The SJC was considering two questions in this case. The first was whether the session at Midway erred in convicting Phil Dudt of the charges brought against him, and the second was whether the Northwest Georgia Presbytery erred in upholding that conviction. The SJC answered yes to both questions, and that ruling is the subject of pastor Johnson’s disappointment.

As a member of Midway Presbyterian Church who recognizes and appreciates its importance to both my region of the country and the denomination to which I have fled as an SBC refugee, I have made it a point to closely follow the various controversies that exist within my own church, though I am not personally a party to the disputes. I was dismayed to read pastor Terry Johnson’s article criticizing the SJC’s ruling which overturned the conviction of RE Phil Dudt, finding his critique both poorly reasoned and generally unhelpful in that it serves to obfuscate the matter rather than clarify it.
Pastor Johnson complains that the SJC does not understand the context surrounding the case, but he provides very little for his readers as he does not even explain what Dudt was tried and convicted for. It is necessary for anyone interested in the matter to read the summary of the facts here.
On July 8, 2020, the session called a congregational meeting for the purpose of electing three assistant pastors as associate pastors to take place on July 19, 2020. Phil Dudt sent an email to the congregation in which he asked the congregation to support a substitute motion to postpone the meeting until January, 2021. The full text of his email can be read in the summary of the facts. He gave several reasons for this motion, one of which was the fact that Midway had only recently been involved in another controversy regarding the handling of officer nominations in which the SJC ruled against the session. His motion to postpone the meeting failed, and the congregation subsequently voted to install the three candidates as associate pastors.
The session at Midway then brought charges against RE Dudt, alleging that his email was a violation of the 5th and 6th ordination vows, as well as the ninth commandment. Dudt was convicted of the charges, appealed that conviction to the Northwest Georgia Presbytery, and then to the SJC.
The SJC was considering two questions in this case. The first was whether the session at Midway erred in convicting Phil Dudt of the charges brought against him, and the second was whether the Northwest Georgia Presbytery erred in upholding that conviction. The SJC answered yes to both questions, and that ruling is the subject of pastor Johnson’s disappointment.
Johnson’s first stated reason for his disappointment was that the SJC does not recognize the larger context within which the complaint was made. He speaks of a contentious minority that has been engaged in a prolonged battle against the will of the majority. The complaint being considered by the SJC was an appeal filed directly by Phil Dudt himself, not by any third-party members of the church. The context for the complaint is the actions of Phil Dudt and the trial that ensued, not the actions of other people within the church that took place before or after. There does exist a portion of the congregation which is vehemently opposed to the session at Midway in general and pastor David Hall in particular, but Phil Dudt has never publicly identified with them. Many of these members are anonymous in their opposition and therefore would be impossible to identify with in the first place. His only association with them is the fact that he is an officer of the church (which is a connection to this faction shared by all members of the session, not just Dudt) and the fact that they agreed with his arguments for postponing a congregational meeting called for the purpose of voting on a motion to install three associate pastors.
The second point made by Johnson in his critique of the SJC decision is the one I find most disappointing by far. The SJC agreed that there was no evidence in the ROC to support the charges that were brought against Dudt. Specifically, what the session failed to show was that Dudt’s actions constituted an offense according to BCO 29-1. This led to the sustainment of specifications of error 4, 5, 6, 14, and 24. Johnson argues that this constitutes an argument from silence and that the proper course of action by the SJC would have been to investigate further because, “the benefit of the doubt, or shall we say, the presumption of innocence, should be given to the majority in the local lower courts.”
This is extremely flawed logic. Pointing out that the prosecution failed to substantiate the charges is not an argument from silence. An argument from silence is when the absence of evidence for one proposition is taken as evidence for the truth of a contrary proposition, particularly in the field of historical analysis. The question being decided by the SJC was not whether Phil Dudt was innocent or guilty but rather whether or not the session erred in finding him guilty. The accused party has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The point is not that the lack of evidence of his guilt proves his innocence but rather that the failure to provide evidence of guilt renders a conviction unjustified.
More importantly, Johnson’s reasoning here shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. The burden of proof when bringing charges against any member of the church, let alone an elder, is on the one bringing the charges (BCO 29-1), not on the one being accused. This was addressed in specification of error 31, which was sustained in the SJC ruling. If no evidence to sustain the charges is provided, the proper course of action is for the court to render a verdict of “not guilty,” not to delay judgment until evidence can be found. The question being decided by the SJC was whether or not the conviction of Dudt by the court was warranted. To “presume innocence” on the part of the majority of the court on that question is to presume guilt on the part of Phil Dudt. Pastor Johnson’s logic essentially amounts to saying that the SJC should have upheld the rulings of the lower courts because they were the rulings of the lower courts. That is obvious question-begging and would defeat the entire purpose of the appeals process.
