The most salient reason for the Dissent was that basically the SJC created a new Record of the Case (ROC).  Generally, the ROC consists only of the documents generated by the both parties in a case during the time of the original investigation and proceedings.  In this case, an additional investigation was commenced by the SJC long after the original case was documented.  This appeared to be for the purpose of identifying any changes in Mr. Johnson’s present views as compared to his previous views. This may be a laudable goal, but it is irrelevant to this case.

The Dissenting Opinion on the Case that was before the PCA Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) regarding the Missouri Presbytery and Greg Johnson has been published (The Aquila Report, 12/13/21).  I want to publicly thank this group of men for making known the reasons for their Dissent.  Actually, even though many of us consider the decision of the SJC to be a loss, yet this public statement representing the minority vote is an encouragement for countless numbers in the PCA.  I personally appreciate the position these men took in opposition to the majority of the Commission.  A few remarks may be in order.
First, I hold a minority position in the PCA.  I believe that anyone who identifies himself publicly as a homosexual is automatically disqualified from holding office in the PCA.  I therefore have my qualms about part of the process in the Case.
The Dissent asserts that there is good reason to believe that Mr. Johnson’s self-identity as a homosexual “compromises and dishonors” his identity in Christ.  This demonstrates my problem with the proposed changes to the Book of Church Order.  Rather than having a clear line of demarcation regarding the ordination of homosexuals, it creates a purity of thought test where no one can score 100, but no one can define what a passing score is. The Dissent argues that Mr. Johnson’s score is not high enough to pass.  The majority of the SJC concluded that he did pass.  This is highly subjective.  It will be highly subjective if the BOCO changes are adopted.
Secondly, the most salient reason for the Dissent was that basically the SJC created a new Record of the Case (ROC).  Generally, the ROC consists only of the documents generated by the both parties in a case during the time of the original investigation and proceedings.  In this case, an additional investigation was commenced by the SJC long after the original case was documented.  This appeared to be for the purpose of identifying any changes in Mr. Johnson’s present views as compared to his previous views. This may be a laudable goal, but it is irrelevant to this case.  If there have been changes in his views, then there are other ways to handle it.  According to the Dissent, “The SJC supplemental work produced 67% of the citations used by it in support of Presbytery’s conclusions…”  The SJC in essence created a new ROC, and thus, in a real sense, became the court of original jurisdiction.
By creating a new ROC, the SJC allowed Mr. Johnson to nuance his previous statements which happen to reflect the PCA Study Committee on Human Sexuality.  This was unfair to the Complainant.  He was not challenging the discovery statements that resulted from the later investigation of the SJC; he was challenging the original decision of Missouri Presbytery based on the statements made by Mr. Johnson nearly two years ago. (The Complainant’s framing of the original Statement of the Issue: “Did Missouri Presbytery err when it failed to find a strong presumption of guilt and institute process against TE Johnson regarding his stated views on human sexuality that appear to be significantly out of accord with and not in conformity with the Scriptures and the Westminster Standards?”)
Thirdly, the final vote on the SJC shows how important it is to know in more detail about the nominees for the Standing Judicial Commission at each General Assembly.  A difference in one single vote would have changed the outcome of this decision.
The PCA has a Standing Theological Examinations Committee which approves the orthodoxy of the nominees for positions at the General Assembly level, and declares them eligible to hold office.  The election of men to hold this important office has become rather perfunctory.  No doubt, the National Partnership (NP) has had a major influence on who gets elected.
Maybe it’s time to make public for the GA Commissioners a more thorough examination of these men, as is done with candidates for the United States Supreme Court. In some way we need to know the particular theological camp they represent in the PCA.  Judgment of the law is not always neutral.  Commissioners at the General Assembly need to be better informed about nominees.
Lastly, if the proposed BCO changes do not pass, then this will make two proximate losses for the conservative confessionalists in the PCA.  We might expect that some leaders in the PCA will begin to contemplate an exit plan in order to create a new denomination.
Some will plead for a continual fight, pointing out the victories at the previous General Assembly, and believing that they have the grassroots numbers to eventually gain back control of the PCA.  Others will not be so optimistic.  It is sad that it has all come down to this.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.

