New Warhorn Media post by Tim Bayly:
Read here a response I wrote to Revoice’s arguments about the lack of inclusivity of Christians tempted to homosexual sin in the Church and some suspicious strawman arguments masquerading as exhortations to Christian discipline.
Hello
My name is Daniel Conway and I have recently become aware of the growing potential schism over the “Revoice” correction, as it styles itself, and it may be, in the PCA. I went first to the reactionary page and found some fairly George Willian argumentation to the effect that “If these guys are your leaders then your movement can’t possibly have sustainable legitimacy. Any real advocates for Godly reform need to get out now.” I didn’t find it very refreshing, there is some merit (I maintain) to the ad homenim attack but it generally occurs after personalities have been exchanged and opinions are set. Of course, they included enough of a reference to your positions to find the web resources amenable to your cause, so I read what you had to say. I found much of what was written here commendable but in a “tired old popcorn” sort of way. There was one two sentence element that was overtly beautiful which I will highlight, but there was some that was overtly wrong and some that was so subtly in the “Here is Christ’s standard now go meet it” that I began to wonder if there was a cruelly clever bait and switch going on. Regardless, I am not going public with my criticisms just now but reserve the intellectual property rights to this question missive to publish elsewhere if I choose.
Beginning. On “Sexual Ethics & Christian Obedience” The first Paragraph is classic Christian Sexual Orthodoxy, none the worse for being repeated. The second Paragraph continues in this vein until it reads that the Church enjoys “unique opportunities to extend welcome and hospitality so that all might partake in the joys, benefits, and responsibilities of kinship.” No. It doesn’t. We are to be loving to all that will accept it in our community, but many WILL NOT, and they are to be denied the “joys, benefits, and responsibilities of kinship.” We are to extend the right hand of fellowship to the reprobate, but that is as far as we are to go. "Do not be yoked with unbelievers, what has Christ in common with Beliel?”
“Relationships and Christian Community”. The first paragraph is popcorn acceptable, The second is PERILOUS. It overtly maintains that the Godly goal of Holy Spirit enabled fellowship among believers is predicated upon the following; vis that “Christians must actively resist and turn away from every thought, action, desire, or behavior that does not align with God’s revealed intentions for human sexuality, since we are not our own, but belong—body and soul, both in life and in death—to our faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.” Who wrote this, Pelagius? Are you setting up well meaning “bridgers” for failure that will cause them to fall into your camp? I have seen this sort of diabolical tactic employed (yes, I know Machiavelli) and I can’t help but have my suspicions. Jesus, here’s more… " all Christian conduct should be blameless and above reproach for the sake of genuine sanctification and a compelling Christian witness.”
Now, onto “Public Posture and Christian Witness”. Popcorn, right up until Lament. This is beautiful, and I will reprint it here just for the sake of seeing in repeated. “We believe that human finitude limits all attempts to understand the complexity of God’s world, and that indwelling sin taints every effort to apply the gospel of Christ to its many and varied challenges. Lament toward God on account of sin, evil, and brokenness in ourselves, the Church, and the world, is an essential mark of faithful Christian witness.” “Public Life and Justice”: Yeah, and the sun comes up in the East and sets in the west. But THIS “Many of these men and women never experience the Life offered in the gospel and will die before encountering any Christian who loves them in the way of Jesus. We lament this.” I don’t know who you are or under what spirit you wrote this, but you had NO Goddam right to. Nobody goes to Hell for ANY sin but their own. “Christian Ministry and Discipleship” Might be true, might not be. I can’t see how the potential behavior lamented here contribute much to the thesis, but I’ll look at it again.
“Doctrinal Practice and Culture” A lot of truth here in the first few sentences, but pretty non-sequieter in light of what I noted about absolute obedience. Or is this the other shoe I hear dropping… “Family and Belonging”. I have addressed the error or overbroad encompassing of congregants in kinship already. “Hope”, “Salvation by Grace” and “Union with Christ” are all popcorn, except the bit where those “drawn in on the margins of community of faith” are assigned “unique” honor and status in the church. Equivalent honor and status please. “Life in the Spirit” is a nice way to cap it."
What? Pls post so that people can read this. Thanks.
I fixed it up a bit. Haven’t read it yet.
Dear brother, you make no sense. The problem is, you are sure of yourself, but shouldn’t be. May I suggest you be quiet? Thank you,