Kevin DeYounghttp://heraldblog.squarespace.com/kevin-deyoung/en-US2009-11-27T13:16:21ZSquarespace Site Server v5.8.3 (http://www.squarespace.com/)The Manhattan Declarationhttp://heraldblog.squarespace.com/kevin-deyoung/2009/11/23/the-manhattan-declaration.htmlKevin DeYoung2009-11-23T16:58:10ZIf you pay attention to religious news and check religious blogs you've probably already heard about The Manhattan Declaration. I urge you to read it and consider signging.

What is it? Here's a synopsis from the website:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

the sanctity of human life

the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife

the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

You can read the whole Declaration here. It takes about 10 minutes to read and is well worth your time. The Declaration is biblical, wise, clear, firm, and free from rancor. The Declaration was drafted by Robert George, Timothy George, and Chuck Colson. The llist of original signers include prominent evangelicals like: Peter Akinola, Randy Alcorn, Leith Anderson, Kay Arthur, Joel Belz, Bryan Chapell, James Dobson, Wayne Grudem, Tim Keller, Duane Litfin, Herb Lusk, Josh McDowell, Al Mohler, Marvin Olasky, J.I. Packer, Neal Plantinga, Dennis Rainey, Ron Sider, Joni Erickson Tada, and Ravi Zacharias.

To read the Declaration, see the list of original signers, and sign up yourself, go here.

]]>Divorce and Remarriage: A Smokescreen and a Firehttp://heraldblog.squarespace.com/kevin-deyoung/2009/11/11/divorce-and-remarriage-a-smokescreen-and-a-fire.htmlKevin DeYoung2009-11-12T01:45:45ZTry arguing with left-leaning Christians about homosexuality and within the first five minutes someone will throw divorce and remarriage in your face. Much to my chagrin, I’ve been embroiled in debates about homosexuality many times (often on this blog!), and every time, someone defending homosexual behavior brings up divorce. “If marriage is so important to you,” the retort will go, “why don’t you ever talk about the sin of divorce?” The implication being: “You are just picking on homosexuals. You don’t follow the literal letter of the law any more than we do. If you did, you would be focusing on divorce, because that’s the bigger issue in our churches.”

Where There’s Smoke...
When it comes to debating homosexuality, divorce is both a smokescreen and a fire. It is a smokescreen because the two issues–divorce and homosexuality–are far from identical. For starters, there are no groups in our denominations whose raison d’etre is the celebration of divorce. People are not advocating new policies in our churches that affirm the goodness of divorce. Conservatives, in the culture and in the mainline, keep talking about homosexuality because that is the fault line right now. We’d love to talk (and do) about how to have a healthy marriage. We’d love to talk (and do) about the glory of the Trinity, but the battle right now (at least one of them) is over homosexuality. So we cannot be silent on this issue.

Just as importantly, the biblical prohibition against divorce explicitly allows for exceptions; the prohibition against homosexuality does not. The traditional Protestant position, as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith for example, maintains that divorce is permissible on grounds of marital infidelity or desertion by an unbelieving spouse. Granted, the application of these principles is difficult and the question of remarriage after divorce gets even trickier, but almost all Protestants have always held that divorce is sometimes acceptable. Simply put, homosexuality and divorce are different issues because according to the Bible and Christian tradition the former is always wrong, while the latter is not.

Finally, the “what about divorce?” argument is not a good as it sounds because many of our churches do take divorce seriously. I realize that many churches don’t (more on that in a minute). But a lot of the same churches that speak out against homosexuality also speak out against illegitimate divorce. I’ve said more about homosexuality in the blogosphere because there’s a controversy around the issue in the wider church. But I’ve said more about divorce in my church because this is the more dangerous issue for us (and most congregations I imagine). Virtually every single discipline case we’ve encountered as a board of elders has been about divorce. The majority of pastoral care crises I have been involved in have dealt with failed or failing marriages. My church, like many others, takes seriously all kinds of sins, including illegitimate divorce. We don’t always know how to handle every situation, but I can say with a completely clear conscience that we never turn a blind eye to divorce.

...There’s Probably Some Fire
And yet...and yet, many conservative evangelicals have been negligent in dealing with illegitimate divorce and remarriage. Pastors have not preached on the issue for fear of offending scores of their members. Elder Boards have not practiced church discipline on those who sin in this area because, well, they don’t practice discipline for much of anything. Counselors, friends, and small groups have not gotten involved early enough to make a difference in pre-divorce situations. Christian attorneys have not thought enough about their responsibility in encouraging marital reconciliation. Church leaders have not helped the uneducated to understand God’s teaching about the sanctity of marriage, and we have not helped those already wrongly remarried to experience forgiveness for their past mistakes.

So yes, there is plenty of duplicity to go around. The evangelical church, in many places, gave up and caved in on divorce and remarriage. But the remedy to this negligence is not more negligence. The slow, painful cure is more biblical exposition, more active pastoral care, more faithful use of discipline, more word-saturated counseling, and more prayer–for illegitimate divorce, for homosexuality, and for all the other sins that are more easily condoned than confronted.

]]>A Status Confessionis Issuehttp://heraldblog.squarespace.com/kevin-deyoung/2009/11/4/a-status-confessionis-issue.htmlKevin DeYoung2009-11-04T12:10:17ZThe phrase status confessionis if often bandied about in the RCA. It’s Latin for "confessional status." Although it came out of specific Lutheran doctrinal debates in the 16th century, the term carries a broader connotation. It means that a particular doctrine is essential to who we are as a church. If something is status confessionis it means this is a make or break issue. It means that the church will not tolerate others views on this matter. It means that this is not an indifferent matter or one on which we can agree to disagree. It means that if we are to be faithful in confessing the gospel we must confess this.

Homosexuality is a status confessionis issue. If we tolerate the doctrine that says homosexual behavior is a gift from God, we have tolerated too much. We must confess, always with love and graciousness, that homosexual behavior is a sin and we must not allow our churches, our ministers, our schools, or our professors to say otherwise.

