Some Surprising Errors by Rev. Greg Johnson concerning the RPCES 1980 Report

Rev. Greg Johnson has put out a bold paper about the synod held in Seattle back in 1980. It should have some response by an elder who was there. A few of us are still on earth. In Johnson’s “10 Surprising Facts About the 1980 RPCES Report on Homosexual Christians” misses or enhances what the synod agreed to in 1980. His paper purports to explain for us our thinking in the Seattle Synod, but his review has errors.

The Synod had commissioned, at the request of Rev. Egon Middlemann, a study on homosexuality. Then in 1980 the study paper was brought before the Synod by my old friend, Egon. The bland wording on the synod agenda was: “Report of the Study Committee on Homosexuality.”  When it came time to deal with the study, the synod did not want such a nondescript label, so it supplied its own: “Pastoral Care for the Repentant Homosexual.” That was the official title approved back in 1980. In saying Homosexual Christians, Rev. Johnson has supplied for us a different title supremely suited for his preferred reading of the synod’s action, though the Synod said:

Rev. Johnson’s title is a fabrication, even though the synod was careful to speak of repentant homosexuals, he titles our report as one about “Homosexual Christians” In the rest of his article, revisionist reading of an historical document continues. But he not only chose his own title for us, he also missed that the original report was amended. Note: “with the deletion of Section III”. Johnson either did not read that or ignored it. He plows on oblivious to the amendments. And the Missouri Presbytery allowed it in its May 18, 2016 report. When he gives “10 Surprising Facts”, two of the ten are from the deleted Section III. Since he so manifestly parted from the synod’s decision to delete something, there is no need to respond to his Surprising Errors 9 & 10. The deletion shows that the Seattle Synod in 1980 refused to say some things Rev. Johnson says we did.

If you don’t mind since we began at the end of the 10 “facts,” let us now take Surprising Fact #8 which precedes it. It reads, “The church’s job was to protect “the homosexual brother and sister from indignity back in 1980.”  This time Johnson does represent something in the RPCES report. But it is a sloppy paragraph – sloppy on our part. The synod report refers to WCF XIII.3, which chapter, I am sorry to say, lacks the words ascribed to it. Rev Middlemann had XXIII.3 in mind. He wrote, “We have to … protect those struggling with homosexuality …” (emphasis added). XXIII.3 is a long paragraph ; It came out as 13 lines in my printing, and the RPCES report quotes a mere two. The chapter is titled The Civil Magistrate. Here is the last sentence of WCF  XXIII.3 with the quoted portion underlined:

That was a skimpy quotation on our part. Note that Rev. Johnson speaks of WCF XXIII as setting out “the church’s job”. However, the Confession is most clearly speaking of the duty of the civil magistrate. I am sorry we were careless to let the wrong reference through, and we allowed the melding of the duty of the church and the state as one. We should have scrutinized the report more carefully. There were motions to table the report or refer it, which is rather unusual of a study paper. Christians believe in keeping peace within the nation so that religious groups are not harassed. It is good that the Confession saw that as a duty of the government. With that we concur. But our gay minister, Rev. Johnson, applied that duty not to the state but to the church. It is agreed that we should not harass, mock or heap abuse on Roman Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. (It is a shame that that does happen, for we want to win them lovingly to Christ.) But Rev. Johnson wears gay glasses; he elaborated that the RPCES Synod must have meant for the church to be a “haven for sexual minorities.” The Confession meant that civil authorities should keep the peace.  The idea of the church as a haven for sexual minorities is beyond what is in our report. Now more surprising errors.

Surprising Fact #1: Orientation change was not assumed back in 1980.

“Orientation” can be a euphemism for sexual desires unchanged throughout life. The excuse is that “that is the way I am; surely you do not expect me to be not me!” The specific kind of orientation change Johnson refers to in his fact #1 is “to heterosexual attraction”. Of course, such a lovely change may not come, and is not required. What God does command in us is only the mortification of passions contrary to his creation, law, and salvation (Titus 3:3) such as same sex passions. This high view of sanctification pulls the rug from under every evil desire. It does not matter in Matthew 19 if a Christian man has no desire for a woman. The needed change in all of us is from every innate ungodly impulse. We are not required to be hetero-sexual in our feelings, but we are forbidden to cuddle and defend homosexual passions as well as all the other forbidden ones.

