[...] Why No Denomination Will Survive the Homosexuality Crisis – Thoughtful look at how this issue is tearing apart the American Church and its various denominations. [...]

[...] no wonder others like Kevin DeYoung doesn’t believe that any mainline denomination will make it out of the “homosexual.... DeYoung sees this issue as the virtual unstoppable force that is about to meet an immovable [...]

[...] Read the rest here. [...]

[...] DeYoung in “Why No Denomination Will Survive the Homosexuality Crisis” Share this:TwitterEmailFacebookDiggPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like [...]

Morris,
I will agree with you on the extremists. Extremists homosexuals, etc. All are the minority but cause the most amount of bad publicity for the majority. However, they are the loudest. You used the argument that the church has resisted for 2000 years. Does that make it right? Resisting something for a certain amount of time does not mean it is acceptable. The same has occurred for minorities and for women. Segregated churches existed and people felt it was correct, but was it? They believed and used god as their defense. Same with woman. Women not having leading rolls in the church, there are scriptures that state that women shall not lead, but that is antiquated in my opinion. Yes, maybe I am ignorant about biblical teaching, but who isn't? I worry about the ones who believe they are knowledgable in biblical teaching but are using it in a way that god never intended. Again, as a tool to push their agenda. That is why I pointed out the terrible passage from Deuteronomy 22:25. I studied the bible for many years. I am not a scolar by any stretch of the imagination, but I get tired of hearing people use the bible to push a political agenda. Extremests on either side are destructive. I do not support any type of extremests. Overly conservative christians are in that category to me.
I did not mean for what I said to be a self-righreous rant, the article upset me so I responded strongly.

Steve Demers' comments hits the nail on the head. They have denominations have already made their decisions. "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." It's here. Time for pastors to protect and feed their sheep.

Jessie,
You are way off on this one. The issue here is not the radical Christians, but the radical homosexuals who are pushing their agenda for their lifestyle to be accepted by the church, to the point that they would not only have the church bless their unions and marry them, but also occupy places of leadership in the church. They do all of this knowing that the church, through all the 2,000 years of its history has not condoned their behavior, and has regarded it as sinful and an indication of a lower level of depravity (Romans 1), but push it in the church's face they do. It is their desire to take over and push out those who do not agree with them and their depravity. Those in the church who do not agree with the agenda have every right to push back against it, and they are not being radical when they do.

God indeed is a God of love who desires none to perish, but for all to come to repentance; but perish they will if they do not repent, because He is also a God of holiness and justice. Love and justice both met at the cross where His love for sinners was shown by His Son dying for their sins, but His justice was also displayed in the same death for sins that His Son endured.

In the spirit of Titus 1:9 & 13, your self-righteous rant only exposes your Biblical ignorance for all to see. It would be helpful for you to spend more time studying the Scriptures so you can understand them and learn how to use them in context.

As a pastor of a PCUSA church which has left for the EPC in the last year, I agree with this post completely. There comes a time where you can no longer justify being a member of a religious body whose beliefs contradict those of your local congregation.

[...] sustainable. It is time to make a decision, and let the chips fall where they may. He writes at the Gospel Coalition: There is no way, short of a miraculous and full-scale changing of hearts and minds, for North [...]

I find it interesting that there is zero discussion about lying and seducing spirits. After all, if we "feel it is right in our hearts," and that seems to be the argument for renaming a sin "not sin," then how do we deal with the Scriptures where it says do not believe every spirit but test the spirits, or the human heart is full of wickedness...you know...the basic idea being that one can be deceived? We can throw verses back and forth all day, especially when an obvious ignorance of OT and NT criticism persists. But what I find interesting is this. Name me one well-respected, well-known ministry that actually flows in the gifts of the Holy Spirit and affirms the LGBTQ agenda. If we keep the argument in books and tradition and Scripture and medical knowledge, we might get it, and then again we might not. Take it into the spiritual realm, which is often hard for mainline sleepy protestants, and suddenly there really is no debate. Of course if you have never served as a missionary overseas (been there) and seen what a country looks like in the grips of hell, one in which the Christian church has not hit every corner (USA), you might be able to live as if the spiritual realm is an antiquated concept for pre-industrial societies. However, the arguments of intellectualism regarding the declassification of blatant sin as such fade away when the shackles of hell are choking another victim, and progressive, feel-good, air-conditioned Christianity isn't making a dent, but Holy Spirit powered, Scripture-based obedient living is all you have to offer and it is what saves. Arguments endorsing permissive sexuality always herald the demise of a people. America is no different. It is hubris to think we are. Should we persist in this, we will find, after we are toppled, that the only thing that can save us is the blood of the Lamb, not an intellectualized belief that forms the basis for my feel-good respectable religion that just happens to include sex with anyone I please when I please regardless of what God has stated to the contrary. It is a battle of good versus evil, darkness versus light. Satan versus Christ. If we cannot grasp that, and since respect for the Scriptures is fading fast, we really don't have anything left to turn to as being higher than our own limited capacity, for we have de-throned Christ as Lord over our lives, disassembled his Word, and elevated ourselves to the levels of Isaiah 14. Absent supernatural Holy Spirit intervention, and a realization that this is a cosmic battle, I am afraid that the same old tired arguments from the "progressive side" will be thrown at the wall of post-modern mainline denominationalsim, and when something finally sticks because we finally tire, the battle will be over. Unless...we choose to fight back with prayer and fasting and repentance, for without that, this kind cannot be driven out.