The quick reply to this last paragraph will be, “Hold on just a minute. Why are we singling out one sin and making it a litmus test for our denomination? This is an important issue, but not as weighty as the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the resurrection. Those are the kinds of issues that are status confessionis, not acts that some people claim are sinful.” This line of reasoning sounds plausible, but it’s not exactly true. In adopting the Belhar Confession (which we will almost certainly do by June), the RCA is saying that the specific sin of racism is a status confessionis issue. I may disagree with some elements of the Belhar, but I certainly agree with its strong rejection of racism. In the 1980s, the RCA broke off ecumenical relations with the Dutch church in South Africa because of apartheid, effectively communicating “No matter how great your sermons may be and how wonderful your doctrines of grace, if you are a racist, you have not understood the gospel.” The same is true of homosexuality. No matter how many other things we may hold in common, if you affirm homosexual behavior, you have not understood the gospel. This is one issue on which we must not compromise. We cannot agree to disagree. We cannot hold hands together in mission.

Those last few sentences may sound too strong. A bit over the top. Maybe we should allow for different interpretations on this issue, you think to yourself. Maybe we are making too big a deal out of this. Maybe this isn’t a make or break status confessionis kind of issue. But consider:

•    Homosexual behavior is repeatedly and clearly forbidden in Scripture. The order of creation informs us that God’s plan for sexuality is one woman and one man (Genesis 2). This order is reaffirmed by Jesus (Matthew 19) and Paul (Ephesians 5). The Old Testament law forbade homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18, 20). Paul reiterates this prohibition by using the same Greek construction in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. Paul condemns same sex behavior (among many other sins) in Romans 1. Jude in his epistle links sexual immorality and the “unnatural desire” present in Sodom and Gomorrah.

•    Our confessions speak against the sin of homosexuality.   “We are temples of the Holy Spirit, body and soul, and God wants both to be kept clean and Holy,” Heidelberg Catechism Answer 109 states. “That is why [God] forbids everything which incites unchastity, whether it be actions, looks, talk, thoughts or desires.” 1 Cor. 6:18-20, where homosexual behavior is listed as a sin, is cited as a Scripture proof. Likewise, Q/A 87 quotes from 1 Cor. 6 to the effect that no unrepentant sinner is going to inherit the kingdom of God. Unrepentant sin is no light thing. Moreover, Belgic Confession Article 29 says in connection with the marks of the true church, “As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or the left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.” Christians are not expected to be perfect. But as the Spirit works in us, we will be marked by fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, including sexual sin and ethical righteousness.

•    If 1 Corinthians 6 is true, unrepentant homosexuals (along with unrepentant thieves, drunkards, idolaters, adulterers, revilers, swindlers, and those who are unrepentantly greedy) will not inherit the kingdom of God. Heaven and hell literally hang in the balance. Of course, homosexuality isn’t the only sin out there. But no one else that I know of in our denomination is advocating idolatry, drunkenness, or stealing. Yet, many are advocating homosexuality. It is not an overstatement to say that such advocacy is in danger of leading people to hell. This isn’t because homosexuals are worse sinners than all the rest, but because unless we turn from our sin and fight against it in faith–with victories and defeats to be sure–we will face God’s wrath. By tolerating the doctrine which affirms homosexual behavior, we are tolerating a doctrine which leads people farther from God, not closer. This is not the mission Jesus gave us when he told us to teach the nations all that he has commanded.

•    For 99% of church history, Christians have said unequivocally that homosexual behavior is immoral. No one had to write a confession about it, because it was an implied status confessionis. No church would have tolerated a difference of opinion, let alone practice, on this issue.

•    The overwhelming majority of our brothers and sisters in the two-thirds world understand that homosexuality is a sin. Further, they understand, as African leaders in the Anglican church could testify, that this is not an agree to disagree kind of issue. We can love those who disagree. But we do not hold hands in mission and dialogue ad nauseum. We call homosexual advocates to repent much like we call perpetrators of racism to repent.

•    If we tolerate homosexual behavior and advocacy in our denomination, we undercut the efforts of men and women in our congregations who struggle–in faith and repentance–to overcome same gender attraction. Affirming homosexuality denies the grace of God to change sinners and our most entrenched and confusing desires (1 Cor. 6:11).

As I've tried to point out over and over again, the position that says, "let's stay in dialogue; let's not make such a big deal about this; let's move on from this distraction; we have bigger fish to fry" is asking someone like me to give up everything on this issue. You are asking me to act like this is not a big deal. You are asking me to affirm that this is a small ethical issue that does not strike at the core of anything. Agree to disagree sounds like a humble third rail, but it is a subtle way of telling conservatives that homosexuality is not a status confessionis issue and we are wrong to think that it is.

There's a reason these blogs heat up with the debate over homosexuality. The reason is twofold. One, we can't seem to agree on this important issue. The history of the church is full of instances of raging controversy. Some of them have proved to be silly. Some of them have proved to be essential. In this post I have tried to argue why this debate is not silly, but eternally serious. Two, the RCA refuses to speak and act consistently on this issue. As long as the RCA continues to push dialogue, as long as the RCA tolerates groups like Room for All which work contrary to the stated beliefs of the General Synod, and as long as the RCA holds hands with denominations like the UCC and the ELCA this controversy will continue. It is the never ending dialogue and equivocation of the RCA that prolongs this controversy. The two sides--passionately for the legimitization of homosexual behavior and passionately against--are mutually exclusive in this debate. And to argue that they are not is, de facto, to side with one camp over the other.

]]>Formula of Agreement II: Responding to the RCAhttp://heraldblog.squarespace.com/kevin-deyoung/2009/9/8/formula-of-agreement-ii-responding-to-the-rca.htmlKevin DeYoung2009-09-08T12:43:43ZYes, this is another post on homosexuality. Believe me I’d rather talk about something else too. I don’t relish the thought of people thinking I’m a nasty conservative. I don’t like the idea of being labeled homophobic. I’d rather spend time encouraging courageous brothers and sisters who battle to overcome their same-gender attraction. And frankly, I’d rather talk about something other than sex.