Surprising Fact #2: Calling oneself a Homosexual was not idolatrous back in 1980.

“Homosexual” appears in the 1980 report, both as a noun and an adjective. Our synod did not want its report released without a clarification, so by their action they modified the noun by declaring that the study be labelled as “Pastoral Care for the Repentant Homosexual.”  That blanket title covers other appearances of the word “homosexual” in the report. The RPCES also said that “sinful man can learn to define himself again in terms of his Creator.” Why? The Creator did not make anyone to be homosexual, and no Christians should define himself that way.

Surprising Fact #3:  It wasn’t a slippery slope to acknowledge non-normative experiences of sexuality back in 1980.

Here in full is Johnson’s Surprising Fact #3:

In the report they approved, our RPCES fathers perceived non-straight believers as being included in Christ’s category of eunuch (emphasis added).

The dead just turned over upon hearing what they approved! Matthew 19 addresses divorce and marriage. Since God made them male and female with no other forms in the beginning, a man should cleave to his female partner. The proscription against divorce was so strongly stated the disciples wondered out loud if it might be better not to marry! This raises the possibility and the advisability of singleness. The polarity of male and female remains. By remaining single, a person does not become a new “form of human existence.” Some should not seek a partner but remain single. Eunuchs do not marry; it’s not for them. This is an option in our Christian liberty. Singleness for some is commanded, yet not all can receive the idea of not marrying, but to some singleness is a gift. Eunuchs arrive at their “eunuch hood” in different ways:

• Some are born that way – “those who have been so from birth” They never want marriage at all, never have, never will. We respect that and them! Not a hard decision. It is evil to push people into marriage when they are not suited for it. Some are so constituted for a single life that marriage for them would be miserable.

• Some are made that way – “eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men.” I have heard that some Italians thought they could be better tenors if castrated. Oriental kings with harems had eunuchs to take care of them. Maybe they were made eunuchs by men. I have never had a course on how to make a eunuch, but I know the math. If x = one testicle, then the formula is -2x.

• Lastly, “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom.” This is making a decision to forego a marriage they could have enjoyed so that they can serve the Lord without distraction.

Not all should marry. No commandment says all should. But in the last example of singleness, the Lord commands, “Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (The Greek has a mild imperative often translated with “let us” or “let him”, but it is still divine direction.)

Johnson capitalizes on the RPCES report when he says, “In the report they approved, our RPCES fathers perceived non-straight believers [Oh did we?] as being included in Christ’s category of eunuch.” Well we are at fault; Greg did not invent the vague words about “other forms”. I cannot say how that got by us. The RPCES report said “other forms of human existence.” Forms other than males or females? No, a status other than married! Johnson interprets the other forms of human existence as gays! Our RPCES report opened the door to unintended conclusions. When Jesus spoke of eunuchs, was he suggesting these were non-straight believers? And we know what that means, because Johnson said elsewhere, “For the RPCES report, ‘homosexual’ was the term for the non-straight Christian.” The Lord was actually saying that some from birth are so constituted that they never marry, but that does not mean they were non-straight! The castrators removed the option of marriage for some. And some chose to be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. This does not mean that these eunuchs are “another form of human existence” as the RPCES synod so unwisely said, and on which the Rev. Johnson has built a doctrine. Assuming the eunuchs are males, it simply means they do not marry for some reason. It does NOT mean they took on an unnatural attraction to persons of their own gender. How could one turn himself into a non-straight gay person in order to serve better in the kingdom of heaven? Johnson has embraced an argument of desperation, because he has no real evidence in Scripture of Jesus speaking of other forms of human existence. The homosexual element has been inserted into the text. Shame on him for seizing this poor handling of Matthew 19, and shame on us for the carelessness that let this get through.  Egon hinted, and Greg took the hint and ran with it. He loved the idea and made God’s Word agree with his non-normative example of homosexuality.