Jessie,

In the spirit of exhortation and correction, the issue isn't your opinion, it is what does the Scripture say. The Bible is not antiquated for a couple of obvious reasons.

#1. God is not antiquated. He has not changed, will not change, cannot change, He is eternally the same. Since God does not change, His word does not change. He will not accomodate His will to your opinion, or anyone else's. Piers Morgan has made the comment a couple of times on his show on CNN about the the Bible being brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century. The Bible will not be brougth kicking and screaming into any age as it is written by the One who does not change, therefore the Scriptures are always the standard, not the current whims of culture.

#2. Man's heart has not changed, ever. Man is no more morally enlightened now than he has ever been. What is being promoted as moral enlightenment (not just in our age, but in every age), is man's toleration, acceptance, and promotion of a deeper level of depravity, which corresponds directly with the progression of depravity in Romans 1. So when the Bible speaks to the issues that man deals with, the sin issues, issues of the heart and mind, then it speaks to the same issues today as it did when it was originally penned.

The real issue here is your submission to what the Scriptures say, as they are not subject to you, but you are subject to them; and it is by them that you will be judged.

It is amazing that the use of "homosexuality crisis" would be used. It makes me sad that only a small number of issues are focused on by mostly conservative Christian groups. It is my belief that I am amongst the silent majority who also are in disbelief that so much is made from so little. Jesus would be ashamed to see how his name is being used to justify hate. Jesus was a radical, he would not be welcomed in most churches. He and his words are whitewashed and romanticized. Additionally, his words are taken literally when it is useful, stated that his words are contextual when it is convenient. Many of the nicest people I have ever known and still know are Christinas. I believe that the majority of them would love me if I were gay, black, buck toothed, one legged, pagan, etc. They are loving people. Unfortunately, the radical Christians, just like the radical Muslims, are extremists and sound militant. If you, as a Christian believe that God views sin equally, than spend equal time on all the sins of the world. Focusing on only a few topics smells of using the word of god to justify hatred and discrimination. Lastly, the bible is quoted often to backup why God hates certain human behavior. The bible says many things that Christians often do not quote...when it is convenient. Deuteronomy 22:25 : 25 "But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her. 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

So rape a virgin, but as long as you pay her dad and have you marry you...her rapist...all is good. So is this out of context, times have changed? When is the word of Jesus out of context, when is it literal? Do we not as humans make it mean what we want when we want? Sin is sin, focus on them all...and focus on yourself instead of everyone else.

[...] Michigan, right across the street from Michigan State University, since 2004.  Kevin blogs at the Gospel Coalition and this article is reprinted with his [...]

John Carpenter: "Hi Truth Unites… and Divides...."

I was mocking the response of "Some Guy". I think you missed it.

Walter Thompson MD and some people are just consumed by lust regardless of who or what they are attracted to and it matters to them more than being transformed into the likeness of Christ who was consumed by nothing except submission to the Father's will. To speak of those of us that have divorced as if there are no spiritual or family consequences is ridiculous. There are always consequences in this life for the times that we put our wants first.

Pensions? I thought we weren't to store up treasures for tomorrow. Is retiring even biblical?

Hi Clark,
If there was a "like" button here, I would click it for your comment. You're right. Of course, those, like Pastor DeYoung, who are employed in a denominational church and have pensions in those denominations, want to know practically what are they to do. Like you, I'm free of such concerns but I can see how it would be a difficult issue.

Well, Jesus never promised that our man made denominations would survive to the end of the age, but he did say that His Word will stand forever and the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. No "crisis", not even the liberal homosexual agenda, can overcome those promises. That is enough for me, but the fact that I am not a member of any denomination may help me have this perspective.

"But it is no virtue of Christian hope to trust God for contradictions." The best line in the best article I have seen on the "denominational unity" issue.

We were fortunate in the SBC to have both a mechanism in place and a group of tireless committed people who worked for twenty years to take back the convention from those with liberal leanings. If there is no mechanism in place for the conservatives to hold the line in the RCA, then maybe the decision is already made for you, and you just need to decide on the timing.

Additionally, there is a silver lining in these times of crisis and controversy, and it is given in I Corinthians 11:18-19, that those who are approved will become evident among you. The truth about who people really are and where they really stand will eventually become evident, and that is a good thing to know, and will provide both disappointments and pleasant surprises.

Do not grow weary in doing good (to which may I add, standing for good) for in due time you will reap if you do not grow weary.

[...] “There is no way, short of a miraculous and full-scale changing of hearts and minds, for North... [...]

I like the metaphor in the movie Contact, when they get the instructions for the spaceship and it didn't have plans for a chair, so they added one, and it made the ride super sucky until the chair broke. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EK6yL6Yf-g

It's like he is saying that denominations are the individual parts of the body of Christ and homosexuals will somehow break that body. As if denominations have ever been very congenial or people very consistent with their congregational choices. Yet the body of Christ remains constant, no crisis, always growing, diverse and spanning denominations, regardless of doctrinal statements. His crisis is a small part of that unneeded chair, a portion of our desire to understand everything and put it in an acronym, all at the sacrifice of the mysteries of God and the freedom in Christ.

