Chao is mostly remembered for his role in RFT, which, in the words of Bruce P. Baugus, editor of China’s Reforming Churches: Mission, Polity, and Ministry in the Next Christendom,  “helped form a new generation of Reformed leadership within China and throughout the global Chinese church.”

From the earliest days of Protestant missions, foreign missionaries understood the need of training local pastors. The priorities given to this task varied. In many cases, circumstances helped to hasten the process.
This is what happened in Manchuria, a historical region of northeast China, in 1941, when the government forced all religious schools to close. This Yinkguo Bible Institute, which had become an isle of orthodoxy in a country where the siren of religious liberalism was attracting many.
The school’s president was J. G. Vos, son of the renowned Princeton professor Geerhardus. Before leaving for the States, Vos asked his friend, assistant, and former student Charles H. Chao (Chao Chung-Hui) to be the school’s caretaker, hoping that the situation would soon change.
Translator and Pastor
Born on August 2, 1916, Chao was raised a Christian by his mother, who had encountered Christianity in her youth. Of all her children, only Charles shared her faith. In 1935, Charles attended the first Manchurian Christian conference at the Yinkguo Bible Institute and was so impressed by the teachings of the main speaker, Wang Mingdao,[1] that he applied to become a student at the institute and dedicated his life to serving Christ.
By then, Chao was already married. As it was customary, his marriage had been arranged by his mother. Because of the uncertain times, the ceremony took place when Chao was only sixteen. His bride, Li Yu Chen Chao (Pearl), was not a Christian but Charles’s mother sent her to a nearby Bible institute where she learned about Christianity and was baptized. Their first son, Theodore, was born in 1936.
After an internship in Northern Manchuria, Chao returned to the seminary on the invitation of J. G. Vos, who was looking for an assistant. Vos introduced him to the writings of Loraine Boettner, lighting in Chao’s heart a desire to translate them into Chinese. Following Boettner’s advice, he started with The Inspiration of Scriptures. This was just the first of Chao’s numerous translations.
After Vos’s departure, Chao took care of the school’s grounds for fourteen months, until the government claimed them. He then moved to Tashihchiao, where the local pastor needed an assistant. He stayed there until 1945, when the Japanese surrendered. The people of Manchuria rejoiced to see the Japanese leave their country. But their joy didn’t last long, because Russian troops soon replaced them.
Out of the Tiger’s Mouth
This began the long struggle between the Soviet army and the Chinese Nationalist movement. It was a harrowing time for the population, who was forced to submit to the Russians’ demands for food, services, and women. In his autobiography, Out of the Tiger’s Mouth, Chao remembers one time when the Russians asked him to find them some women. He had heard of locals who had been killed for refusing to comply. Thankfully, some unexpected circumstances forced the Russians to let him go unharmed.
Another time, right after the birth of his seventh son, William, a group of Chinese communists abducted Charles from his house and brought him to their headquarters where he and other Chinese captives were forcefully enlisted to march before their troops as a human shield. Taking advantage of a moment of confusion, Charles managed to escape.
Clearly alarmed, the Chaos decided to move to Mukden, which was under Nationalist control. There, Charles worked as an interpreter for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), shipping American relief supplies to Chinese distribution centers. It was a demanding and stressful job. Longing to put his pastoral training to practice, he was glad when opportunities arose to teach English first in a local school and later at the Mukden YMCA, where he was also able to introduce young Chinese to Christ.
During this time, he corresponded with Vos and Boettner, who encouraged him to continue his studies in the States. In fact, they had procured for him a scholarship at Faith Seminary of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), in Tacoma, Washington, and had helped him to get a visa.
What’s more, Boettner was able to arrange for Chao a plane ride from Mukden to Shanghai on a Lutheran “mercy plane,” which was meant to transport refugees out of China. The door seemed wide open and Chao interpreted it as a confirmation that God wanted him in the States.
Crisis of Conscience
His conscience, however, kept bothering him. Could he really leave his wife and seven children in a country where the Communist forces were advancing rapidly and often violently? He had been encouraged to go by his father-in-law, where Pearl and the children were staying, but doubts kept resurfacing.