But every generation in the church has some parcel of truth to defend and this is the plot for the present generation. It sounds nicer to be argue about the doctrine of Scripture or original sin or something less intensely personal. But then again I’m sure those controversies would be no fun either (and probably need to dealt with in our time too!).

So whether we like it or not the controversy over homosexuality is here to stay. Especially in the Reformed Church in America (RCA). Especially as long as my denomination continues to hesitate between two opinions.

A Tempest in the Twin Cities
As most everyone knows by now the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) voting last month in Minneapolis, approved a resolution allowing gays and lesbians in “life-long, monogamous, same gender relationships” to be ordained. The United Church of Christ (UCC) has gone down this road already. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has flirted with the idea. The official, though not undisputed, position of the RCA is that homosexual behavior is sinful and marriage is between one man and one woman.

These four denominations–the ELCA, the UCC, the PC(USA), and the RCA–share a Formula of Agreement which states, among other things, that we recognize each other “as churches in which the gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered to the Word of God.” There are any number of reasons for the RCA to extricate itself from the Formula of Agreement. The recent action by the ELCA is one of the strongest.

Over a week ago I argued that it's time for a formula of disagreement. Since then RCA spokesman Paul Boice has reiterated the RCA’s commitment to the Formula of Agreement. In an article by the Christian Post, Boice is quoted as saying "Cutting ties with the ELCA over their Assembly’s narrow decision would witness to the world that Christians will fight and divide themselves from one another, and break the bonds of Christian fellowship, over such an ethical difference.” Boice also explained: "The official stances of our two churches [RCA and UCC] differed, and continue to differ today, as with the ELCA." But, "the difference on this ethical issue did not involve the core of the gospel; in other words, we still recognized one another as churches." And later Boice argues that "If we began cutting ties with every denomination with which we had a difference, we would be unfaithful to our Lord’s call to seek the unity of his body and do serious harm to our witness and mission in the world."

Unity Does Not Answer the Question
From what I know about Paul Boice he strikes me as a decent fellow, probably an evangelical in some sense of the word. But his explanation for maintaining official ties with the ELCA is very disappointing.

For starters, playing the unity card is an overused trick. Every Christian in the world believes in unity. We’ve all read John 17 and Ephesians 4, and we know that unity is a good thing. But the question is always "unity with whom and on what grounds?" It’s not fair to position the two options as “maintaining our present ecumenical agreements” or “sinfully dividing over every little difference.” Obviously, some division is not called for. But some is. Sometimes “there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Cor. 11:19).

Unity must always be based on truth, and visible external unity must be pursued only with those with whom we share real spiritual unity. Surely the history of the church teaches us that unity is not a simple matter of joining hands with anyone who goes by the name of Christian. Unity with Arians and Gnostics and Socinians is not the sort of unity we ought to prize. Just as there is schism that masquerades as principle, there is also faithless compromise that goes by the guise of unity.

In fact, the whole ecumenical enterprise ought to be challenged as a bureaucratic waste of time. I’m certainly not opposed to Christians of different stripes working and worshiping together. I love my pastors group which consists of a PCA pastor, a Baptist pastor, a Sovereign Grace pastor, and me. Where did we get this notion that unity is only achieved when denominational officials sign paperwork together? And why do we think that leaving denominational agreements means ruining our witness for Christ? Isn't purity an important witness too?

And let’s be realistic, are lots of new converts being made in the congregations of the World Council of Churches because a watching world can witness our unity? Hardly. The denominational ecumenism of the past 60 years has done little that is relevant to the average Christian in the pew and even less to win the world for Christ because it has been a unity based on doctrinal indifferentism and progressive politics.

The bottom line, of course, is that unity with those who encourage sexual immorality is not the sort of unity Jesus prayed for. Are we really to believe that if the Apostle John and Philip started having sex together in a committed monogamous relationship that Peter (not to mention Jesus) would have been ok with that? Or to put it in similar terms, are we to believe that if John started a church and ordained a man having gay sex with his partner that Peter would have thought, “Well, Jesus said we should be one. So no biggie.”

Come on, let’s be serious. Does anyone honestly think that if we could take a time machine back to 60 AD and we found (what we certainly would not find) Timothy and Titus sleeping together that Paul would have told the other churches “Relax, it’s only an ethical issue”? We can do all the mental gymnastics we want with word studies and the dialectics of Lutheran or Reformed hermeneutics but at the end of the day it takes an extraordinary degree of historical re-invention, not to mention hubris, to imagine the Apostles and the Church Fathers marching in gay parades and defending their associations with those who would.

And then there’s Jesus. It’s hard to imagine that the Son of God who promised not to relax one of the least of the commands of the Old Testament--this same Jesus who lovingly confronted the woman at the well and who upheld the sanctity of marriage in the strictest terms against the liberalizers of his day--would have blessed homosexual intercourse in direct disobedience to Leviticus 18 and 20?

Yes, the Gospel is at Stake
I have argued time and time again that there are not just two sides to the homosexuality debate. There are three: homosexual behavior is bad, homosexual behavior is good, homosexuality doesn’t really matter. The deviousness of denomination-speak blinds many evangelicals who know homosexuality is wrong into tolerating it as ok. In the RCA for example, there is very little chance in the next five years that the majority of the denomination will side with those who argue that same-sex unions are a blessing from God. But many may lack the courage to say that the promotion of homosexuality is flat-out unacceptable. Instead they will be lulled into thinking that we should simply agree to disagree and move on to “the really important issues.”

This is the underlying presumption in Boice’s statements about homosexuality being just “an ethical issue.” And if any RCA folks are reading this, you can be sure that this same argument for toleration of the ELCA has been and will be offered as a reason to tolerate gay marriage and gay clergy in the RCA itself. Too many "evangelicals" end up saying, “Hey, it’s not my thing. I wouldn’t support it. But the gospel isn’t at stake. So let’s not fight over this any longer.”

So why is Boice wrong when he says “the difference on this ethical issue [does] not involve the core of the gospel”? Let me suggest several reasons.

