This article is quite telling about the current situation in the PCUSA.

From what I gather from the article is that the conservatives in the PCUSA are pro-Israel and the liberals are anti-Israel with regards to the conflict in the Middle East.

The saddest part of this whole debate in the PCUSA is that its happening at all. This is telling for where the PCUSA is at. It is an unfortunate day when this is even an issue for the conservatives in the PCUSA.

I mean, why in the world is the church even discussing this?

That’s the first question. The second is this: why do the conservatives believe that being on the side of Israel is to be on the side of righteousness?

I mean, I suppose if this were the Southern Baptist Convention I can understand. After all, a hallmark of dispensationalist theology has been – because of its premillennialism – a pro-Isreali politics. But this is the PCUSA here . . . what gives?

I think that a partial explanation can be found in the fact that even the conservatives in the PCUSA are really so far away from historical Reformed theology that to call them conservative is to bend the meaning of the word beyond all reasonable recognition.

Further explanation may be in order here. I actually think that the left wing and right wing of the PCUSA have far more in common than they think. And that commonality is what we might call New Schoolism. New Schoolism can be characterized by at least two points. One, an all consuming desire to be relevant among the culture and society in which the church finds herself. Second, a low-to-no doctrine of the spirituality of the church.

Now, at least one aspect of the latter of these points is that the church ought to concern herself with that which is biblical and that which concerns the Gospel. I fail to see how this issue of the Middle East is about either of these. After all, where in Scripture does it say that we ought to be pro-Israeli? The New Covenant is, after all, spiritual in nature and not national or political. The Gospel is for both Jew and Gentile, and not on the basis of blood and flesh. God’s promises are all yes and amen in Christ, not in the national political entity called Israel. So, how is the Middle East conflict as issue that the church ought to be concerned with?

Now, I am sympathetic with the Israelis. But I am not because the Bible tells me so.

What is even more amazing . . . speaking of the Bible . . . is that the conservatives are fighting this battle over an inferior country when they should be fighting for the better country. Or, to put it another way, why battle for the earthly Jerusalem when the heavenly one has already been lost in the PCUSA? The fact that conservatives will fight tooth and nail over Israel and homosexuality in the church, but not fight over the doctrine of the Bible (a battle lost by true conservatives long ago) smacks of putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

OK, lets say they win. Lets say ordaining homosexuals is banned in the PCUSA once and for all. Lets further say that the GA makes a pronouncement which is in support of Israel. So what? Is this not like winning some small battles in the backwoods while the war has already been lost? Its kind of like Germany taking back Normandy after Berlin has already fallen. What’s the point, really?

No, the soul of the PCUSA is still dead. This is something to lament. And until such a time as the church get’s rid of its Confession of 1967, reaffirms the Westminster Standards fully, unequivocally pronounces inerrancy as its official position, what life can it have? If you lose the standard by which you are to think and live, is there really any hope saving the PCUSA from a slow and painful death? After all, by all indications, that is where its heading. Being “relevant” and being political (whether conservative or liberal) doesn’t seem to be working. Why not try something new? Why not try the Bible, being committed to the narrow way, and seeking a better country . . . a heavenly one. Certainly, such a tact can’t possibly do worse.