Clearing Out the Fog

June 25, 2021 at 3:54 pm (Uncategorized)
Tags: , , , , , , ,

TE Reed DePace

Some months ago, I realized I was going to have to come to some conclusions about the nature of same sex attraction (SSA) and its interaction with the question of ordination in the Presbyterian Church in America. Up to that point, I had sought to stay on top of the wide variety of conversation on relevant topics. From social media chat, to blog posts, to online magazine articles, to podcasts, to private digital conversations, I made time to delve deeply into this topic. My calling as a pastor and a presbyter demanded this of me.

And, some months ago I acknowledged to myself that I was hopelessly in a fog about all this. One brother from one side makes a credible challenge. Someone from the other side offers a credible response. The former gives a valid pushback I hadn’t considered. Chalk up another “who’s right/who’s wrong” moment. Tally up months and months of exchanges, pro and con, for and against, yea and nay, and I think many can appreciate my fog imagery in these events and subjects.

About a month ago, in preparation for our forty-eighth general assembly, I determined to try and boil things down into a set of vital issues to be addressed. While neither exhaustive nor exclusive, these are:

  • Is there credible information validating TE Johnson’s orthodoxy on the issues before us?
  • Is a man with an ongoing struggle with SSA ordainable to office within the PCA?

It seems to me that these are the crux of the matters before us. Thus, if I was going to be able to navigate the churning fog of these issues to safely land on the biblical runway, answering these was essential.

On the first question, with sadness, my conclusion is a no.

To be sure, TE Johnson expresses a noble missional focus: to bring the gospel to a community at best ignored by the (evangelical) church, and at worst (often) stigmatized by Christ’s Bride. To this, I affirm with a willingness to invest some of my ministry in the same missional focus.

Also to be sure, TE Johnson expresses an understandable commitment to the need for contextualizing his gospel witness to this community. Again, while there is no common ground between God and the sinner, there is common ground between we saint-sinners and the LGBTQ-sinners we’ve been sent to reach. Of course, some contextualizing is a necessary part of our apologetic introduction to them. Even if this means nothing more than entering into deeds of love that “earn” trust within this suffering community, this is entirely understandable, and indeed, biblically sound.

Yet it is here that I’ve (again, sadly!) concluded that there is not sufficient credible information validate TE Johnson’s orthodoxy on the issues before us. Without seeking to prove these observations (since I expect these are rather common amongst many of us): TE Johnson’s contextualization involves adopting critical parts of the metanarrative (the worldview) of the Side-B community. To be specific, TE Johnson clearly and succinctly agrees that the Side-A position (SSA men/women identifying as Christians may engage in homosexual acts in the context of homosexual marriage) is biblically condemned. Yet in seeking to minister to those affirming the Side-B position (SSA men/women identifying as Christians engaging in celibacy), TE Johnson all too frequently adopts the words, the language, and even the dialogical constructs used by those in this community. That is, he adopts the hermeneutic of Side-B.These words, language, and constructs are at times sub-biblical, and at other times contra-biblical.

To be sure, over the years since these issues arose (circa 2018) TE Johnson has offered clarifying language to us inside his doctrinal camp. And most often, sometimes after a bit more questioning for clarity, he has offered expressions that are biblically sound.

Yet then, in another venue, speaking to those outside his doctrinal camp, TE Johnson will yet again offer contextualized expressions that fit with Side-B sub/contra-biblical positions! This pattern has been repeated again, and again, and…

It is not unreasonable for me to ask, “Wait a minute, that contradicts your previously clarification of what you first said that contradicted our biblical convictions. What gives?” It is not reasonable for TE Johnson (or those who defend him) to respond with: “See my prior answer; asked-answered, nothing new here, move on now, drop it.” To be sure, I’ve grown increasingly grateful for what I see as growing gracefulness in TE Johnson’s response to his interlocutors. Yet, my hope for unity then gets smacked in the face when I hear of yet another interview/comment, etc. in which he once again offers contradictory comments. It is entirely reasonable for someone to ask, “Since he continues to offer confusing and contradictory information, what, then, are TE Johnson’s real beliefs on these issues?”

Yet, seeking to cut through the fog, I’ve concluded that I simply do not have the time, resources, and maybe even the ability, to adequately answer such questions. Thus, following the precepts of assuming the best of a brother (1Co 13:4-7), I’ve chosen to conclude the best in these circumstances: TE Johnson is most likely confused on how to apply our doctrinal standards to his apologetic to the Side-B community. Whether this is due to a defective understanding of biblical contextualization (my sense), or something else, does not matter. A TE is called to speak with clarity, not be a fog machine. (To be sure, I’m not suggesting I’d do any better; but then, I’ve not sought to engage at the level TE Johnson has.)