1. Promoting homosexuality is a violation of the catholicity of the church. Sure many in the West are arguing for the legitimacy of same-sex relationships, but for 99% of our history the church has considered homosexual behavior to be sinful. (And before anyone mentions slavery at this point I would encourage him to read Rodney Stark’s book For the Glory of God where he debunks the myth that the church was pro-slavery for 1800 years.) No one had to write a confession about homosexuality, because it was an implied status confessionis issue. No church would have tolerated a difference of opinion, let alone a deviant practice.

True, church tradition is not infallible. But when we make a decision (accepting homosexuality or tolerating those who do) that virtually every single Christian who has ever lived would consider unthinkable, we ought to pause and wonder if we’ve drunk too much from the spirit of the age. We would be wiser to listen to the testimony of our brothers and sisters in the two-thirds world who know that homosexuality is not an agree-to-disagree kind of issue.

2. Homosexual behavior is so repeatedly and clearly forbidden in Scripture that to encourage homosexuality calls into question the role of Scripture in the life of the denomination that accepts such blatantly unbiblical teaching. Luke Timothy Johnson, New Testament scholar and advocate of legitimizing homosexual behavior, is commendably honest when he writes, “I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us.” At its root, support for homosexual behavior is not simply a different interpretation of Scripture, it is a rejection of Scripture itself.

3. Far from treating sexual deviance as a lesser "ethical issue", the New Testament sees it as a matter for discipline (1 Corinthians 5), separation (2 Corinthians 6:12-20), and an example of perverse compromise (Jude 3-16).

4. Most importantly, commending homosexuality involves the core of the gospel because it urges us to celebrate a behavior the Bible calls us to repent. According to 1 Corinthians 6 unrepentant homosexuals (along with unrepentant thieves, drunkards, idolaters, adulterers, revilers, swindlers, and money-lovers) will not inherit the kingdom of God. Heaven and hell literally hang in the balance.

Of course, homosexuality isn’t the only sin in the world. But I know of no one who is advocating idolatry or championing stealing as a special blessing from God. Yet, many are advocating homosexuality, and the ELCA not officially endorses it. It is not an overstatement to say that such advocacy is in danger of leading people to hell. This isn’t because homosexuals are worse sinners than all the rest, but because unless we all turn from our sin and fight against it in faith–with victories and defeats to be sure–we will face God’s wrath. In tolerating the doctrine which affirms homosexual behavior, we are tolerating a doctrine which leads people farther from God, not closer. This is not the mission Jesus gave us when he told us to teach the nations all that he has commanded.

In short, those who pervert the grace of God into a license for sensuality are false teachers who do not preach the gospel rightly (Jude 4; Titus 2:11-15). A true church does not encourage people in deliberate sin when it ought to call them to repentance.

A Personal Word
I’ve been in the RCA my whole life. I’m convinced that the best and worst thing about our denomination is that we don’t like controversy. This is good in so far as it keep us from majoring on the minors and focusing on each other's faults. This is bad in so far as it keeps us from acting decisively and courageously. There are some denominations who can’t say yes to anything. That’s not us thankfully. But we often have a hard time saying no. We are a small group, tight knit, held together by relationships that stretch back into seminary, college, and family reunions. But the word of God calls us to a higher standard than niceness and warm relationships. It calls us to truth and grace–the truth that sets us free and the grace that transforms and forgives.

We are not called to be abrasive and arrogant, harsh and hateful. But we are called to be strong and courageous, willing to do the hard, uncomfortable, painful act of holding each other accountable and saying no to ungodliness and worldly passions (Titus 2:11). Let us not be cowed into silence by those who claim that all that’s at stake are two different interpretations of Scripture on an ethical issue. There comes a time when we must rule certain interpretations–no matter how sincerely held–out of bounds with Christian orthodoxy, unfaithful to Scripture, and unacceptable in our churches and in the churches we officially affirm.

While we do not want to be deserving of the words, let us not be afraid of epithets like “mean-spirited” and “intolerant.” Jesus himself commended the church at Ephesus because they did not “bear with those who are evil” and hated “the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” (Revelation 2:2, 6). Besides, If we tolerate homosexual behavior and advocacy in others, we undercut the efforts of men and women in our congregations who struggle–in faith and repentance–to overcome same gender attraction.

Let us refuse to take the easy way out. Let's not allow what we know to be unbiblical under the auspices of unity and mission. We must not cry “Peace, peace,” where there is no peace. With hearts of love and theological backbones of steel we must not compromise on homosexuality. Adding an amendment to our Book of Church Order in the near future would be one way to settle things, for the good of the denomination and the peace and sanity of all involved. Dropping the Formula of Agreement would be a place to start.

]]>The Formula of Agreement Has to Gohttp://heraldblog.squarespace.com/kevin-deyoung/2009/8/28/the-formula-of-agreement-has-to-go.htmlKevin DeYoung2009-08-28T18:46:58ZFor over ten years now the RCA, through the historic and misguided Formula of Agreement, has been in "full communion" with the ELCA, the PC(USA), and the UCC. There have been enough unbiblical goings-on in any of these denominations to sound the alarm, but the recent action by the ELCA is the latest and possibly the most egregious. Meeting last week in Minneapolis, the Lutherans voted to allow non-celibate homosexual clergy and the blessing of same-sex relationships in the church. The RCA, through the Formula of Agreement, is in "full communion" with the ELCA. Should we be?

According to the Agreement, the term "full communion" is understood to specifically mean that the four churches, among other things, "recognize each other as churches in which the gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered according to the Word of God." No doubt, some of you reading this blog think homosexuality is good, or permissible, or something less than sinful. But most of us in the RCA think same-sex behavior, along with plenty of other sins, is prohibited in the Bible. Where does this leave us in relationship to the ELCA (and the other two denominations for that matter)?

What do we do when a denomination perverts the grace of our God into sensuality (Jude 4)--and not just a few renegade churches here and there, but the whole denomination in its official decision making capacity? Is the gospel rightly preached in the ELCA when their "gospel" officially affirms sinful behavior that the Bible says will keep one out of the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-10)? For those of us who hold to the Church's millennia long teaching on sexuality, how can we continue to recognize as a true church a body that does not "engage in the pure preaching of the gospel", does not "subject itself to the yoke of Christ" and allows into the offices of the church those who are not "fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness" (Belgic Confession Article 29)? Homosexuality is, as J.I. Packer has argued, a heretical issue because it denies a central tenet of the gospel--repentance.

