Either we hold that same-sex desire is sinful, no matter how natural it seems to one snared by it, and that what is needed is the mighty deliverance of the Lord; OR we accept same-sex desire as a given, with the Lord not committed to producing change in this life. Either we cave and accept it, or we turn to the Lord in faith with no excuse for sin.

The Missouri Presbytery (MOP) is good at writing pages. Life would be easier for these brothers if they could just receive all appeals and objections in the preferred boxes for which replies are already prepared. In this article I give my editorial review of MOP’s response to a letter from Grace and Peace Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Anna, Texas (GPAT). It is found on pages 30-33 in the Appendix of the Missouri Presbytery Ad Hoc Committee to Respond to Memorial Presbyterian Church Report of Its BCO 31-2 Investigation of TE Greg Johnson. (see also pages 28-35; 66-77).

The Missouri Presbytery’s Judgment

1. In sanctification we should believe in Christ’s victory over our sin at the cross, but sin is still active and powerful in our corrupted nature. There is no perfection in this life.
2. Sanctification is mysterious, and God’s dealings with his individual children are inscrutable. So in God’s choice, sinful desire may remain in us for all of this life.
3. To understand same-sex attraction well, we should heed the testimony of mature Christians who know same-sex attraction in their own experience. They can tell us what we should realistically expect.

On each of these points MOP is very critical of the letter from the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) that meets in Anna, Texas. I have some agreement with what they say in 1 & 2 above, but even there my differences are not small. As a means to know what to expect from the Lord, I reject #3 as a dangerous undermining of the sufficiency of Scripture. Missouri Presbytery definitely differs. Human authorities may prompt questions to be faced, but we need to sit down and listen when God in his Word addresses relief from our sin. Number 3 is far too convincing for the Missouri Presbytery. Number 2 has considerable biblical input, but any doctrine can be misapplied to suit a desired outcome – a terrible thing for me to say about a presbytery decision. This is addressed below. The Judgment section (pp. 28-35) actually begins with “the credible testimony of the vast majority of evangelicals with SSA who have labored long …” etc. In this shameful opening, the word of experts with homosexual feelings takes precedence over the Word of God.

The spotlight right now is on # 1 as MOP affirms “the decisiveness of Christ’s victory at the cross over sin’s power in the lives of believers” (p.30). In the same paragraph the Presbytery chafes that GPAT did not emphasize “the enduring presence and potency of our ‘sinful flesh’ …”  The church’s letter is said to be “one-sided” not giving enough attention to the power of our remaining sin. It thinks the church’s opinions may well lead to such error as eradication of our sin in this life, and that GPAT’s “simplistic” presentation may give Christians a false hope to expect “in this life full deliverance” from sinful desires. That the church said nothing of the sort will be shown later.

MOP says that the church’s letter is too focused on the power of God. Thus it failed to focus on the potency of sin (p.34). When writing about a minister’s sin and its exoneration of him, the Presbytery wants us to remember how potent sin is. Thus the GPAT appeal is viewed as “lopsided.” This criticism goes on and on. Another supposed fault is that the session’s letter leaves out relevant consideration of the Standards and does not come face to face with truths in them (p.35); they neglect them (p.66; p.70), and so they misrepresent the biblical doctrine under consideration (p.66). The line of reasoning in the GPAT letter is “simplistic and unable to account for the very strong emphasis in Scripture that the corrupt nature and its inclinations remain in believers until they die …” (p.70). Apparently, GPAT is guilty of a short letter. It is not true if you do not say certain things, that you have thereby denied them. In these ways, the church’s letter is criticized, as one that presents “a picture of sanctification …more idealistic and less realistic” (p.75).

