The PCA's Transgender Surgery Petition

Welcome to the Conversations That Matter podcast. We are live now, and I have a guest with me,

Zach Garris. Zach has been on the program before. He serves as the pastor of Bryce Avenue Presbyterian Church in White Rock, New Mexico, and he is the author of Masculine Christianity and Honor Thy Fathers, Recovering the

Anti -Feminist Theology of the Reformers. I actually saw Zach, the cover for this today or yesterday on New Christendom Press.

It looks pretty good. So when does that come out? June sometime.

I know the guy said it will be available at the conference in Ogden, Utah.

Yeah. But I don't know when it will be available online, but I assume sometime in the month of June.

Yeah, the only bone I have to pick is it says endorsements from This Is Foster, Stephen Wolfe, C .R.

Wiley, and I'm like, I'm pretty sure that I read it and endorsed this, so we'll see. We'll see

Well, yeah, I assume it will be somewhere in the book or online.

They'll use your... I may not have made the cut. It's okay, Zach. So anyway, no, this is really good, and you know, we could talk about so many things, but I saw an article that you put out there recently in American Reformer called

Petitioning the Magistrate. I remember, this is kind of an old issue, isn't it? Or like it's not, it's not a hot issue right this second.

You're responding to something that already happened. Now, of course, David Gordon, I guess, is who you're responding to, and he wrote an article last month, but like, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't this issue like last year?

Wasn't this a big deal? Yes, that's correct. Well, actually, you've kind of had two years in a row where the

PCA has sent up a petition to the civil government. So you had abortion in 2022, and then this petition 2023.

So the General Assembly, June of last year, the PCA General Assembly passed the overture to petition the civil government, the magistrate, on transgender surgeries, especially on minors.

So it's not limited to minors. It's broader than that. But, but they had to write the letter.

So the letter was written, I think it came out early this year. And 2024.

So initially, January or something wasn't there was someone prominent at Escondido, right, that was objecting to this and saying that this is a conflation of the kingdoms or something.

Yeah, so so back when this was an issue at the Assembly, R. Scott Clark, who's a professor of church history at Westminster Seminary, California, in Escondido, he was critical of the

Assembly's move. And in his argument was that it violates or part of his argument, it violates

Westminster Confession 31 .4, which deals with petitioning the magistrate, and the languages is like cases extraordinary.

So we can get into that. But yeah, yeah, well, and then that ties into this protest here by by T.

David Gordon, who, yeah, just set the stage, because I probably did a poor job of that in the beginning here.

We're talking about this is the first issue, we're gonna get into some more PCA issues since you're PCA pastors, Zach, but we were talking about the

PCA decided to take a public stand, and not just take a public stand, but urge the civil magistrate, essentially, to what's the best way to put it to not say sanction or to not approve of transgender surgeries for minors.

That's basically the gist of it. Yeah, I mean, the language is the the Assembly petitioned the civil government to stop transgender surgery.

So so to outlaw them to put an end to them. So it's, it's calling the government to do something.

I mean, so it's condemning the very practice of transgender surgeries. And all of God's people said,

Why is this controversial? But with certain people in the PCA, it is. And and some of these guys,

I would say they're probably the radical two kingdoms guys, right? They really just see us in a and so let's, let's talk about maybe give the concrete examples first.

So you can go through what you talked about in your article, and then maybe explain like, what, what drives them?

What makes them tick? Because this is such an odd, I think, to the average Christian way of approaching the topic that the church can never ever speak prophetically, and the two kingdoms shall never there's the waters don't ever mix.

So yeah, yeah. Go ahead. To be clear, these guys are not necessarily political leftists.

Right? I'm not saying they're paleo conservatives. They might be neoconservatives.

But politically, they're not usually leftists. They're making an argument that gets into the proper duties of church and state and separation of church and state.

And it gets into what's known as the spirituality of the church, which we can get into. But But just to be clear, that's, that's what they're arguing is not nobody here is arguing that transgender surgeries are a good thing.

They are so to be fair to them, they're saying that the church should not speak to the state on this matter, formally, and particularly

T. David Gordon's argument is part of his protest is that it's the

General Assembly that should not be doing this or he would say church courts.

So he would he would allow even he even allowed in his article, he allows for pastors to preach against these things.

So he I mean, that's another issue, but he's not even saying it has to stay out of the pulpit per se. He's just saying that when we come together in church courts, which would be elders gathering as a session, or presbytery meetings, or the highest we have in the

PCA is the General Assembly. He's saying that we should not make political rulings.

That's what he's saying. He's saying it's a political ruling. I don't I don't think it's, I would argue it's not purely political.

So that's, that's where I how prominent is David Gordon in the PCA? I mean, you know, he was a professor at Gordon, or a college in there in Pennsylvania.

Grove City, Grove City, Gordon, Grove City. And then of course, he's a minister in the

PCA. Is he? Is he pretty prominent? I suppose prominent enough for you to write against his position?

Yes, he's retired now. I think he's fairly well known in like reformed circles.

Most people probably know him for his book, Why Johnny Can't Preach. Oh, yes. Okay. I do know.

That's, that's where I had first heard of him is, you know, he's, he's critical of kind of modern evangelicalism.

And, and, you know, that books like Lack of Education and the like. So yeah,

I mean, I remember liking that book. It's been a while since I've read it, but walk us through his argument, then why you disagree with his position on this?

Yeah, so Gordon, basically, he has kind of three, three arguments in there.

That's how I summarize his, his article. Let me, let me actually maybe backtrack.

So his presbytery, the Ascension Presbytery in Pennsylvania, they, they sent up the petition to the local government.

Okay, so to the state. That's how he filed his protest in his presbytery. And so that's why it's a recent issue is the presbyteries can, if they choose, send up the petition, the letter to civil government, they can send it to more local government instead of the

PCA only sent it to, I believe, the federal government, different people within federal government.