Johnson’s third point, that technical errors of process should not be given undue weight in light of the larger context is wholly irrelevant to the question at hand. He made no effort to explain how exactly the SJC gave undue weight to technical errors of process, and the facts do not support the claim. The SJC did not overrule Phil Dudt’s conviction on the basis of procedural errors but rather on the basis that the charges upon which he was convicted were unfounded and unproven. Furthermore, a number of the specifications of error listed by Johnson as technical errors of process are not in fact mere technicalities but rather are errors which fundamentally undermine the character of justice, particularly errors 25, 30, and 31.
Pastor Johnson’s fourth point, which he calls the heart of the issue, is another exercise in circular reasoning. He asserts that Phil Dudt “does not have the right to send private communication without the knowledge of the session, especially one which contradicts, and in the contradiction denigrates the session.” We can all agree that he does not have the right to denigrate the session, but the whole point here is that he did not denigrate the session. Phil Dudt only denigrated the session if you consider the act of arguing in favor of a substitute motion to be denigrating in itself. Such a position would be absurd. Dudt expressing disagreement with a decision of the session to call a congregational meeting to elect three associate pastors no more denigrates the session than pastor Johnson expressing disagreement with an SJC ruling denigrates the SJC. Dudt’s reasoning for delaying the meeting in no way denigrated the session. He did not even voice opposition to the session’s proposal to install the three associate pastors. All he argued for was to postpone the meeting until the following January. Johnson’s characterization of Dudt’s actions presuppose his guilt, and then he uses that presupposed guilt as a basis to criticize the SJC’s ruling overturning the conviction.
Pastor Johnson goes on to point out how the SJC decision has injured the ministry of a veteran, faithful, and devout minister. I assume he is referring to pastor David Hall. This is true, and I largely share the concern. Johnson explains that Hall, “has sustained constant, false, and destructive attacks from an organized and determined minority. At the foundation of their bitter opposition was an orderly process whereby the session voted to nominate assistant ministers to serve as associate ministers, and the congregation voted to concur with the recommendation to call the assistant ministers as associates. The minority did not like the decisions or the processes, though both were in order. They simply refused to submit to the majority.”
First, it is worth noting that Johnson’s assertion that both the decision and processes were in order is not a matter of unanimous agreement. The question of the orderliness of the process became the subject of another controversy when thirteen ordained members of Midway signed a 40-5 credible report alleging various BCO violations stemming from that meeting. That report was viewed as legitimate enough for the Review of Presbytery Records Committee to unanimously recommend that it be referred to the SJC for adjudication. That recommendation was ultimately rejected by the General Assembly by a 54% – 46% vote. Whichever side one might take on the questions surrounding that meeting, I do not think it is properly charitable to assume that these issues were raised out of nothing more than a stubborn refusal to submit to the will of the majority. It strikes me as unlikely that so many people—including many who were not themselves involved—would see legitimacy in the objections if those objections could not have been raised in good faith.
More importantly, even if you agree that the actions taken by the minority after the congregational meeting is a stubborn refusal to submit to a legitimate decision of the majority, that has nothing to do with the case of Phil Dudt. The actions for which he was tried and convicted occurred before the meeting, not after. He was not one of the signers of the 40-5 report. At no point did he indicate any unwillingness to submit to the results of that congregational meeting, and has taken no action to undermine it.
While I share pastor Johnson’s overarching concerns about the fact that many members of Midway have made use of this SJC ruling to launch all sorts of attacks on David Hall, it does not follow that the SJC made the wrong ruling in the case. Consideration should be given to the fact that Phil Dudt is also a veteran, faithful, and devout minister, and that his conviction did injury to his ministry as a ruling elder. To uphold a wrong conviction which injured one minister for the sake of protecting another from criticism would have been blatant partiality on the part of our denomination’s highest court, and I am thankful that did not happen.
As I see it, the true heart of the issue here is whether or not Phil Dudt deserved to be convicted of the charges that were brought against him on the basis of his email to the congregation. How an email advocating the postponement of a congregational meeting which contained no false statements, no accusations or assignment of ill motives, and no opposition to the proposed action itself constitutes violence to the unity, peace, or purity of the church, lack of subjection to the brethren in the Lord, or a violation of the ninth commandment is beyond any reasonable comprehension. That is why the SJC unanimously overturned the conviction, and I do not believe they erred in their judgment in doing so.
Jonathan McElrath is member of Midway Presbyterian Church in Powder Springs, Ga.
Related Posts:

Titus is to “teach what accords with sound doctrine,” since the same grace of God, which offers salvation to all, also teaches us to “renounce ungodliness and worldly passions” (Titus 2:1, 11–12). If we miss that connection between truth and godliness, we have missed the main point of this letter.

Titus is one of the Pastoral Epistles, which is an eighteenth-century term for the books of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus because they are letters from the Apostle Paul to his fellow pastors. Here are three important things to keep in mind as you read this letter.
1. Titus is about the truth that leads to godliness.
At the beginning of his letter to Titus, Paul says that he is “an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness” (Titus 1:1). The stress on truth and godliness continues throughout the letter: these things must always go together.
When it comes to describing the sort of people Titus is to appoint as elders in the churches on Crete, Paul is very clear that they must be “above reproach” and that they must “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught” (Titus 1:6–9). Conversely, the false teachers that Titus has to wrestle with “profess to know God, but they deny him by their works”—which shows they are wrong in both lip and life, in their teaching as well as their behavior (Titus 1:16).
To counter this, Titus is to “teach what accords with sound doctrine,” since the same grace of God, which offers salvation to all, also teaches us to “renounce ungodliness and worldly passions” (Titus 2:1, 11–12). If we miss that connection between truth and godliness, we have missed the main point of this letter.
2. Paul calls Jesus “God.”
In chapter 2, Paul says that Christians are “to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:12–13). What we might easily miss is the reference here to Jesus as “our great God.”
We know that Jesus is God, of course, from elsewhere in the Bible. His words and actions, His fulfillment of prophecy, and the way the New Testament speaks about Him prove that this is so.
Read More
Related Posts:

We do not read to make ourselves feel good, or to be better than other members at church. We read because it’s good for our souls, and it serve our hearts delight. If you find yourself being discouraged because others read more than you, remember that people have different dispositions and preferences. Some people(me) are just nerdier than the rest, and find constant reading to be a joy. Comparison will not be able to sustain the desire to read more, only joy can. Recognize that the reason you should read more is because it is good, important, and healthy. 
I love reading. It is my single favorite hobby to do in life. Those who know me best, will regularly hear me discussing something I am currently reading, or have recently read. As people have come to know me as an avid reader, I often hear the same sentiment- “I wish I read more”. I find myself regularly encouraging others in ways to grow as a reader, and in turn, read more than they do now. Reading is a joyful endeavor, and I love seeing people grow in their love and appreciation for good books. I will share below a number of different pieces of advice I find myself often sharing with others. I hope these serve you well – Tolle Lege!
Learn To Read
This first tip is not meant to be insulting, or belittling. The reality is, most people do not know how to read well. More than simply identifying words and rushing through pages, reading requires prolonged, critical engagement with thoughts and arguments. Every author is making an argument to you, and the reader needs to be able to engage with the authors flow of thought and the development of his/her argument. This takes time, and is a skill worth learning well. Reading is a very active experience. There are also different ways to read a book, at different levels of engagement. You can check out the famous book, How to Read a Book, by Mortimer Adler, to get you started.
Read What Interests You
Often, when somebody wants to grow as a reader, they think they need to begin by jumping into major works, on subjects they “ought” to be interested in. In my context, I meet individuals often who say they want to grow as a reader, and immediately think that means they should take on Herman Bavinck’s 4 volume Reformed Dogmatics. While such reading might work out for them, often, new readers would be best served starting small, and in areas where they find genuine interest in. Do you like baseball? Read a book on baseball  you find intriguing. Do you think history is kind of cool? Go pick up a good book on a compelling era of history. There is no need to get going on a 1,500 page work by a major theologian if you’re going to drop out after 20 pages. Read fiction. Read good, compelling books on the christian life from the best authors (C.S. Lewis, Kevin DeYoung, etc). I constantly find myself reading books on Theology, American History, Winston Churchill, Economics, and the New England Patriots, because that drives my passion for reading. Reading books you are interested in will make you a better reader, develop more interests that you can read up on, and give you momentum for tackling bigger books.
Build Momentum with a Reading Snowball
There is something about finishing books which builds momentum. When you close the back cover on a book you’ve just spent days engaging with, you want to pick up the next one and keep going. I find it helpful, for newer readers to pick up smaller books, which they will be able to actually finish, rather than massive tomes which they may burn out on quickly. As you finish off books that are in the ~100 page range, it will encourage you, and equip you to take on books that closer to ~200 pages. As the momentum grows, your ability to take on more will build as well. I could never have imagined taking on books of 800+ pages when I was in college, but now, they don’t seem daunting to me (in fact, I love them!). Even if you don’t end up reading major works, finishing off books will help keep you in the flow of reading.
Quit Bad Books…But Not Too Fast
What happens if you find yourself reading a book, and it is just absolutely dull? We don’t want to waste too much of our precious time on bad books, and let’s be honest, there are a lot of bad books. One blogger made the sad, but true observation that we will not have time in our short lives to read everything we would like to. Therefore, we need to prioritize what we read, and be willing to move on from bad books that only waste time for good books. I learned a rule on when to quit bad books which I find helpful. The rule goes like this – Take 100, and subtract your age. That is how many pages you must read of a book before you can quit it. This keeps you from quitting too fast(some books just take time to get going) and allows you to quit before you’ve spent too much time on it. At the time of this writing, I now give every book 70 pages before I quit. This rule has paid off both ways, both in keeping my in good books which started slow, and allowing me to ditch bad books not worth my time.
Buy More Books
Some people think the best way to buy books, is only to buy them as you are able to read them. This may be very financially responsible, but it actually limits how many books you end up reading. Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, shared his recommendations with a group of pastors at a local conference. He said “if you wait to buy books for only when you’re going to read them, you’re going to miss out on a lot of good books”(paraphrase). I think he is right. If you we’re to tally up the most important books in my life, most of them were books I had owned for several years.