The lesson from the MOP is that when you present sanctification as sin weakened (Westminster Confession of Faith [WCF] XIII.1), you should include its ongoing potency (p.70), which is after all “alive and well” and “very much with us” (p.67). If we define sanctification as God’s work, the way the Westminster Shorter Catechism [WSC] (#35) and Westminster Larger Catechism [WLC] (#77) do, such a definition is unbalanced and simplistic. It is a real brain-twister to think of sin weakened while retaining its ongoing power. We in the PCA say the believer is strengthened in sanctification and sin weakened, according to WCF XIII and WLC 75, both of which Missouri quoted (pp. 70,71) in its response to the church. This dual emphasis in sanctification was not emphasized by the presbytery when it quoted the Standards.

Eradication of Sin

According to MOP’s judgment, the Texas church misrepresents the doctrine of mortification. They think the church holds that sinful desires “put to death” have been eradicated (p.30). This is a very hefty charge not based on the session’s letter, but on the presbytery’s guesstimate that this is what they must have meant. Missouri did not double-check; they surmised.

The church was answered with the retort that they imply something they must surely believe, even though they expressly denied it.  The Presbytery brought up eradication many times as the church’s implicit error in need of correction. Though the church plainly did not embrace eradication, MOP said its faulty logic leads to it anyway (pp. 66-67).

MOP’s vocabulary for eradiation is rich indeed: it is full deliverance (pp.30; 72); complete and utterly pure holiness (p. 30); desires swallowed up and neutralized (p.67); totally destroyed, utterly driven away (p.68); extirpated (p.69); actually ridding ourselves of unholy desires, with them being crushed out of existence (p. 73); all forms of perfectionism (p.74-75); attractions simply disappearing and reversing (p.76).

But What the Church Really Said!

The MOP’s response has labored the notion of eradication. This is very strange when we read what GPAT’s letter actually says. The MOP report never quotes this part of the church’s letter below. They should have, especially when they worked up such a lather about an error not held. Whatever happened to the Christian idea of fair play? In clear violation of the ninth commandment, GPAT’s communication has been misconstrued, as a reading of their letter shows:

To be clear, we are not arguing that new creatures in Christ are completely done with temptation and sin. We know this is not true. We recognize that Christians may fight temptations to homosexual desire from without and within for the rest of their lives. We also recognize the need to acknowledge this temptation and name it. However, to use these sinful desires as identity and self-conception is to deny the transforming power of being united to Christ (GPAT letter, Dec. 22, 2019, p.32 in Appendix of the MOP Ad Hoc Committee Report).

The proud Presbytery owes a humble apology. Imagine writing to a Presbytery with the church being corrected with a heavy review of doctrines already well incorporated in the minds of those elders. It is demeaning to teach them that sin remains in us and glorification is only later, as if that were news to them. Exonerating a pastor who is sinfully inclined to forbidden sexual feelings is difficult, especially when seeking agreement with people in the PCA. TE Johnson’s sexual inclinations had been industriously broadcasted. The simple gospel that the blood of Jesus God’s Son really does cleanse from all sin, including homosexual desire, is one so respected in GPAT that they wrote MOP about it. This gospel is not a false hope even if the Lord does not take down this sin in a flash. What the elders of the church signed is well put and deserving of full acceptance. They appealed to the Presbytery to take a serious matter seriously.

Expecting real change in this life when we have been united to Christ is not merely reasonable, it is the reality of God’s salvation.  No one would hint that J. I. Packer expected eradication of sin in anyone this side of heaven. He described the sanctifying change in every Christian this way:

Believers are being changed into Christ’s likeness from one degree of glory to another … and transformed by the renewal of their minds (2 Corinthians 3:18, Romans 12:2). There is a progressive strengthening of spiritual desires and discernments and with it an observable weakening of particular sinful cravings and habits as the Holy Spirit works in their lives. They will be conscious of the ongoing change to some extent and will be able to testify to it. … Any Christian who has no such testimony would be giving cause for concern about his spiritual welfare and would indeed make one wonder if he was regenerate at all (Keep in Step with the Spirit, p.155).

Well Prepared

Side B arguments for homosexuality have been rehearsed for months. In the MOP response to GPAT’s letter, the Presbytery was ready with stock answers. When a question is about gospel power to transform a life, they will in some place affirm such a truth heartily. But when this truth endangers the wisdom of their recent exoneration, they qualify gospel power. We wonder—why this continuing same-sex desire in a minister? The Presbytery thinks anyone who challenges must have a weak sense of the potency of remaining sin. That is a reply sitting on the shelf.

And further, if anyone expects real and substantial change in a Christian, he must be veering off in the direction of eradication. And worse, he fails to reckon with God’s sovereign ways in sanctification. Let the church learn that God does not sanctify his children in predictable and expected ways. Soon we are made to think that we have transgressed the privacy of God by mistakenly believing that in sanctification the Lord really does cleanse from all kinds of sins, even ones the experts tell us do not change. The men in St. Louis have well-rehearsed comebacks.

I love baseball. I was a Tiger fan. One day the Yankees were in town. The Tigers were well ahead in that game and Denny McLain decided to throw a gift pitch to the old retiring Yankee, Mickey Mantle. It could help his record. Mickey was surprised at a fast ball over the plate; then he caught on that the pitcher meant to help him, so he signaled he wanted the pitch a little higher and promptly hit the next one over the right field fence. Similarly, MOP wants grooved questions they are primed to answer. If they do not come in right, the Presbytery will do its own grooving and refute error not held. So if a church makes clear what it does not mean, just doctor its message a bit so that the preferred pitch allows a homerun reply. The Commissioner of Baseball did not like that corruption of the game in Detroit. Likewise, some in the PCA are disappointed at stock answers only marginally related to the GPAT’s letter. MOP should not tell other courts of the church to place their appeals only in the boxes provided. If the July 2020 report is typical, if some court fails to speak within expected categories, it may get a reply to the kind of questions the Presbytery prefers.

The Choice before Us

Either we hold that same-sex desire is sinful, no matter how natural it seems to one snared by it, and that what is needed is the mighty deliverance of the Lord; OR we accept same-sex desire as a given, with the Lord not committed to producing change in this life. Either we cave and accept it, or we turn to the Lord in faith with no excuse for sin.

The Contradiction

MOP admits that same-sex desire is morally wrong (p.35), and there are numerous places where the gospel is affirmed; here are some expressions of the gospel:

• Christ’s victory at the cross over sin’s power in the lives of believers (p.30).
• The Holy Spirit infuses grace and enables believers to exercise that grace in subduing sin. (p.30).
• Believers are forever safe “in Christ,” and the power of sin has been broken such that it no longer has believers under its mastery (p. 67).
• The same resurrection power that reversed death in Jesus’ body is brought to believers by the Holy Spirit who reverses in them the spiritual death that sin works and brings them back to life spiritually (p.69).
• The Holy Spirit brings into their very being Christ’s power to resist sin (p.69)
• The Spirit does his transforming work in us (p.69).
• God works in us by his Spirit to change us (Colossians 1:13,14) (p.70).

The Westminster Confession XIII.1 says our lusts are weakened and as persons we are strengthened. MOP’s trouble is that all this is true in every Christian, but sanctification is not working very well in those with same-sex desire. To be sure, MOP never says that the flesh somehow holds the Spirit’s power in abeyance, but he just does not get to the depth of their sin. The Presbytery flatters the Lord with affirmations of the power of the gospel, though it will be effective concerning this special sin later; then real change will come and not until. TE Johnson says, “The locus of the Christian hope is not found in this life” (p. 33). So we can only look forward to becoming transformed Christians someday down the road.

The entire Presbytery response to GPAT is vitiated by contradiction. They believe in “this life-changing power of Christ’s grace” (p.35), while their minister still experiences “undiminished” same-sex lust “after trying to rid himself of it” (p.31). MOP believes in powerful grace with very little expectation of it affecting twisted sexual feelings very soon. In the case of TE Johnson, current sanctification does not function readily. MOP should give a confessional answer: “In sanctification what is weakened – the sin or the Christian?”