Let me be clear: my answer to this first question does not resolve to saying TE Johnson does not have a credible faith, or even that he is not orthodox on these issues. Rather my conclusion simply states that his lack of clarity, based on this repeated pattern, yields a fog making it impossible to validate his orthodoxy on these things.

That leaves me with the second question: is a man struggling with SSA ordainable? My answer is a qualified no.

My answer revolves around the issues of what does it mean to be above reproach, and the issue of what the Bible describes as sexual immorality contrary to nature (i.e., “unnatural” desire, Jude 1:7; Rom 1:26-27). Rather than repeat myself, I’ll let my words at this prior post offer more explanation. Suffice to say here, a man affirming that he has an ongoing struggle with same sex attraction (homoerotic desire as suggested by a fellow TE supporting TE Johnson), is NOT above reproach, and therefore not ordainable.

How this applies to the situation of TE Johnson is still in the fog for me. As implied above (necessarily inferred by me), I think TE Johnson might not be as he presents himself to those outside the PCA, as a man who is in effect a “gay” Christian as they are, i.e., someone firmly in the Side-B camp. It may very well be that TE Johnson is better described according to the past tense language of 1Co 6:11 (in the context of 1Co 6:9-10). Yet, as long as he continues to adopt the Side-B hermeneutic in his apologetics, it is unclear (i.e., the fog machine issue) whether he has experienced the degree of mortification that would make him above reproach.

To simplify here: a man with SSA in his life is ordainable depending on whether a present tense or a past tense applies to this issue in his life. If a man demonstrates that his struggle with SSA is past tense, then he has experienced the mortification that makes him above reproach on this issue. If however, this man demonstrates that SSA is a present struggle for him, then mortification has not yet qualified him as above reporach on this issue.

I get my expressions here may be frustrating to some, even on both sides of these issues. Yet my purpose has been to help any I might to the degree they too feel like they’re in a fog on these issues. With malice toward none, mercy and grace toward all, may God grant the PCA purity and peace on these issues.

reed depace

4 Comments

A New Baggins?

June 23, 2021 at 6:17 pm (Blogroll)

She prefers “Galadriel” to Baggins, but you can follow my daughter Ila’s new blog over at Galadriel’s Musings.

Leave a Comment

The Incarnate Son Obeyed the Father by the Spirit

June 19, 2021 at 12:15 pm (Christology, Holy Spirit, Jesus)

Posted by R. Fowler White

A friend emailed me recently to ask what I had meant when I wrote in a note that “the incarnate Son obeyed the Father by the Spirit.” So I offered the following explanation. It was a help to my friend, so maybe it’ll help somebody else too. Here goes …

God the Son became incarnate—took to Himself human nature—by the powerful work of God the Spirit. Conceived by the Spirit, the Son was born and lived full of the Spirit, anointed with the Spirit, empowered and equipped by the Spirit for the tasks He came to do.

He appeared before John the Baptist for baptism in the Jordan and was there identified as the Son by the Father’s words and by the Spirit’s descent upon Him (Luke 3). Full of the Spirit, He went on to stand His probation against the temptations of the devil in the Wilderness (Luke 4). Emerging from His probation, He introduced Himself in the synagogue at Nazareth as that Son of David who is first and foremost the Anointed One, “the man of the Spirit” (Luke 4). He proclaimed His empowerment for His mission, and His power was not merely because of His Davidic lineage. His power was in His anointing with the Spirit of the Lord, described in three pairs of attributes by the prophet Isaiah (Isa 11; Luke 4).

From the prophet, we learn that on Him rested the Spirit of wisdom and understanding for holy nation building and for governing, for discerning true from false, good from evil, right from wrong. Not fooled by appearances, He treated the socially marginalized and vulnerable with dignity and equity—and He punished the wicked. Moreover, on Him rested the Spirit of counsel and might for planning and carrying out holy warfare. Wonderful Counselor and mighty God that He is (Isa 9), He was empowered by the Spirit to destroy the wisdom of the wise and to thwart the discernment of the discerning (Isa 29; 1 Cor 1). Furthermore, on Him rested the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord for living a right and holy life with and before His God and Father, whose Person, work, will, and ways He knew so well. With all these attributes, Jesus introduced Himself as perfectly and permanently “the man of the Spirit,” the ideal King, who is delighted to live His life before God with affection and reverence for Him and who rules as the Anointed One because He is equipped by the Spirit with moral integrity and steadfast loyalty. In Him, by the Spirit, are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. The incarnate Son, then, had the sevenfold anointing with the Spirit, the fulness of the Spirit.