There is another option, Kevin. At every crisis of belief since creation, some have stood firm for truth. We have the record of the patriarchs, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Joseph, Moses, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul and the Apostles including John the Revelator. Even during the Christian era, there have been untold thousands that chose death rather than compromise.
The Bible is pretty clear in telling us that the last days before the return of Jesus this world will again be like it was in the days of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah. And though sexual orientation will not be the primary issue that separates the faithful believer in God from those of the world, it will most certainly be a significant factor.
It is easy to condemn our fellow men and women of varying sexual orientations to hell, even when we claim special favor with God for being “straight.” Where is the love of God in this? We who are said to be “known by your love?” (John 13:35)
Sexual disorientation is not of itself a sin. Some are born with secondary sexual characteristics of both sexes; some with indeterminate characteristics and some with brains that do not coincide with their external sexual characteristics. And there are others, undoubtedly the major portion, that are so as a result of social environment—divorce, broken homes, single parent homes, the media, and on and on—but often of no conscious choice of the one so oriented. Isn’t it strange that we “loving Christians” are able to divorce and remarry almost at will, experience adulterous relationships, in thought if not in deed, and recon ourselves better than our brother who is otherwise inclined?
It is true, When Jesus comes to make up His own, they will be united as one--faithful to His law of love as summarized in the Ten Commandments and as exemplified by Jesus and the prophets, apostles and other saints throughout the ages. And they will come from the brothels and the bars as well as from the churches, synagogues, Mosques, and perhaps even from among the rich and political—those who have seen Jesus, have repented of their sins, have turned from them and have been changed by the blood and grace of Christ, just as occurred in Jesus’ day.
If our chosen denomination is our god, we are in for a real surprise. Our salvation depends, not on the
Church we attend or hold membership in, but by our faithfulness to Jesus and His truth, forgiven and
transformed into His likeness by the power of His blood and Grace and the working of the Holy Spirit.

The time of trouble we are entering into will do its work of separating the gold from the dross. We do not need to do it. It is the work of God. The question is this. Whom will I serve?

The essential reason that no denomination will be untouched is the relentless nature of those crusading for the legitimization of perversion. Notice that even here, a blog associated with the Gospel Coalition, some people (like Carol), shamelessly justify what God has called evil. They won't stop. So, if indeed many conservatives lack the will or power to expel them from their denominations, then there will only be one out-come: the eventual take-over by the liberals (who are essentially unbelievers).

Conservatives can exit and reorganize in new denominations. But likely these new groups will either be small and ineffective or will eventually also have liberals arise in them, demanding the legitimization of perversion in the name of "justice". And the same thing will happen again. The only solution, then, is get the nerve and power to practice church discipline.

Hi Some guy,
This article is about the practical realities of the impact of this issue on the various denominations. It's not about how to pastorally care for people struggling with temptations to sin. Your criticism of Mr. DeYoung therefore is inappropriate.

Hi Truth Unites... and Divides, as above. But let me add there's a great deal of hypocrisy in your grace-less attack on an article while demanding "grace". Maybe some people want to think and read about how denominations will deal with this issue structurally. If you don't, fine. But then leave them be and stop judging them. It's simply wrong to accuse Pastor DeYoung of being "more concerned with the politics of religion and less with the amazing grace Christ brings."

When the church lets us embrace our sin rather than turn to repentance its not a church it's a social club with a Christian title. A church that doesn't adhere to Scripture is not a church. It may sing of God, it may talk of God, and Jesus and His love but its a club or a religious organization. The Church teaches, corrects, rebukes from the Word of God. It's must adhere to Bible. There must be forgiveness and repentance, grace and transformation, love and godliness. Our stance should be clinging to the Cross and the Word of God if your church isnt then you are in a religious group but it's not about what Jesus and His Kingdom.

Some Guy: "people like myself struggle to reconcile their faith and a desire they cannot control."

I have a desire to sin that I cannot control.

Therefore, this article is completely out of touch with what a deep issue this really is, as people like myself struggle to reconcile my faith and my desire to sin that I cannot control. It’s clear you, Rev. DeYoung and other like-minded folks, are more concerned with the politics of religion and less with the amazing grace Christ brings. It seems that’s all people like myself have to hold onto anymore, is the saving grace of Christ, because the church is absolutely dropping the ball in their attempts to understand and reconcile this topic.

And how about all the christian men and women who desire with all of their heart to stand for integrity and Truth but have been dealt this hand of having same-sex attractions? I don't think I've ever read a less compassionate approach to this topic. This article is completely out of touch with what a deep issue this really is, as people like myself struggle to reconcile their faith and a desire they cannot control. It's clear you're more concerned with the politics of religion and less with the amazing grace Christ brings. It seems that's all people like myself have to hold onto anymore, is the saving grace of Christ, because the church is absolutely dropping the ball in their attempts to understand and reconcile this topic.

This article might be seen by some as evidence in favor of congregational ecclesiology.

I'm very curious what Mark Dever's thoughts are on the issue (not of homosexuality specifically, but of denominations being committed to church discipline in general).

Kevin:

The only reason this is unthinkable is that your remedy -- release without true discipline -- is actually surrender. It actually says that there is no material consequences to either remaining faithful to the confessions of one's church or not.

It's not what happened at Nicea or any other formative church council. And that, I suspect, is the problem.

Well said, Mr. DeYoung. I see the conservative denominations flourishing and the liberal ones declining. A pastor friend of mine passed on some advice his dad gave him after being defrocked from the old PCUS:

Pray for their repentance, and if they don't repent pray that the Lord will lessen their influence.

Carol I would agree that the Catholic church doesn't change it's teaching on most things but can you honestly say that they live it? The pope lives in essentially a palace. Did Jesus live in a palace? Did Jesus have people kiss his hand? ring? anything or did Jesus come to serve? And when people in the order whether priest or nun brutalizes a child do they get called out on it like Jesus did when the disciples tried to keep the children back from Him or do they hide for fear of scandal? How many politicians do we have that claim to be Catholic yet support abortion and gay marriage, not to mention lying. Why doesn't the Catholic Church kick them out?

[...] While I often disagree with him, in this case I think Kevin DeYoung is spot on when he says [...]

Please read Andrew Marin's "Love is an Orientation." When talking about sides of this particular issue, this book is extremely helpful and does not compromise what God has said in his Word.

[...] Why No Denomination Will Survive the Homosexuality Crisis [...]

>Politics. Sigh. Church and State. Mankind created both of
>those. God only created the Universe.

Lisa, "politics" is another word for "peacefully resolving differences".

It beats the alternatives.

[...] Why No Denomination Will Survive the Homosexuality Crisis – Kevin DeYoung. Like this:LikeBe the first to like [...]

[...] Why No Denomination Will Survive the Homosexuality Crisis [...]

Christians must stand firm against the world forces. the world should not influence or change the Church but the church must change the world reason why the church was and is in the world. Homosexuality is against Christianity and the word and God is totally against it. Roman:1:24-27: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. If any christian or church gives in to homosexuality also god will give it up to its uncleanliness.http://www.christiantruthcenter.com

[...] Kevin DeYoung, Why No Denomination Will Survive the Homosexuality Crisis [...]

This is where I have to admire the Catholic (and Orthodox) churches. There are plenty of dissenters who call themselves Catholic, but one believes they could talk themselves blue in the face and the church wouldn't change its teaching one bit.

Good thought provoking post, but we always have to be careful with labels. Most African American churches would be comsidered liberal but they are also thought to be the most unified against same sex marriage. As you aptly point put regarding denominational positions, we have to get rid of the liberal & conservative tags too. Few can be cleanly put into a bin on all issues anymore.

Four words stood out to me when reading this article - crisis, agenda, politics and denomination. I have two words in response: good golly.

There does not need to be any crisis - gay marriage will only promote and strengthen marriages, not remove and family structure or values. If anything, Christian (or rather Godly) values can be introduced to these new marriages, and we know that so long as Christ is the Head of the Household then all will be well.

As for the homosexual agenda. Wanting equality is not an agenda, it is simply a desire to be treated as everyone else. Remember "treat others how you would like to be treated yourself"? Jesus does.

Politics. Sigh. Church and State. Mankind created both of those. God only created the Universe.

And what denomination would Jesus Himself have been? Messianic Jew, actually. The only Jew who believed He was the Messiah. No matter what denomination church I have attended in the past, I have never referred to myself as such. I am merely a Chistian - a follower of Christ - who happens to attend a particular church. If anything, I am a child of God. As are all of you :)

[...] DeYoung’s thoughts on the matter are worth considering. It’s a tough challenge in our current cultural context. Like [...]

One needs to look at the state of the church in England to conclude what will happen to the state of the church in America. Many English people have abandoned the church due to that nation's material prosperity, but also because of some denominations opposition to homosexuality and other social issues. Church leaders who have been opposed to gay marriage have been vilified, people such as Dr.John Sentamu and Archbishop Williams.Those professing to the Bible's inerrancy have been reduced to an ever decreasing minority. Similarly, American evangelicals and other denominations opposing gay marriage will be hounded. No matter, God will remain supreme, sovereign and superior even if Christianity is wiped off the face of America.

Kevin,

As an RCA person one of my concerns around the issues of homosexuality arises before we get to talking about it. This concern has to do with the church’s order; and with the church's order because of the theology of authority the order seeks to express; and with that theology of authority because it's an answer to the question, “What kind of a people do we think the Word and Spirit create on earth anyway?” We in the RCA have an old Continental Reformed theology of authority in answer to that question. It’s older than modern liberalism and conservatism but it remains a fundament of the RCA’s ecclesiology. It goes back at least to the Synod of Emden in 1571, with its famous first line: “No church shall have precedence or rule over another, no minister over minister, no elder over elder, no deacon over deacon, but rather each will be alert for all suspicion thereof and occasion thereto.”

One lament that arises for me in the church’s deliberations over homosexuality (although it arises all the time in other areas as well, and pendulum swings toward and away from hierarchy have certainly been part of the Dutch Reformed tradition all along) is due to the use of the misleading term ‘denomination.’ That term appears in the church’s order but is not given a theological reflection and so is properly undefined. Yet it causes no shortage of mischief and extreme confusion in the church. . .maybe because Americans tend to be able to think in terms of denominations ordered hierarchically but not in terms of the kind of arrangements of authority the RCA has? The order just does not propose that the church is a denomination. The church, rather, appears concretely as congregations, members, offices, and assemblies. Those are the words we RCAers have the theology to speak.

