The Problem with the PCA
They garnish the tombs of their forefathers... yet would excommunicate them if these revered men held their same views on race and sex in PCA presbyteries today
“I consider my same-sex attracted friend a hero,” said the Covenant College psychology professor in our first class of the semester. He continued with a tone of admiration, “Sure, my friend still struggles with same-sex attraction, but he married a woman, has children, and only occasionally cheats on her with other men.”
I wish I could say I was joking or exaggerating, but this is the essence of what that professor said to us, a half-dozen or so students. I raised my hand and disputed whether this was something praiseworthy in a man. The professor gave some non-answer, weakly acknowledging my point but emphasizing how his friend was a real victim who had to constantly labor to overcome a sinful struggle (same-sex attraction) that many of us will never know.
As I walked out of that class, one of the female students came up to me and thanked me for pushing back on the professor. She seemed as stunned as I was. I had already seen a lot that I didn’t like in the leadership and student body of Covenant College. This was 2009, and everything that would soon become known as “woke” was already present, indeed entrenched, at Covenant College, the college of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
This took place a decade before former PCA pastor Greg Johnson opened his article for Christianity Today with the words, “Bill, I’m Gay.”
Between those two events, probably in 2015 or so, I myself was removed from the status of being “under care” (that is, a candidate for the gospel ministry) of the Eastern Carolina Presbytery of the PCA. The official reason was for this blog post I had written, arguing against ministers preaching in jeans, especially skinny jeans. I was accused of pride, of violating the 20th chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith on Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience. Further, I was told I would have to repent of these things and work with these ministers in the presbytery (plenty of whom wore skinny jeans) for six or more months before they would reconsider bringing me under care. In short, I would have to be re-programmed to become just as effeminate and as metrosexual as they were in order to simply be brought under care. You could say that they wanted to “groom” me before accepting me.
Around that same time, North Carolina had made “same-sex marriages” legal. This was before the Obergefell ruling by the Supreme Court. At an Eastern Carolina Presbytery meeting, it was announced from the floor that there would be a discussion on how to “pastorally” deal with same-sex attracted individuals coming into our churches. Only our elders and a few others from another church raised any issue with this astonishing discussion during lunch. With close to twenty elders at the table, most all of them lamented how burdensome it was to deal with these issues. They largely agreed that it would even be permissible to allow same-sex couples, even married couples, into membership, provided they were being shepherded regarding their sinful relationship. But some even argued that it would be “unloving” to split up a same-sex couple if children were involved! It isn’t surprising they argued this way, as Greg Johnson would later come out and say there were other homosexual pastors and elders in the PCA who were not public:
I was about 25 years old at the time of the presbytery meeting. By God’s grace, I was also the first and nearly the only person to speak up against this wickedness. My church at the time had a follow-up meeting with some of the pastors from presbytery who studied the issue of homosexuality. One teaching elder said he had read about 60 books on the subject of homosexuality and same-sex attraction. I queried, “What do you think about Romans 1 on this matter, which clearly shows that same-sex attraction is a vile passion that is against nature, and is therefore particularly sinful?” He said something pandering like, “You know, that’s a good question, I haven’t really considered Romans 1 much, I’ll have to look into that.” So, your study committees can read 60 books on a topic, but the Holy Bible somehow is not even consulted, studied, or comprehended. Such men are not fit to be ministers, to say the least, yet the PCA has plenty of such ministers in their ranks.
And so, there are in fact good reasons why the younger generation of ministers and laymen are tired of being told to “shut up and listen to your seasoned fathers in the ministry.” What have these fathers in the ministry said or done about these matters? Precious little, except to tell those more zealous and aggressive for the truth to pipe down.
