Appreciate the interaction and push back. To clarify, I'm not in a NAPARC church, but interact with others who are. I also don't have you or Freeborn in mind in my comments.
I'm sure there is much in...
I agree that these things are generally better hashed out over a good stout. Barring that, I hope I can continue to charitably interact with your concerns.
For some context, I am an elder in an OPC church in North Idaho. That doxxes me to some extent, but it’s nothing I haven’t mentioned here on Nostr before.
I would be interested in hearing what you believe is the house-fire that is being ignored in favor of focusing on the flood.
You said, “But there is a difference between being justified in Christ and the reality of nature. There is no male or female(justification) does not erase hierarchy of differences which God created.”
I would heartily amen that statement. I don’t think any of these denominations are taking up statements about men and women having no differences, though, or denying male headship. The statements adopted are specifically about race, not gender.
You mentioned that resolutions like the one these various denominations are adopting, which came out of the ARP, seem “performative,” rather than addressing actual issues the church is facing. I can speak from my own experience that this is not the case.
Hands down the most divisive issues within the local church where I serve are the issues of Kinism, Race Realism, Christian Nationalism, and Radical Two-Kingdom theology.
These things are being taken up at the denominational level, not because of any desire to have the approval of the world by saying, “look at us, we don’t like racists, too,” but because they are the things we are dealing with in our local churches, with members criticizing leadership as “leftists” because we won’t stand with them and say, “Whites should only marry whites, and interracial marriage is a sin.” Some who hold to these views have even managed to make their way into ecclesiastical offices in some OPC churches. I can only imagine that other NAPARC denominations are experiencing similar issues within their churches as we have experienced in the OPC. Thus, these issues have risen to the attention of our denominational meetings, specifically because of the strife these views are causing at the local level.
At the presbytery and denominational level, the most pressing issue I see is the encroachment of feminism and egalitarianism, as exemplified by the publication of an article denouncing biblical headship in the OPC’s online journal for church officers. Though the article was quickly taken down, it was written by an OPC minister who has not retracted what he wrote, but rather published it again on his own Substack. This is the kind of error that will invariably lead to allowing women to be ordained as elders and pastors if it is not addressed immediately. We aren’t winking at side B views on homosexuality, or flirting with unordained female “shepherds” like the PCA, but if this isn’t dealt with we soon will be. That said, in this case there is plenty of material in Scripture and in our secondary and tertiary standards, as well as our 1988 report on women in office, that the matter can be taken up through the ecclesiastical courts, without the need for GA to erect a study committee or adopt a statement.
There are certainly other important issues that churches in our denomination deal with on a regular basis, such as pornography, infidelity, pastoral neglect, or outright abuse of various forms. However, these are typically handled via church discipline at the local church and presbytery level, and only rarely rise to the attention of General Assembly when a case is brought up on appeal. The denomination would not take time making statements or forming study committees about these things; not because they are unimportant, but because they are not issues where we have members and officers who disagree about them. All agree that pornography is a sin, and those who persist in unrepentance ought to be subject to church censure. The same goes for the other examples I gave.
As such, it may be that the fires in the house are actually being dealt with in less public ways, due to the unity the church has on those issues, while the flood is being dealt with more publicly because of the significant disagreement that exists. But that all depends on what you would identify as the house-fire(s) in distinction from the flood.
For some context, I am an elder in an OPC church in North Idaho. That doxxes me to some extent, but it’s nothing I haven’t mentioned here on Nostr before.
I would be interested in hearing what you believe is the house-fire that is being ignored in favor of focusing on the flood.
You said, “But there is a difference between being justified in Christ and the reality of nature. There is no male or female(justification) does not erase hierarchy of differences which God created.”
I would heartily amen that statement. I don’t think any of these denominations are taking up statements about men and women having no differences, though, or denying male headship. The statements adopted are specifically about race, not gender.
You mentioned that resolutions like the one these various denominations are adopting, which came out of the ARP, seem “performative,” rather than addressing actual issues the church is facing. I can speak from my own experience that this is not the case.
Hands down the most divisive issues within the local church where I serve are the issues of Kinism, Race Realism, Christian Nationalism, and Radical Two-Kingdom theology.
These things are being taken up at the denominational level, not because of any desire to have the approval of the world by saying, “look at us, we don’t like racists, too,” but because they are the things we are dealing with in our local churches, with members criticizing leadership as “leftists” because we won’t stand with them and say, “Whites should only marry whites, and interracial marriage is a sin.” Some who hold to these views have even managed to make their way into ecclesiastical offices in some OPC churches. I can only imagine that other NAPARC denominations are experiencing similar issues within their churches as we have experienced in the OPC. Thus, these issues have risen to the attention of our denominational meetings, specifically because of the strife these views are causing at the local level.
At the presbytery and denominational level, the most pressing issue I see is the encroachment of feminism and egalitarianism, as exemplified by the publication of an article denouncing biblical headship in the OPC’s online journal for church officers. Though the article was quickly taken down, it was written by an OPC minister who has not retracted what he wrote, but rather published it again on his own Substack. This is the kind of error that will invariably lead to allowing women to be ordained as elders and pastors if it is not addressed immediately. We aren’t winking at side B views on homosexuality, or flirting with unordained female “shepherds” like the PCA, but if this isn’t dealt with we soon will be. That said, in this case there is plenty of material in Scripture and in our secondary and tertiary standards, as well as our 1988 report on women in office, that the matter can be taken up through the ecclesiastical courts, without the need for GA to erect a study committee or adopt a statement.
There are certainly other important issues that churches in our denomination deal with on a regular basis, such as pornography, infidelity, pastoral neglect, or outright abuse of various forms. However, these are typically handled via church discipline at the local church and presbytery level, and only rarely rise to the attention of General Assembly when a case is brought up on appeal. The denomination would not take time making statements or forming study committees about these things; not because they are unimportant, but because they are not issues where we have members and officers who disagree about them. All agree that pornography is a sin, and those who persist in unrepentance ought to be subject to church censure. The same goes for the other examples I gave.
As such, it may be that the fires in the house are actually being dealt with in less public ways, due to the unity the church has on those issues, while the flood is being dealt with more publicly because of the significant disagreement that exists. But that all depends on what you would identify as the house-fire(s) in distinction from the flood.