What the PCA Study Committee Did Not Study.
by Peter Jones, TruthXchange:
The Ad Interim Committee Report on Sexuality for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America set itself two tasks: a “pastoral task” and an “apologetic task.” Overall we must thank the committee for its rich pastoral discussion of marriage as reflecting Christ’s love for the church; in its wise treatment of issues of terminology and identity; and in its careful analysis of the doctrine of concupiscence. In “apologetic task,” however, it fails to present any serious theological discussion of sexuality in the light of the biblical doctrine of Creation, which incidentally, was also the weakness in the Baptistic Nashville Statement on Sexuality—which I nevertheless gladly signed—centering as it did with a virtually exclusive appeal to the Gospel.
To be fair to the study committee, creation was mentioned a few times (pp. 4, 6, 26 and 27), essentially via biblical references, but, alas, without any serious exposition. Without a significant description of creational biblical apologetics there is a great danger of making this important subject for the church depend almost entirely on the logic of soteriology, which causes this deeply human question to become a very inner-focused ecclesiastical conversation in which we talk only to one another. It hardly helps us as we talk to non-believers, for surely the culture is watching us and listening to us to see if we have something crucial to say to all God’s creatures using all that God says on this important subject.
Our silence in this area could be seen as defeatist or as a fearful withdrawal from engagement with unbelievers on the one volatile subject (LGBT+ issues) that daily overwhelms the news media and leads many institutions, both legal and cultural, to deny Christian citizens the right to free speech and to responsible action. Our silence could be judged as a desire to avoid harmful criticism or serious opposition. Whatever our motivations, we cannot be silent! Can we not make a case for divinely created human sexuality in a culture that still claims in its Pledge of Allegiance to be “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” in its motto, “In God we trust,” and in its Declaration of Independence speaks of “inalienable rights” given to all humans by their Creator—rights that our government is obliged to protect?
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