Over the last 15 years, I have voiced these issues to conservative ministers and even seminary professors within the Reformed and Presbyterian world. Early on, I received a lot of sympathy, was told that I was in one of the worst presbyteries, etc. But beyond that, I was basically on my own. There was no zeal to expose or decry these false shepherds, not even a willingness to privately call them wolves in sheep’s clothing. The 11th commandment (Thou shalt be nice) is not only in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), it is alive and well in the PCA, with the added arrogance of this is how you do things “decently and in order.” I suppose the Protestant Reformation itself was nothing but a decent and orderly affair, complete with bow-ties!
The problem in the PCA is that its conservatives hardly have a fighting bone in their body. Further, they leverage “Presbyterianism” as a badge of honor, and their revered courts as the only righteous way to deal with sin and compromise. This by definition eliminates as wicked and ungodly the voice crying out in the wilderness (or on the internet). The prophetic voice and polemical works are, somehow, not doing things “decently and in order.” And so, if the courts are compromised (and believe me, they are) there can never be a righteous remedy, except to keep trying to reform the courts with mildness. Never mind the fact that the openly liberal and progressive in the PCA go outside the courts all the time. This seems to be the so-called conservative logic in the PCA and other denominations of the North American Reformed and Presbyterian Churches (NAPARC) seems to be, “We won’t stoop to their level, and so at least we will fail to be watchmen with integrity and dignity intact.”
My family and I eventually became members of a different PCA church which belonged to the neighboring Presbytery, Central Carolina Presbytery, the same one which Rev. Kevin DeYoung is now in, and even in 2016, pastor and Seminary President Michael Kruger belonged to. My conservative and confessional PCA pastor at the time understood what I had faced in my previous presbytery, and he also winced at the issues I had faced at Covenant College. My 3.5 years under this minister were a breath of fresh air for me and my family. Nevertheless, my pastor initially tried to convince me to remain in the PCA and seek ordination in this presbytery. He believed I would have a better experience. So, I went to presbytery with him.
As the Lord would have it, presbytery was hosted at Rev. Howard Brown’s church, Christ Central, one of the few black-pastored churches in our presbytery (or in all of the PCA). The sermon was from Revelation 5:9-10. As you can imagine, Rev. Brown gave a white guilt “sermon,” angrily asking at one point, “Why is the PCA so white?” He pushed multi-racial churches, and basically condemned the predominantly white eldership present for failing to achieve such balanced ethnic quotas.
Prior to the sermon was a horrendous praise time, with Rev. Howard Brown’s wife leading the “praise and worship.” She is the same woman on staff of the much maligned Mission to North America (MNA) of the PCA (Howard is on staff there as well). She also infamously doubted the Trump assassination attempt in Butler was real, and others have noted she even argued it was possibly staged, evidently including the death of the man in the crowd at the rally, Corey Comperatore.
Anyway, the praise time at this presbytery meeting was rather sensual, with men and women lined up at mics, apparently meant to be a display of their racial diversity. In reality, it was just some blacks and whites singing old hymns to modern tunes and had the feel of being at a cabaret. I actually began filming the worship at the time on my cheap phone, because it was so unbelievable and irreverent. I distinctly recall there being about a 45 second guitar solo. All the white ministers were trying to boogie-woogie with the music, praised and “Amen”-ed Rev. Brown’s white guilt message against them, and either before or after the sermon, I recall Dr. Douglas F. Kelly himself speaking on the floor of presbytery to talk about some sort of fundraising or scholarship for black and minority ministers.
Needless to say, my pastor was dumbfounded and didn’t really have a case to make to try to convince me to seek ordination in the PCA any longer. He said it was the worst presbytery meeting he had ever attended. Just the same, nothing really happened. No stink was raised. No complaints, no protests—nothing, by anyone. The Reformed Theological Seminary professors and President were all on board with this, so what really can you do? That seems to be the mentality of many men who know what is happening is not right, yet feel helpless to do anything about it. Ligon Duncan is woke. Game over, unless you want to face the fangs of the actual woke “right.”