Our culture has been trending toward a shallower portrayal of fathers who lack strong character or even a masculine identity. In recent decades, identity politics has inundated our culture with portrayals of fathers who identify as homosexual and/or transgender, such as in shows like “Modern Family” or “Transparent.” In large part, that’s because flooding popular culture with an LGBT focus — along with abolishing positive portrayals of traditional parenting — have been specific projects of the heavily funded GLAAD Media Awards since 1989. But if we look back at the earlier portrayals of traditional fathers, we can sense the father hunger that’s at the root of Father’s Day as a beloved tradition. 

In an age filled with hostile propaganda against the nuclear family and devoted fathers in particular, it is worthwhile to ask why the celebration of Father’s Day persists.
Most of us instinctively understand the connection between fatherlessness and social ills, such as crime, poverty, and mental illness. At the same time, we can see the calm and joy of children who are blessed with responsible and loving fathers.
Maybe those are reasons why the tradition of Father’s Day continues to hold sway in America, in spite of ideologues who hope to abolish responsible masculinity by labeling it as toxic, patriarchal, or a product of “white supremacy.”
Father’s Day also takes place at the height of June’s barrage of “Pride Month” agitation. Central to the “pride” agitprop is a massive campaign for the erasure of sex differences through gender ideology and the push for artificial reproductive technologies such as surrogacy that serve to remove fathers — as well as mothers — from the lives of children.
Still, the tradition of Father’s Day endures, despite the thanklessness of the work of good fathers by a culture that seems to reject the very notion of fatherhood. That’s because Americans actually love dads no matter how much the media instruct us to despise them.
Fictional Portrayals of Fatherhood Are Testaments to Father Hunger
Many stories in our popular culture are especially instructive on the importance of good fathers and a reminder of the father hunger children experience. In part, the term “father hunger” describes the emotional starvation, confusion, and frustration that comes with the loss of a father through death, absence, neglect, or abuse.
The Bible is filled with references that attest to the sorrows of the fatherless whom we are warned to treat well. Psalm 68:5 reads: “A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation.”
The father-child relationship is also central to countless works of great literature, including Ivan Turgenev’s novel Fathers and Sons, Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, and Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. There’s no shortage of movies that zero in on the critical role of fathers, including “The Lion King,” “Three Men and a Baby,” “Mrs. Doubtfire,” and “Field of Dreams.” However, you’ll notice that the production of such beloved stories seems to have faded in the 1990s. It’s no surprise that so few are produced these days.
Especially edifying about the yearning for good fatherhood is the role of the single father in so many old television shows in America. Beginning in the 1950s, there were numerous shows about the single dad — or dad surrogate —
Read More
Related Posts:

It seems almost weekly that discouraging news of comes from various corners of Christ’s Church. Apostasy, discipline, closures, resignations, and divisions all cause much suffering in the heart and mind of the one who loves Christ. Has God cast off forever? Has he forgotten grace? Has his mercy been undone? Let that not cause you to “pass censure” on Christ, for you only can “judge it by halves.” Jesus is doing a glorious work, even in the midst of these discouragements.

What is Christ doing in his church? What are the ways that we should interpret the–sometimes dark–providences of God in building, reforming, censuring, or comforting the church? We are not as skilled as we ought to be in judging the work of Jesus in our midst; and that’s always been the case.
Isaiah 53:4b says, “..yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.” This verse demonstrates that when each of God’s people first look upon Jesus, we misjudged the work. You saw the savior stricken of God, and yet it was for your salvation, because of your transgression.
Meditating on this verse, James Durham (1622-58) said that this verse stands as a great application, or use, when considering what Jesus is doing in his church. Sometimes we see things that are not there and we misinterpret what Christ is doing among us. Durham writes, this verse is:
“to teach us, when we are ready to pass censure on Christ’s work, to stand still…to correct ourselves… [Christ] gets much wrong[ed] as to his public work, as if he were cruel, when indeed he is merciful; as if he had forgotten us, when indeed he remembers us still; and as to his private work in particular persons, as if he did fail in his promise when he is most faithful, and bringing it about in his own way.Read More
Related Posts: