot have missionaries making disciples who turn into Baptists!

On a more serious note, this is not simply an opportunity to poke fun at my Presbyterian brothers, as amusing as that is for me. This seems to be commonplace across denominations.

I fear that we often are seeking to make disciples in our own image, an image that is based on our cultural understanding of what “church” should look like. We go beyond going to the nations, teaching all men about Jesus Christ, calling them to repent and discipling those God regenerates. We seem to be more interested in spreading the Western church culture than we are in preaching the Good News to the lost and seeing the captives set free. Not just that but spreading our own particular flavor of Western Christianity seems to be of paramount importance.

What is the goal of missions? What are we seeking to accomplish? Is it to replicate American Christianity to the far reaches of the world? Or is it to proclaim Christ to the lost and get the Word of God into their hands and hearts? If a Presbyterian mission agency sends missionaries to a far away land and the Spirit moves and people are saved but end up gathering in a congregational church that only baptizes believers, is that a failure? If a Southern Baptist IMB appointed missionary sees great fruit from his labors but the believers decide to form a local church with an Episcopal church government, is that a failure?

When I was in Haiti we drank water that was purified by a reverse osmosis water purification system. I have no idea what that means, is reverse osmosis better than regular osmosis? The group that installed the system was Living Waters for the World and they are associated with the Presbyterian Church (USA), a notably liberal denomination that I have taken shots at before because of their erroneous view of human sexuality and marriage. I stand by my concerns regarding the PC (USA), if not the tone I used in addressing them. Having said that, I applaud the efforts of those in the PC (USA) who are seeking to bring fresh drinking water to Haitian orphans. Do I agree with their theology, their ecclesiology, much of anything about them? Nope. Do I think that the doctrines I take issue with are unimportant? Not at all. Does an orphan drinking water that is not going to give them cholera and kill them care if the denomination that installed their filter believes in Presbyterian church government, infant baptism and marriage between “two persons”? I would think not. A person who dies from contaminated water before hearing the Gospel is still lost.

Sometimes it might be necessary to set aside our prideful doctrinal distinctives in order to care for the least of these. I am not saying that we should be joined with unbelievers. Mission efforts with mormons are obviously not appropriate. Nor am I saying we should gloss over sin or not confront gross error in fellow believers or that holding fast to the truth is unimportant. I am saying that if our purpose in missions is to replicate ourselves in other lands, we are missing the point by a mile. I am happy to work with other believers in the effort to take the message of the Gospel to the lost and to care for widows and orphans in their affliction and provide clean water to people who otherwise would certainly become ill and die from tainted water. We can argue about theology at our local Starbucks a different day. After all, they use filtered water.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) takes the lead in embracing sin

You have to work pretty hard if you are a mainline denomination and want to wear the coveted yellow jersey of progressiveness. The PC (USA) took a major step today toward claiming the prize by defining marriage between "two people".

Presbyterian leaders approve gay clergy policy, may define marriage as between 'two people'

Presbyterian leaders voted Thursday to allow non-celibate gays in committed relationships to serve as clergy, approving the first of two policy changes that could make their church one of the most gay-friendly major Christian denominations in the U.S.

But the vote isn't a final stamp of approval for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) or its more than 2 million members.

Delegates voted during the church's general assembly in Minneapolis, with 53 percent approving the more liberal policy on gay clergy. A separate vote is expected later Thursday on whether to change the church's definition of marriage from between "a man and a woman" to between "two people."

Under current church policy, Presbyterians are only eligible to become clergy, deacons or elders if they are married or celibate. The new policy would strike references to sexuality altogether in favor of candidates committed to "joyful submission to worship of Christ."

At least this movement is motivated with a deeply Scriptural purpose:

"For the Presbyterian Church to stay current and enter the next generation, they really need to let go of this debate," said the Rev. Cindi Love, executive director of SoulForce, a gay Christian group.

Love said she also believed that if the Presbyterians approve the redefinition of marriage, the church would become the largest U.S. Christian denomination to recognize marriage between same-sex couples.

Well that certainly should be the primary concern of any church, to "stay current" with the whims of the world.

I wonder if any sin still counts in the Presbyterian Church (USA) these days?

One denomination steps back from the brink...

..but just barely.

Presbyterians vote against gay clergy

Efforts to allow gays and lesbians to serve as clergy in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have been defeated again, sealed by votes Saturday.

But the margin of defeat -- the final tally has yet to be determined -- is already guaranteed to be much closer than in previous years. That is encouraging for gay clergy supporters and concerning to opponents, with both sides expecting the issue to be revisited in the future.

It is only a matter of time I am afraid before the PCUSA abandons this position and starts to ordain people who are openly and joyously flaunting their sin and rejecting the Word of God. They will then go the same way that the Episcopal Church has gone and the end result will be the same: faithful Christians who have hung in will leave in droves, taking entire local assemblies with them, and those that remain will continue to embrace progressively more deviant teachings until they stop being a "church" as it is understood in any sense of the word.