The St. Louis Doctrine – With Some Strategy On Its Application

• When challenged about the sinfulness of same-sex attraction, respond with the one two punch, say: Objectors to our teaching deny remaining sin, AND they tend to bring in triumphalism in an over-realized eschatology.
• Though the apostle says, “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses [present tense] us from all sin,” we do not really expect cleansing from sinful same-sex desire in this life.
• While arguments from Scripture have their place, we should still bring in the experts to enlighten us on realistic expectations concerning same-sex orientation. Though God’s mind in sanctification is inscrutable, the experts know what to expect.
• When appeals are made for sexual purity, treat it as a veiled call for orientation change. It is what they really mean even if they do not say so; it is what we are more prepared to answer.
• God is good; we are loving. Critics of Side B arguments do not welcome sinners as we do. We are inclusive. Those who differ with us are repulsed by same-sex attracted people, rather than loving them, so gays say, “Christians do not love gays.”
• When the wisdom of having a homosexual minister in the pulpit is questioned, bring on his faithfulness, his love of Jesus, and his fruitful ministry.
• Speak positively of the transformation that comes from the victory of Christ on the cross. Then in different paragraphs emphasize that change in sexual desire comes in this life only rarely. Victory in this sin will most likely be enjoyed only later.
• Same-sex desire is only one of many “results of the Fall;” we all have brokenness of some kind which continues throughout life in all of us. After all, didn’t Paul claim, “I am the chief of sinners.” (The St. Louis Doctrine grows well in Nashville.)
• When there is no change in sinful desire, claim daily mortification nevertheless, and also living in radical grace. Use mortification as a word that implies great change, though in this sin it gives none, but just keep on using the word anyway (sounds like Screwtape advising a young devil).
• Admit it is sin, but bury it in a flurry of other sins, plus this one has the great virtue of being admitted. Look how vulnerable these brothers are. Keep away from the word “abomination,” but if it comes up, point out that there are many abominations.
• Concerning a SSA believer, affirm that the power of sin is broken, but emphasize that its ongoing power is relentless and alive. The contradiction is only a paradox.
• Confine a definition of chastity to conduct; one can still be considered chaste when the sin is active only in the heart. Elevate external chastity while professing that the real goal is holiness. (We cannot keep the 7^th commandments if we break the 10^th. In Matthew 15:19, the Lord did not say, “Out of the heart evil might come ….”)
• Ask soft questions which assume the presuppositions of Side B homosexuals, as in, “Do you believe in principle that in wanting to help people to accept themselves where they are … ?” (p.32). (What a message – helping gays accept themselves!)

Another wrinkle in The St. Louis Doctrine, though not held by all, is that Christian identity is based only on a man’s justification, not the mysterious process of sanctification. Thus we should not try to ascertain whether one is a true Christian by his progress in sanctification. This is not found in the Presbytery’s report. It is, however, consistent with the divine inscrutability argument in the MOP report. This error was spelled out to me and signed by seven elders. It happens to be of great service to a gay minister. I reply that qualifications for office in 1 Timothy and Titus, are weighted toward a candidate’s character and thus to his sanctification, not his justification. By their quite visible fruit (Matthew 7:16), we know them. Since imputed righteousness is something we cannot witness, we identify Christians by some consistency with their profession. We are not able to read God’s inscrutable mind and do not need to. He has put enough out in the open. Below is an example of how this teaching impacts Christian identity. Read it in the context of a gay minister’s exoneration.

Together we confess that one (and only one) righteousness is the basis of Christian identity – the alien righteousness of Christ imputed in justification. However, and though this may not be your intention, you [David Linden] seem to suggest that a true Christian is ascertained by his current status in the process of sanctification, not by the punctiliar, definitive declaration made in his justification.