So in the RCA’s order General Synod is one important assembly among the others—the assemblies arranged not hierarchically but according to a kind of principle of subsidiarity or something like that. This means that General Synod is not the church, is not the denomination (whatever that is), and can’t properly be said to speak for the church. Like the other assemblies do for themselves, General Synod speaks for General Synod. What that means and how that works would be a very worthwhile discussion, but one implication at this point is that the RCA—and for old Reformed theological reasons—isn’t ordered to speak with one voice on extra-constitutional issues (and it’s also a worthwhile discussion who in the RCA is and isn’t bound to uphold the constitution), even on very important issues, for better and for worse. My lament is that lots of our folks want the RCA to speak with one voice or something like one voice, which feels to me (although admittedly I don’t understand it) like a basic concession to our culture’s expectations of the church.

The problem with the RCA is the lack of classis discipline over the years. If the RCA would have disciplined Pastor's, Professor's, Elders, Deacon's and members the way the Bible urges concerning sin, whatever the sin, we would be better unified today. The RCA's hope of unity and recovery hangs on what they do now that they have continued to call sin, sin. I am praying and hoping for repentance, forgiveness and restoration. I am praying for the first Professor, Elder, Deacon and member to fall under the Holy Spirit's conviction of sin, repent, be restored, Praise the Lord and bear witness of the power of Jesus an the power of the resurrection. Maybe it will start with someone soon. All great movements of the Gospel had conviction of sin, prayer that was intense, persecution and repentance and conversion. Please Lord. One other thing to note is that all growing denominations have a very high view of scripture and little or no hint of liberalism concerning sexual purity, whether homosexuality or openness to promoscuity or liberalism about divorce.

Kevin, I'm not sure I'd lump the UMC in with the rest of the mainline denominations b/c the dynamics are different.

We already know that the African churches in the Anglican Communion have been upset with TEC, but because the TEC is a separate national church in and of itself (like other churches in the Anglican communion) the Africans can't tell the TEC what to do. The REC, PCUSA, and similar groups are primarily American churches, operating as American churches in an American mainline denominational milieu.

But what in those theologically conservative Africans are actually in the SAME church as their more liberal American counterparts? This is what is going on in the UMC right now. See:

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/14/united-methodists-transition-f/

Note the numbers: American UMC's are dropping 100K a year, while African UMC's are gaining 200K a year. If these numbers are indeed correct, the liberals in the UMC are in the midst of a demographic war that they simply may not be able to win.

See also the following for a more detailed set of thoughts:

http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2447

I am now in the PCA, but I was in conservative UMC circles for a couple of years in the mid 1980's as a graduate student. From what I understand the UMC has always held property in trust in day 1, so conservatives have long known that walking away with the property has never been an option. (NOTE: I'm not sure if a church is held in trust to the UMC or to the Annual Conference of the UMC.)

There have also been strong conservative movements in the UMC: Good News and the Confessing Movement, among others. In addition, conservative UMC's set up their own missions group in 1984, The Mission Society for United Methodists: themissionsociety.org. This conservative alternative to the missions of the mainline UMC was not banned by the denomination. Only God knows exactly how many of the African members in the UMC were brought in as a result of the Mission Society's work. One must wonder if this may prove to be the liberals undoing in the long run!

This ability to set up a separate mission society is non-trivial. Recall that attempts by conservatives to set up their own mission groups in the PCUS and the American Baptist Convention later led to the formation of the OPC and the Conservative Baptist Association of America, respectively (Marsden, p. 193).

The growth of the African contingent in the UMC should shift it in a more conservative direction. The dynamics of how it happens may not quite be the same as what happened in the SBC, but I suspect it will happen over time. The shifting center of the church to Africa and Asia is coming-or has come-to the UMC's doorstep in a way that it will not come to any other mainline denomination. What liberal UMC pastors, churches, and Annual Conferences do with it should be interesting to watch.

[...] Why No Denomination Will Survive the Homosexuality Crisis – Kevin DeYoung [...]

This is why I'm so thankful for denominations like the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Flexible on non-essentials, firm on essentials. We've had lots of folks migrate to us from the PCUSA in the last few months, just before their denomination made it impossible to leave on account of their homosexual agenda...sheesh.

[...] Kevin DeYoung makes the case that the mainline denominations should go ahead and declare themselves now and let come what may. They are slipping in adherents anyway and nothing can stop the rush out the door. [...]

This to me reinforces why I think independent (self-governing) local congregations fit the Biblical pattern for ecclesiology better than denominational structures.

I completely agree that many will not survive as Pastor DY says, but I'm not so sure I'd write them all off. Take a bit of encouragement from the aforementioned Southern Baptist Convention.

By 1979, the SBC was, according to many conservatives, unsalvageable. It was too far gone to mainstream liberalism in its pulpits, its seminaries, its colleges, and its institutions. (For example, in the mid-70s, the SBC convention actually passed a resolution in SUPPORT of Roe v. Wade.)

Yet, it was recovered. There were some costs, and a couple of the colleges and institutions were indeed lost to secularism (not just liberalism), but denomination was recovered for conservative, biblical Christianity. This recovery started by naming believers to the boards of the seminaries, then replacing seminary faculty with believers, which in turn began turning believers out into the pulpits of the denomination.