He was fully aware of Pearl’s challenges. In her own words, from the time Charles had left, their family had been suffering “separation, anxiety, and all the daily inconveniences and perils of life in the middle of a civil war between the Communists and the Nationalists.”[2]
Read More

Team leadership of a church has some utterly unique dynamics. In this chapter, we will explore how a group of elders leads the church together. We will think about how the team operates, consider the relationship between the elders and the pastor or pastors, and observe the distinct differences between a shepherd- leader model and a corporate- governance model of leadership. Our aim will be to map an overall framework for understanding team leadership of the local church.
 
The Elder-Led Church: How an Eldership Team Shepherds a Healthy Flock by Murray Capill
A well-known proverb of unknown origin declares: “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”
In many ways, that proverb sums up church leadership. There are plenty of churches with a sole leader who is able to go quickly. He is free to make the big decisions, set the agenda, cast his vision, and inspire the crowds. Next to such an innovative, agile, charismatic leadership style, other churches look clunky and the wheels seem to turn so slowly. But the saying suggests a limitation to leading alone. You might be able to go fast, but it is better to go far.
Decision-making will be slower when a church is led by a body of elders, but it will benefit from the wisdom of many. Plural leadership provides a range of checks and balances to help avoid folly and rein in the potential for a sole leader to amass more influence than he can handle. The track record of high-profile, celebrity evangelical pastors who have had insufficient accountability is a sober warning to us all.
Many books on leadership largely assume a sole-leadership model and imply that the pastor is the main leader of the church. The elders might be some kind of accountability body, but they are not really the leaders of the church. But the Bible simply does not know a model of sole leadership in the local church. We saw in the Bible’s narrative that the elders are a body or council of men who are respected senior members of the community of God’s people, giving wise counsel and direction to the people, speaking for them, and bearing responsibility for their spiritual well-being. Together they are shepherds, overseers, leaders, and stewards. Their specific ministry, as a body, is the ministry of providing clear leadership.
Leading as a Team
As we saw in chapter 2, leadership is about taking people on a journey. Leaders have a clear sense of what God wants, they make plans for how to move toward that end, and they lovingly and clearly help people go there. They know that the goal is maturity in Christ, and they work out what is needed to help move the church community toward that goal. It involves setting direction, planning, decision-making, resourcing, training and equipping, and supporting people all the way. This ministry of leadership is essential to church health. It is this kind of leadership that clears the fog and provides clarity.
Providing such leadership is demanding, which is precisely why it is such a blessing that the responsibility never rests on the shoulders of just one person. The ministry of leadership is a team ministry. But how does plural leadership actually work? How does a group lead a church?
When my sons were young, I spent Saturday mornings watching them play junior soccer. At five and six years old, most of the boys had no idea about positional play. They moved as a mob to wherever the ball was. Some were out in the front, quickly moving onto the ball. Others held back on the edges, secretly hoping that the ball didn’t come anywhere near them. Only in time did they learn that there is great merit in spreading out across the field, with forwards and backs, wings and centers. That would allow them to play to their strengths, develop a game plan, and save a lot of energy, since they wouldn’t all have to be everywhere all the time.
Some eldership teams operate like junior boys’ soccer teams. Each elder is basically expected to do the same thing as all the others: the same number of pastoral visits, the same up- front roles, the same time investment. But their overall game will be far better if they learn some positional play, both when they meet together and when they engage in church life.
When meeting together, the elders gather as a group of men with leadership capacity. As they discuss an issue, different voices come into play. One has an enormous heart of care and compassion for people, and though they all have a pastor’s heart, this man understands people and human needs in a unique way. Another has a sharply strategic mind. Another is a detail person, while someone else is a Bible giant. Of course, they all know their Bibles well, but this person brings greater scriptural perspective to bear than the others. Part of the dynamic of team leadership is learning to benefit from the varying perspectives of different people.
As they move from meeting together to ministering in the body, they again do so while recognizing their distinct giftings. Those who are gifted public speakers are called on to speak from the front of the church, while elders with greater people skills are drawn into more complicated pastoral situations. Some have more time to engage in ministry, while the young father with small children at home is encouraged not to overcommit. One might make very few pastoral visits because he is heavily involved with the youth ministry. Another, who really is a born leader, is asked to step back from the care ministry he greatly enjoys in order to develop some specific plans for growing an area of ministry.
