It’s inconceivable to establishment men that any of their critics has serious motives. Keep in mind that these men of Missouri Presbytery are the establishment of the PCA. It is their job to defend the respectability of the PCA, Missouri Presbytery, Covenant Theological Seminary, and the large wealthy churches around the country whose pastors got their MDivs at Covenant over the course of the past quarter-century.
Missouri Presbytery never stops faulting Revoice’s critics. When one thinks of all the verses they might have quoted warning their own Missouri Presbytery Revoicers, then the absence of such warnings in 143 pages of text, their project is clarified.
This is not to say warnings aren’t needed or heeded by us and Revoice’s other critics.
Missouri Presbytery’s pastors here justify their cowardice by pointing out how gentle, reasonable, and ever-so-humble they are while the shepherds who criticized Revoice are (and we list them in order)…
Revoice calls good what Scripture and our confessional Westminster Standards call evil. Revoice blesses what God curses. Revoice is intentionally promoting schism within the Church, seeking to draw out disciples from among the people of God. They are men who have arisen among us seeking sheep they may devour, and Missouri Presbytery is happy to oblige. Missouri Presbytery refuses to keep watch over these sheep, cozying up to the wolves instead.
Sin blinds us, rendering our thinking irrational and our speech and writing done towards self-justification of that sin nonsensical to those not sharing that sin with us. This is the real reason the flock of God was scandalized by Revoice and now is scandalized by Missouri Presbtytery’s 143-page document justifying Revoice. It’s not that the flock of God lacks charity.
How we define our words is important. Not only do definitions clarify meanings, they shape thoughts. “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21) says the Lord, and often the determining factor in whether those words bring life or death depends upon their appearance or disappearance from our common usage.
Before moving to the next allegation, let us state for the first time, here, that this Report and the men who wrote it have proven themselves incapable of beginning to understand or provide wise pastoral care for all those claiming any of the LGBTQ identities because of their refusal to acknowledge that the sin of effeminacy—not homoerotic desire—is the sin that binds Revoicers together.
Take “allegation” for instance: over and over any and all criticisms of Revoice are smeared with this term. But a huge proportion of the concerns expressed by fellow believers and church officers, most of it written, are simple criticisms—the sort that are the bread and butter of presbytery life.