These eunuchs did not have Greg’s creative “non-normative experience of sexuality.” What they had was less than what was suitable for marriage, or a priority to decline it. Our Lord Jesus simply acknowledged a difference in sexual capacity and choice. The Lord did not acknowledge anything different from male and female – and what God hath made distinct, let no man confuse. Johnson cannot find a “non-normative” sexuality in Matthew 19; he inserts it.

Surprising Fact #4:  It was good to affirm the beauty of same-sex relationships back in 1980.

The Apostle Paul was very close to a number of people in the Roman church (Romans 16). There we have a list of people toward whom Paul expressed affection and friendship. Affection, unlike friendship, may be to all in all directions. Friendship is quite different; because of the brevity of life it can only be for a few who can share their lives. But romance, climaxing in intimacy (marriage), is toward one person. C. S. Lewis helped me when he showed that affection is indiscriminate. We can have genuine affection for a dog. He presented friendship as side by side where friends share a common interest. But romance is face to face, as one becomes absorbed in the other person. Both the author of the RPCES study (but not the RPCES) and Greg Johnson get themselves absorbed in how beautiful, affectionate, loving, intimate, and sexually pure this same sex relationship is or can be. (These descriptions all appear in one paragraph by Johnson.) That paragraph turns into an effeminate litany of absorbing interest in the other person. Too bad Johnson does not sense how healthy real brotherly relations can be when simply side by side without a personal interest becoming face to face.

Surprising Fact #7: You could have celibate homosexual pastors back in 1980.

Oh we could? We did not know of any and I think we would not have ordained any. This rewriting of history is preposterous. The RPCES study said:  

Side B homosexual pastors though professedly celibate still speak of themselves as homosexuals. Thus they are still involved in homosexuality. That is NOT the same situation for a brother to confess that at one time in the past he was involved in homosexuality. I know a prominent denominational leader who told a group of us that his first sexual experience was homosexual. He had turned his back on it and was delivered from it, but there it was in his personal history.  None of us felt he was disqualified from ministry. In the RPCES we could, and I think would, allow a person involved in this sin in the past to be accepted as a pastor if forgiven and cleansed, provided other features of that man’s life were in order. But we would never have allowed one admitting existing homosexual passions to be a minister. Sanctification has results. The RPCES synod insisted on the wording of “repentant homosexuals.” Wes Hill openly refers to himself as “a gay Christian,” as do others. In the RPCES we would never have ordained or installed a man as a pastor if he wore such a label. Greg’s surprising Fact #7 is not a fact. If a man claimed to have same sex attraction but no corresponding practice, we could only accept him if the grip of this sin was broken and his life showed exemplary piety. In our minds that would be the opposite of maintaining homoerotic feelings. To be an elder one must have a good reputation. If a man must be the husband of one wife because of God’s creation order, then too the desires and attractions of a pastor’s heart must conform to God’s creation as well.

 

A Summary of Johnson’s Revisionist Review

Rev. Johnson’s paper does not accurately represent the RPCES Synod “back in 1980”. I have analyzed enough; there could have been more.  Omitting other “surprising facts” does not constitute agreement. Johnson has written surprising errors. We believed back then and since, that repentant homosexuals are welcome in the congregation with the rest of us, all of us having and needing our “several lusts … more and more weakened and mortified.” (WCF XIII.1). On this homosexuals do not get a pass, nor should they in the ministry of the PCA. Undoubtedly, the need for a full gracious welcome to Christ and his Body is needed. On this grace we may need perpetual challenge. I recommend all of Rosaria Butterfield’s writings; she does not omit a gracious response to each and every sinner we meet.