So, so anyway, so Gordon protested, and he has some arguments in here that are like, hey, this just isn't a good use of time and resources, which

I think that's hard to say at this point. It's kind of what I say at the beginning of the article.

But it because to be fair, so he advocates that, well, individuals can send up these letters, he's not saying we can't send up letters to government on these issues as individual pastors or church members or whatever.

So, again, though, I don't think that's really a strong argument, because I do think when the assembly does this takes a stand, it's saying, hey, this is a serious thing.

And it's actually encouraging other people to do those individual petitions and letters.

That's, that's fine. I wouldn't put them against each other. And I just think transgender surgeries, it's such a massive,

I mean, big problem, but but just so awful. And it's something that I think the church should clearly speak against.

And, and so it's good that we have a statement like this. So I don't, I'm not with him on his, his argument that it's not a good use of time or resources.

It's not, it's obviously not the only thing we should be doing as a church, but I don't think we spent that much time on it, frankly.

Go ahead. Yeah, okay. So that's argument one, then. And that's more of a prudential, just there's other priorities and stuff.

That's not a deeply theological argument. What are the other two? Right. So, so he's getting at a more theological issue, which

I'm going to look at the wording here, just so I can be clear with what he said. So, so he's, he's affirming the spirituality of the church, which

I which I would affirm, but but there is disagreement as to how this plays out and kind of its details.

And some of this, I should say, just as a note, goes back to some debates in the 19th century, between Presbyterians like Charles Hodge, there was

James Henley Thornwell, but I really think that the most radical guy was Stuart Robinson, Kentucky Presbyterian.

So, so this gets into some of, and we can talk about this, some of the difference between like Hodge and Robinson.

So Gordon, Gordon says that the spirituality of the church, that is its spiritual, non -political nature, forbids a joint church assembly from speaking to the civil magistrate.

That's kind of his general principle is that the church should not in its courts and its joint assemblies, which, as I said,

Session, Presbyterian General Assembly, should not make rulings that involve politics.

And, and he seems to say that even when they're touching on moral issues, so that therein lies part of the problem is, that's,

I would agree with him, if we're talking about something that's purely political, and there we see part of the problem. But so then, tied with this, he does make an exception to that general principle, which is that the church can speak to the civil government if the magistrate makes a request.

So if the government says, hey, church, can you speak to us on this issue? And then the church is then allowed to do so, because they're requested to do so.

Or the other exceptions, that's one. The second exception is that the church can make humble petitions in cases extraordinary.

And so this gets into Westminster Confession 31 .4. And so I realized some of this is, you know, gets tedious.

But essentially, he's arguing that cases extraordinary, and he's citing

A .A. Hodge, which is Charles Hodge's son. Hodge says, quote, where the interests of the church are immediately concerned.

And so Gordon is using A .A. Hodge's short comment, by the way, it's pretty brief, to, in support of his position, that it needs to basically directly interfere with the church.

So he's not saying that the church can never petition the state.

He's saying it just should be only when the church, the state directly affects the church.

And I think he gives the example of like some of the COVID shutdowns. So he would allow for something there, like where it interferes with the church, and then the church can petition the state.

But he's saying that the transgender stuff doesn't directly affect the church. And so basically, we just need to stay out of it.

Okay. All right. So that's well summarized there. It's not an extraordinary case.

It doesn't directly affect the church. Well, if it is, it doesn't directly affect the church. And your disagreement is?

Yeah, so well, I have several disagreements. As I mentioned,

I think this issue is not purely political. So if we were talking about,

I don't know, some, I always like to say like tariff rates or something, you know, then the church probably shouldn't get involved.

It's something that is purely political and should be decided as a political matter and not, it's not a spiritual religious issue.

And so the church should just stay out of it. It causes problems and it's just not the church's duty.

But I think the church and its joint courts can and should at times speak to the magistrate regarding moral issues.

And this is a moral issue, though it touches somewhat on the duties of the state.

And so, yeah, I think Gordon has a problem basically where he's, and this gets into the language of Chapter 31 .4

of the Confession. It speaks of ecclesiastical affairs and then civil affairs.

The problem is that something like transgender surgeries, well, what does that fall under?

It's not purely a civil affair because it's a moral issue. And so in that sense, it can relate to the church.

I mean, we can apply the Bible to these things. So that's part of it. The scriptures do speak to these issues.

And therefore, if the scriptures speak to them, the church can speak to them. And in some ways, the church has a duty to speak to them right when they're a problem in society.

We have a duty to apply the word of God. And so he's basically, I think Gordon's tying the church's hands behind its back, saying we can't address these things publicly, or at least not in church courts.

I think it's kind of arbitrary where he says, you could do it from a pulpit, but not from a church court.

I don't see a distinction because if I can do it from the pulpit, then the church courts can do it.

And if I can't do it from the pulpit or should, yeah, if I can't, then church courts can't. I think we should see some consistency there.

I'm not sure exactly his basis. He doesn't seem to explain that. So that's part of my objection is just this is a moral issue that the church can, and in this case should speak to.

It's permissible. And I mean, also, you know, if you see my opening argument in that article, it's basically,

I say this is absurd. It's actually an absurd position to say the church and it's as the church cannot speak to condemn transgender surgeries and call the state to do something about it.

I mean, if we can't do it, who's going to speak to it? Nobody else. And so we're just going to, you know, let evil take place in the open and the church is just going to be silent.

I think that's entirely unacceptable. Yeah. Why don't we do the third one and then

I want to come back. The third argument he makes in your objection. And then I do want to talk a little bit about church state relationships, which you talk about quite a bit on this podcast, but fine tuning kind of where how we should think about the both the difference between these institutions and yet the where the waters meet, so to speak.

So what's the third argument that he brings? Which one are you referencing?

Oh, do we already do that? OK, I thought you said he had three arguments. Well, well, he does. But the two are I separate them just for I see simplicity, which is he cites the spirituality of church, but then he he gets into the exception and he argues that this case doesn't meet the exception because it doesn't directly affect the church.

So so those two kind of go go hand in hand. I mean, there's there's more I could say about his his his position here.

Well, yeah, that's fine if you have something to say. But I thought it would be helpful also to just get into principally what.

Sure. Because there's a lot of pastors listening, I'm sure, and laymen in PCA churches who. They don't know.

They're confused. We'll put it that way. Or they're if they're not confused, they're.

They're wondering where to lean, because in the one hand we have and maybe

I should just say it, I can say it on my podcast, you have ministries, they're not Moscow's in the PCA, but the Moscow kind of model, if you want to call it that, of starting all these different institutions, publishing companies and media and all these things, and then addressing tons of political issues.

Right. And and so there's a lot of involvement in civil affairs, or at least in commenting on them and encouraging people to run for office.

And I don't know what all they're doing, but that's kind of like one model I see. And that affects a lot of PCA churches, because I think you and I talked about it at breakfast a few weeks ago that they're there, you know, they have the cannon press app and stuff like they may go to a

PCA church. But like what kind of material are they consuming at home, the material that's available and they're not going on PCA sermon websites as much as they are the convenience of the cannon press app with its kids programming and all the rest.

So that's like one model that's kind of rising in popularity, I'd say, in the PCA. And then you have kind of this

Westminster Escondido radical two kingdoms, like very much a separation, which is what you're critiquing in a sense aspects of it.

Between the government and the church in such a way that the waters just never seem to meet.

And it strikes. So there seems I hate to be that guy that sounds like a typical evangelical who's trying to say there's there's truth in both.

Right. I don't really I don't know that I buy that. But there I do see that you can go off in either direction.

Right. You can have a church that's electioneering, that's way too involved in cultural things to the point that they've lost their distinction as a church, which is more of an outpost in the temporal world to point towards heavenly realities and prepare the soul for these transcendent heavenly things.

And you're just so stuck in the temporal world and the political fights that are going on around you. I can see that as a problem.

And churches that start putting things in their faith statements on, you know, not political or moral issues, but like political strategies, you know, like this is the right political strategy to end homosexuality or abortion or all these other things.

Like they get sucked into a very political mold or that at least the danger is there perhaps. And then you have the churches that just, you know, 2020 happened and there's a riot outside the window and the church says we're not even going to address that and we're not going to write any vaccination religious conviction statements for your job or like we're going to pretend like none of that is happening.

So give us some guidance as a pastor on how you navigate these two models and where you see the ditches and that kind of thing.

Yeah, this is kind of a tough question. Look, I'll say I affirm the spirituality of the church, so I'm in one sense, it kind of is like a middle ground, though I think it's it's the proper biblical teaching.

And basically it's the idea that the church is a non -secular, non -political institution.

OK, it is a spiritual institution with a spiritual mission. So we shouldn't be seeking to get involved in purely political issues.

So like I said, there are things we shouldn't be getting into. I don't think we should be as a church, you know, officially endorsing candidates and things like that.

I mean, there's also practical problems with that obviously causes unnecessary division.

But then obviously we don't want to. We don't want to act like the

Bible has nothing to say to these issues, because, you know, especially today, a lot of these so -called political issues are not purely political, right?

They're moral. They involve all sorts of moral issues. And the Bible does speak to them. And where the

Bible speaks, so must the church speak. And that's that's part of the issue. Now, I realize sometimes things aren't.

Entirely explicit from scripture, and so sometimes there's things that are implicit and sometimes we have to apply scripture.

So let me maybe give an example is, I mean, obviously the Bible very clearly condemns homosexuality.

And so it doesn't take much to get to the to the conclusion that same sex marriage is immoral and the church should oppose it and and even can condemn the state and call the state to repentance when it enables such.

You know, I guess you could say abortion requires a little more to get there. It's not as explicit, though,

I think it's, you know, good and necessary consequence of scripture to use the language of the Westminster Confession 1 .6.

You know, most Christians are in agreement on, you know, that abortion is immoral.

Of course, you could get some who are soft on it politically. You know,

I don't think the church needs to say what the punishment should be. I think that can be left to the state.

I mean, I'm not saying again, though, I'm not saying pastors can't or shouldn't write on these things, but some of those issues, it's best that the church courts don't don't address.

And then, but we can say abortion is immoral and the church, the church should call magistrates to repentance, to outlaw it.

I mean, so I mean, and those are kind of like maybe two of the easier issues. But but you do have things like transgenderism and transgender surgeries that, you know, scripture still speaks to as far as Genesis 1 and male and female and these kind of things.

So so again, I think let me maybe say this about T. David Gordon's article.

I think he's right that we should be cautious in how we approach political issues in our assemblies, and we don't want to be doing these things all the time.

So so he's right on that in that regard. He's just I think he's wrong. In this specific application here and his his exceptions are not broad enough, he's taking too narrow of exceptions and unjustifiably limiting the church in its prophetic witness.

That's part of the issue is the church does have a prophetic witness against moral evil. Yeah, you say in the conclusion to the article,

Gordon's argument against the PCA's petition to the civil magistrate to end transgender surgeries does not properly account for the church's duty to correct the magistrate when it does not fulfill its duty.

Gordon rightly holds that the church should correct the magistrate when it does not protect the church.

But that is not the magistrate's only duty. The magistrate is also to maintain piety and as superior in the

Commonwealth, the magistrate is to protect and provide for those under his authority and all things necessary for the soul and body.

And when the magistrate does not fulfill his duty, the church may inter meddle with civil affairs by the way of humble petitions.

So you talked about that. And a lot of that's quoting, a lot of those are quotations, partial quotations from the

Westminster standard. So people may want to go read that themselves. You know, I mean,

I do think this is the case where some reformed people or even non -reformed

Christians might say, whoa, whoa, like caring for the body, you know, and not just the soul or body and soul, right, for the magistrate.

And then the other thing I said in there is about maintain piety, right, that the magistrate should maintain piety.

All of that stuff is still in the American version of the Westminster standard. So I'm quoting the

American version, not the original, which had, you know, some stronger powers,

I guess, of the state in regard to religious things. So that gets into the whole

Christian nationalism, you know, issues and related to R2K, Reformed Two Kingdoms, or probably

Radical Two Kingdoms. But again, I'm just saying that the magistrate has a duty here.

And when it doesn't do that duty, the church can, it's permitted to call the state to repentance.

Yeah, yeah, I completely agree. I mean, I don't see anything in the Westminster Confession that would prohibit this kind of thing.

And the people who want to draw those lines, I don't know where exactly they're coming from as far as like what cultural milieu they were involved in that made them scared about this kind of involved, like, you know,

Baptist world, for example. Go ahead, you tell me and I'll tell you what Gordon thinks. Well, I was going to say the

Baptist world, you kind of understand it to some extent because their whole story is like, oh, we were always persecuted and that's why we really want some kind of like religious pluralism.

And that kind of motivates some of them to argue that the magistrate should be so separate from the church that the two waters shall never meet.

And I get it for them, for the Presbyterians, not quite as much. I don't know if it's the same motivation or if it's something else.

But go ahead. You had a illustration. Well, I mean, for some of these guys, the radical two kingdoms guys, they,

I mean, it's hard to know individual motives, but there seems to be a fear of, you know, offending unbelievers on some of these matters.

So they'd rather the church just talk about the death and resurrection of Christ, justification by faith, all great things.

Obviously, the church be preaching those, but they don't want to get into some of these more controversial things, right, that might touch on the political or cultural issues that are, the problem is they're moral issues.

And so they deal with the law of God. God's law speaks to these things. And so should the church. So I think there is a fear from some of these guys.

But again, I can't always know when that's the case. At least their arguments tend to be, you know, they're going to Westminster Confession 31 .4.

I think they're wrong on that. But here's where I was going, is

Gordon has a fear, and he states this in the article that when the church gets too political, it becomes liberal.

So that's his fear, and he's appealing to the 20th century. Yeah. But I think he makes an error here, right?

Or at least say I disagree with him. He is correct that both the

Northern and Southern Presbyterian churches in the 20th century were making lots of political statements, and they were going liberal.

The Northern church before the Southern church, but the Southern Presbyterian church was going liberal, started really heavily in the 1930s.

And then the PCA was formed in 1973. The PCA came out of the Southern church, background of the

PCA. So Gordon thinks that these political statements that the mainline churches were making were leading it liberal.

But here's the problem. I think he's conflating the issues and assuming causation.

The fact of the matter is that the mainline churches were already going liberal. They were abandoning the inheritance of scripture.

They were abandoning God's prohibitions on divorce, which are pretty strict.

They were loosening things like that. They were starting to ordain women.

So this isn't just political. There's all sorts of other issues at play. Yes, they were entertaining, some of the liberals were entertaining communism.

And other evils. But this was more symptomatic,

I think, of their liberalism. The problem wasn't that they were making political statements.

That wasn't the cause of their liberalism, in other words. Now, here's another argument, and I make this point in the article, is that in the 19th century, the

Presbyterian church actually made lots of political statements. But they weren't liberal.

I mean, there were disagreements between the old school and new school and debates over slavery and abolitionism.

But the fact of the matter is, and I point out three cases or three examples, is that the

Presbyterian church petitioned the government over mail on Sunday.

So the Sabbath mails controversy. And while you could argue that that directly affects the church, that's not the only place they went.

They actually, as I quoted in there, they were saying this was like 1810 and then 1814. That's before any splits.

So this is a united Presbyterian church, American Presbyterian church. And they're saying that the mail being delivered on Sunday is bad for society.

That's one of their arguments. So it's not limited to, oh, this is harming the church.

They're just saying, actually, Sabbath breaking is really bad for everyone. And so the magistrate needs to stop it.

So that's one example. There's also the other example I give is slavery. There's the 1818 statement on slavery.

This wasn't a petition of the civil government, but the Bible does speak to the issue of slavery.

So they were, it was kind of a moderate position where they rejected abolitionism, but they were also calling for an end to slavery.

And then they instructed the church regarding duties of masters and slaves and even called for discipline if Christian masters were splitting up families and things like that.

So it's a pretty interesting statement. But you see that they're addressing what was definitely in one sense, a civil affair, for sure, but it was also moral.

So, basically, the church was saying, well, we need to address these things, but we can't go as far as to tell the state that what they should do here.

And then the other issue I give is temperance, which that one's kind of complicated. But and I don't really like that the church was getting involved in that one, but because it ended up leading, you know, eventually, like the prohibition movement.

But anyway, the point is, is that the church, Presbyterian church, had a precedent, has a precedent for speaking to issues that are political, but they're not purely political.

And so, you know, the PCA here was following, you know, basically American Presbyterian precedent.

Zach, a thought came to my mind, and I'd be curious to hear your thought on this. But, you know, there is a posture that is suited for perhaps a revolutionary moment that is not suited for a counterrevolutionary moment.

And what I mean by that is you see the reform movements of the 19th century. You mentioned abolitionism and the prohibition issue.

But of course, you also had anti -masonry and you had the whole feminism issue coming up.

And there were other things that there was just a whole kind of enthusiasm during the latter half of that century for these different reform efforts that culminated in the social gospel.

And the Presbyterians were certainly involved in these things. I mean, even Finney came out of a Presbyterian background and was very enthusiastic about much of this.

So he did not hold the Presbyterian doctrine, though, let's be clear. Actually, he you don't want to take credit for him. Well, there's a funny story where he he he's asked about the confession and he said he had never read it.

I mean, I don't know how he got ordained, but he left. OK, all right. OK, but he was he did come out of a he did.

Yeah. Presbyterians, you know, there's all sorts of bad figures. Right. OK, so. All right.

So anyway, my point is, though, in that moment, what you had, I think with a lot of that, with that whole kind of I don't know what to call it, a broad movement, it was really like the first woke movement.

Like if you really you could draw a lot of parallels, that woke movement, if you want to call it that, with all its broad kind of issues that it took kind of had this revolutionary impulse.

And it was the attempt to remake society along more egalitarian lines for the most part.

That's really the common thread that runs through a lot of this, that there's these associations and institutions and things that are holding society back from progress and that progress is going to eventually end up in some kind of a social equality.

And and so, of course, the social gospel is where this culminates and that we see that as compromise. And I think we could probably take these issues and talk about, you know, hey, what was the biblical instinct they should have had and that they didn't and that kind of thing.

But but that was a revolutionary moment. We're in a moment now where conservatives and Christians, in particular, who actually believe the

Bible and make up the base of conservatism in this country, their job is more or their their impulse in their posture is more counterrevolutionary.

They're looking at all the damage that's been done and they're trying to undo it somehow. And that's what you have here.

It's an example of, hey, the government should be condemning and making illegal these transgender operations.

This is this is a counterrevolutionary move. And so so my theory perhaps that I'm coming up with on the spot is that maybe some of these

PCA guys are looking back at moments that, you know, more conservative ones and saying, hey, we really went off track during that revolutionary moment when we overrode scripture, we overrode even some of the things that were prudentially perhaps better for society.

Or if they weren't better, you know, we we basically adopted cures that were worse than their diseases and that kind of thing.

And we did all of this in the name of this this impulse that really isn't biblical, that you don't find this in scripture.

And we're doing the same thing now, like they're paralleling these things perhaps in their minds or there's a fear that we're going to go and it's a different moment, though.

And that's part of it. Like it's you're just applying biblical orthodoxy and moral standards in scripture to a range of issues that have been brought to us by the revolution.

So anyway, I don't know if you have any thoughts on that as I'm talking. But I wonder if that's at play. I have one thought, which is who's behind the overture, the petition to the civil government, in this case against transgender surgeries.

It's mostly the conservatives in the PCA or who people would call the confessionalists or whatever you want to call us.

Those opposing, by and large, seem to be more progressive. So, you know, and they say they're against transgender surgeries and all these things.

But, you know, they're kind of citing the spirituality of church again. I mean, there seems to be a fear.

Some of the some of those guys are not like in the same vein, though, as T. David Gordon. Gordon is not a progressive. Right.

So that's where there's a weird mix here. And it's like the. Gordon does seem to follow more of a radical two kingdoms position.

So. And this is, I guess, a problem to raise is the R2K guys, though they may be more politically conservative, are giving.

You know, they're giving arguments to more progressive people who just are just afraid of speaking on these issues.

So I mean, so these things get mixed and and and I'm saying so R2K is a problem.

It really is. But you're saying it's so to my little theory that I came up with, you're saying it's actually not so much conservatives who are concerned about this involvement.

It's actually it's a mix of progressives and conservatives. That line doesn't seem to be the

I guess it doesn't define where you're going to land. Some conservatives think that way, like that's

Gordon's thought is that. Right, right. You know, this is leading this is just going to lead to the liberalization of the church.

And I think it's it's exactly the opposite. It's no, the church is actually. Trying to do its job and it's the conservatives who are pushing this, so there's no risk of the

PCA, you know, going liberal because I mean, the PCA has problems, but it's not because we're trying to petition the government on, you know, transgender surgeries.

I mean, it seems like something not to be as concerned with. So I do have some comments coming in before we get to the

David French stuff, which we're going to do. So I'll just go, I guess, in order and see.

Oh, this is I probably read the French stuff, so we'll get to this. I don't know what you're actually reacting to.

We're all neoconfederates. And so it's like I guess so it's justified. So, you know, French, this is in response to French coming in and doing what

I don't really remember exactly what it is. It's some kind of like a seminar. So, oh, what the

PCA is doing. Yeah. They invited to a seminar. Yeah. They're like these pre -assembly seminars.

And so it's I think it's on the Wednesday morning. So it's it's during the assembly. The assembly starts on Tuesday afternoon.

So it's part of the assembly. Look, not everybody goes to these things. It's at 8 a .m.

You know, business starts at 9 a .m. So people may still be sitting. It's how to be supportive of your pastor and your church leaders in a polarized political year.

David French is one of the speakers and Andrew Randy Hicks, David Kaufman, Paul McNulty.

I think woke preacher clips was saying one of these other guys is pretty woke, too. I don't know.

I don't know much about or actually I can't say I know anything off the top of my head about McNulty and Hicks.

David Kaufman is a pastor and, you know, I don't know all of his views on everything, but I will say he's you know, he's a good man and he's respected.

But but French in there with him, I mean, none of these guys are like none of these guys would be open

Trump supporters or right. You know, I mean, even I doubt we

I doubt any of them are like paleo conservatives. It's probably a more neoconservative panel.

Obviously, we'll get to talking about French, but but let's just say here even the. Just the topic is is a problem, how to be supportive of your pastor and church leaders in a polarized political year.

Look, I'm a pastor. I am concerned with what congregants think and how can

I help them think more biblically in these matters? I don't need somebody worrying about me as a pastor.