I would show things to my pastor, and sometimes he would relay them to the eldership, such as the horrible Truth’s Table podcast, which has wives of some black ministers in the PCA, OPC, etc., as hosts. My elders at the time were stunned and didn’t like it, but again did precious little about it. At one point, I was voicing many of my frustrations with the PCA online, and was promptly summoned in by these elders to explain why I was speaking so negatively about the denomination. I asked these elders what they were going to do to fight the rot and compromise. One elder finally pointed toward my pastor, the teaching elder, and basically said the pastor was going to keep attending presbytery. That was it. So they were willing and ready to rebuke me and call me in before them, but were not at all ready to go after the real rot and compromise in their own denomination, or even consistently attend the presbytery meetings!
This church has sadly since been roiled with division and a church split, and has gone through several ministers. Yet, by all accounts the church was (is?) one of the most conservative PCA churches in Central Carolina Presbytery, along with Rev. Andrew Webb’s church, which was still PCA at the time (As some readers will know, Rev. Webb and his church are now in the ARP, and he has been a champion of Rev. Benjamin Glaser’s statement on race that the ARP, RPCNA, and PCA have now all received).
Again, my church was a good local church, especially under the preaching and shepherding ministry of the pastor at the time. But the mentality was to “live and let live” in their presbytery and the denomination in general. If that is the mentality, it would be better to be an independent church than a connectional church, if you are not going to labor for faithfulness beyond your local church.
This shows us that the unwillingness to root out sin in the camp within the PCA (and NAPARC more generally), to truly fight for the faith, has metastasized to the point where little that is holy and wholesome remains to conserve. In fact, what even its most ostensibly conservative ministers are now conserving is largely the liberalism and progressivism of a few decades ago. For example, you are only allowed to tiptoe and whisper about sexual sin, about feminism, and about racial matters. You must be pastorally sensitive to the wicked spirit of the age and those caught in it, while pastorally ruthless toward those who are manfully decrying evil from the rooftops. No Elijahs allowed, but the prophets of Baal and those deceived by them must be handled ever so gently.
There are countless men and women who have had similar experiences to my own within the PCA and some of the other NAPARC denominations. This affects even the laymen who are zealous for truth. If they begin to publicly and aggressively speak against the ills within their denomination, even their conservative pastors and elders will urge them to be quiet, to soften their tone, etc. If they do not, some will face church discipline.
Some readers will recall the fiasco with the feminist Aimee Byrd. To this day, five years after the fact, many ministers and elders, particularly in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), still have their names plastered to Byrd’s personal website, expressing “concern” for zealous men being “mean” to her. Accusations include being misogynistic, coarse jesting, and more. The most the so-called mainstream conservative “ministers” in our Presbyterian and Reformed churches could muster against Byrd was Rev. Jonathan Master’s “Questions for Aimee” after her book Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was released. I myself did write a scathing 5-part rebuke of the whole thing on my blog: part 1 with links to the rest are here.
But, let’s grant for the sake of argument that a few things said in a Facebook Group, Genevan Commons, went over the line. Perhaps some of it was harsh and unkind toward Aimee Byrd. The reply to this should be, so what? Aimee Byrd was platformed for years as a regular member of the Mortification of Spin podcast, hosted by Todd Pruitt and Carl Trueman. While Pruitt served as the fall guy and issued a statement repenting of endorsing her book mentioned above, to my knowledge Carl Trueman has never acknowledged that any of his associations with Aimee Byrd were sinful or even unwise.
Trueman is still praised as a hero with the eyes to see the troubles—past, present, and future—in our nation. In November 2020, his The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self was published, praised by men like Rod Dreher (who wrote the foreword), Ben Shapiro, Rosaria Butterfield, and even Rev. Douglas Wilson. Funny enough, Carl Trueman is guilty of his book’s subtitle, “Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution.” Carl Trueman is set to speak at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in August this year on “Contemporary Challenges in Pastoral Ministry.” The President of GPTS is now none other than Jonathan Master, mentioned above. They all have the taint of Aimee Byrd in common, and the sexual revolution that she sought to usher in. These men evidently do not think platforming a woman as a theologian on a theology podcast is a problem in principle. They at most seem to think that Aimee Byrd just happened to “go bad.” Carl Trueman cannot see that he is a large part of the problem.
