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

This is just one reason why the church is so precious. As the word of the gospel goes out and gathers believers to Jesus (John 10:16), these new believers form gatherings called churches. In the book Word-Centered Church, Jonathan Leeman says, “A Christian’s new DNA, which he’s received from the Word and Spirit, knows that it now belongs to something larger . . . his new being longs to be gathered to other believers now—on earth” (87). Jesus sets your story in a local church because faith flourishes in fellowship. It would be tragic for us to write ourselves out of the story, watching the flame of our faith slowly fade because we distanced ourselves from fellowship.
Two passages in Hebrews show four reasons fellowship helps us run the race of the Christian life.
Protection Against Hardened Hearts
Soldiers stand guard not only for themselves, but also for their fellow soldiers. Fellow believers likewise guard each other through a word of exhortation. “But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ‘today,’ that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end” (Heb. 3:13–14).
The Saturday night before in-person Sunday services were shut down for us, our youth group was away for our annual retreat. I asked our students to gather in small circles around each youth leader and pray for them. We may assume teenagers today are indifferent towards God and so self-absorbed they don’t think about others. However, these teenagers went without hesitation and covered their leaders in prayer. Seeing a fifteen-year-old put their hand on the shoulder of their fifty-year-old leader, with tears in their eyes, and pray for them is a moment Zoom cannot re-create. I missed moments like this.
Like an army locking shields to protect everyone from enemy arrows, we surround each other with shields of exhortation and prayer. We guard our hearts for Christ in the fellowship of believers.

Scripture teaches us the necessity of being good evangelists (Matt. 28), but it also teaches us to be good watchmen (Ezek. 33) over the city and over the people. Shouldn’t we be just as concerned about the consequences of evil being unleashed–even on the Church–by corporate entities as we are about the salvation of souls?

How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! – Matt. 23:37
An Understanding & Definition
Our mission at Tanglewood Ministries is to teach how evil can be restrained and how to live together in an orderly manner–something that must be taught regularly in churches today by

Showing love for Christ by obeying what He commands. (John 14:15)

Warning against corporate violations of the Moral Law thereby subjecting whole groups and even nations to God’s judgment. (Ezek. 18:30)

Subjecting ourselves to governing authorities [except when those authorities command us to disobey God]. (Rom. 13:1 and Acts 4:18)

Understanding the doctrine of Common Grace whereby God can and does restrain evil through governing authorities (Romans 13) and makes the same promise to us today found in 2 Chronicles 7:14. So, isn’t it also Good News when nations begin to live under His protection? The answer is yes, and these things need to be taught in our churches.

