As part of MOP’s responsibility “to make clear to the broader Church the errors that were identified in Presbytery’s various investigations” — and the steps it is taking “to fulfill its responsibilities to protect the peace and purity of the broader Church . . . in light of these errors,” … the following documents are posted which report the results of the hearing.

On Tuesday evening, June 14, Missouri Presbytery (MOP) held a second hearing concerning its actions regarding Memorial Presbyterian Church’s involvement with the Revoice conference it hosted in 2018. The hearing was directed by the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) in Case 2020-05.
The Presbytery’s Report
As part of MOP’s responsibility “to make clear to the broader Church the errors that were identified in Presbytery’s various investigations” — and the steps it is taking “to fulfill its responsibilities to protect the peace and purity of the broader Church . . . in light of these errors,” — MOP has asked byFaith, the official communication organ of the PCA, to post the following documents which report the results of the hearing: a cover letter; restating the SJC Amends and the Standard of Review Now Expected of the MOP; and Amended Theological Judgments.
These documents may be accessed here.
Background 
The first Revoice conference, held in July 2018 at Memorial Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, generated controversy in the evangelical community, and especially in the PCA. Ultimately, three matters related to Memorial’s hosting Revoice came before the SJC, the body responsible for handling matters related to judicial process that make their way to the General Assembly (GA):

A complaint filed by Teaching Elder (TE) Ryan Speck contended that MOP should have found a “strong presumption” that TE Greg Johnson, pastor of Memorial, was guilty of four allegations raised against him and should have held an ecclesiastical trial and, if warranted, impose censure (SJC Judicial Case 2020-12).
A second complaint, also filed by TE Speck, charged MOP with error in approving six theological judgments concerning Revoice and Memorial’s involvement with the Conference, as well as a couple of other matters (SJC Judicial Case 2020-05).
Overtures from three presbyteries invoking a “Book of Church Order” (BCO) provisionthat allows any two presbyteries to ask the GA to assume original jurisdiction (the right of a court to hear a case for the first time) when a presbytery refuses to act “in doctrinal cases or cases of public scandal” (BCO 34-1). The three presbyteries alleged that MOP had refused to act by failing to bring TE Johnson to trial.

The full SJC heard Judicial Case 2020-12 in March 2021, and rendered its judgment, denying the complaint at its fall meeting the following October. An explanation of that decision may be found here. The SJC reached a final decision about the Case 2020-05 and the three overtures at its spring 2022 meeting on March 3, 2022. In Case 2020-05, the SJC sustained a portion of the complaint (the complete text of the decision may be found here). The SJC answered the overtures from the three presbyteries by reference to its decisions in cases 2020-05 and 2020-12.
The SJC identified three issues raised by the complaint, and sustained one of them: “At its December 7, 2019, called meeting, did Missouri Presbytery (MOP) err in approving six theological judgments (specifically, Judgments # 1-5 and #9) recommended by the Committee to Investigate Memorial?” The SJC answered “yes, ” particularly with regard to theological judgments 2, 3, and 5.
The heart of MOP’s error identified by the SJC was the criteria the presbytery used in adjudicating the allegations presented within the complaint. The SJC determined that MOP improperly applied a standard used in a case against a teaching elder (BCO 34-5) rather than provisions dealing with the responsibilities of church courts (BCO 11-3, 4 and at BCO 13-9(f)). A more comprehensive explanation of the SJC’s rationale for this conclusion as well as its decision as a whole may be found here.
BCO 43-10 says that when a higher court has sustained a complaint (or any part of it) against a lower court, it “has power, in its discretion, to annul the whole or any part of the action of a lower court against which complaint has been made, or to send the matter back to the lower court with instructions for a new hearing.”
In Case 2020-05, the SJC instructed MOP to “hold a new hearing” that would focus on the following matters: “What steps must MOP take to make clear to the broader Church the errors that were identified in Presbytery’s various investigations with regard to some of the teachings at Revoice 18, particularly with regard to Theological Judgments 2, 3, and 5, and what steps must MOP take to fulfill its responsibilities to protect the peace and purity of the broader Church under BCO 11-3, 11-4, and 13-9f in light of those errors?” The SJC encouraged MOP to consider “how specific statements of some speakers at Revoice 18 may have differed from the propositions of the report of the GA’s Ad Interim Committee on Sexuality.” It was this hearing that MOP held on June 14.
Source
Related Posts:

When we begin to go through the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth commandments are we going to find ourselves devoted to what they teach or are we going to make excuses and find loopholes for our feigned obedience to this portion of God’s law? It’s a question every person who names the name of Christ needs to ask of themselves. Do I love the Lord as He presents Himself in His word, or do I seek a god of my own making who can be molded and shaped as circumstances allow? If we confess that Jesus is our Savior we cannot do that unless we hope and desire that He be our King as well. 