So, it is hard to see how our so-called conservative stalwarts differ one whit from J.D. Greear’s now infamous words that “God whispers about sexual sin.” He allegedly got that from Jen Wilkin, well-known to be an egalitarian feminist, who deflected and tried to say she somehow was channeling R.C. Sproul!
You will find in some of the more conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches books by women like Wilkin, and until recently, by Aimee Byrd. My wife and a few other women had to raise an issue with a women’s book study that was set to go through one of Wilkin’s books. Byrd’s books are likely still pushed and praised in the more progressive PCA churches. The sin of sexual egalitarianism deludes the minds of most of our ministers. It is no wonder, then, that the rampant racial egalitarianism we see today also escapes their notice. In fact, while conservative ministers will still admit that male and female is real, some are evidently unwilling to admit that race is real at all! That is, they deny that there are meaningful differences between nations or peoples of this world. No wonder globalism and Babel-ism have been tacitly supported in our denominations for so long, and scare terms like Kinism have been decried for decades!
The ARP statement, now supported by the PCA and RPCNA, professedly wishes to ward off a sinful partiality, ethnic vainglory, and wicked racism. Here is the statement in full:
That the 221st General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church do on this solemn day condemn without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics and does on this solemn evening call to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.
While pride and unjust hatred of others is indeed sin, distinguishing between male and female and between the tribes, tongues, and nations of the world most certainly is not. In fact, failure to distinguish rightly here is sinful, and destructive to man and woman, people and place. We must have properly ordered loves.
But the way the PCA in particular has latched onto the ARP statement and lumped it into discussions about Christian Nationalism shows that the root problem of the PCA and its ministers today is the sin of effeminacy. That is, our ministers are soft on the real sins and crimes plaguing our churches and nations today. When you expose this, they get catty and lash out at you instead. Christian Nationalism is manly, robust, and desires to see God’s law applied in our nation by its government. It believes that this nation belongs to its people, that is, actual Americans as understood at our founding (or at least favoring the heavily European slanted immigration quotas prior to the 1965 Hart-Celler Act), and not every foreigner under heaven. But the ARP/PCA/RPCNA statement is so muddled that it has even at least one man writing for The Aquila Report wondering if he has been condemned to hell by the 52nd PCA General Assembly.
In the PCA, there is a general lack of will and courage to expose and decry sin, for the sake of calling those committing them to repentance, and for the honor and glory of God above all. The “sins” that upset unbelievers today, such as recognizing differences between male and female, or inferior and superior qualities and characteristics between peoples and nations, is the only time strong denunciations come flooding in. Only then are the slow gears of Presbyterianism and doing things “decently and in order” seemingly thrown out the window!
A good word of caution, that I myself have issued, is to avoid over-correction and over-reaction. We know that the “cage-stage Calvinist” can do a lot of harm while intending to do good. He can say things like “God damns whom he wills, and there’s nothing you can do about it, behold his awesome glory and power!” and make that almost his gospel message. And, while that statement is technically true, it is tone deaf to the larger Christian culture today, and doesn’t actually call anyone to faith and repentance. Sometimes on matters of sex and race, relatively true statements are said in imperfect or exaggerated ways. The problem, however, is when the gatekeeping conservative and Reformed “confessionalists” start banging the heresy drum and imputing motives and beliefs that 99% do not hold to at all.
A plain example of this is Monergism’s articles on Kinism and Ethno-Nationalism. I do not ascribe to these terms or the definitions that Monergism gives to them, at least not altogether. There are those who do embrace these labels, and additional terms such as White Nationalism or even White Supremacy. And yet, the vast majority of those whom I have interactions with, online or in person, who are open to being described by some of these terms do not fit the definitions that Monergism gives.
