By Don Fortson
TE, Presbytery of the Central Carolinas
There is a narrative circulating in the EPC that Greg Johnson’s positions on homosexuality and same-sex attraction are orthodox since the PCA judicial cases that deliberated on allegations against Johnson exonerated him. This is incorrect. There were two cases: the first addressed Johnson’s views; the second dealt with theological concerns raised by the 2018 Revoice conference hosted by Johnson’s congregation.
This article will focus on the first case.
While discipline did not proceed against Johnson in the first case because PCA courts did not agree there was a strong presumption of guilt, at no point did the court endorse or support Johnson’s positions. In reality, Johnson’s views caused controversy and division over a period of many years before he finally withdrew from the PCA in 2022.
The case against Johnson was adjudicated by the PCA’s Standing Judicial Committee (SJC) in 2021. A majority warned that Johnson’s position “unsettled and alarmed the church” and that he “identifies himself as a same-sex attracted man …. 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.”
We will examine the PCA’s 2021 SJC case (Case No. 2020-12, Complaint of TE Ryan Speck v. Missouri Presbytery, Decision on Complaint, Oct. 21, 2021) by amply quoting from the PCA records. But even at the outset, if Johnson has “unsettled and alarmed” the PCA, why should we in the EPC — who are committed to maintaining the peace and unity of our church — even consider receiving him?
The Backstory
In 2024, TE Greg Johnson and his congregation, Memorial Presbyterian in St. Louis, applied for membership in the EPC’s Mid-America Presbytery. Johnson is a same-sex attracted ordained minister who left the PCA in December 2022. He openly asserts a fixed homosexual orientation but practices celibacy. Memorial Presbyterian has hosted the controversial Revoice conferences; the first conference was held at Memorial Church in 2018. As a result of the original 2018 Revoice Conference, concerns from individuals, sessions, and presbyteries throughout the PCA poured into Missouri Presbytery. In response, Missouri Presbytery investigated allegations against TE Johnson. In 2020, the Presbytery declined to find strong presumption of guilt on each of four allegations against Johnson (allegations listed below). According to the PCA Book of Church Order 31-2 (p. 109), if a strong presumption of guilt is determined, a prosecutor is appointed “to prepare the indictment to conduct the case,” and the formal judicial process proceeds.
A teaching elder in Missouri Presbytery filed a complaint against this decision:
“TE Johnson did not adequately answer some questions posed to him, and what he did answer provides sufficient evidence to raise a strong presumption of guilt that his views are not in conformity with the Scriptures and the Westminster Standards and, therefore, warrant institution of judicial process.”
A Presbytery judicial committee and Missouri Presbytery denied the complaint. The complaint was then appealed to the PCA’s SJC which held a hearing on the complaint in 2021. A complete record of this case before the SJC is available in the 2022 PCA Minutes, Part II (pp. 730-822).
Allegations Against Greg Johnson
There were four allegations against Johnson in the 2021 case before the PCA SJC:
- TE Johnson denies that same-sex attraction is sinful and thereby fails to properly distinguish misery from the sin which give rise to it.
- TE Johnson compromised and dishonors his identity in Christ by self-identifying as a same-sex attracted man.
- TE Johnson denies God’s purpose and power to sanctify SSA believers by minimizing the pursuit of orientation change from homosexual to heterosexual.
- TE Johnson cannot meet the biblical “above reproach” qualification for the eldership since (a) homosexual inclinations are sin proper and are more heinous for being “against nature,” and since (b) TE Johnson identifies as a homosexually inclined man. (Minutes, 737).
After an SJC investigation provided Johnson opportunity to answer questions in writing, the SJC issued the following decision: “Based on the Record, there was no reversible error in the decisions reached by Missouri Presbytery regarding the four allegations. It was not unreasonable for Presbytery to judge that TE Johnson’s ‘explanations’ on the four allegations were ‘satisfactory.’” (Minutes, 767). The SJC did not find evidence that “Presbytery committed clear error in their procedures” or that “Presbytery clearly erred in its exercise of judgment when it declined to commence formal judicial process.” (Minutes, 746).