As we move into the second table of the law in our walk through the Ten Commandments as they are laid out in the Westminster Larger Catechism our Divines are going to want to take a breath and ask a question about what we are doing. It is always helpful to take stock of where things are going and how things are at the moment. Doing both helps assist in making the way clear for positive growth in the future. As we heard of the dangers of atheism, idolatry, blasphemy, and Sabbath breaking the Love Thy Neighbor part of the Law will of course have its do’s and don’ts as well. However, we need to be careful not to spend all our time on the negatives. For Christians the keeping of the statutes of God is always a blessing to us.
We should always be desiring to be conformed to the image of the Son.
The Bible knows nothing about a stagnant believer. The Pharisees were keen on thinking they had arrived at a perfect knowledge of the truth, and then sought to impose that man-made standard on everyone who encountered them. That is one of the reasons why those born again by the Spirit and by the blood are self-effacing in their consideration of their own walk with Christ. Humility is part and parcel of faith in the risen Lord. As we look at the Catechism question today I want you to take a moment and listen to what the writers of the WLC have to say about how not only we should be using the law daily to put to death sin and live to life eternal, but why our attitude towards obedience should always be one grounded in thanksgiving for the grace granted to sinners such as us. Here is this week’s Q/A:
Q. 122. What is the sum of the six commandments which contain our duty to man?
A. The sum of the six commandments which contain our duty to man, is, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to do to others what we would have them to do to us.
Now, the build up to that one short question may seem to have been overdone. It doesn’t read like a call to meditation or introspection. All it looks to be communicating is a short statement about what the contents of the rest of the commandments are. Yet, it is vital to understand that when God established the division of the two tables He was intimating something that Jesus explains to the fellow who asked Him what the most important part of the law was for man.
Read More
Related Posts:

By teaching us to name our sin, this doctrine gives us hope for growth in Christ. Paul wants Christians to be aware of their remaining sin, but he doesn’t want us to think we’re trapped. He calls us to mortify our sinful nature again and again until we reach glory (Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:5ff.). How do we do this? We don’t obfuscate about our sin but regularly call the “old man” by his name in confession.

“Concupiscence” isn’t a word most people use every day. Even trained pastors and theologians who are more familiar with the term may be confused about its meaning. For many, the word brings to mind Augustine’s battles with lust or our contemporary debates about human sexuality. For these reasons, many think of concupiscence only as a term for illicit sexual desire. Merriam-Webster’s definition—strong desire, especially sexual—reinforces this usage.
But in Christian theology, concupiscence isn’t just about sex. The term applies more broadly to disordered inclinations and desires that are wrongly bent in any way—whether they be greedy, lustful, unfairly prejudiced, or selfishly biased. Church history shows us how embracing a Reformed understanding of desire can help Christians today.
Sin or Not? Augustine’s View of Concupiscence
For much of church history, the debate around concupiscence centered on this question: Does God hold people guilty for illicit desires even if they don’t act on them?
Augustine of Hippo’s early study of Scripture led him to answer this question in the affirmative. He taught that our illicit thoughts, desires, and actions incur guilt regardless of our will and intent. Why? They’re evidence of our participation in the original sin of Adam and Eve. Augustine wrote, “All that a man does wrongfully in ignorance, and all that he cannot do rightly through what he wishes, are called sins because they have their origin in the first sin.” 
In his later debates with Pelagius, Augustine made clear that because of the corruption of humanity’s sinful desires, we can only do good by God’s grace. But he didn’t stop there. His teaching on baptism complicates his doctrine of concupiscence. Augustine wrote that “concupiscence itself is not sin any longer, whenever [baptized Christians] do not consent to it.”
Scholars throughout history have debated what Augustine meant by this statement. Latin doesn’t possess a distinction between active “sin” and “sinfulness.” The term peccatum can carry either meaning, making it difficult to determine what Augustine intended. But since Augustine’s time, the Roman Catholic Church has taught that baptism removes original sin. They’ve maintained that disordered desires that arise in baptized Christians don’t become sin until we act on them. By Martin Luther’s time, some medieval theologians even taught that disordered lusts should be welcomed by believers as opportunities to exercise virtue through resisting them.
We Remain Sinful: The Reformers’ View of Concupiscence
The Reformers saw the Catholic view as dangerous and contrary to God’s Word. They were convinced illicit desire remained sin and continued to incur guilt in believers even after Christian baptism. The King James (KJV) translation of Colossians 3:5 reflects their view (cf. Rom. 7:8, 1 Thess. 4:5). The KJV translators used the English phrase “evil concupiscence” to translate Greek terms our modern versions read as “evil desires.” Paul says that evil desires—along with “sexual immorality, impurity . . . and covetousness”—are “earthly” and should be understood as idolatrous at the core.
In Luther’s 1537 Smalcald Articles, he argued that the Catholic Church’s failure to name concupiscence as sin led them to a corresponding misunderstanding of repentance. Though illicit desires may arise in believers prior to and apart from a conscious act of the will, they stand, argued Luther, as evidence of our old sinful connection to Adam (Eph. 4:22). As such, they shouldn’t be allowed to fester; they must be “put to death” (Col. 3:5; cf. Matt. 5:21–30).
Read More
Related Posts: