Rafferty's Rules Meets Presbyterianism
1st November, 2025
Last week, Woori Yallock Presbyterian Church heard a sermon from its minister on Genesis 1. Creation in six days was declared, and that is where the theological content began and finished. A lot can be said about the deficiencies of this sermon, but let us look at something below most disturbing.
To offer theological insight about Man created in the image of God, the minister turns to secular sources. He quotes the famous line, “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” He attributes the quote to the American Constitution. Oh dear, it actually comes from the Declaration of Independence, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson was a man of immense intellect but shallow theology. He was a Deist who denied revelation, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, and the resurrection. In a sermon that claims to defend the authority of Scripture, this appeal to Jefferson is inexplicable. The minister uses the phrase to explain what it means to be made in God’s image. Our worth, he says, comes from our Creator, who made us all equal. Thus, the imago Dei becomes a civic idea of equality, not a theological confession of holiness, righteousness, and knowledge (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).
The preacher’s authority is not Genesis but Jefferson. Instead of the Word of God grounding human dignity, Enlightenment humanism is summoned to do the work. The doctrine of creation becomes a celebration of moral democracy.
The Reformed view of God, by contrast, begins with His unchanging nature. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 2.1) declares that God is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible. He does not depend on anything. He does not change, learn, or grow. His joy, love, and purpose are complete in Himself.
When God creates, He does so by eternal decree (WCF 3.1), not by sudden decision or new desire. His delight in creation is not a new emotion, but the time-bound display of His eternal satisfaction. Only such a God perfect, self-sufficient, and unchanging can keep covenant with His people (WCF 7.1–2). The covenant's strength lies in His immutability: I am the Lord, I change not (Mal. 3:6). Were God subject to mood swings or growth, His promises could not stand. The Westminster Confession of Faith presents God is not reactive; He is the sovereign Lord who “upholdeth, directeth, disposeth, and governeth all creatures, actions, and things” (WCF 5.1) according to His eternal purpose.
In the sermon, however, that classical picture disappears. God is portrayed as a being who feels, responds, and experiences time. He enjoys what He is doing, wants us to relate to Him, and invites us to share His joy. Each day of creation becomes a discovery for God. He looks upon His work, finds pleasure, and then moves on. The sermon never signals that this is anthropomorphic or analogical. God's joy and rest are treated as literal emotions that arise within Him. The result is a passible God whose inner life changes with each day. He becomes happier as His world grows.
This pattern resembles what theologians call soft open theism: God's experience unfolds sequentially, His satisfaction expands as He creates, and His awareness of the world develops with the world itself. Though the preacher never denies omniscience, the rhetoric places God within time, reacting to events rather than decreeing them. The sermon's warmth, its emotional language and accessibility, masks a profound shift in theology: God is no longer the Lord of history but its fellow traveller.
Such a portrayal undermines the entire Reformed system. If God's delight increases as He creates, His blessedness was incomplete before creation. If He wants a relationship, covenant becomes an act of self-fulfillment rather than free condescension. Grace turns into necessity. The immutable God of WCF 2.1 becomes a mutable being whose satisfaction depends on what He makes.
This sentimentality may comfort listeners, but it empties covenant theology of its foundation. The God who “worketh all things after the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:11) is replaced by a God who waits to see what will happen next.
The irony is deep. Jefferson's Deism and this sermon's theology share a hidden kinship. Jefferson's Creator made the world and then withdrew; the preacher's God makes the world and then grows with it. Both deny the sovereign independence of God. Both substitute a rational, emotional deity for the transcendent Lord of Scripture. Deism removes God's presence; passibility and open theism domesticate it. Each in its own way reshapes God into our image.
And so we must ask: why would a Presbyterian minister in rural Victoria, Australia, defend Genesis by misquoting an American Deist? Perhaps because Jefferson's polished humanism feels safer than the majesty of WCF 2.1. A Deist God is easier to explain; a passible God is easier to feel. Both flatter the modern listener. Yet both betray the same weakness: they create a God who is interesting but no longer holy, sympathetic but no longer sovereign.
The result is a sermon that praises the Creator while quietly denying His immutability, replacing the eternal I AM with a changeable companion who shares our sentiments. In doing so, it abandons the doctrinal heart of Reformed covenant theology, trading confession for comfort and the majesty of divine glory for the warmth of divine mood.
An article on Wesley Huff's popular YouTube on the Trinity can be read here: https://www.reformedpastor.com.au/weshufftrinity/
The sorry sermon can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UibJnp9msLQ