For an eldership team to operate like this, the elders need to spend honest and vulnerable time getting to know one another. I am proposing not painful team-building games but conversations about their passions, gifts, dreams, fears, sweet spots, and nightmares. They will need to encourage one another, pointing out strengths that someone doesn’t see in himself. They will also need to gently suggest that someone is not best suited to a particular role, even though he would love to have it. This is simply Paul’s teaching on spiritual gifts in the body applied to the body of elders. Are all ears? Are all hands? Absolutely not. But all need one another.
This sharing of the leadership load is one of the great benefits of team leadership. Just as Moses complained that the burden of leading God’s people was too great (Num. 11:11–15), so a sole pastor, while far from being in the position of mediator for all of God’s people, will often be overwhelmed by the weight of expectation, the burden of difficulties, and the ceaseless demands of care. The Lord raised up seventy Spirit- filled elders to assist Moses, and today, he has raised up godly men in every church to share the leadership load. The pastor will feel great relief when he can talk over every problem with other wise men, no major decision ever resting solely on him, and care for the flock a shared responsibility.
Not only does team leadership provide essential support, it also reins in individual pride and arrogance. No one person can call the shots. Any idea must have enough merit to win the approval of the team as a whole. Pastors have built-in accountability, and team members must listen to voices other than their own, consider ideas that they would never have come up with themselves, and defer to the group as a whole when personally they would have made a different choice.
The Team Captain
Eventually a junior boys’ soccer team discovers the importance of having a captain. You can’t have all eleven boys on the team calling the shots on the field. Someone has to take charge. In the context of eldership, this means that although leadership is given by the team, the team needs a leader.
It is common to speak of the leader as “first among equals” or, in a famous Latin phrase, primus inter pares. The leader is not more important than the others and his vote is not worth more, but it is recognized that he is a leader of leaders. “Although elders act jointly as a council and share equal authority and responsibility for the leadership of the church, all are not equal in their giftedness, biblical knowledge, leadership ability, experience, or dedication.”1 Dave Harvey notes that if there is no appointed leader, someone will inevitably emerge as the leader, and the risk is that it may be the person with the loudest voice rather than the greatest wisdom.2
Arguably, Peter was “first among equals” in the apostolic team. He was the spokesman who was often the first to speak and most readily up front.3 Similarly, Paul was clearly a leader among leaders. While we must be careful in drawing lessons from an apostle such as Paul, it seems sound to at least observe that not all New Testament church leaders had the same roles. Paul clearly oversaw other leaders such as Timothy and Titus, and they evidently had prominent leadership roles in churches that had several elders.4 He was also frequently the leader when he and Barnabas were on mission together. Alexander Strauch adds other examples, including Peter, James, and John, who are called “pillars” of the church (Gal. 2:9).5
In the local-church context, a full- time pastor or senior pastor will typically act as the eldership team captain. As a full- time worker, and in many churches the only full- timer, he has his eye on the game more constantly. As the preacher, he has the greatest amount of up- front leadership time in the life of the church. As the elder who has usually had the advantage of more extensive theological training, he is well placed to bring theological discernment and perspective to leadership issues. The pastor or senior pastor is most naturally positioned to be the team captain. So as Harvey observes, “Though the authority for the church inheres in the entire eldership, a wise elder team will look for one among them with humble character, leadership gifts, and public ministry skills to fulfill the role of senior pastor.”6
While it is most common for the pastor or senior pastor to take up this role, it is plausible that an elder other than the pastor is best suited to be the team captain. Some who are gifted to teach and preach, and are therefore supported by the church to do so full time, may not be the most naturally gifted leaders on the team. There may be others on the eldership team who more readily think strategically, foresee what lies ahead, take a lead in making plans or setting direction, or have greater skills in leading a team. The eldership team will need to engage in an honest conversation about who should be the captain. This does not mean who will chair their meetings; that is another role again, although the two can go well together. Nor is it about who has the best ideas. There may be several elders who are capable of thinking strategically, bringing fresh ideas, keeping the big picture before the whole team, initiating new areas of ministry, or addressing key theological issues. Such depth of leadership talent is a great blessing, but the team still needs a leader of leaders.
If this is not the pastor, there will be some interesting dynamics to negotiate. The pastor will need both humility and security to be able to focus on teaching, preaching, and equipping the saints, while allowing someone else to take the lead on the eldership team. High levels of communication and synergy will be needed between the pastor and the lead elder. There must be great clarity on who has what role, and how the two will relate to each other as well as to the wider eldership team. A lack of clarity will invite future conflict.
Similarly, if there are multiple pastors in a church, it will generally be best if one is designated the lead pastor. It’s not that he is more important or more capable than the others, but the staff team, like the eldership team, needs a captain. The most common scenario will be that the main preacher is both the lead pastor and the eldership team captain. If he has the gifts for that, it will be the most natural approach.
So what is the role of the team captain or lead pastor? He is the person to whom the others look to help the team stay together, stay focused, stay sharp. He is a pastor to the pastors, an elder of the elders, with “a unique call to care for the plurality as a whole.”7 He will be a key initiator of conversations that need to take place, reviews that should be undertaken, and new ideas to be considered. He will be the one who lands an issue.8
But while the leader of leaders is an initiator, he is not a lone ranger. Decisions are made by the body of elders. “Senior pastors do not exercise headship over an eldership team, nor do they possess the right to elevate themselves. They should neither act independently nor create a subtle culture where hyper- deference to their wishes is the norm. The senior pastor is called to build a team, not a personal ministry. His effectiveness should be measured by the maturity of his plurality, not his social media following.”9
Over the years, I have repeatedly found myself in the role of team captain, wanting to rethink, sharpen, change, or initiate something. So I usually end up writing a short paper. Having thought through an issue over some time, I put my ideas down on paper and bring it to the elders. What happens next is always fascinating. Sometimes, but not often, the elders look at the idea and say: “That’s wonderful. Let’s go for it!” More often, one of the elders will immediately say, “But what about X?” And to my shock, I realize that despite endless thought, prayer, and effort, I have completely overlooked something basic. At other times, the idea goes down like a lead balloon and, to mix my metaphors, I have to eat humble pie on the way home. But then, occasionally, the balloon is reinflated sometime later. Someone else comes up with the idea and everyone thinks it is great. More humble pie. Time was needed for the idea to gain traction, or maybe the first timing was just not right. Most frequently, the idea is subjected to prolonged thought, revision, development, and eventual adoption. Here is the benefit of team leadership with a leader among the leaders. The result is better than the eldership team with no leader, and better than a sole leader whose ideas are not subject to the scrutiny or input of others.

Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, 3rd ed. (Littleton, CO: Lewis and Roth, 1995), 45.
David T. Harvey, The Plurality Principle: How to Build and Maintain a Thriving Church Leadership Team (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 45.
In fact, it seems that there was some internal structure to the apostolic band. Four times in the New Testament, the list of the apostles is given (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:14–16; Acts 1:13–14), and each time not only does Peter’s name come first, but the first four names are the same, though the order of names two to four changes. Similarly, the next four names are always the same, though the order changes, and the final four names are the same, with the order changing, except that Judas Iscariot is always last. See Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971).
See Gene A. Getz, Elders and Leaders: God’s Plan for Leading the Church: A Biblical, Historical, and Cultural Perspective (Chicago: Moody, 2003), 217–23; Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 45–47.
Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 45–47.
Harvey, Plurality Principle, 41.
Harvey, 57.
Harvey proposes that a senior pastor is custodian of the team, catalyst for action, curator of culture, captain of communication, and liaison for partnerships. See Harvey, 56–67
Harvey, 65.

Related Posts:

In his arguments TE Johnson rests on appeals to his own authority, first as a same-sex attracted man, then as an academic, then as a theologian, and then as a minister. He communicates authoritatively and effectively, and he has clearly convinced many that his understanding of how God interacts with same-sex attracted people is the right one: God’s ability to change people affected by this particular sin is only a remote possibility and should not be held out as a realistic hope for Christians; it would be extremely rare that they might change.  There cannot be a more succinct denial of God’s power to sanctify.

Dissenting OpinionSJC 2020-12 Complaint of TE Ryan Speck v Missouri PresbyteryRE Steve Dowling, joined by TE Paul Bankson, RE John Bise, RE Mel Duncan,RE Sam Duncan, TE Fred Greco, and RE John WhiteOctober 31st, 2021
                We respectfully dissent from the court’s ruling in this case on the following grounds:

That Presbytery did not exercise the “due diligence” required by BCO 31-2 in its investigation and that it therefore committed “clear error” [BCO 39-3] in making its determinations;
That the SJC was not bound by the “great deference” requirement of BCO 39-3 because this is a case centering on Constitutional interpretation; and
That the substantive conclusions reached by Presbytery and confirmed by the SJC do not follow from the facts in the Record of the case.