The RCA broke ties with the white church in South Africa over apartheid. It's time the RCA profers a similar forumla of disagreement and breaks from full communion with erring, not to mention dying, denomations like the ELCA. The gospel is once again at stake.

]]>Happy Birthday John (three days late)http://heraldblog.squarespace.com/kevin-deyoung/2009/7/13/happy-birthday-john-three-days-late.htmlKevin DeYoung2009-07-13T15:14:27ZWhatever lasting impact John Calvin has had on the church of Jesus Christ, and on the whole world for that matter, is owing to his commitment to understanding and explaining the word of God. From sermons to lectures to letters to tracts to treatises to confessions to catechisms to books, his adult life was consumed with one thing: the word of God–the word as a summons to obedience, the word as a blueprint for reform, the word as the foundation for all truth.

Calvin’s confidence was not in the world of technology and progress. He would have scoffed at Bultmann’s now laughable line from several generations ago that “it is impossible to use electric light and the wireless [radio] and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time believe in the New Testament world of demons and spirits.”

Calvin’s confidence was not in man’s potential or the triumph of the human spirit. He would have equally scoffed and been frankly embarrassed by the well-known Reformed Church pastor, Robert Schuller who argued that self-esteem was the New Reformation and that “Christians should hold to these truths: I affirm that I will never be defeated, because I will never quit...I affirm that if I’m totally dedicated I’ll eventually win.”

Calvin’s confidence was in the Word of God, and that’s why his theology and vision of the world continues to capture the minds and hearts of people in the 21st century. That’s why five hundred years later we remember his birth. That’s why Calvin the preacher and expositor has millions more spiritual children than Erasmus the scholar and hermeneutical skeptic. Strive for relevance in your day, and you’ll may make a difference for a few years. Anchor yourself in what is eternal and you may influence the world for another five centuries.

I’m all for young people dreaming big dreams. Go out and change the world. Make a difference. Discover a cure for cancer. Write a best-selling novel. Become president. But remember, your “glory” (and mine) will not last. Your great accomplishments will fall away–either in your lifetime, or in a generation, or at the end of all things.

No one will care about your GPA and SAT scores in ten years. If you win a state championship, you’ll be forgotten the next year you don’t. Your beauty will get wrinkles and trim figure plump. Write a great book and it will gather dust in a library some day. Have a big famous church, it won’t last forever. Be an important person in your field, you still be unknown to over 6 billion people in the world. Build an amazing house, it will crumble some day, if it doesn’t go into foreclosure first. All of our achievements and successes are destined to be like dead grass and faded flowers.

But...the word of our God stands forever. The word about Babylon in Isaiah 40 stood firm. and so will his word in our generation. All God’s declarations about himself and his people are true. All his promises will come to pass. Our only confidence is in the word of God. John Calvin was a man, an imperfect, sinful man, but a man that God used enormously because he put his confidence in the word of God.

We do the memory of Calvin no disservice to admit that he had weaknesses. He was physically frail and could be emotionally volatile. No one lamented his own weaknesses–physical and spiritual–more than himself. And no one understand general human weakness better than Calvin. The universe of Calvin’s thought was one where man was small and God was very big. He had no problem being thought of as dust, or a worm, or grass, because he knew that’s what he was compared to the infinite glory, splendor, and holiness of a sovereign God. In a culture like ours where everyone has their thing, their schtick, it’s worth remembering that Calvin’s thing was always the word of God and the glorious God he met there.

God’s promises are sure and his declarations are always right. Opinion polls will come and go. Focus groups can say what they want. Pundits will wax eloquent on everything under the sun. God’s word will still be true. The word is our compass pointing us in the right direction. It’s the North Star, fixed and firm. We may wander and waver, but the word will remain. It’s like a stately evergreen in a field of grass and tulips. The grass will get green. The tulips will have their day. But the evergreen alone will survive the winter. It will not be moved. Humans are weak, failing, and temporal. The word is strong, abiding, eternal.

This is one of the great paradoxes of life. We all want significance. We all want affirmation. We all want to leave a legacy. Some seek significance in work, some in performance, others in stuff, a lot of people in family. Yet, we all have a God-given sense that for all our bluster and bravado we are still grass. But we all want to bloom. So we pour our lives into degrees, and professional advancement, into ministry, and business, and houses, and kids. All the while, knowing deep down that life is fleeting and passing us by and we desperately need to take hold of something that is eternal.

This is the paradox of permanence. The only way our lives will ever touch that which is eternal is to admit that our lives are hopelessly temporal. John Oswalt in his commentary on Isaiah remarked, “If I insist I am permanent, then I become nothing; if I admit that God alone is permanent, then he breathes his permanence on me.” You want a legacy? You want to transcend your own meager existence? Let go of your vain supposed success and grab hold of the word of our God. “This is the one I esteem,” says the Lord, “he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word” (Isa. 66:2).

The truly significant people in this world know that God is everything and they’re nothing. Fads and fashions will rise and fall, but the word will keep on accomplishing its purposes. It will outlast us all. So let our reading, memorizing, catechizing, and preaching be saturated with the word. Let our songs, ministries and mission submit to the word. May all of our theological questions, relationship questions, family questions look to the word. May every new doctrine, new movement, new church, and new book be tested against the word. May all our living and dying be undertaken with the firm conviction that God is true though everyone were a liar (Rom. 3:4).

God's word is smarter, clearer, truer, and speaks to people's deepest needs more than you and I ever could. So try thinking a few less original thoughts and people just might find you relevant in 500 years. “A voice say, Cry out. And I said, What shall I cry? All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field. The grass withers and the flowers fall, because the breath of the Lord blows on them. Surely the people are grass. The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isa. 40:6-8).