Such a recovery is not out of the question for many of the listed denominations in peril. Don't stop working, and more importantly, don't stop praying for these good folks and fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

@Bryan What exactly constitutes the "Catholic" church? I know more liberal Catholics than I do ones that actually follow what Rome declares to be the truth. Even the ones that I know to be authentic Catholics and believers still chose out what they agree with?

So can I ask what is a real Catholic? Do Catholics have a definition of that?

Why No Denomination Will Survive the Homosexuality Crisis

In a sense, this is a good blogpost title because it made me want to read the article and to consider the author's arguments. And without wanting to be too immodest, I'm quite pleased to see that Pastor DeYoung has thought through and arrived at a conclusion that I have adopted some time ago. (Great minds and hearts think alike!)

That being said, I was curious about two terms in the blogpost title and how they're qualified. One, "Survive", and two, "Crisis".

Eg. What determines whether a denomination has "survived"? Secondly, what constitutes a "crisis"?

Lastly, with regards to Pastor DeYoung's prescription to simply take a stand, of course, I quite agree. Declare. And furthermore, I quite agree with his own standing convictions about the matter: Conservative and in the Right.

The other point to be considered is that all the liberal mainline protestant denominations are already in full communion/full fellowship with one another. And so, I can see in the next few decades an organic merger creating something along the lines of what they have in Canada, or in Germany, a kind of generic "Evangelical" something or other.

Of course, one reason they are not merging their governance structure is because then multiple church denominational offices and paychecks would go away.

Unfortunately quite true words, I am sorry to see others going through what I had to as a (former) Episcopalean.

Though, to be clear, I think Machen was right and we are not dealing with a schism between Christians, but another religion appropriating Christian terminology and resources. The progressives in these denominations will not provide a way out for conservatives without fighting them for property, as they really believe that the conservative position is evil, and must be opposed in every way possible.

Pete,

To whom are you referring and what issue should that person have left over in what particular denomination?

Mike

Kevin, I always appreciate your thoughts and your stand on biblical truth. As the pastor of Lighthouse Community Church, the congregation in Allendale, MI that tried to withdraw from the RCA last year and were denied by Zeeland Classis, and then who voted to withdraw anyway and who had our leadership, including myself, disciplined - charged with disobeying Classis ... and then, though we asked to leave with our building, were denied again ... and who are now meeting in a school - all 400 of us ... I agree with everything you say except one thing: the RCA has already taken the center position. You were at General Synod and I think you know that to be the case. That's why we left. And I can tell you, there is joy, peace and freedom in following Christ. Perhaps because we gave up our property others are hesitant to take a stand right now, choosing instead to try to leave together and hope that the powers that be (and they ARE powerful, in their own eyes) will allow them to keep their property. But where is the commitment to honor and glorify Christ, to build up HIs Church and to have the integrity to stand, no matter what the consequences? In spite of the final vote on the substitute motion at General Synod, the more than obvious conclusion leaves a huge divide. We are now non-denominational, and in spite of the criticism of those who are denominational-minded, God's presence and power and blessing are at work among us as I have never seen before, in 35 years of ministry. We have the freedom to focus on Christ and proclaiming the Gospel without having to explain why we are part of a denomination that is failing to stand on the Word of God. It's a beautiful thing and I would urge you and others to consider following what it seems in your heart you know to be the right way. Forget the labels entirely and follow Christ. Is He calling you to reach the world with the Gospel or use your energy and resources to "save a denomination"? The fields are white unto the harvest. I am praying that God will send out more laborers into the harvest field - getting outside of denominational walls and preaching Christ and Him crucified. Blessings on your labors for the Lord Jesus Christ!

Why haven't YOU left your denomination already?

"There is no way, short of a miraculous and full-scale changing of hearts and minds, for North American denominations to survive the homosexuality crisis."

So it will be the end of denominationalism -- i.e. of faith-onlyist churches that have different doctrines but all embrace each other because of a shared commitment to faith-onlyism. These will be dead, morally...but aren't they already? Isn't that what lead to the crisis? Those other churches -- worksists if you will -- that already affirm morality will continue to do so. Not much will change for them, except perhaps they will be more cautious in evangelism for fear of spies reporting to the gob'ment that they are preaching against homosexuality.

DA: You have repeatedly try to prod and semi-chastise Kevin in his blogs. We realize you don't have good feeling about the RCA anymore.
How about calling him and discussing your issues with him over a good cup of brew.

I have to admit: I didn't expect that conclusion.

I think the Southern Baptist Convention will survive the pro-homosexual crisis. They're the second largest Christian denomination, holds tenaciously to the inerrancy of Scripture, will not ordain women or practicing homosexuals as pastors, supports traditional marriage, etc. In spite of some of its inner problems, the SBC is standing strong and unmoved in the midst of this present crisis.

I appreciated this post.

It is interesting to me that there is such a qualitative difference in the nature of progressive paths forward vs. conservative ones. The progressive camp always has entropy on their side - they tend to wait it out rather than leave. The second law of thermodynamics certainly applies to collective theological temperature in a denomination, and unless energy is expended, our systems will always tend toward chaos. Even after schism, the broken pieces still have to fight to maintain their newfound stasis. Curch history seems to indicate that the only reliable method of staving off such doctrinal drift is the Vinedresser's careful pruning through persecution and adversity. The sword has a marvelous way of creating instant perspective on the importance of core issues and causing wolves to exit the sheepfold until a more opportune time (i.e. one when they won't be required to die with the sheep). I'm not saying we should pray for persecution, but if it comes over the next decades, we will see denominations give way to less bureaucratic, more theologically consistent, and more locally networked (grassroots) church forms. I love our freedoms in America, but the absence of institutionalized persecution from outside the church has left us to amuse ourselves with enticing errors as we succumb to the ennui of ostensible peace. When nobody suffers for being a Christian, no one hesitates much at the thought of heresy, either.