The first two grounds are procedural, while the third is on the merits of the case.  Each of these grounds is important, and each error has significant consequences for the denomination.
That Presbytery did not exercise the due diligence required by BCO 31-2 in its investigation and that it therefore committed clear error [BCO 39-3] in its determinations
While this case is nuanced, it isn’t particularly complex and some parts of it are simple.  One of the easiest things to understand about it is that the SJC went through most of the judicial process, including its final hearing with the parties to the case, and then opened the record to get more information. Here is the court’s reasoning for doing that:
The SJC believes it is necessary to attempt to clarify the Record of the Case because its magnitude (over 600 pages covering multiple years of writing, speaking, and judicial processes) makes it difficult to ascertain if specific representations of perspectives of TE Johnson are his actual or present theological convictions.
The first thing to notice here is that the SJC says it sought further clarification because the ROC was hard to understand.  If the SJC -a group that is reasonably expert in these kinds of processes and issues- cannot make enough sense of the record to reach a conclusion, it’s difficult to see how Presbytery understood it well enough to reach its conclusions.  Further, the SJC had before it not only everything Presbytery had before it as a court, but also additional briefs, the benefit of a full additional hearing, and oral examination of the parties.  Though we have no doubt about the fair motives of the court, it proved through its actions that due diligence hadn’t been exercised by Presbytery. If it had been, there could be no need to get clarification after a record had once been declared judicially in order, a hearing held, and SJC deliberations begun.
It bears noting that the extent of this clarification was substantial.  It wasn’t just that there was a question or two about some specific point in the record, but instead the apparent need for the SJC to form a committee create interrogatives, communicate them to the accused, and receive his responses.  This process resulted in 103 questions being submitted by members of the SJC.  From that catalog of questions, the committee chose 25 that it deemed the most useful (through a blind grading process).  TE Johnson answered the questions, and these answers -over and against the contents of the original ROC- provide much of the substance cited by the SJC in its support of Presbytery. For example, Allegation #1 is denied with 7 citations, 6 of which are from SJC questions.  The denial of Allegation #2 is supported by 4 citations from the original ROC, and 4 from the SJC’s additional questions.  For Allegation #3, the original ROC is cited once and the SJC’s questions are cited 7 times, and the numbers for Allegation #4 are 4 from the original record and 4 from the SJC.
The SJC’s supplemental work produced 67% of the citations used by it in support of Presbytery’s conclusions, strongly suggesting that Presbytery’s investigation was inadequate.  If the investigation was inadequate, then Presbytery’s conclusions constitute “clear error.”
The second thing to observe in the decision’s justification is that the SJC wasn’t sure whether
“… specific representations of perspectives of TE Johnson are his actual or present theological convictions.”
BCO Preliminary Principle 8 says this:
“Since ecclesiastical discipline must be purely moral or spiritual in its object, and not attended with any civil effects, it can derive no force whatever, but from its own justice, the approbation of an impartial public, and the countenance and blessing of the great Head of the Church.”
It’s hard to conceive that an ‘impartial public’ would approve of seeking the “present theological convictions” of an accused nearly two years after the discrete incident resulting in a complaint occurred, particularly in the absence of any effort to acquire contrary evidence. This extension of time to the present and ex post facto acquisition of information on the part of the court appears to be a misuse of judicial discretion, with the court having undertaken more of a pseudo-BCO 31-2 investigation than an action to perfect the record.  Since the opportunity to answer questions two years after the fact was extended to TE Johnson, then the door should have opened to evidence (if there is any) related to his actions, social media utterances, and writings over the past two years which might contradict the veracity of his carefully formulated responses. Collecting evidence in that manner would be consistent with the desire for a complete record rather than merely an expanded record.
Discussions of fairness aside, TE Johnson’s present positions are irrelevant to the complaint against him.  The actions of the court and TE Speck’s subsequent complaint exist within a discrete timeframe that ended with the initiation of the complaint.  It’s a closed set of circumstances, and subsequent events and information cannot properly be introduced.