]]>The African-American Church Experiencehttp://heraldblog.squarespace.com/kevin-deyoung/2009/6/24/the-african-american-church-experience.htmlKevin DeYoung2009-06-24T13:51:11ZLast Sunday night at our church, Eric Washington, Assistant Professor of African-American and African History at Calvin College, spoke to our congregation on "The African-American Church Experience". Eric and his family live in our area and attend our church often on Sunday evenings. They will be moving to Grand Rapids soon, so I asked if he would teach at our church before he left. I learned a lot from him on Sunday night. The lecture is definitely worth listening to.

Eric framed the discussion around the doctrine of providence. Without mitigating at all the discrimination and oppression African-Americans have endured at the hands of whites in this country, Eric nevertheless claimed that the story of the African-American church is the story of God’s providence. To that end, he began his talk with a quotation from Absalom Jones, the first African-American priest in the Episcopal Church. Jones, who pastored the African Episcopal Church of St. Thomas in Philadelphia, had this to say during a sermon on January 1, 1808, the day that marked the end of the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade in the United States:

There’s always been a mystery why the impartial Father of the human race should have permitted the transportation of so many millions of our fellow creatures to this country to endure all of the miseries of slavery. Perhaps his design was that a knowledge of the gospel might be acquired by some of their descendants in order that they might become qualified to be messengers of it to the land of their fathers.

Eric probes these themes of providence and suffering in more detail in his talk.

If my notes are correct, Eric’s outline looks like this:

I. Slavery and the Church
II. Independence Movements
III. Civil Rights Movement and Social Justice
IV. Concerns for the African-American church today
V. Signs of Hope in the African-American Church
VI. Lessons to be Learned

At the end of the Q/A, Eric mentioned several books for those who are interested in reading more about African-American Church History or reading good books by contemporary African-American Christians. I've read the last three books and highly recommend them. The first two books look interesting as well.

Albert Raboteau. African-American Religion.

Milton C. Sernett. African-American Religious History: A Documentary Witness.

Thabiti Anyabwile. The Decline of African American Theology: From Biblical Faith to Cultural Captivity.

Thabiti Anyabwile. The Faithful Preacher: Recapturing the Vision of Three Pioneering African-American Pastors.

Anthony Carter. On Being Black and Reformed: A New Perspective on the African-American Christian Experience.

Listen to the whole talk. Eric is a good scholar, a committed evangelical, reformed Christian, and an all around nice guy.

]]>What Else We Confesshttp://heraldblog.squarespace.com/kevin-deyoung/2009/6/15/what-else-we-confess.htmlKevin DeYoung2009-06-15T15:41:45ZSo the Belhar Confession passed the General Synod and is on its way to the Classes. It will have a harder time getting approved in 31 Classes than getting a majority at Synod, but I think it probably will make it. If that is the case, though I have my reservations with the Belhar, I will be thankful for the themes of unity, justice, and reconciliation and pray that they are understood and applied correctly.

I also hope that our confession of the Belhar will precipitate a more robust confession of our current Standards. If I’m talking to someone in the RCA who loves the Belhar, but is also passionately committed to the truths of the Belgic, Heidelberg, and Canons, and loves these truths and preaches them joyfully and earnestly, I feel much better than when I’m talking to someone who begrudging accepts out three Standards or barely knows what they say or deep down doesn’t believe much of what they affirm. I’m all for talking about unity, justice, and reconciliation, so long as we still talk about faith, repentance, providence, heaven, hell, the wrath of God, a penal substitutionary atonement, and the cross of Christ. If the RCA confesses Belhar, I hope we will also reaffirm what we may have forgotten from the Belgic, Heidelberg, and Canons.

I hope every RCA church will accept the Scriptures as holy and divine (BC 3), and “believe without a doubt all things contained in them” (BC 5)–every miracle, every demonic possession, every “I am” statement, every prophecy of Isaiah no matter how remarkable they may seem. I hope we will affirm that the teaching of the Scriptures is “perfect and complete in all respects” and no human writing, custom, council, decree, or majority opinion stands equal to the divine writings (BC 7). I hope we will have the guts to say we believe the Scriptures to be without error, and “reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree with this infallible rule” (BC 7).

I hope we will not lose our passion for the message of the gospel, even as we try to better live out the implications of the gospel. I hope the message of Christ’s wrath-sustaining, curse-bearing death for sinners will resound from every RCA pulpit (BC 20, 21). I hope we will trumpet the good news of Jesus Christ and his righteousness imputed to us through faith (BC 22). I hope we will help the hurting and care for the needy and also tell them that “our blessedness lies in the forgiveness of our sins because of Jesus Christ” and that “God grants this righteousness apart from works” (BC 23).

I hope that as we talk about the unity of the church, we will equally affirm that the church is to be “a holy congregation” (BC 27) and for the church to be the church it must engage in the pure preaching of the gospel, the pure administration of the sacraments, and practice church discipline (BC 29). I hope we will continue to believe that “our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant” (BC 34), and that we will practice what we profess to believe in this matter and in every other area of possible doctrinal slippage.

I hope that every ordained minister and professor of theology, and anyone who has taken a vow to uphold the Standards, will not only rejoice in the "gracious reward the Lord" will give the faithful and elect, a glory such as the heart of men could never imagine, but will also confess that the wicked and unbelieving “shall be made immortal–but only to be tormented in the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels”(BC 37).

I hope every RCA preacher will teach the absolute necessity of being born again (HC 8). I hope that the glorious logic of propitiation and penal substitution laid out in HC 12-19 will be understood, affirmed, gladly proclaimed, and sung at full voice in our churches and at General Synod. I hope we will find comfort in the truth that God does not merely allow hard things to come into our lives, but that all things–good and bad–come to us from his good, fatherly hand (HC 27).