Kevin,

The Catholic Church will survive "the homosexuality crisis," continuing to uphold the truth concerning marriage and family, as it has for two thousand years.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

This is not a political issue interdenominationaly, nor is it a humane issue comparing it to slavery or a minority opresition, it is a matter of sin for the practitioner, a matter of participation of sin for those who condone it as biblically viable, I don't understand why this blog lingers on the notion of compromise biblical truth as denominational opinion, our understanding on the matter is that gay people must be showed love an be treated with respect, but this does not mean they are members of the body of Christ, for that they need to valiantly admit their error, repent just like every one else who has been saved & turn from their ways and live a life in the service of our Lord. Why do they think they must be allow to have communion with us who don't practice homosexuality and to live a life of sin and be accepted in christian churches? This is basic moral, basic interpretation, basic logic, basic biblical teaching, so what is the issue?

Carl Trueman's short ebook "The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" pointed to this issue as being one of the critical ones the Church faces. Interestingly I listened to an interview of Rick Phillips on SermonAudio yesterday, and another issue mentioned by Trueman that Dr. Phillips also cited was that of the accounts of creation and the Church's stand on a 'historical Adam'. Dr. Phillips said that that particular issue has the PCA in jeopardy as well. Dr. Trueman might have mentioned one or two other critical points (has been quite a while since I read the ebook), but as for these two, the root of these is the Church's doctrines of Scripture. Do we see Scripture as the Word of God? Do we see it as clear, authoritative, sufficient? Do we see it as central to preserving church unity or does taking a position on truth compromise unity?

As a person in a non-denom church, we don't have such major disagreements in the form of a denominational convention so to speak. But those issues too, are ones that similarly divide us, if only on a smaller scale. One significant by-product of that is that without such a public meeting to discuss doctrinal issues, such non-denoms effectively attempt to take a middle-ground position of kicking the can down the road or pretending that the issues don't exist.

Can you give some clarification of the stance on homosexuality of the denominations you listed?

"Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve." Joshua 24:14,15

It is no surprise that the Reformed Church in America is not a congregational denomination. Classes may choose to dismiss congregations along with the real property, but they are under no obligation whatsoever to do so. Some have. Others have not. I too have respect for Rev. Demers' principles position that leaving meant leaving. That, it seems to me, is the way of true integrity. Leaving the denomination, and keeping the real property, it seems to me, expresses a desire to have you cake and eat it, too. And it seems to me, as an outsider, that the Classis of Zeeland rightly adjudged willful disobedience as a disciplinable offense.

Kevin, how many times has it been now that you have written this same piece? I know I’ve seen you write several variations on this same theme for many years now. The problem is that, although you accuse the RCA of endless dialogue on the issue, you have been doing the same by re-writing the same comments and doing nothing about it.

You state “The denomination must fish or cut bait.” What about you, Kevin? Instead of yet another blog about this, why don’t you take your own advice and fish or cut bait?

I have a lot of respect for Pastor Steve who did the right thing in spite of the consequences. Unfortunately the RCA and Zeeland classis decided to play hardball – no surprise there. But in spite of the sacrifices of leaving a denomination they loved, his church made the decision that had to be made in light of the position and direction of the RCA. I have nothing but great respect for their decision, their mission, and their willingness to make the necessary sacrifices.

What about you, Kevin? Are you going to continue to kick the can down the road, too, waiting for the next General Synod decision or the outcome of yet another study? Your theology is spot on but you are holding on to a denomination that you love, but one that has already left you. My ties to the RCA are, like yours, deep and wide and it was a difficult decision to leave, but I can’t express it any better than Pastor Steve:

“We have the freedom to focus on Christ and proclaim the Gospel without having to explain why we are part of a denomination that is failing to stand on the Word of God. It’s a beautiful thing and I would urge you and others to consider following what it seems in your heart you know to be the right way.”

I appreciate this post and can comment on it from experience. I am an Anglican pastor and a former Episcopal pastor. The Anglican Church is the third largest church worldwide. The Episcopal Church (TEC) has been the American expression of Anglicanism, yet has been a statistically irrelevant denomination in America for a very long time. This is in large part due to the fact that TEC has never had the missionary mindset of the Anglican Communion. But it is also because TEC has always been a wild card. Since this country was founded from English colonies, and the Anglican Church comes from England, there is a history of TEC not wanting to follow what England tells them. That hasn't always been a bad thing. But when you get to divisive issues like these sexual issues, being a wild card who just does whatever you want while ignoring your global communion is a problem.

Starting in 2003 with the consecration of the first openly and actively homosexual bishop the seeds of a new Anglican province in America were planted. In 2008 or 2009 the Anglican Church North America (of which I am now a part) was formed and its key principles were both scriptural fidelity and a return to the missionary mindset of the Anglican Communion. The issue of scriptural authority had been brought to a head over the homosexual debate.