Endowed with the Spirit, we also see the incarnate Son going about in the Gospels waging His spiritual warfare with weapons of the Spirit. Baptized, tested, and introduced for public ministry, He entered into spiritual combat with those who occupied the Land. He engaged in battle with the rulers and powers, with the worldly forces of darkness, with those who are of the world, the flesh, and the devil. In the Land He went about delivering sinners through faith from all manner of illness, from disease and pains of body (Matt 4; Acts 10), so that they might learn that He also has the power to save them from the bondage of their sins (Mark 2; Luke 5). He found “lost sheep” in the state of sin and death, in the domain of Satan’s darkness, and He called them to repentance and faith in Himself alone. He delivered them from their sins by the Spirit and the Word to the kingdom of His marvelous light. Then, in His death, through the eternal Spirit, He offered Himself without blemish to God (Heb 9). Having done His Father’s will in life and in death, He was designated the Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead (Rom 1). Enthroned in heaven, Christ now reigns, in and with the power of the Spirit, as Ruler of the nations, commanding sinners everywhere to repent and believe in Him as their only hope of salvation from the wrath to come (Acts 17).

Summing up, the incarnate Son was endowed with the Spirit to obey the Father, and by His obedience through the Spirit, He satisfied all the righteous requirements of God’s law and is now the source of eternal salvation to all who repent and believe His gospel.

Leave a Comment

Unity in Psalm 133

June 17, 2021 at 11:58 am (OT-Psalms)

Psalm 133 is very often quoted or sung in presbytery and general assembly meetings in the PCA and OPC. Rightfully so. It makes unity look very attractive indeed. However, whether the psalm is always rightly understood (in terms of how this unity comes about) may be doubted.

Two images serve to make unity attractive. The proprietary anointing oil coming down on Aaron’s beard, and the dew of Mount Hermon coming down to Zion (quite a ways from Mount Hermon, incidentally!) have one thing in common: both the oil and the dew come down, a fact noted by several commentators. It is not too much of a stretch to see a sort of geographical irony here, in that a psalm of ascent has something coming down.

More theologically, however, something coming down in this manner, particularly the dew of Mount Hermon, points to God’s grace. This unity is not so much an achievement, as it is a gift (see Kidner’s commentary, 134). All too often, unity is preached as law, not as gospel, as something which we achieve with little or no reference to God’s grace at all. Even when we pray for unity, our thoughts often run more along the lines of God’s simple enabling, rather than God’s grace actually accomplishing the unity.

The unity in question is a powerful one. If the dew of Mount Hermon (which is located in the far north of Israel) has repercussions for Zion, in the south, the implications have to do with the north-south tension already in evidence in David’s day. If this is a psalm of David, then the north-south tensions were already a matter for prayer. All the more so later on, when the two kingdoms split, but people still sang this psalm when they went up to Jerusalem for the feasts.

In Christ’s person and work, the potential for a unifying truth in the gospel has become a reality. Paul takes the widest sociological gaps he can think of (race, class, and sex) and claims that the gospel of Jesus Christ transcends those natural barriers. Notice something important about Paul’s claim. It is a unity built on the truth of the gospel, not a unity for unity’s own sake. The latter would be something that has no foundation and is inherently unstable. Contrary to the CWAGA folks (“Can’t We All Get Along?”), the prophets say, “How can two walk together unless they are agreed?” (Amos 3:3). Truth unifies. It does not divide. Modern Christianity needs to be reminded of this simple fact. Perhaps more unity could actually be achieved if these things could be remembered. Then we would pray for God to do it, to change our hearts towards the truth and towards those with whom we disagree. We need to pray for a unity based on truth.

Leave a Comment

When Did Saul Meet David?