I hope we will declare, winsomely and boldly, to a dying world that only through faith in Christ and subsequent union with him can anyone be saved (HC 20). I hope all the pastors in the RCA will teach their congregations to believe in the virgin birth (HC 35), justification by faith along (HC 60, 61), and the reality of eternal life and eternal condemnation (HC 84). I hope we will affirm that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but we will confess that “Those who, though called Christians, profess unchristian teachings or live unchristian lives, and after repeated and loving counsel refuse to abandon their errors and wickedness, and after being reported to the church, that is, to its officers, fail to respond also to their admonition–such persons the officers exclude from the Christian fellowship by withholding the sacraments from them, and God himself excludes from the kingdom of Christ” (HC 85). I hope every elder board, Classis, and regional synod really believes this and will practice what we confess to believe. I hope we will remember that Christ has commanded us to call God “our Father” and not “our Mother” (HC 120).

I hope we will not be embarrassed by the Canon’s teaching on election and reprobation, but we will see, as Paul did, the glory of God revealed in his sovereign, free choice. I hope we will not be ashamed of limited atonement and total depravity. I hope we will encourage our people with the good news of the preservation of the saints and preach the gospel to all nations, believing that God’s irresistible grace will be effectual in the elect. This is but a small sampling of the doctrinal, devotional, scriptural riches in our Standards. I hope from the bottom of my heart that everyone who has vowed their assent to the Standards embraces these truths and gladly declares them to others.

Our confessional heritage is as good any out there. Perhaps the practical outworkings of Belhar will make a great thing even better. I don’t know what will happen. Only time will tell. But I do know this: Belhar isn’t worth confessing if we don’t really confess the Standards we already have.

]]>Death By Dialoguehttp://heraldblog.squarespace.com/kevin-deyoung/2009/5/19/death-by-dialogue.htmlKevin DeYoung2009-05-19T02:20:29ZThe RCA has consistently affirmed that homosexual behavior is sinful. In 1978 the General Synod approved a paper entitled “Homosexuality: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal.” The paper was not perfect, but it did make statements like “Paul’s rejection of homosexual activity is beyond question” and “we cannot affirm homosexual behavior.”

In 1990 the General Synod adopted R-11: “To adopt as the position of the Reformed Church in America that the practicing homosexual lifestyle in contrary to scripture, while at the same time encouraging love and sensitivity towards such persons as fellow human beings.”

In 1995 the General Synod approved that a faithful summary of the RCA position on homosexuality includes, among other statements, that “Homosexual behavior is not God’s intended expression of sexuality.”

In 2004 the General Synod adopted R-92: “To affirm that marriage is properly defined as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.”

And in 2005, in an unprecedented trial before the whole General Synod, three charges were heard against a Minister/Professor of Theology who had performed a “wedding” ceremony for his lesbian daughter. The charges were upheld by a 2-1 margin and Synod voted to depose Rev. Dr. Kansfield as a Professor of Theology and suspend him as a Minister of Word and Sacrament.

But the issue of homosexuality in the RCA has not gone away. Following the 2005 General Synod, the denomination entered into a three year process of dialogue. In 2006 there was confusion and some consternation about who would provide supervision and pastoral care for Rev. Dr. Kansfield. In 2007 controversy erupted again when the woman chosen to preach three times at Synod was found to be an outspoken advocate of gay marriage. This June, the General Synod will gather for its annual meeting and get a report from the dialogue coordinator and steering committee.

The Conversation to Nowhere

In one sense the dialogue report doesn’t do much, at least not on an official level. But the longer we dialogue around an issue, the more legitimacy is given to both sides of the issue. The report bears this out. The report reads, in part:

The dialogue also worked in the sense that it revealed the great complexity of RCA members’ views on homosexuality. Widely scattered views emerged as the steering committee and coordinator listened to the ways in which RCA members talked about homosexuality and about their lives in the church. These many views were treated as “voices” within the RCA that are speaking, as it were, around a table, concerning homosexuality and church life.

Additionally, the dialogue succeeded in the sense that it equipped participants to engage each other more sensitively and charitably on future issues that may threaten to be divisive. A dialogue experience yields a set of skills that the church can use, perhaps primarily at the local-church level, whenever an emotionally loaded issue must be addressed.

In the matter of homosexuality, no consensus emerged among RCA members as a result of the dialogue program. Therefore no policy recommendations to the General Synod appear in this report. The church’s ability to handle its deliberations regarding homosexuality has improved, at least among those who participated in the dialogue’s events. This ability was among the purposes which the General Synod Council (GSC) specified when it authorized the program in 2005.

Notice how dialogue has served to undermine the frequently states position of the RCA. Several times over several years, the RCA has affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman. True, there is a sizeable minority that disagrees with this stance. But now through dialogue the majority opinion has been marginalized as just another voice at the table. The point of dialogue in mainline denominations is never to decide anything, but rather to share stories and “perspectives”. The process of dialogue predetermines its outcome. There will be no resolution, except the resolution not to resolve anything. The “can’t we all just get along” crowd always wins in this kind of dialogue.

Thus: “The dialogue coordinator and steering committee recommend that the General Synod postpone further policy deliberations regarding homosexuality and that the materials developed in this program be made available in appropriate form for future use by the church.” Several overtures to Synod this year urge a similar approach: to refrain from any legislative and policy decisions and instead to engage in further dialogue. Dialogue, the reports argues, “does not yield policy decisions—except in the instance in which a consensus emerges from the dialogue process.” And as you might imagine, “In the matter of homosexuality, no consensus emerged in the RCA as it engaged in the dialogue program.”

Here’s how it usually happens in mainline denominations: a biblical position regarding homosexuality is on the books, it gets reaffirmed several times even as opposition to it grows, the opposition party is not the majority but they are loud so everyone decides to talk things over for a few years, it is discovered (surprise!) that people don’t agree on the issue, then more dialogue, then those opposed to the official denominational position ask for tolerance or for everyone to “trust the system” of checks and balances, the “system” at the local level refuses to uphold the denominational position, more pleas for everyone to get along and not let this “secondary” issue divide us, more deviation from the official position, further dialogue, official tolerance for the unofficial position, conservatives are labeled as divisive, judgmental troublemakers, a call for denomination wide healing is made, followed by urgent pleas to move on to more important matters, and finally people move on feeling glad this “difficult chapter in our life together” is over, the official position–whether officially or unofficially–is no more.