In summary, the SJC’s actions bear testimony to the fact that Presbytery’s investigation was inadequate, and since it was inadequate the subsequent determinations made on that inadequate investigation were “clear error.”  Moreover, the SJC distorted the record -however unintentionally- by soliciting the “present” views of TE Johnson.
That the SJC was not bound by the “great deference” requirement because this is a case centering on Constitutional interpretation
There are limitations on courts of review in the PCA.  BCO 39-3 enumerates these, saying first that a higher court should limit itself in its decisions to issues raised by the lower courts, and that higher courts shouldn’t overturn the decisions of lower courts unless there is “clear error.”  In applying these limitations there are conditions and exceptions.  For example, BCO 39-3.2 presupposes that the lower court’s proximity to the events in question better qualifies it to judge a case, and BCO 39-3.3 presupposes better ability to judge based on “familiar acquaintance” with events and parties.  Putting aside the obvious argument that familiarity may actually compromise a court’s objectivity in some cases, BCO 39-3.4 establishes that:
“The higher court does have the power and obligation of judicial review, which cannot be satisfied by always deferring to the findings of a lower court. Therefore, a higher court should not consider itself obliged to exhibit the same deference to a lower court when the issues being reviewed involve the interpretation of the Constitution of the Church. Regarding such issues, the higher court has the duty and authority to interpret and apply the Constitution of the Church according to its best abilities and understanding, regardless of the opinion of the lower court.”
The matter at hand is a doctrinal case requiring interpretation of the Constitution of the Church and the SJC was not obliged to grant “great deference” to the lower court. Moreover, the SJC had the duty to address the issues raised in the complaint without dependence on the “great deference” standard, but it conducted the case instead as if it were bound by the provisions of BCO 39-3.2 and 3.  While we respect the SJC’s unwillingness to exceed its mandate, or to position itself as the arbiter of truth for the Assembly, this is an abdication of responsibility with respect to BCO 39-3.4.
Further, by not meeting its obligation to interpret the constitution of the church under BCO 39-3.4, the SJC has affirmed Presbytery’s authority to make Constitutional and theological declarations on behalf of the denomination.  Since the decision made by Presbytery in declining to indict has been affirmed, the SJC not only has reinforced the idea that this authority lies with individual Presbyteries, it has also formalized a dubious Constitutional interpretation of SSA and how it applies to ordination.
That the substantive conclusions reached by Presbytery and confirmed by the SJC do not follow from the facts in the Record of the case
Again, while nuanced, this case only becomes complex when the things pertaining to sexual dysphoria among Christians generally are made indistinct from ordination requirements, and when the semantic ranges of terms used in the discussion are narrowed, expanded, or otherwise changed according to undiscernable criteria.  In the first case, solid biblical arguments for the church to embrace “sexual minorities” are extended to ordained service as if there could be no category of sin, or no operative level of a specific type of sin, that is a priori disqualifying.  In the second, the symbols (or words) with which we communicate are redefined without agreement, having been appropriated by those with special knowledge of the distinctions they desire from the symbols.
For example, the word “homosexual” appears just under 2400 times in the record for this case.  In virtually all the places where it’s used the term is semantically equivalent to “same sex attracted,” so there seems to be a high correlation between the symbol and the thing signified in common usage, with some translators using the word to translate arsenokoitai 1 Corinthians 6:7-9.  Even so, here is what TE Johnson says:
“Neither malakoi or arsenokoitai map very tightly onto this modern use of gay or homosexual or same-sex attracted as an orientation.”
He is saying that the biblical strictures are not closely aligned with the “modern” use of the words as an “orientation,” but there is no biblical support for arguing that the concepts in 1 Corinthians 6 are culturally bound. Pucci provides some insight here:
“…the Muses sing a discourse similar to true things, but with some distortion, invention, or deflection -in a word, with some differences.  The similarity vouches for the credibility of the discourse, while the invention, deflection, and difference make it false.”
We mean by this that fine distinctions and novel interpretations may obfuscate truth rather than illuminate it, and that the effort to more narrowly define meaning can have the effect of removing meaning altogether, turning truth into falsehood and vice-versa.  In this case, TE Johnson’s reinterpretation of the meanings of malakoi and arsenokoitai through a modern lens to make a distinction related to “orientation” does little to clarify the issue from a biblical standpoint.
The ROC is clear that TE Johnson identifies himself as a “same-sex attracted man.” Irrespective of whether there’s a distinction between that and “homosexual,” and whether or not malakoi and arsenokoitai “map tightly” to the scriptures condemning homosexuality, TE Johnson provides enough evidence from his own statements to make it obvious that this characteristic is so core to his being and so central to his personal narrative that it disqualifies him from ordained service.
TE Johnson’s testimony establishes that he has seen himself as same-sex attracted since he was 11 years old.  He says he has never had an attraction to a woman and that he finds the idea of looking at a woman lustfully “disgusting.”  He says that his public ministry as a same-sex attracted man is intended to help others who are suffering and ashamed about their own same-sex attraction, and in his 2019 General Assembly speech, he claimed that Article 7 of the Nashville Statement “hurt” because it asserts that it is a sin to adopt a homosexual self-conception.
TE Johnson’s self-identification per se, then, is not a disputable issue; the real question is whether this identification “compromises and dishonors” his identity in Christ, and there is good reason to conclude that it does, because TE Johnson consistently palliates the sin of same-sex attraction such that he dishonors God.  For example, he first appeals to the universality of sin to make the argument that same-sex attraction is just like any other sin, while the Constitution’s exposition of Scripture asserts that some sins are more heinous than others (with homosexuality “more heinous” than even inappropriate heterosexual activity by virtue of it being against nature).
While it is true that all people are sinners, it is not true that all sins alike are equal. If they were, then every argument advanced by TE Johnson with respect to same-sex attraction would have to apply equally to every kind of sin.  The sin of pedophilia would have to be considered no worse than anger; the sin of bestiality no worse than drunkenness.  While it is true that all people are sinners and all deserve God’s wrath, and while it is true that no one’s righteousness is good enough to contribute to his salvation, arguments for sin equivalencies mock the word of God and dishonor Him.
Second, TE Johnson is a late middle-aged man of high achievement.  He is well-educated and has an earned PhD establishing him as an expert historian.  He is an author.  He is a lifelong minster who carries the imprimatur of a Seminary education and ordination by one of the most biblically sound denominations in the world.  All these things constitute aggravations of his sinful same-sex attraction and his teaching related to it according to the Constitution of the church.  Question 151 of the Larger Catechism asks what constitute aggravating factors for sins more heinous, and they are these: “…if they (the persons offending) be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and those whose example is likely to be followed by others.”
TE Johnson not only dishonors God in his prominent self-identification as a same-sex attracted man, the matter is made worse by his age, leadership position, and level of achievement.
The ROC demonstrates that TE Johnson is capable of formulating an orthodox view of sanctification, but it also demonstrates that he minimizes the possibility of change for people suffering from sexual dysphoria.  He acknowledges that God can do anything in much the same way Cessationists acknowledge that God could still perform a miracle in the world; that is, He could, but He won’t. He contends strongly -on the basis of his research and experience- that orientation change practically never happens, citing statistics that establish that only 3.5% to 4% of people will ever experience any change from same-sex attraction to natural attraction.
In his arguments TE Johnson rests on appeals to his own authority, first as a same-sex attracted man, then as an academic, then as a theologian, and then as a minister. He communicates authoritatively and effectively, and he has clearly convinced many that his understanding of how God interacts with same-sex attracted people is the right one: God’s ability to change people affected by this particular sin is only a remote possibility and should not be held out as a realistic hope for Christians; it would be extremely rare that they might change.  There cannot be a more succinct denial of God’s power to sanctify.
At the same time, the form of this argument is the opposite of TE Johnson’s argument about the equivalency of sin.  First, he claims that all sin is alike and SSA is no different from any other sin in order to establish that it cannot be a disqualifying factor for ordination.  He subsequently says that while all sin is alike, and all people are sinners, sins related to sexual dysphoria are utterly different in that God hardly ever acts to change people from them and therefore those sins need to be accepted as an ontological phenomenon -they are part of being. By that line of reasoning any other sexual sin must also be accepted as a condition of being, whatever the perversion.