I mean, this is just so soft, frankly, that we're we're worried about. I mean, who's this even to?

I mean, most of the people, by the way, at the assembly are teaching elders or ruling elders. There are some outside of that.

Right. So so this just doesn't even make sense. Why are we I mean, even the audience.

But again, this is kind of the typical thing, like just worried about supporting the pastors.

And look, I mean, obviously some of these pastors are not very conservative politically.

I don't think that's the majority, but you have some of them that I've definitely interacted with. And I don't know,

I just this just seems kind of ridiculous to me to be concerned about the pastor during political politic, politicization or whatever we call it.

And then you're going to bring in David French, who is obviously polarized.

So there's there's ridiculous irony in there. Yeah. So well, it's just so you'll understand the context of that comment.

So I you had posted David and Nancy French don't even like the PCA. And it's there's some article here where I guess one of them from April.

It's pretty recent. It was Nancy French. Right. So she says that no church is perfect, but I doubt they're brimming with neoconfederates.

And so they left the PCA, I guess, over this. So the French is just to be clear, the French is were members of a

PCA church. Yeah. And they and they left. And and as far as leaving

Nancy, David's wife has some kind of nasty words for for the

PCA. So the hysterical thing about all of this and I showed you this last night is that you go back a few years now, it's nine years,

I guess, 2015. David French, a national review. Don't tear down the Confederate battle flag.

June 19th, Nancy French in Patios, why we shouldn't tear down the Confederate battle flag.

That's hilarious. And and this is so so anyway, all these PCA people are these horrible neoconfederates.

We got to leave this this denomination. But then, you know, by the standards of the F scale today, the left and the

F scale just means the fascist scale that the left uses today. No, that's that's from,

I think, Adorno, who who had thought like, hey, if you respect your parents too much, you might be a little fascist or something.

So like they have their scale like they today. There's a guy, I don't know if he's PCA or what,

I think he's Presbyterian, but he was like John Harris is a slavery apologist and all this stuff. And I was like,

I, you know, arguing with these people is kind of a fruitless endeavor. They just you can prove to them that they're wrong in every which way, but they just keep like as a broken record saying the same thing.

So, you know, my times have changed nine years and and they're complaining about all these neoconfederates who are probably inspired by their own articles, you know, in 2015.

And so anyway, that's why I think Daniel is like, well, we're all the new confederates in the PCA. Yeah, let me let me comment on that briefly is.

I mean, it shows you it shows you how far the French's have have fallen, apparently.

I mean, it's kind of a similar to the gay marriage stuff where, you know, David French was initially opposed, but now he's he doesn't necessarily endorse gay marriage, but he seems to he like says it's a civil right or I don't

I don't know what language he uses. It's ridiculous. So the fact that he's defending it just so it just shows you.

I mean, here's my word for David French compromised. The guy is totally compromised.

That's like a it's a joke. Yeah. I mean, he's he's a sellout, right? He's he's he was a

Presbyterian. And I don't know how else you look at him and and say otherwise and that he's he's sold out for money.

The guy is now writing for The New York Times. He wasn't a New York Times writer, but now he is.

Well, that means he earned it and he earned it by betraying fellow Christians and attacking them constantly in his articles, which are posted on Sundays, by the way.

I mean, we're the PCA is a Sabbath, Sabbatarian denomination. So this guy is like an open

Sabbath breaker and promoting his work on Sundays. And then we're going to invite him to address us as Presbyterian pastors.

And yes, I'm well aware that there's lots of guys who take exceptions on the Sabbath. But they're not supposed to be taking entire exceptions to the whole doctrine, but just some of the, you know, kind of some aspects of it.

But but so this guy is just totally unsuitable to address the PCA. It's really making a mockery of our denomination.

But to come back to the to come back to the Confederate thing, the

PCA is a Southern denomination. It came out of the Presbyterian, the Southern Presbyterian Church, the old

PCUS. So and I realize that that brings up a lot of things and causes some problems for people.

But to I mean, because this gets into, well, what do they mean by neo -Confederates?

Well, what people that honor their ancestors, like uphold the Fifth Commandment, they're neo -Confederates.

I mean, nobody ever defines this like you like the old Confederacy, you like Southern authors.

I mean, so my thought is, if you don't like the South, then don't be a part of the

PCA, which is highly concentrated. Yeah, Machen was a Southerner. I mean, you're a neo -Confederate if you like Machen.

That's my, that's, yeah, well, this goes at some of the OPC guys. But Machen started the

OPC, but Machen was a Southerner by background, his both parents. And he favored the

Confederacy. He thought he thought secession was legal because it is. And, you know, so what,

Machen, so you like Machen, now you're a neo -Confederate. I mean, this is just silly. Well, why not? That's all I'm saying is why not?

Like, yeah, I mean, why aren't David and Nancy French neo -Confederates for defending the Confederate flag?

Well, they are by their own definition. By their own. Yeah, they are. The self -hatred. So going through the comments, we all,

I think we are all. David, we all have David. I don't know what the what word to supply there.

We all have David French on the mind. Why does the PCA invite someone to speak who constantly accuses the brethren to the pagans?

Yeah, good point. Good point. Correct. This is a good question. I mean, let's let's say

I don't know exactly who made this decision. I'm hearing it was maybe our stated clerk, which is Brian Chappell.

Well, did you see today? He should know about it at minimum. Did you see Megan Basham? I should probably find it.

Did you see the back and forth between them today? On social media between Megan Basham and Brian Chappell?

I think it was Brian Chappell. No, no, no. Not Chappell. Sorry, not Chappell. The other guy. Oh, I'm going to I'm going to look it up.

Was it Cassidy? Yeah, I think it was Cassidy. Oh, yeah. Cassidy is like a progressive in the PCA. He blocked me a long time ago when he was he was calling like he was to ban guns.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's obviously a political leftist, I think. Yeah, yeah. Well, anyway, let's let's just keep going.

So you got another interesting point. People like me from the north who grew up in liberal home and came to faith later in life, our southern evangelical neo -Confederate.

So he's saying basically, I'm part of the PCA and the elite, you know, I'm in this and they're just kind of whole broad brushing the whole thing.

Scott says, get Doug Wilson to speak on the panel. Yeah. That's not going to happen.

That would be I would I would like temporarily pay like if there was a fee that I could like be in the

PCA for just a day to come and attend that panel with David French and Doug Wilson, I would totally do it.

But hey, why not? You're going to have David French. Why not, Doug Wilson? Like there's you really have no reason at that point.

What bothers me is not that they petitioned the state on this evil issue, but the PCA got plenty of pass.

You're sympathetic to gays. I mean, this is a much bigger issue um, and this kind of thing I saw a bunch of comments along these lines like going back and forth with whether or not the pca is embracing of same -sex

Attraction and that kind of thing which that seems to come up every year and um

My understanding from talking to you last time was actually things are going in a slight a better direction. It seems like Yes, so not there and stuff.

Yeah, the the downside is that the pca was never able to formally um

Discipline anyone over what's called side b christianity, which is uh

Basically they held that homosexuality and practice is wrong, but the desire is not sinful right?

So, you know our standards uh Teach that it is sinful. So it's not really in one sense

We didn't need to have a ruling on it. But you know, it is kind of like drawing out the from the from the text of confession and catechisms um but we have had some good overtures and even some that are passing with flying colors this year that that They don't they don't always explicitly deal with side b, but they

Are putting it into like our book of church order, you know as far as like, uh Standards of being above reproach and and some of these things and regarding um

Sexual morality. So so I yeah, I think things are fine there. I don't I'm, not aware of anyone advocating side b in the pca.

Um And that's a good change. That's awesome. Yeah, I mean if obviously we would have liked things to get dealt with in the courts to some extent but greg johnson leaving is a big a big deal and and He's trying to join the epc.

I believe this this summer. We'll see how that goes Cool, uh, yeah anyone who has questions, uh, let me know i'm just putting uh comments and questions

Uh, not all of them but ones that stand out, uh, and i'm pitching them to zach here i'm at greenville seminary

We know the pulse in the pca it is not at that the stage of abandoning the ship So greenville, you've told me greenville's a better one because someone is saying rts is pumping out woke faster

So you have that going on in the comments people? Yeah. Well here i'll i'll comment on that if you want bad greenville good

Yeah, I mean i'm an rts jackson grad. Um Um I think rts is uh, just broader you know for the as far as uh

Seminary and you you also have different seminaries. You you have different campuses that the jackson one was kind of always known as the most conservative um

Then you have charlotte And then like you have new york and dc.

I mean these are not conservative places. So yeah, i'm not surprised that Uh, even their professors even if they're part -time some of these guys are are

Appreciating, uh, david french. I saw this erwin ince. He's the uh, director of mna mission in north america in the pca and he was

Let me see what I have here. He I I took a picture so I could recall it. He said, um

I'm looking forward to this seminar and discussion. It is much needed Now, I don't know.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah needed who's that who who needs it? I don't need it Uh, you know these these guys need support.

I mean here's here's what I think happens in the pca sometimes is Pastors tend to be more progressive than both the ruling elders and then their congregants.

That's not to say there's no woke congregants Uh members of any of these churches or anything like that And there's churches that are more progressive um

But I mean, I I'm a I'm a pastor and i'm conservative. Uh, so I don't have this problem.

My church is You know fairly conservative. Um but sometimes you get these pastors who feel like You know, they don't want to touch on any of these issues.

They don't want to take stands and They might have pushback from the ruling elders and maybe people in the church

And so then they get frustrated. Um Yeah, I mean I I guess they're the ones needing support

I would encourage them to maybe hold views more in line with the majority of the pca Which is more conservative.

We're we're political. I mean, we're a we're a theologically conservative denomination We don't take official stands on politics

But when it comes to like cultural issues and social issues and the like we should be fairly conservative. I I don't understand the disconnect

Yeah, I don't either um, we got uh, dan dl craig saying r2k theology

Is and that's radical to kingdom or I get what they say reform q kingdom, right? Yeah, that's what they call it.

But it's it's it's not Yeah, it's not what the reformers held. So it's not radical or it's not

R2k theology is spreading fast in our pca church in northern michigan Observation reveals that r2k allows cowards to be cowards while preventing

Pretending to be bravely standing for something. That's a good observation. I might know which church that is. That's my home state

Pca member here. My church is getting more and more conservative. Not sure if we are the exception There's so many mixed comments in this

Look, the pca is just very diverse in this regard and uh, I guess one thing to say there is it is the biggest conservative reform denomination by far in america, it's

You know somewhere around 400 000 people. Yeah, you know people talk about the opc.

They've only got 30 000 people They're they're small. They're like a micro denomination. So um

The pca is is the biggest game in town. That's why it's important and that's why it's important that we win and if if people aren't in agreement with You know conservative theology and morals then they can go somewhere else.

They don't they don't have to be a part of our denomination um, yeah, I think but you know The sbc and the pca are often compared just like what stage they're at and I used to think like They were kind of neck and neck.

It was hard to say But it seems to me the sbc is farther down the path at this point of like I think they've actually

Gone like they're over the the cliff at this point and it's just a matter of time They're falling the pca.

I said this the other day that it seems like they're teetering and um And so some people, uh, you know, presumably, uh, and I should expect this they took

They they objected to that saying one way or the other it's over the cliff and other people saying no, it's great.