Three’s a Crowd

What everyone needs to see is that there are three positions on homosexuality any given denomination can take: 1) Homosexual behavior is sinful. 2) Homosexual behavior is to be celebrated. 3) We can allow for both positions. Denominations never get to 2 except by going first to 3. If people in the RCA had to vote between 1 and 2, I'm convinced two-thirds would vote for 1. But what happens is that position 3 gets advertised as they sane, wise, loving, above-the-fray position perfectly positioned between two extremes. Conservatives lose their resolve, get tired of fighting, and get cow-towed into thinking “Maybe this doesn’t really matter. Maybe we should just get on with church planting. Why not keep talking about this for another three years?”

Postponing hard decisions always feels good, but it not always best. My hope and prayer is that the RCA will reject any recommendations for more dialogue and quickly (perhaps voting on something definitive at the next General Synod) give constitutional permanence and weight to the previous actions of Synod.

At the very least, I hope the RCA will stop hesitating among three opinions. If the denomination is to ever move on from this issue, a firm decision needs to be made. I say, make it soon and make it clear. Then give everyone grace to decide if the RCA still feels like home.

]]>Why I Can't (Quite) Support the Belhar Confessionhttp://heraldblog.squarespace.com/kevin-deyoung/2009/5/10/why-i-cant-quite-support-the-belhar-confession.htmlKevin DeYoung2009-05-10T19:59:07Z

I want to support the Belhar Confession. Like everyone else in the RCA, or virtually everyone, I think apartheid was evil, racism is wrong, and church unity is good. I like the idea of adopting a confession that comes from the Global South and may speak to non-whites in a way that our present confessions do not. I agree with most of the Belhar Confession, much of it simply a restatement of Scripture. I want to support Belhar—others I respect do. But in the end, I cannot.

First, there are a few lines that cannot be supported by Scripture. Here’s just one example: We believe that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged. To be sure, the Bible is full of examples of God’s heart for the poor and the oppressed. But it goes too far to say he is in a special way a God to them. The covenant promise—I will be your God and you will be my people (language Belhar echoes here)—is for those who put their faith in God, not simply those who are poor or oppressed. In fact, Abraham, the man of faith and the model for all covenantal blessing (Gal. 3:5-9), was especially rich (Gen. 13:5-6). Is God less of God to him than to the poor man who rejects Christ? Was God a God to Job, Zacchaeus, Mary and Martha in a less special way because they were well-to-do? There are plenty of verses to support the contention that God cares for the poor and oppressed, but are there any verses to suggest that he is their covenantal God apart from faith? Or any verses to suggest that God looks on the believing poor with more favor than the believing non-poor? God does not show partiality to the poor, nor does he defer to the great (Lev. 19:15).

Second, I am concerned about what it will mean to confess the Belhar Confession as a denomination. I understand that possible abuses of the confession should not be a knock against the confession itself, but adopting the Belhar Confession only makes sense if we are actually going to confess it together. Thus, it becomes important to listen to how others are already “confessing” the Belhar.

Those advocating the adoption of Belhar do not simply want us to affirm an anti-apartheid document. They are passionate about Belhar because of its many perceived implications. The Commission on Christian Action in 2007 lauded Belhar because it spoke to so many issues before them, including the farm bill, Sudanese refugees, the Iraq War, socially screening RCA retirement funds, immigration policy, minimum wage increases, and America’s embargo of Cuba. Others in the RCA have suggested that Belhar applies to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, global economics, green house gas emissions, abortion, social welfare, and taxation policies. For many in the RCA, Belhar’s talk of justice lends support for almost any cause that can be put in the broad category of “social justice.”

And for some, “social justice” includes the affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle. This concern cannot be dismissed as fear-mongering. Allen Boesak, under whose leadership Belhar was first drafted, recently made headlines when he “dramatically insisted that the church’s Belhar Confession demands the defense of the full rights of gay members. When the synod rejected this, he announced his intention to resign from all church offices and left the synod floor with his wife” (The Banner, January, 16). If the man responsible for overseeing the first draft of the Belhar Confession asserts that support for homosexual unions and homosexual ordination is demanded by the Confession, why should we think that this document will not be used in the RCA to a similar end.

I’m not opposed in principle to a new confession. But a new confession should clarify some issue that is begging for clarification. While there may be pockets of insensitivity regarding race in our denomination, I don’t see where we are facing anything remotely close to the situation that prompted Belhar in South Africa in the 1980s. We do not honor the anti-apartheid cause by equating our situation to theirs.

Instead of clarifying, Belhar confuses. We are told it will apply to social justice issues, but how? It will speak to our need for unity, but in what way? It will urge reconciliation, but with whom? At this point in the life of our denomination, Belhar looks to me like a wax nose, which is exactly what confessions ought not to be. The right confessional statement settles issues; it doesn’t raise them.

I want to support the Belhar Confession. Its main thesis—God’s people should not be separated by race or ethnicity—is courageous and correct. But the Confession goes beyond Scripture in a few important places. And further, those who are most eager to confess Belhar in our denomination are often confessing a very different document than the anti-racism confession many of us read it to be.

P.S. A few weeks ago Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, blogged about the unfortunate trajectory of his old friend, Allan Boesak (HT: Stephen Ley). Here's part of what Mouw said:

Boesak was also instrumental in drafting the 1986 Belhar Confession, which I welcomed at the time as an important confessional statement about race relationships. He now appeals to that document in support of his advocacy for gay-lesbian ordination. In a recent insightful blog posting, “The Belhar Confession & God’s Final Revelation, Violet Larson argues that this is a good reason to question the theological adequacy of the Belhar Confession, precisely because of the use to which it is being put these days by proponents of full inclusion on same-sex topics. I agree with her. While that document spoke forthrightly against the injustices of apartheid, it did not explicitly appeal to biblical authority. That it can now be seen by some of its drafters as capable of being extended to the full inclusion of active gays and lesbians in ministry says something about the weaknesses of Belhar—not as an important prophetic declaration in its original context, but as a statement that can stand on its own as a normative confession (emphasis mine).

]]>