While the ROC doesn’t show that TE Johnson entirely denies that sanctification could extend to a sexual orientation change, it clearly shows that he doesn’t expect it to, even arguing that people need to understand the truth and not be optimistic about change when they are saved [ROC 461, ROC 928, etc.]. In the same way, TE Johnson both claims the power of sanctification in his life and denies it, particularly when he speaks about his sexual appetites, which continue unabated:
“I share about once a year from the pulpit that I’m a porn addict. I haven’t actually looked at pornography for 15 years, but when I did, I was all in and that pull is still as strong as it was. I’ve mortified this for 15 years and it still, you know, I see a computer terminal unmonitored and immediately my mind thinks, I want to look at porn. Fifteen years of strangling this thing, and it doesn’t die, it doesn’t go away [ROC 453}… “
And:
“TE Johnson: “You wanna know about my sexual brokenness? I am happy to talk to you about what I talked about in the pulpit two weeks ago, and that I think is relevant to this conversation. I am a pornography addict. I have had a pornography addiction for 15 years. Actually 18” Interviewer 2: “Are you still doing pornography, Greg?” TE Johnson: “No, I haven’t for 15 years.” Interviewer 1: 1 “So you’re not an addict.” Interviewer 2: “So you’re not an addict anymore.” TE Johnson: “Oh, but I know what it does inside of me. You see, I know that if I look at one image, I’m going to look at a thousand. I know I’m not going to come up for air for hours.” [ROC 553-554, 568”]
Some might be tempted to minimize these statements because of the circumstances of a live interview.  TE Johnson says as much, having called this interaction a “train wreck.” That is an assessment of the outcome but not necessarily the conversation, since the interviewers were clearly trying to dissuade TE Johnson from the point he was trying to make, and TE Johnson himself argued harder and harder for his vulnerability to these sins in order to impress upon them how powerful its control is over him.  The Constitutional aggravations listed above apply here.  If TE Johnson were young or naïve or inexperienced in public interactions, these might serve to mitigate his responsibility for what he said; it might provide an argument from extenuation.  Instead, he is mature, educated, esteemed, and an accomplished public speaker. He clearly believes what he insistently told these interviewers and his words cannot be ignored.
By these beliefs and descriptions of his own experience, TE Johnson minimizes God’s purposes and power in sanctification, while at the same time demonstrating the grip by which his sin holds him.  In his testimony [ROC 610], his sermons [ROC 606], his public speeches [ROC 556] and his writings [ROC 812-830] TE Johnson has made his homosexuality central to his self-perception, his self-presentation, and to his ministry. He has become a public figure as a result, and it is clear from the record that he is regarded as an authority on the subject -one who expressly teaches and intends to teach his version of “truth” as it relates to SSA.
While the ROC and his public utterances demonstrate great facility with language and theological nuance and sometimes serve to obfuscate clear issues, TE Johnson’s fundamental argument for serving as an ordained minister of the gospel is that he is now -and has always been- chaste, making him immune to disciplinary action for sexual misconduct.
By this standard no sexual predilection is disqualifying as long as it doesn’t materialize in an act.  Therefore, the pedophile who suffers in the way TE Johnson does -that is, one who had no hope of change or no resistance to a single look at child pornography such that he “…wouldn’t come up for air for hours…” is eligible for ordination. The same would also clearly be true of someone who struggled with illicit heterosexual attractions under the same conditions, but it is unimaginable that a man would be called as a minister of the gospel who said, “I struggle with lust for women to the point that I don’t expect change, and I’m also an addict who is one look away from complete immersion in pornography -but don’t worry, I only think about it.  I’m not currently doing it.”.
Despite the many excellent points made by TE Johnson about the difficulties faced by Christians who experience SSA or sexual dysphoria, and despite much good advice on how to minister to “sexual minorities,” these arguments cannot be applied without distinction to ordained service.
In summary, the SJC overlooked the clear deficiencies of Presbytery’s investigation, which is proven by re-opening the record and admitting additional information that sought the “present” positions of TE Johnson, extending consideration of facts well beyond the events complained against.  Moreover, it was incumbent on the SJC to deal with the matters raised by the Complainant as issues of Constitutional interpretation instead of deferring to the lower court in this case.  For these reasons, we respectfully dissent from the majority decision.
This opinion was written by RE Steve Dowling