Monergism describes Kinism as a “theological heresy” because it “denies the unity of all humanity….denies this shared human dignity and promotes division based on race, which is contrary to the biblical vision of humanity’s unity in creation and in Christ…rejection of the Gospel’s Universality…. Kinism opposes this by advocating for segregation and racial exclusion…..twisting of Scripture,” etc.
The article concludes:
Kinism is a modern heresy that distorts the biblical teachings on the unity of humanity, reconciliation in Christ, and the universality of the gospel. It falsely claims that racial separation and ethnic homogeneity are God's design, promoting segregation and exclusion in contradiction to the clear teaching of Scripture. The historic Christian orthodox view rejects Kinism, affirming that all people are created in the image of God, that the gospel is for all nations and peoples, and that the church is to be a multiethnic, unified body in Christ. Though Kinism has emerged in fringe groups and continues to influence some white nationalist and neo-Confederate movements, it stands in direct opposition to the core message of the gospel, which brings unity and reconciliation through Christ for all people, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Note the parts in bold. How is Monergism any different from Howard Brown’s woke, white guilt presbytery sermon? Do you see how the progressives and the so-called conservatives are just a uniparty in the PCA, particularly on matters of sex and race, and as we shall see with ethno-nationalism, regarding what a nation is?
For the record, I have yet to meet a self-professing Kinist who denies that all people are created in God’s image. At least one NAPARC minister has called Bret McAtee the “Godfather” of modern Kinism, and yet I have seen McAtee go out of his way to speak against those who hold to what is evidently called “dual/two seed” theology, which to my understanding would deny that all mankind are made in God’s image. While I think some Kinists hold too strictly to the principle of separation in the name and laudable goal of upholding the distinctions between tribes, tongues, and nations, they are in fact the ones who believe God has a people from each tribe, tongue, and nation, and that it is good to preserve these nations and peoples intact! The only way to achieve multi-ethnic churches in each nation is to flood nations with other nationalities, to return to Babel, which is confusion and destructive, as all the tribes, tongues, and nations would be blended together.
It is true that Kinists typically hold pretty strict lines against interracial marriage. And yet, you have this testimony about the generosity of Kinists toward those who are in interracial marriages, compared to those on the other side of the issue who are lighting their hair on fire:
Going back to Monergism’s article on Kinism, it is clear that the article confuses spiritual unity in Christ with a physical or natural unity between races. My African or Japanese brothers and sisters in Christ are indeed my brothers and sisters in Christ. We are born again by the same Spirit, with the same baptism, and are part of the one body of Jesus Christ. But I am not thereby African or Japanese, and they are not thereby American. Language and cultural barriers are not suddenly dissolved either. Further, the Lord has not purposed that the Gospel would dissolve or tear down natural differences or national boundaries. Spiritual differences and deadness in sin is removed for those in Christ, such that we are redeemed, made Spiritually alive together to serve God in Christ by his Word and Spirit. And yet, just as in one particular local church its members remain divided up or “segregated” into their particular households and families, so too, the one body and Church of Christ is still divided up into various tribes, tongues, and nations. Such separations and divisions are not sinful, nor are they meant to be “overcome.”
Monergism treats “ethno-nationalism” as more of a political movement, and perhaps as the political counterpart to the Kinist theological teaching. I was told by Rev. Andrew Webb of the ARP (formerly PCA), that if I did not denounce Stephen Wolfe’s ethno-nationalism, he wouldn’t transfer membership from his church to mine. For him, this was a matter that touched the vitals of true religion, to the gospel itself!
Note: since first writing this article, Rev. Webb has now seemingly backtracked on how “dangerous” he regards Stephen Wolfe’s teachings in his book The Case for Christian Nationalism, as pictured below:
Monergism actually claims that America is an example of “civic nationalism…rooted in the ideals of the Bill of Rights, constitutionalism, separation of powers, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government” and therefore “values loyalty to the principles of the republic over cultural or ethnic ties, promoting a form of national identity that includes people from diverse backgrounds who are united by shared ideals.” It then decries ethno-nationalism as being rooted in shared ethnicity, “sometimes at the expense of minority populations or immigrants.” Ultimately, Monergism treats ethno-nationalism as unbiblical, a sort of political heresy, saying in part:
Ethno-nationalism is a worldview that reduces individuals to their ethnic or cultural identity, fostering division and suspicion rather than unity. It promotes a false sense of peace through homogeneity, neglecting humanity’s deepest need for reconciliation with God. Christianity, by contrast, affirms the worth of all people, calls believers to love and serve others regardless of ethnicity, and provides the foundation for true unity in Christ. By offering redemption, purpose, and peace that transcend cultural and ethnic lines, Christianity presents the only worldview that fully addresses humanity’s longings for identity, community, and reconciliation.
With definitions like this, why even have borders! Borders are bigoted! Border walls are bigot walls, and if you support them, then you deny the image of God in foreigners, and you deny to them their highest need of salvation in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior! So border walls are not only bigot walls, but walls barring everyone from the gates of heaven.
This is the level of stupidity and nonsense (taken to its logical conclusion) that even Monergism is pumping out on these matters. Now, is there ever any stupidity or nonsense on the other side? Sure. But the weight is all in one direction, and our churches and nation all err in the direction of egalitarianism and the dissolving of nations.
The PCA harbors and tolerates progressive egalitarians. Most of their so called confessionalists and conservatives are progressive egalitarians, they just don’t realize it. They all will decry anyone who really believes in masculinity and male headship, or who believes that our nation was founded and secured for White Anglo-Saxon Protestants in particular, as misogynists, bigots, racists, supremacists, Kinists, and all the rest. Some (the progressives) just start labeling you this sooner than others. The import of these scare words is to say that you have denied the faith and are worse than an unbeliever.
Funny enough, the passage of Scripture that states this condemnation actually upholds natural affection and properly prioritized loves, which include your own flesh and blood kin/household: 1 Timothy 5:8, “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
Yet Scripture also says to do good to the Spiritual household, Galatians 6:10, “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.”
The 1 Timothy 5 passage is speaking of honoring widows, and of children and grandchildren showing piety to repay their parents. The Galatians 6 passage is speaking to our duties to help fellow Christians. There is the flesh and blood household of our kin, especially our own household which we should provide for, and then there is the Spiritual household of the Church of God, and we must especially do good in the local church to which we belong. The Monergism articles, and many PCA pastors today, even the allegedly confessional ones, want to merge these two households together, or say that the household of faith makes null and void duties to our own household. This is what the wicked Pharisees and scribes did, according to Jesus in Mark 7:9–13: he describes it as a violation of the fifth commandment. Further, Paul had a burden for his kinsman according to the flesh, his fellow Jews/Israelites, Romans 9:3. We see, therefore, that we should have a special and concentrated love for our fellow Americans. Likewise, the Japanese people ought to have a special love and bond and care for their fellow Japanese people. This is natural and common sense, not hatred and denial of the Gospel! Of course, this will mean we do in fact show partiality or favoritism to our own. But not all partiality or favoritism is sinful. Don’t you love your own wife and children more than other men’s wives and children, even those in your own church? If not, examine yourself to see if you are truly in the faith.
The one-sided emphasis of many Reformed ministers saying that “this world is not our home” or that we are just “strangers” passing through earth yields a life of few duties to one another here on earth. Worst of all are those who seem to be giddy to embrace a so-called “exile” theology. This is like a Reformed imitation of Dispensational “we lose down here and our only hope is to be raptured away” theology.
Regardless if we are more “optimistic” or “pessimistic” regarding how many will be saved in the end, our duties to live for God and His glory, to see His law upheld in the civil sphere, and to help His true and pure Gospel be proclaimed in the Church in all the earth, remains unchanged. But the PCA and other NAPARC denominations have turned the Gospel into a dissolvent that erases or minimizes distinctions between male and female, superiors (masters) and inferiors (servants), and peoples and places. Galatians 3:28 is one of the most abused and misunderstood passages in our Reformed and Evangelical churches today.
No matter your race or nationality, your station, class, or rank among men, or your gender, all who are redeemed by the blood of Christ and brought into his kingdom of grace are one in him. That is, all are part of the body of Christ. Indeed, some who are last are first, and some who are first are last. Meaning, someone could excel spiritually as a slave or servant or home-making wife and mother in this life, or one could live a faithful and godly life as a native in a weak and wicked third-world country, and yet by God’s grace devote himself to the Lord so diligently that his righteousness pleases the Lord no less than that of a king of a Christian nation.
Even here, we must admit that some are given various amounts of “talents” based on their ability, as Christ’s parable states. But as 1 John 1:1–7 says, our fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, along with the joy that we have in him, is not inferior to that which the Apostles themselves had. Indeed, through the Gospel, our fellowship is with the Lord and with the Apostles, not in a subordinate or second-class position, but as equals. Jesus’ parable in Matthew 20 of the workers in the vineyard receiving equal pay for less or unequal work is also instructive here.
So there is equality, yet we also know Scripture teaches greater and lesser rewards in glory based on how we live for the Lord in this life. That doesn’t ruin the fellowship that we have with one another, even in glory. How much less should recognizing and righteously maintaining the distinctions between male and female, masters and servants, races and their places not ruin our joy and fellowship with God and one another? This does not mean hating or despising the weaker sex, the servant under authority, or the inferior nation, but helping them to flourish in their place and rank and calling, as God would have all of us to do. And just as we can most help (and are most called by God to help) our own flesh and blood family and household, and our own local church to which we belong as members, so we are most called to seek the good and welfare of the city that we actually live in (Jeremiah 29:7), not the cities and communities, much less nations, beyond our own. Sending missionaries and doing other international work are good, necessary, and righteous, but they are the rare exception, as it should be, and not the rule.
Until the PCA and other NAPARC denominations can make these distinctions again without anathematizing and calling others heretics who simply notice reality, we will continue to have weak churches, weak families, weak nations, and a weak will to call out the compromise. But, today is the day of repentance for each of us! The Lord is gracious and will bless true repentance and its fruit, and will use us for good if we are willing to face and embrace reality and serve the Lord as he has called us to do.
But the problem with the PCA is that they do not recognize they are the problem. They praise their presbyteries, general assemblies, and the orderly, gradual progress they think they are making. They garnish the tombs of their forefathers (Matt. 23:29-36), men such as Edwards, Dabney, Thornwell, or even Hodge, yet would excommunicate them if these revered men held their same views on race and sex in PCA presbyteries today. The PCA does not recognize their drift and lukewarmness, that they persecute those who are more zealous for the true faith, and therefore they are in danger of the Lord’s judgment. May God truly bless the PCA, and NAPARC more generally, with bold and godly men—pastors, elders, and laymen, who contend for the true faith once for all delivered to the saints, who have no fear of man but embrace what persecution comes their way as a badge of God graciously honoring them and building his kingdom through them.
ATTENTION READER: We need your help.
Institutional trust is at record lows. But without institutions, we cannot renew our people, much less provide an inheritance to posterity. In response to this crisis and as an organic outgrowth both of necessity and natural interest, American Mantle exists, not only as a publication for Protestant, right-wing material, but also as a human project with real-world costs. And so we make our appeal: do you profit from the content? do you want to see more? would you like to support us?
Donate to the Cause. Help us reach our monthly goal in order to solidify this crucial institution.
