The “Open Letter” writers complain about scare tactics in the run-up to GA.
Observing and reporting on what Revoice is actually saying is not a scare tactic. To wit: “Why We Need Gay Christians” by a leader in the Revoice movement. For more on this topic see the resource page on LGBTQ/Revoice linked below (HT: Presbycast).
Resources
- How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- How to support Heidelmedia: use the donate button below this post.
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008).
- Discovering The Reformed Confession
- Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
- Resources On LGBTQ And Revoice
It’s discouraging enough to witness the actions of the National Partnership of the PCA advocate for ordination of SSA/Side “B” candidates. Unfortunately it appears that there are real problems among commissioners that appear be on the side of the confessionalists. Today on the Aquila Report they published a letter entitled “A First-Time Commissioner on SSA and CRT at the PCA General Assembly”. https://www.theaquilareport.com/a-first-time-commissioner-on-ssa-and-crt-at-the-pca-general-assembly/ I was encouraged as I began to read his letter until I read this statement: “But to be clear, SSA alone should not disqualify a man from holding ordained office.” Has SSA become so mainstreamed that even a RE who opposes Revoice would see no harm in ordaining a SSA candidate?
I could be wrong, but I read it that just because someone ‘admits’ to having these desires, as long as he acknowledges them as sin and is mortifying this sin, that is not disqualifying. It is the ‘acceptance’ of these desires as immutable, and then identifying with them rather than opposing them, that makes them disqualifying.
Hi Randall: Candidates for ordination as church officers are held to higher biblical standards to qualify for consideration. While all who are ordained struggle with sin, the bright line is a struggle with *unnatural* sins which are more heinous. There is abundant room at the Cross for those with such struggles. However, they have no right to be an ordained church leader. There are overtures before the PCA GA which would forbid presbyteries from ordaining those who admit such sin. I’m not confident that they will pass but I am confident that they are right.
The five reasons to use the phrase ‘gay Christian’ presented by the writer seem nothing more than an exercise in begging the question. The ‘pastoral’ must always flow from the ‘theological’, no? So, in my view, it’s imperative to first make the theological case for one to identify as a ‘gay Christian’ before going to the next step. It seems to me that the writer advocates for using the identifier in question as the only or best way to pastorally address the presented five situations because ‘gay Christian’ as a category is assumed to be a biblical or theological reality.
Let’s take Sun Tzu’s advice and understand our adversary. How does the Left play this game?