Undiminished Sin – Missouri Presbytery’s Fading Doctrine of Sanctification

The Session of Grace and Peace Presbyterian Church, (PCA) in Anna, Texas wrote to the Missouri Presbytery urging it to investigate the Christian identity and character of one of its ministers, TE Greg Johnson. MOPRES in response calls this communication, “the allegation leveled by the Grace and Peace Session in Texas against TE Johnson.” It is further labelled “Allegation #3.” In its appeal GPAT session said:

For the full report, including the letter from Grace and Peace Presbyterian Church, go to: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18_vvpZg2PwRFwBjwAg4fGp-bhJXh8Mhm/view

In its judgment, the presbytery’s opening words are that Allegation #3 (from GPAT) “seems to deduce … that homosexually-inclined believers should expect God to change their sexual inclinations to heterosexual ones” (p.66).  MOPRES continues that it is easy to see the session’s logic that “there must be a way to lay hold of Christ’s power for the purpose of seeing that ‘old’ homoerotic sexual desire turn back again to heterosexual desire” (p.67).

As a matter of fact, the change the church in Texas had in mind was not orientation reversal but spiritual progress. It refers to this transformation as “this change”. Well, what is this change? With confidence, MOPRES has told us what the Texas church meant by its words. However, when the session said “this change,” they explained that “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Then elaborating, “Paul speaks of that change in Romans 8:9-13.” The Romans 8 verses contrast living according to the flesh from life in the Spirit. That is the transformation GPAT had in mind. Redemption from same-sex attraction is but one change away from many different sins. No man is commanded to desire a woman. The change the apostle and the Grace and Peace session spoke about was from ungodliness in any form to new life in the Spirit.

There is no Christian on earth in whom God does not work to produce the likeness of Christ. To some unknown extent the Spirit does this over time for each of God’s children. Without holiness no one will see the Lord. We should not accept a version of sanctification which makes room for lifelong undiminished sinful desire of any variety. Yet, admitting that there are rare exceptions, MOPRES expects no change in homosexual desire, even in a minister.

MOPRES says that GPAT “… denigrates either the truthfulness of TE Johnson’s testimony that he still experiences undiminished same-sex attraction after trying to rid himself of it, or it denigrates his spiritual seriousness about following Christ, since to this point he hasn’t been able to be rid of it” (p.31, emphasis added). Note that TE Johnson’s sin is admitted by his presbytery as sin undiminished. GPAT did not supply that word; the presbytery did. MOPRES also admits, “… that a homosexual inclination or orientation is a thing broken in an intrinsic way (that is, morally wrong any time, in any place) …” (p.35, emphasis added). Surprisingly, MOPRES even thinks the Bible teaches “that sinful desire characterizes believers until they die” (p.67, emphasis added). Behold how weak is the salvation proclaimed by the Missouri Presbytery of the PCA!  There is a church in Anna, Texas that thinks God has something better for us.

In a Nutshell

The presbytery’s expanded arguments for this come in this order: arguments 1) from Scripture, 2) from the Westminster Standards, and 3) from Human Experience [1].  In this article, I will dwell mostly on the first. Do not miss that there is a #3.

1. The New Testament texts supplied by GPAT point to spiritual change from the works of the flesh. At the outset of its response, MOPRES makes a mistaken appraisal of the kind of change GPAT was looking for in TE Johnson

2. Secondly and surprisingly, though the session explicitly denied that we should expect eradication of sinful sexual desire, the church was often characterized as believing that eradication should be expected in this life. So the session was corrected for something it does not believe. This is such a flaw in Missouri Presbytery’s representation of Grace and Peace that I shall devote a separate article to it, if the Lord allows.

3. And lastly, GPAT referred briefly to Pastor Johnson’s expectation of no relief of this sin. In response, MOPRES calls upon social experts to help determine what our doctrine should be. Much space is given to this. In doing so, with experts seeming to have the facts at hand, the presbytery intimidates people of simple faith. They also bid Sola Scriptura The slope has become slippery.

The Big Assumption

Grace and Peace had in mind transformation from any evil desire, so homoerotic desire would be just one sin to which these texts apply. Nevertheless, MOPRES asserted that GPAT definitely had in mind “orientation change.” GPAT never said so, and none of the texts included in their letter focus on sexual desires. No Scripture requires anyone with same-sex attraction to become heterosexual. That was not their point. Contentment in single life remains a lovely option.

TE Johnson admits that his same-sex attraction is sin. Then, just as we all should repent of every sin, he should repent of this one too. Confession of sin seeks promised forgiveness and promised cleansing (1 John 1:7-9). Having sin’s shame removed is not the same as having cleansing from sin. The Grace and Peace church is not shocked that any sin we have ever had sticks around; that is a very frequent experience in battles with sin. But what we should not countenance is any teaching of some sin never being weakened by the Holy Spirit when we have been joined to Christ. Progressive sanctification that does not progress is not real sanctification. We resist the presbytery’s false teaching that same-sex attraction is a sin so deep and enduring in a Christian that there may be no relief from it until the Lord comes. This question touches upon God’s integrity and the gracious character of our salvation. He has covenanted to write his law right there in the seat of our desires, i.e., on our hearts.

Grace and Peace shaped the issue as sinful passions vs. “the transforming power of being united to Christ” (p.32 in the Appendix). That session never spoke of reversing sexual appetites as the sanctifying work of God. Though Grace and Peace never contemplated a change in orientation, MOPRES has insisted that orientation change was the burden the church was communicating.

The bad assumption gathered momentum with: “Why then does GPAT argue … that it should be a foregone conclusion that believers ought to expect God to be gracious enough to change a serious Christian’s homoerotic desires into heterosexual desires? That is what GPAT clearly implies…” (emphasis added, p.69). Further, when quoting the GPAT letter about God accomplishing “this change” MOPRES literally inserted bracketed words, “[from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one]” (p.75). This is quite a gambit: restate the letter and then pounce on it! What GPAT did not say, MOPRES said for them.

TE Johnson does not look for a change in a person’s orientation. The Missouri Presbytery should note that the session of Grace and Peace Presbyterian Church did not cast the issue that way. They could have asked the church if that was the church’s point [2].  When I did, the pastor, Rev. Matt Wood, knowing of my intention to write this article, replied:

When MOPRES was a bit more careful, their words were less confident, “it seems fairly obvious” and GPAT’s view “seems tantamount…” (p.29). But they got over that, and they plunged in so that the heading for their judgment reads: “Allegation #3: TE Johnson Denies God’s Purpose and Power to Sanctify SSA Believers by Minimizing the Pursuit of Orientation Change From Homosexual to Heterosexual, the Latter Being Rooted in God’s Good Creation, the Former in the Fall.” It must have been quite a surprise for the elders in Anna, Texas to find out what their letter really meant. While the presbytery could not quote GPAT ever speaking of orientation change, they still say in their opening sentence, “This allegation is made explicitly (!) by the Grace & Peace Session of Anna, Texas” (p.28, emphasis added). If GPAT had been explicit on that, why would MOPRES need to supply an explanation for them and place it in their letter?

Then in the Committee Judgment on the Allegation “We find the allegation to be false.” Why? Because “Allegation #3 wrongly deduces from the general emphasis in the New Testament on Christ’s power to change people, the following conclusion: That homosexually-inclined believers should expect God to change their sexual inclinations to homosexual ones …” (p.30). The prestigious presbytery went from a guess to a certainty and missed what the Grace and Peace Presbyterian Church was saying. That conclusion, which the MOPRES committee assumed, was later adopted by the presbytery as if it were really GPAT’s. The false conclusion passed in a presbytery motion, not just a committee report. Sadly, it had so skewed GPAT’s position that the response to the church’s letter could not be as relevant as it would have been otherwise. What MOPRES presented as GPAT’s thinking was neither stated not intended by the church.

The Potency of Sin

MOPRES seeks to avoid being lopsided in understanding mortification. To do this they repeatedly counsel its readers to recognize the real potency of sin, not just the power of God. When those two things are juxtaposed, of course the power of God overrides. This we all confess. We now have “new owners” as sanctification began in our regeneration. Though the infusion of righteousness is gradual and not equal in all, it is still divinely powerful. The question now is the effect of the potency of sin in us.

Is it an accurate impression to describe the Christian’s life as one where “our corrupt nature remains alive and active until we die” (pages 34, 67 & 70)? Are sinful passions “perpetually rising up within believers,” so much so that sinful desire characterizes believers until we die (p.67)? In these partial truths, is there any hint of spiritual transformation? The presbytery is emphatic: the saints “still live with their post-Fall bodies and minds, the seat of their corrupted nature inherited from Adam.” The presbytery wisely wishes to spare Christians from wrong expectations, but a “renewed mind” is a tremendous change and a lovely gift to expect. This renewal is commanded and promised in Christian experience. MOPRES does not hold up a radically changed life as a reality to be expected by believers. Here we find the big difference: the session in Texas says God’s grace can replace our sinful desires with proper ones. MOPRES in a crucial judgment presents our life now as hobbled by “the enduring presence and potency of our ‘sinful flesh,’ our ‘corrupted nature’ ” (pages 30 & 70).

Perhaps GPAT was affected by the lovely prospect of laying aside every weight, and the sin which clings so closely, while running with endurance the race set before us. Paul denied perfectionism and then spoke of “straining forward to what lies ahead, toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:13,14). The PCA church rejoiced that everyone in Christ really is a new creation and that “the old has passed…” (2Corinthians 5:17). GPAT denies eradication now, while the presbytery sought to downgrade the new life we have in Christ. The evil benefit of their reasoning is that it makes room for a minister in their presbytery to be same-sex attracted and exonerated. I daresay the PCA church in Anna, Texas is not describing the Christian life as one characterized by sin. The Lord does better than that. Instead of a life characterized by sin, they believe our lusts of every kind are weakened and mortified, and that believers find new life more and more as the Lord strengthens us.

This progress is promised in the gospel. MOPRES thinks same-sex attraction has an enduring pull (p.76). If that pull is inexorable (and shall we add undiminished?), such a view is the opposite of sin being weakened. The Texas church simply embraces what our Confession says about sanctification. We have a strong Redeemer who sets us free from bondage. He is that strong (Jeremiah 50:34). When GPAT spoke of expecting progress and redemption from the bondage of same-sex attraction, the presbytery pronounced their view as “eradication.” Though not recommended, they even said it was OK to seek orientation change; that is, if a soul wants to run the gamut of frustration and failure. Laying orientation change aside, MOPRES never said believers may or should seek relief from same-sex attraction. And that is the real issue among us. In its report the presbytery did not encourage faith for deliverance with the certainty of this sin being weakened by our strong Lord and his strong Spirit. In unbelief, Missouri Presbytery’s response to the Grace and Peace church reduces gospel encouragement and thus true pastoral care of the flock. They do not discern the danger of Rev. Greg Johnson’s influence, nor are they alarmed for his eternal welfare. The presbytery actually embraces Pastor Johnson’s error. Its exoneration of him is a strong reason for minds in other presbyteries to assume original jurisdiction of this serious case – of course in the General Assembly.

Scripture does not present the Christian life in the Spirit as characterized by the potency of remaining sin. (They could have just said remaining sin, but they add emphasis with their choice of a potent adjective.) Our sins are present and dangerous, yes, but overpowering, no. MOPRES never presents the Christian life as dominated by sin; it is just characterized by it. But still, where has the wonderful fruitfulness of thirty, sixty, or a hundredfold gone. Is not the Father still pruning to produce much fruit? (John 15:5). With a low view of overcoming, it becomes easier to exonerate the homosexual minister as one who loves Jesus and has a fruitful ministry accompanied by persistent sexual desire for his own kind.