While we support the work of today’s church and para-church ministries, our role at Tanglewood Ministries is to warn others about corporate groups (government, academia, big tech, banking, and even the established church, etc.) who violate the Moral Law of God. Scripture teaches us the necessity of being good evangelists (Matt. 28), but it also teaches us to be good watchmen (Ezek. 33) over the city and over the people. Shouldn’t we be just as concerned about the consequences of evil being unleashed–even on the Church–by corporate entities as we are about the salvation of souls? Biblically and historically, there is always a high price to pay for not heeding the warnings of Scripture, for not seeking God’s protection, and for not sounding the alarm when corporate groups violate His Moral Law.
Recently a group of Roman Catholic bishops met to discuss whether Catholic politicians like Joe Biden should continue to receive Communion because of their personal and political pro-choice positions. At a conference in November of 2021, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops passed a document by a vote of 222-8 which appeared to empower individual priests to deny Communion to pro-abortion rights politicians should they encounter them. Equally important is the corporate nature of the president’s sin. Shouldn’t that be the proper role of the Church and its leaders as well? Exercised biblically, the church has always had great spiritual power to proclaim everything Christ commanded–including His warnings–and it still does–even to a president and to a nation who follows him in his political position on abortion.
Remember to be thankful for those who do acknowledge and teach soundly on the moral issues. We may disagree doctrinally on many points with Roman Catholics, who are also concerned about the moral injuries to everyone caused by corporate sins (e.g., the political position of politicians on abortion), but again we should be thankful for these bishops who were concerned enough about the spiritual health of the president, other politicians, and the church to discuss the issue and pass a document.
Also, be concerned about the medium used to convey the message, but not at the expense of the biblical message. The medium needs to be constantly evaluated to make sure that all that Scripture says on a subject is being proclaimed. The medium used at Tanglewood Ministries, and the one we are proposing to the church, is both predictive (one who warns about ignoring God’s Moral Law) and evangelistic (the Gospel). Both must be delivered with grace and mercy, and both are Good News.
Unfortunately, today, the evangelistic duties of the church often minimize the importance of its predictive duties–as is the case when we warn individuals and groups of the consequences of their sinful actions. What is needed is “salt and light” (Mt. 5:13-16) in both areas. The proper balance between the evangelistic and predictive focus of Scripture is best accomplished when we teach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:26-27). It’s not either/or, but both/and because both evangelistic and predictive duties are fundamental to Christian thought and doctrine.
Below is a letter I recently wrote to a follow pastor. It is meant to be analogous to Lam. 5:7 (“We bear their punishment”) but only in the sense when we actually commit the same sin or remain silent (also sinful) which precludes a deterministic view of this verse.
“Our fathers sinned and are no more, and we bear their punishment.” (Lam. 5:7)
My Dear Brother,
It is so good to hear from you; and I well understand, regarding church matters, the importance of smooth transitions between the retiring pastor and new pastor. I think for most matters that a gentleman’s agreement–not to meet with anyone relative to church matters without the new pastor being present as you have describe–works best. 
That being said, the old adage “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” is still very prevalent today. Most church members look for solid biblical teaching and a pleasant time among believers, even if only one day a week. They need and deserve this time. Some think only in these terms, but there is another consideration which must also be taught and nurtured. There are times when immediate attention to an unpleasant and troubling matter is warranted, and that somehow light will come out of darkness.
Such is a time for the Presbyterian Church in America. Knowledge of the Revoice movement and “same-sex attracted candidates” to the Gospel ministry came as a shock, and perhaps too late (though we pray not), for most members and ruling and teaching elders to reverse the trend of events. Early on, proceedings in church courts were in the hands of some very capable and powerful men–men I might add whom I love as brothers, though I think some were wrong in their understanding of Scripture and of our Confessions regarding “Side B” ordination.
The message contained in my poster (“The PCA will never be able to argue “side B” ordination in God’s court) summarizes my biblical understanding on the subject of same-sex attracted, or in the vernacular of Revoice advocates, “Side B” (attracted, but not practicing homosexuality) candidates to the Gospel ministry. According to the Bible and the Westminster Confession of Faith (the lens through which Reformed Presbyterians understand theology, just as a Baptist would utilize the Baptist Confession or a commentary by C.H. Spurgeon), ordaining a man who is same-sex attracted should not to be permitted (Rom. 1:18-27); and that this is not just the concern of a few church leaders, but should be the immediate concern of all church members.
Conclusion:
If the “Side B” doctrine is neither “expressly set down in Scripture” nor “deduced from Scripture” (WCF 1:6), and if the Progressive “Side” B proponents outmaneuver the Confessional proponents, then isn’t this a case of corporate sin in the PCA, and shouldn’t we all (including me as a Teaching Elder) bear the punishment of others if we continue in their ways (my understanding of Lamentations 5:7 from the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible)? This summer’s PCA General Assembly will be a test case, like no other, to determine if the PCA remains Reformed. Our prayer is that the PCA will remain Reformed, but only if it rejects the “Side” B doctrine.
Note:
For inexplicable reasons, some may not be moved by my references to Scripture and to the Confessions of Our Faith, so I am providing a relevant warning from Franco-English writer and historian, Hilaire Belloc:
“In a word, the Barbarian is discoverable everywhere in this, that he cannot make: that he can befog and destroy but that he cannot sustain; and of every Barbarian in the decline or peril of every civilization exactly that has been true.
We sit by and watch the barbarian. We tolerate him in the long stretches of peace, we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence; his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creed refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond, and on these faces there are no smiles.”
Charlie Rodriquez is a retired Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and lives in the Dallas, Texas area.