An emphasis in Johnson’s paper is that the PCA has some in it now who have fallen back from the biblical and reformed orthodoxy so well accepted in the RPCES “back in 1980.” He thinks views we once espoused are currently and unfairly denounced as heresy by some in the PCA. However what our gay minister has done is read the 1980 report as he would like it to be. His is a revisionist review of our history. I would be surprised if anyone living who was in the RPCES before joining and receiving (in 1982) could agree with Johnson’s review. To call the 1980 report one about Homosexual Christians is a clear example of viewing our report the way he wishes it were. It is an audacious rewriting of a document. The Missouri Presbytery should not have included it as part of its May 18, 2019 report.

Rev. Johnson did discover some weaknesses in the report which he treated as wonderful. There is, contrary to our report, no other form of human existence than male or female. For our pathetic gaffe I apologize. Our gay minister extrapolates on those words, but he is wrong. The Lord Jesus did not teach that eunuchs are non-straight. At one time Pastor Johnson thought it was wrong to make the suggestion that Matthew 19 means that the eunuchs of which it speaks are non-straight. His later interpretation promotes the recognition of gayness as another form of human life, as if that were what the Lord meant. By injecting this toxin into Jesus’ words, Johnson offends deeply.

Rev. Johnson who serves in St. Louis, Missouri is undoubtedly aware that the chief author of the 1980 RPCES report was gay. The 2017 Missouri document on homosexuality mentions that the framer of that report knew and battled same-sex desire in his own experience. The Missouri Presbytery also identifies him by name when it included the full RPCES report in its appendices. A brother close to him assured me that Egon had helped many with their homoerotic passions. I believe him. Egon was a friend of mine. When I learned of him succumbing to his homosexual desires, and learned of his suicide, I was depressed for six months. The “demon” got him. “… Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death” (James 1:14, 15).

Then we wonder afterwards as we read our RPCES report if seemingly benign thoughts were a veiled justification of gayness. That may explain why the chief author of the RPCES report said that Scripture teaches the polarity of male and female, and then our old friend says that “Jesus can also [adding thereby to the polarity of Scripture] speak of other forms of human existence…” supposedly found in Matthew 19:12.  Johnson, with the same same-sex attraction, caught the meaning and made explicit that we RPCES fathers “perceived non-straight believers as being included in Christ’s category of eunuch.” We did not take our Lord’s words that way.

Rev. Johnson’s words reveal an astounding deficiency in his doctrine of sanctification. I hope others will join in by showing how glaring his selective antinomianism really is. That should appear, hopefully, in other articles by other authors. His declaration that there really are “repentant believers suffering with unrelenting non-straight orientations,” in the “10 Surprising Facts …” needs to come under careful review. The idea of passions never relieved greatly endangers our happy faith in the power of God to change us. The apostle speaks of “the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places …” (Ephesians 1:19,20). Delivering from, restraining, or even removing such passions is not difficult for the One who raised Christ from the dead. As for every believer, vulnerabilities will always be the opportunity for temptation. We do not believe that a Christian lives under the domination of sin.

We are dismayed when a gay PCA minister says that Jesus has not made him straight. That is really a testimony of the failure of the Holy Spirit in sanctification. God has promised: And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules (Ezekiel 36:26, 27). There is no need to suppose or promote the unchangeable plight of homosexual Christians, because God is still the Lord who sanctifies (Ezekiel 20:12).

Why all this effort and review of our old RPCES documents? Well maybe Rev. Johnson’s surprising replacement in the title of the report shows why. He wishes to have a new category of Christian recognized, namely homosexual Christians, and our part is to acknowledge this new class. This new version of a Christian benefits him as a minister. Supposedly the RPCES document accepted by the PCA when we joined the PCA offers some protection of his place as a minister. Celibate gay ministers and gay elders could be welcome in the Missouri Presbytery. “Gay” is not a Biblical word. Instead, one of the Scripture’s repeated words is “abominable”. Part of the healing we need entails the restoration of the Lord’s vocabulary, and our holy pursuit of God’s enabling promises, and assurance of God’s grace. We in the RPCES wanted to go with repentant homosexuals, but he wants us to embrace a little bit of the abominable. And so in a vital area of human life the idea of a Savior who transforms falls by the wayside.