What will happen if this lament, that uses terminology born far outside Scripture, becomes a driving force? Terms originating from some who reject Scripture may unintentionally shape how congregants interpret sin and reconciliation. How can we expect restitution or peace when worldly expressions replace our ecclesiastical language? Naming a group as inherently grieved and another as inherently causing harm introduces confirmation bias into out doctrine, tying sin to demographics rather than the heart.

“…for it was so frequent with them to have many dark shadows and colors to cover their opinions and expressions…” (John Winthrop, Short Story of the Rise, Reign, and Ruin of the Antinomians, 1644, para. 10).

Weeds start small and can even appear harmless. But if ignored, they grow and choke the crop, strangling the fruit before it ripens. The Antinomian Controversy of 1636-1638 provides an historical example. Anne Hutchinson and John Wheelwright started to press vague accusations of legalism against ministers in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. As Winthrop said in the above quote; their “dark shadows… to cover their opinions” insinuated error without naming it, sowing confusion and division that required the intervention of church and civil courts to restore order.

This historical lesson is clear: unclear assertions, however sincere, cultivate division even if they seek discussion. Weeds in a garden, if left unchecked, choke the fruit. It is with this historical example in mind that we approach 2025’s A Call to Prayer and Lament. This document possesses real dangers: vague accusations, ambiguous language, and broad insinuations that risk further dividing the PCA along the very lines it laments, while offering no clear path toward unity, repentance, or restoration.

Acknowledging Pain While Not Being Led By It

Sorrow in the church should never be taken lightly. Real grief should compel us to remember Christ’s sympathy and compassion. We must slow down, listen, and remember that people are image-bearers of God in this fallen world. Yet pastoral sympathy does not require we validate every claim of harm unexamined or adopting categories foreign to Scripture. Sympathy requires clarity. Wounds do not heal through confusion; they widen. Pain calls our attention, clarity demands our obedience.

Scripture already gives the appropriate categories: the sinfulness of man (Rom. 3:23); the unity of believers in Christ (Eph. 2:14-16); the impartiality of God (Acts 10:34-35); and the command to judge without partiality (James 2:1-4). These doctrines provide the true framework for understanding, repentance, and reconciliation.

The 2025 Lament is troublesome, not because a call to lament is wrong (solemn fasting is commended in WCF 21.5), but because the vocabulary, ambiguities, and moral framing appear to draw lines of “oppressor vs. oppressed.” “white vs. minority,” and a “they vs. us.” This language resonates with Critical Race Theory (CRT); the lament neither defines these terms nor links them to Scripture.

What are we doing with such language? Do we not realize that adopting, or in the least implying, these lines smuggles worldly, man-made assumptions into our worldview, burdening brothers and sisters without warrant? How is this not a violation of the 9th commandment as expounded in WLC Q.145, which forbids “misconstructing intentions, words, and actions”?

The Problem of Vague Indictments

As our historical examples teach, vague condemnations masquerading as counsel seldom produce unity. They produce suspicion, recrimination, and further hardening of camps. Hutchinson and Wheelwright’s broad, undefined insinuations created strife because no one could agree on what was being confessed or corrected.

While not the same, this lament walks a similar, perilous road. It names ‘abusive[ness],’ ‘sidelined,’ ‘racial microaggression,’ and ‘white and male-dominant culture,’ but offers no biblical or confessional explanation. And these words could be interpreted as secular ideologies defined in terms of power dynamics rather than God’s law.

Consider “microaggressions,” it is used today to explain intentional or unintentional “slights” towards “marginalized groups.” It is not an equal field for all, it is only understood as acts toward marginalized groups. Regardless of intention, this terminology remains debated and poorly defined through Scripture, leaving readers uncertain about which actions they should condemn.

Why should we be concerned? These are brothers and sisters in Christ in pain. Yet the terms used bring meanings defined by cultural standards rather than Scripture. They apply a modern lens to reading the Word of God.

If this lament simply acknowledged that sin exists in all of us, I doubt many would object. The issue is how it is proposed: naming previous sins without defining them, assigning guilt to an entire demographic group (“white men”), while implying moral authority or innocence to another (“minorities”). Is that not the very partiality warned against in James 2:1-4? How can partiality heal partiality?

When Vague Language Strangles the Church

In the Antinomian Controversy, confusion increased because people spoke without clarity and division followed. Ambiguous declarations with morally charged words addressed real hurt, yet fractured the very trust they sought to achieve because no one could discern what was actually being condemned.

What will happen if this lament, that uses terminology born far outside Scripture, becomes a driving force? Terms originating from some who reject Scripture may unintentionally shape how congregants interpret sin and reconciliation. How can we expect restitution or peace when worldly expressions replace our ecclesiastical language? Naming a group as inherently grieved and another as inherently causing harm introduces confirmation bias into out doctrine, tying sin to demographics rather than the heart.

The Vocabulary We Must Reject

The chief concern is not that the lament recognizes sorrow; the concern is that is frames sorrow in vocabulary that is:

1. Absent from Scripture despite Scripture’s abundant terminology for sin, injustice, and division.
2. Loaded with contested meaning that subtly reshapes how we view the gospel.
3. Often used by those who reject Christ and do not truly understand the doctrine of sin and grace, embedding assumptions about identity, guilt, and innocence that contradict those doctrines.
4. A vessel that smuggles in worldly philosophies, especially critical theory paradigms that brew spiritual conflict through group dynamics over personal repentance and responsibility.

These contradict the very doctrines mentioned. Should we adopt such categories? A new vocabulary creates a new moral vision; often without us realizing it.

Division Sprouting

The lament reads as positioning “white” males as agents and minorities as the recipients of harm. Regardless of intent, the implications are unmistakable: it divides the church on the very lines our sinful culture obsess over, elevating racial categories Scripture does not use (Gal. 3:28), rather than seeking to heal grievances.

While not dismissing real pain, we can recognize, if brought to a level it does not belong, becomes an ill-fitted tool. That tool hammers to reshape the church’s unity around grievances rather than at the foot of the cross… brethren, is this the path we want to take?

Where Is Forgiveness?

Perhaps the most striking feature of this lament is what it omits: forgiveness. Where is the call to full reconciliation? Christ heals not by naming grievances endlessly, but by uniting sinners of every tribe, tongue, and nation in his body through repentance. A repentance that is personal rather than demographic honors the pain of all without entrenching it.

Without forgiveness, how does a lament not become a ledger of offenses? A manifesto of grievances? It risks becoming accusation untethered from the gospel of Jesus Christ. Is this the legacy we want for our congregations to leave to the next generation?

Standing Firm on our Standards

A quick note on the second lament. It claims they grieve that female leaders remain sidelined. If there are legitimate charges that some minorities are sidelined simply because they are minorities, use our church courts. But lamenting the female roles is another matter. Is this rooted in the gospel or in a desire contrary to Scripture?

Many of us have observed online reports of churches allegedly placing women in roles contrary to Scripture. Roles clearly reserved for men, both in title and duty. If true, this is not lamentable, it is disobedience to Scripture. To weep over a denial of a role God has not given women is to weep with those who desire to go against those divinely created roles.

Laments should be tethered to what is true. Public grief over sidelining women from church leadership roles is meaningless if it seeks to elevate sinful preferences above obedience. I pray the church courts will investigate this.

Let us grieve rightly over our sin, not perceived circumvention of the will of God, careful not mistake ideology or misplaced ambition for genuine grief. We cannot lament together over what is perceived as rebellion against God’s prescribed order.

A Final Word for All of Us

This conversation affects all of us. Yet sin is neither a theory nor a demographic condition; it is “any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God” (WSC Q.14). It seeks to infect us into division, disregarding any hurt felt by the marginalized or those accused.

Thomas Watson said on the 9th commandment; “This is the sense of the commandment, not only that we should not slander falsely or accuse others; but that we should witness for them, and stand up in their defense, when we know them to be traduced” (Watson, The Ten Commandments, 2.9.).

The real pains must not be allowed to become tools that allow worldly categories to direct healing. Only Christ can heal, only Scripture defines sin, and only forgiveness given from the Father can restore unity. We are his church, bought with his own blood, united under him alone. Do not let this weed choke out the fruit. Let us properly witness for our brethren who are wrongly accused, and for those who are maligned through the sin of partiality.

Let us indeed pray and lament, but let’s do so in obedience. Bring real sins to the courts, repent of them personally, forgive as Christ forgave us, and hold fast to the standards delivered in Scripture.

Isaac Martin is a Deacon in Lebanon Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Winnsboro, SC.