Somehow the Lord’s “I never knew you” is lost in all the clever theological nuances and claims of spirituality. Good oversight does not overlook that:

While we sing:

The Missouri Presbytery has great capacity to surprise, as in this paragraph:   

Sometimes, by the Spirit’s power, sinful desires are truly eradicated*, and normally, as we grow in Christ we can expect to see, over time, a lessening of the intensity of particular sinful desires.** But this is a gift from God and not of the essence of the mortification of sin in us***(p.35).

Apologists for “Christian” homosexuality automatically treat pleas for spiritual transformation as just one more appeal for orientation reversal. That is the way MOPRES dismissed GPAT’s letter as uninformed and unrealistic. TE Johnson has regularly framed many aspects of the issue into a matter of orientation change, as when he testified “Jesus has not made me straight.” Forming their question and everyone else’s this way has been the typical reflex of the Side B apologists.

Then MOPRES calls on select “experts” who adhere to the same notions as theirs. Wonderful testimonies of Christians rescued from homosexuality are ignored or dismissed. Fixation on the failed solutions of conversion therapy helps MOPRES give up hope of moral change in this life for believers. Worse, it wears blinders to the power of the Spirit to transform. Here is potency: “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 … (Ephesians 1:19,20). This beautiful note is muted in the Missouri Presbytery report. It has written many pages on this subject in the last four years. In the end, the presbytery balked on dealing with acknowledged sin. It accepts undiminished sin in their minister whose claim of killing illicit desire has left it as unkilled as before he killed it. In the face of homosexual passion, they expect little transformation until the Lord comes.

The expectation of God sanctifying sinning saints in this life has declined in a reformed presbytery, yet Presbyterians believe in lusts weakened or we used to (Westminster Confession XIII:1). The alien theology in and around St. Louis undermines real sanctification. They fix on the potency of sin, and pathetically they think it is possible that we can actually be united to Christ with lusts remaining as strong as ever.

The Grace and Peace church of Anna, TX wrote to request urgent attention to a situation within MOPRES. Their motive was to provoke a serious investigation, and they quoted enough of God’s Word to substantiate their burden. Their letter did not fare well. MOPRES looked upon it as simplistic and unbalanced. The church did not write a theological paper and for authority quoted only Scripture. The presbytery response to that church was a critique of their plea and a major correction of things the church never said. MOPRES has failed to grasp the fatal danger of unweakened sin continuing in supposed believers. Gospel truth is fading in Missouri. They fail to hold up the powerful grace of God for his children now. The Confession encourages with the overcoming power of God in the face of our sin. The presbytery answers a question of righteousness by dwelling on the potency of sin, to be relieved only later when the Lord comes.

The Lord said:

If TE Johnson is a son of this great Father, he cannot ask for a fish and receive a serpent! We can believe Greg that his SSA continues unabated in spite of all those mortifications that do nothing to diminish his contrary-to-the-Spirit affections. Or we can believe God that the blood of Jesus God’s Son really does cleanse from all sin. MOPRES has sided with its erring minister, and thereby reduces the scope and depth of salvation. We ought to believe God rather than Greg; our Missouri Presbytery has sided with Greg.

[1] Pages 66-77. A considerable difficulty, in following the outline of 1. Scripture;  2. The Standards; and 3. Experience, is that Experience is marked as iii (p.75) when the previous sections are 1 & 2. Clearly it should be 3. The Place of Experience in the Interpretation of the Biblical Doctrine of Sanctification. Further, within 1. Primary Standards of Our Church: the Teaching of Scripture, there is a subset of an a without a b, and i with no ii. The “i. The Error of Mortification as Eradication” (p. 68) should be b. The Error of Mortification etc.

[2] MOPRES said they believe that the presbytery of South East Alabama mistakenly drew a wrong conclusion (on a different matter) that could have been cleared up … “especially by respectfully asking TE Johnson, in an informal way, if he might clarify his views in writing” (p.52).  Had MOPRES done this with the Grace and Peace session, the presbytery response to Allegation #3 would have been different, or so I hope.