It's conservative um, like like johnny here says, uh pca is going apostate so it's there's just just Uh, all right a few more comments

Basically the modern 2k guys seek a definition of cases extraordinary so narrow that no case will ever be extraordinary enough

Yeah, it's like what? When is it is it when the cannibals are eating children? Like when when when is it like well, you know now the church can uh say something about it, but not until then

Yeah, I mean here's how I take extraordinary is it's not to be the ordinary practice Yeah, I mean so that I don't think it's that complicated but it gives it gives some

Gives some leeway to the church, you know, it's a prudential issue. It's it's You know, we shouldn't be doing all the time, but it leaves it to the assembly in this case

Um if conservative denominations go woke eastern orthodoxy and papism will keep growing I don't know about that because both of those traditions seem to have their own woke problems to be honest with you

And then signing on late. Is there a way to remove french from the panel and identify who invited him?

so, uh well Look people have been flooding. Uh, brian chappell's email inbox with uh

You know people complaining about this and so I think that's good um keep doing that I don't know what people chapel or whoever was thinking when they

Decided to bring french in or even just signed off on it because you have to know the guy's polarizing um, and if you don't know that I think that just tells you how out of touch you are with yeah, uh american christianity and particularly

The the pca obviously the pca and I think you can say the majority of our pastors and elders

Don't like david french They don't they consider him. I mean, how many?

How many articles has david french written attacking? Evangelicals or white evangelicals or you know, whatever language he uses for voting republican

Supporting donald trump, even though You know, it's not like we have a lot of other options.

So I think that's that needs to be factored in and then so he taxes for voting republican and then and then they leave the pca now and call us a bunch of neo -confederate so I mean and then they've defended drag queen story hour.

So if I can say one other thing about french is just I mean this guy's An enemy of the church.

Yeah, he doesn't encourage the church. He attacks us constantly and he's aiding our enemies uh, which

I mean, let's face it the democratic party, uh hates christianity overall um, maybe there's some exceptions but Their policies are anti -christian you know, that's not an endorsement of everything the republican party does of course, but I have plenty of complaints about the republican party, but um

So this is uh, someone said I guess they did email chapel And you'll just get a form letter back as I did late yesterday.

So yeah, that's what i've heard Yeah, you're just getting form letters. So there sounds like they're gonna go full steam ahead

Uh, well, I I don't know he may need to decide here. I mean I don't know why david french would want to show up because uh

I can guarantee you a lot of people aren't gonna get to address the neo -confederate audience and he doesn't have that all the time

I mean most of the time he's just writing to a bunch of yankees in the new york times So, uh, what pastor what's pastor zack's position on having the pca make more public positions?

On social moral issues such as opposing transgender surgeries and pronoun misgendering identification

Well, I think we've done enough here on the transgender surgeries, um I don't know about the

Pronouns, I mean, I think the pronouns are silly and that we shouldn't comply but I don't

I don't know what would be the proper I mean, I don't think there's a legal issue there yet. It's more of how employers, um enforce things so Yeah, I I don't know if we need anything specifically on that.

Um, Though maybe people could use some guidance. I don't know for a position paper or something Uh, zach, how would you respond to a senior pastor who thinks never trump because christian nationalism is the most dangerous issue in the election?

Well one I don't think christian nationalism is a danger at all I actually think it's good so So, I mean i've defended it, uh before in that, you know depends what we mean by it

But if we're just talking about, you know wanting a christian nation with christian morals and laws I mean, that's

I don't know how as a christian you could oppose that um You know, you could have criticisms of trump.

That's that's fine. I mean, you know, I don't think we need to have a official position on Donald trump, but but Yeah, if our options are joe biden or or donald trump

I mean, I I don't know that it seems pretty easy to me It sounds like the pca seminar is for you zach. You need to understand these.

Yes Yes, someone says that. Yeah, I guess you're full of it. Uh, I love zach, but much of the rot has not been removed

So they're quoting You know, um by faith magazine apparently talks about this

Well, but by but by faith's a good example by faith is in oregon of the pca uh the administration, it doesn't represent necessarily the majority of the uh pastors or or members of the pca so so this gets into a broader issue is

We have uh, you know kind of an administrative uh administrative level of the pca um bureaucracy you could even call it and it's more progressive and and it's at odds with I think the majority of the pca and so So so that's why this is maybe confusing to people as people see.

Well, david french is being brought in The pca is going, you know liberal and it's like well Who brought him in?

and and who's supporting this not not the majority of pastors in the pca, so So there's just some disconnect there.

I just think it was a very poor decision Uh, whoever made it Yeah All right.

Well with that, I think we'll probably there's other questions coming in, but we've been going over an hour so I want to be respectful if I if I could just say one one thing about french is

That I think is a problem Just one last thing to add is he calls himself like a civil libertarian

Uh, I believe he calls himself that but but really he's he's he's defending libertinism and that's the problem in all of this is

He's enabling, you know, a lot of these wicked practices whether it's dragging drag queen story hour or You know same -sex marriage all these things

And so he's not he's not some neutral player in all of this stuff. He he really is siding with the left um and and that's why he's he's such a problem because people are trying to act like he's

He's just a moderate neutral and that's just that's just false Yeah, so so I just want to say that about him.

That's part of the problem with bringing him in Yeah Yeah. Yeah. No, that's good.

That's good um, where can people go if they want to pre -order your book or I don't know if it's even available for that or uh,

You know anything you want to plug? Yeah, I I don't even know how to get my own book yet.

So, uh, okay. Well There's new chris in the press. Um, look just i'm sure there'll be announcements on twitter and the like when it's ready for Yeah, sale or pre -order

Zach on twitter, I guess and and that's yeah I'll post about it Yeah, yeah, that's that gregarious is the uh, twitter handle there.