In those words, the session confuses how God identifies a Christian with how we fallibly recognize one. We do not exonerate or remove based on a person’s claim of imputed righteousness, nor does TE Johnson when he claims “huge changes in my character” (p.33). Thereby he has put his sanctification up for examination just as much as his doctrine. But now that MOP has spoken, when we consider the matter of unsanctified desires, we may be scolded that we are violating the inscrutability of God. This means TE Johnson can assert his sanctification while his Presbytery indicates we should not reject it. This is the old “I win, you lose.” MOP has come up with a desperate defense.

Reverse Engineering Theological Style

When the great German battleship Bismarck was designed, an unusual necessity hung over the engineers. They could design a warship capable of effective movement in the ocean, but they also had to think of getting it back into port. In Germany’s case the Bismarck had to be able to go through the Kiel Canal. That dictated the design of its hull and thus its draft.

In MOP, theology is being engineered to fit the need of the hour, namely the exoneration of its minister, TE Johnson. They and he can assert his sanctification, and they do, but there is a way to reduce consideration by others who are alarmed at the unyielding continuance of sinful desire. In this context the Presbytery reminds us that no one is qualified to review the mind of God. Our Westminster Standards state and Scripture shows that sanctification is not equal in all. After a good word of the Spirit’s work in a believer, the “unequal sanctification clause” is put before us vigorously. MOP devotes three pages to it under the “Inscrutable Providence of God in the Sanctifying Work of the Holy Spirit.” Missouri agrees that we are speaking here of sin. Yet, they assert that we cannot discern whether TE Johnson is or is not qualified for the teaching office. MOP insists that “room needs to be given to the inscrutability and unpredictability of divine providence in our sanctification.” True, we cannot measure the spiritual life of anyone. But when we take at face value that a minister’s same-sex desire remains, we are not making an unwarranted judgment when we believe him.

The inscrutability of God does not preclude our making a judgment of a person’s sanctification such as the one Paul ordered in 1 Corinthians 5:4-7. When a person testifies to unchanging sinful desires of any kind, it is objectively in the open, and not a matter hidden in the privacy of God. Likewise, the clear promises of cleansing from all sin in 1 John 1:7,9 are open revelation to be trusted. What he has promised, he is able to perform (Romans 4:21). Inscrutability cannot mean that God may decline to do anything he has promised. To say otherwise is blasphemy against the integrity of God.

We are informed by the Lord that what he reveals, we may know. His sovereign inscrutability does not contradict his own revelation (Deuteronomy 29:29). When he says in the new covenant that he will write his law on our hearts, he means it. “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Praise be to our Lord. When he says, “I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules” (Ezekiel 36:27), he means that too. The inscrutability of God does not remove from us the duty to make a judgment of a man’s right to an office when he admits undiminished sin. Presbyteries and Sessions make character judgments every day.

MOP has expended much energy serving as an apologist for Revoice and TE Johnson. Much of its reasoning has been accommodating. Our unease continues about its minister’s interest in the kind of homosexuality that has found a home in him. His Presbytery has not argued its case well and has lost the confidence of many, which is a good reason for MOP to refer this issue to the General Assembly. The Presbytery itself is in some sense on trial. Imagine TE Johnson preaching the gospel assuring people of God’s promise of forgiveness and cleansing, and adding, “but it doesn’t work for me.” Our sins do not sit in our hearts idling in neutral. They come out (Luke 6:45). The blood of Jesus Christ God’s Son does not cleanse from some sins now and the others later. Our God is holy. Our salvation has begun, only begun, but it has really begun in this life. We do not live with unrelenting sinful desire.

When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but also wills that which is evil (WCF IX.4).

By [repentance unto life], a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments (WCF XV.2).

As every man is bound to make private confession of his sins to God, praying for the pardon thereof; upon which, and the forsaking of them, he shall find mercy; so, he that scandalizes his brother, or the Church of Christ, ought to be willing, by a private or public confession, and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended, who are thereupon to be reconciled to him, and in love to receive him (WCF XV.6).

Rev. David H. Linden is a retired Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and lives in Las Cruces, NM.