June 8, 2021 at 6:04 pm (Apologetics, OT-Samuel)

It is a commonplace in liberal biblical scholarship to claim a contradiction between 1 Samuel 16:14-23 and 1 Samuel 17:55-58. The nature of the alleged contradiction lies in what Saul knew and when. In 16:19, Saul sends a messenger to Jesse, after he has been told about Jesse’s son by the young man of verse 18. The messenger tells Jesse to send David (“your son”) to Saul for purposes of musical distraction. In chapter 16, therefore, Saul knows whose son David is. In the very next chapter, however, Saul seems not to know this information. In 17:55 and following, Saul asks Abner about David’s parentage (Abner doesn’t know). Saul then finds out from David himself that David is the son of Jesse. So, which is it? Did Saul not find out in 16 about David’s father? Or are there other possibilities?

The first thing that must be said is that the author (or, to go momentarily on the liberal turf, the redactor) most likely already knew about this issue. Ancient authors weren’t quite as stupid as some modern scholars tend to think they were! How do we know? In the text of verse 23 lies what I believe to be the hint that points to the solution. The first two words of the verse are well translated, “Now, whenever…” The verse then describes a state of affairs that appears to have lasted a relatively long while before the events of 17. This points to the answer: Saul simply forgot whose son David was. The length of time combined with the stress of the events of 17 could easily explain Saul’s forgetfulness on this point.

To my mind, this explanation works better than some of the alternatives. Some believe that chapter 16 is about David’s identity, whereas 17:55ff. is about Jesse’s. This explanation does not take 16:18-19 adequately into account, where twice it is stated that Saul knew Jesse to be the father of David.

Another unlikely interpretation is that 16:14-23 is out of chronological order, and belongs in between 18:9 and 18:10. This would make the Goliath story the very first time Saul met David. Now, this would solve the issue. The Bible does not always record things in chronological order. What makes this solution unlikely is not the supposedly “unbiblical” nature of the solution, but rather the unlikelihood of the passage getting put intentionally out of place. If 16:14-23 was originally between 18:9 and 18:10, why would anyone move it?

Gleason Archer, in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (175), argues that Saul’s concern in 17:55ff. was in building up his own personal bodyguard, and that Jesse’s identity was important because Saul viewed David as a “lead to obtaining more soldiers like him.” This is possible, and would be an additional element consistent with the idea of forgetfulness.

Robert Bergen adds two more aspectual possibilities in his commentary on Samuel (199). The issue of who gets the tax forgiveness could be another reason why Saul asks about David’s parentage. In addition, Bergen argues that the Spirit having left Saul means that Saul “was intellectually incompetent.” I might amend the latter to say that Saul was becoming incompetent, memory being not what it once was.

One last solution, possibly the least likely, is that of Robert Polzin. In his Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, Part Two: 1 Samuel (171-6), he argues that Saul’s question is 17:55 is actually a demand for David’s allegiance, not a question about identity. Again, this would solve the issue. However, it is difficult to see why we should interpret the text that way. Are there other instances in ancient literature where asking about the identity of a person’s father is equal to a demand for allegiance? This seems highly unlikely to me. The other solutions are better.

3 Comments

Recent UFO Phenomena, E.T. or…? A Look at Current Faster-Than-Light Travel Prospects

June 2, 2021 at 3:56 am (Apologetics)
Tags:

by David Gadbois

Startling footage of physics-defying UFO’s has surfaced since 2017, originating from U.S. Navy aircraft. The earliest video was recorded in 2004, while the latter two were from 2014-2015. The Pentagon itself eventually released official copies of these videos. To this can be added two videos of separate naval ship-based UFO sightings from 2019. What is more, at least the original 2004 incident has been corroborated by both ship-borne radar and the public testimony of pilots involved (David Fravor and Chad Underwood). Likely this is the tip of the iceberg. For example, former naval aviator Ryan Graves claims that UFO’s were witnessed regularly by his squadron.

In fact, the Pentagon will be releasing a report on UFO phenomena that it has documented, possibly quite soon.

It is somewhere between difficult and impossible to dismiss these mounting threads of evidence for the veracity of objective encounters with vehicles that seemingly can perform physically-impossible maneuvers. While many UFO sightings can be plausibly categorized as hoaxes, natural phenomena (e.g. atmospheric phenomena such as ball lightning or, quite often, the planet Venus), camera artifacts, or experimental military aircraft, these incidents defy such explanations. While there are no doubt many secret aircraft in service with impressive and perhaps surprising performance and abilities, there are still reasonable limits to what we can expect of next-generation or even medium-term aerospace technology. It is simply is not realistic from a propulsion or structures perspective for a vehicle (manned or unmanned) to perform near-instantaneous maneuvers involving hundreds or thousands of G’s of acceleration. With no visible means of propulsion, and no sonic boom, to boot.

By process of elimination, this leaves us with either 1. an extraterrestrial hypothesis to explain such phenomena or 2. a supernatural hypothesis. Strictly speaking, an interdimensional hypothesis is also a logical possibility, but see Hugh Ross (in the work cited below) on the problems with this.

I believe that the prospects for practical faster-than-light (FTL) travel are exceedingly poor, given our current understanding of physics as of 2021 (more on this below). And as such this renders the extraterrestrial hypothesis highly unlikely. FTL travel is almost universally-acknowledged as the only realistic method of interstellar (to say nothing of intergalactic) travel, that an extraterrestrial life-form would need to employ to reach Earth.

So what should a Christian make of all of these recent, perplexing, provocative videos and news reports? I believe it furnishes compelling evidence of activities of the supernatural or spiritual realm, and spiritual beings. Physical explanations, we have seen, are not adequate. It is probably the case that Christians (to say nothing of our secular friends) have been too dismissive of UFO phenomena, filing them universally and without discrimination into the categories of the more conventional and mundane explanations mentioned above.

Without a doubt, the definitive work on this subject from a Christian perspective is Lights In the Sky & Little Green Men, written by Hugh Ross (astrophysicist and founder of Reasons to Believe ministry), Kenneth Samples, and Mark Clark, and was published in 2002. While slightly dated, the central thesis and the vast majority of the content holds up rather well. It promotes the supernatural hypothesis, and further that the supernatural beings are, in fact, demons on account of the deception that seems to be involved. (Note: with their nomenclature they label their view as an interdimensional hypothesis, although they differentiate their non-physical/spiritual view from views involving the 10 known physical dimensions).

In chapter 5 Ross provides an excellent overview of the problems with interstellar space travel, mainly touching on sub-light-speed travel and the nearly-insuperable barriers involved there. While he does cover the issue of wormholes (you need to fly into a black hole, in which case every particle of your body/vehicle is utterly destroyed), he otherwise doesn’t broach the issue of the plausibility of FTL travel.

With Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, physicists have known that the speed of light is the universe’s speed limit. This theory has been well-supported by experiments over the last century, and few doubt its veracity. Nonetheless, some have wondered if there is a way “around” this. Not by violating this speed limit, but by “warping” the fabric of space itself, bunching up or stretching space like a knit quilt. This, of course, is the “warp drive” of Star Trek and so much other science fiction.

There were essentially no serious proposals in the world of theoretical physics for such a means of FTL propulsion, until 1994 when Miguel Alcubierre proposed a method that comported with General Relativity. The problem was that it required negative energy. A lot of it. So an interesting theoretical exercise, but otherwise hopeless.

Just this year (2021), there has been two papers that have presented concepts for positive-energy warp travel. One is, in fact, still slower-than-light travel, but at least does not resort to a requirement for negative energy. The other, by Erik Lentz, provides FTL travel but:

“Currently, the amount of energy required for this new type of space propulsion drive is still immense. Lentz explains, “The energy required for this drive travelling at light speed encompassing a spacecraft of 100 meters in radius is on the order of hundreds of times of the mass of the planet Jupiter.”

I certainly don’t have a few hundred Jupiters lying around for such purposes, so this isn’t promising. To be fair, Lentz does go on to say “several energy-saving mechanisms have been proposed in earlier research that can potentially lower the energy required by nearly 60 orders of magnitude.” But at this juncture ALL of the above proposals are so theoretical, we really need something beyond these notional papers to get within the realm of credibility.

To conclude, a few theological takeaways:

1. We have in the recent UFO videos and testimony, compelling evidence of non-physical beings and their remarkable intrusions and activities in our world. And that, at minimum, this demonstrates the reality of supernatural phenomena, and thus a refutation of materialism (i.e. the belief that physical reality is all there is).
2. A strong caution that we should not seek to communicate with or put ourselves into any position to be deceived by these beings. Fundamentally, this isn’t a new problem: many cults and false religions in the history of the world have involved deception from evil spirits.
3. The good news is that many of our secular friends also find the recent UFO evidences to be compelling. As well they should. And there we have an excellent opportunity to witness to them about Christianity. That our worldview can fully account for such supernatural phenomena, especially when contrasted with atheistic/materialist alternatives.

Along with Ross’ book, please spend a few minutes to view the very up-to-date “Goy for Jesus” video here. An excellent overview of the recent phenomena and analysis from a Protestant, Christian perspective.

5 Comments