TEC has sued and taken buildings, endowments, and all sorts of money from the Anglicans as they walked away. So what has been the result? TEC is dying on the vine. They are using the money from lawsuits to pay for more lawsuits. They are bankrupting themselves financially to match their moral bankruptcy. In 2009 they voted at their national convention to take money from women and youth ministry budgets to put toward lawsuits. They are winning almost all of those lawsuits. Anglicans are leaving everything "physical" behind. And the Anglican Church North America (ACNA) is flourishing beyond belief. In the last three + years they have planted in the area of 500 churches. They have formed new alliances with other denominations and groups. My own diocese had 14 churches two years ago and is now over 40.

TEC, in the meantime, has just begun making liturgies for same sex marriages. Their attendance has plummeted despite already being under 500k on a Sunday as an entire national church prior to the church split. They are bankrupt. Yet they continue on the same path. And in a few years most of these churches will be dead and gone.

In the meantime, the ACNA who took a faithful stand is flourishing beyond belief. It came with great sacrifice. In our diocese, every church that was formerly part of TEC all lost all their property and possessions. Every one of them was taken in by another denomination and all are flourishing now.

In summary, taking a stand is not only worthwhile, but is absolutely necessary. And in the end, in the battle between orthodoy and heresy in TEC, the ACNA has shown clearly which side God is actually willing to bless.

A big problem too is that denominations like the RCA and the CRC have intermarried and formed unholy alliances in evangelical movements like the WCRC, NCC, CCC that consist of membership churches who endorse homosexuality. These movements influence the direction of their membership churches and colleges by rewriting curriculums and doctrines to conform to a political and religious global worldview.

This problem does not only need to be addressed at a denominational level, but at a higher level. These alliances need to be cut off if there is going to be any preservation of truth and a difference made.

"Shall we break your commandments again and intermarry with the peoples who practice these abominations? Would you not be angry with us until you consumed us, so that there should be know remnant, nor any escape?" Ezra 9:14

Sometimes I tend to go "gloom and doom" on non-denominationalism despite my membership in a non-denom. Steve Demers' post reminds me that there IS such a thing as healthy non-denominationalism, and I appreciate that reminder. I can only draw from this that standing for truth does not necessitate either being denominational or non-denominational.

Also, Kevin's last statement says "sometimes the best way to preserve unity is to admit that we don’t have it." In this podcast to which I referred earlier, Rick Phillips of the PCA rightly pointed out at some length that--and I'm paraphrasing what I heard while listening yesterday--churches that are united don't engage in endless talking about unity and expressing the need for it, because they are already carrying out the mission of the church in a healthy manner. He was addressing different issues here, but the principle is the same. I've personally heard the 'U-word' brought up a lot at my own church, and most typically when there has been tension in the congregation over preaching, or worship, or someone leaving, and most often, it's simply used as a means of dodging matters that Scripture speaks to if only we would submit ourselves to it.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=7312842493

[...] made my think back to an article that I had read a month ago by Kevin DeYoung entitled “Why No Denomination Will Survive the Homosexuality Crisis”. DeYoung basically says that we are all talking past each other and that there is no way that [...]

[...] that without hating each other.  Specifically to the church, Kevin DeYoung has some incredibly wise words for every denomination struggling with this [...]

My apologies that the statement which began "When an entire denomination..." got fractured as it did, but once posted, the "edit" button refused to let me back into it for some reason (glitch). I hope that once read, folks will be able to determine that it was positing one root of the problems it described.

I also should have said in the third statement: "the explosion of not only “culture first Christianity”, but also the increase of people who are turning away from the whole mess to Roman Catholicism (some ‘returning’, some newly changing)." rather than what I did post.

Again my apologies for what should have been clearer to begin with.

I have watched over the last several years the increasing crumbling of denominations, and I honestly think that eventually they will splinter and fracture and disintegrate to the point of non-existence (unless of course Christ return first).

Not having a lifetime of denominational attachment that many have had, I can understand that it must be a struggle to choose to leave, evict, etc. My family has been faced with leaving a church filled with people we loved due to doctrinal problems that were not only accepted, but became the majority views among leadership more concerned with man-centered ideas and desires than on the Word of Holy God.

I do believe that if we look plainly at the last 30-50 years of evangelical history in this country, we can where the roots were sown, and if we look honestly at it, we should begin to understand why we are seeing the growth of not only "culture first Christianity", but of people who are turning away from the whole mess to Roman Catholicism (some 'returning', some newly changing).

When an entire denomination allows for the shepherds in it to teach completely opposing doctrines on say, Calvinism and Arminianism, and has so frightened most of the prospect of offending anyone unto leaving - the majority will not even broach the subject, which in itself stops them from teaching people many connectable doctrines, and the American church has overall - stopped teaching doctrine, and instead teaches only the false anti-doctrinal secular stance of "unity at all costs" and "say nay to no one".

Would that the Lord will lead more people to meditate and reflect upon Matthew 24 for what Jesus actually taught, rather than these erroneous fables that He was only speaking of people who weren't already within the confines of the Christian church (outsiders).

The wolves are no longer at the doors of our churches, they are at our pulpits, and among our elders, and filling the pews.

[...] made my think back to an article that I had read a month ago by Kevin DeYoung entitled “Why No Denomination Will Survive the Homosexuality Crisis”. DeYoung basically says that we are all talking past each other and that there is no way that [...]