The vote in the SJC decision that affirmed Missouri Presbytery’s finding that there was not a strong presumption of guilt was 16 in favor and 7 opposed. Was this a vindication of Johnson’s position and an endorsement of his views? Far from it. In fact, in addition to the 7 who voted in the minority (who believed there was strong presumption of guilt on Johnson’s part), 8 of the 16 who voted in the majority filed a “Concurring Opinion” to clarify their position:
“… the SJC’s Reasoning in support of its Judgment should not be read as a defense or vindication of TE Johnson or any of his statements or views. This is because defending or vindicating TE Johnson is not the role of the appellate court.” (Minutes, 786).
Ongoing Concerns about Johnson’s Views
The Concurring Opinion declared: “… we wish for the sake of conscience and for the good of the broader church, to register concerns raised by certain statements of TE Johnson that appear in the record.” Below are three examples offered by the 8 signers of the Concurring Opinion:
- “TE Johnson has spoken of his same-sex attraction and identity in ways that have unsettled and alarmed the church. In a public address reflecting on his life before and after his conversion, Johnson states, ‘it’s not my sexual orientation that’s changed; it’s my life orientation, because Jesus rescued me, a sinner … ’ (ROC 555). In the same address, he refers to himself in the present as ‘gay’ – ‘gay people excel in every field, driven by a never-ending need to accomplish enough, be successful enough … ’ 556). Similarly, in a 2019 article for Christianity Today, TE Johnson states, ‘Jesus hasn’t made me straight. But he covers over my shame. Jesus really loves gay people’ (ROC 904).” (Minutes, 787).
“The Record therefore not only indicates that TE Johnson speaks of himself in ways that have troubled and disturbed the church but also evidences a tone-deafness on the part of TE Johnson about how his public self-descriptions are being understood and received within the Church.” A footnote adds: “But the effect of using these terms [same-sex attraction and identity] in such a way is inevitably to shock and disturb Christian audiences.” (Minutes, 788).- “TE Johnson has drawn an analogy between same-sex attraction and physical illness in such a way as to unsettle and alarm the church.” (Minutes, 788).
- “The way in which TE Johnson has spoken of change in the Christian life has needlessly troubled the broader Church. In response to a concern raised by Central Georgia Presbytery alleging TE Johnson’s belief “that those who experience same-sex temptations are not normally delivered from these, and are not normally changed in nature by the LORD” (ROC 801; compare the letter of Grace and Peace PCA, Anna, TX, ROC 653-5), TE Johnson told his own Presbytery, “God can do anything. He can do miracles. But the normal pattern in this fallen world is that this is a lifelong struggle.” (ROC 943). (Minutes, 789).
“But this emphasis upon the alleged rarity of orientation change has troubled the broader Church. Whether or not TE Johnson is correct in his assessment of orientation change is not our concern here. Our concern, rather, is that the vehemence of TE Johnson’s denials of orientation change has rendered the broader Church unsettled and uncertain with respect to TE Johnson’s commitment to progressive sanctification, particularly the mortification of indwelling sin.” (Minutes, 790).
It is noteworthy that half of the 16 affirmative votes in the 2021 SJC decision (5 TEs and 3 REs) expressed significant concerns about Johnson’s views and repeatedly asserted that Johnson had “troubled the broader church.”
SSA Disqualifies from Ordained Office
In addition to the Concurring Opinion with concerns about Johnson’s views, there was a Dissenting Opinion signed by 7 (5 REs and 2 TEs) who voted in the negative on the SJC decision. The Dissenting Opinion asserted: “That the substantive conclusions reached by Presbytery and confirmed by the SJC do not follow from the facts in the Record of the case.” Below are excerpts from the supporting rationale for the dissent:
“The ROC [record of the case] is clear that TE Johnson identifies himself as a ‘same-sex attracted man’ …. 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.” (Minutes, 802)
“TE Johnson’s testimony establishes that he has seen himself as same-sex attracted since he was 11 years old .… 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.” (Minutes, 802). The Nashville Statement was adopted by the PCA in 2019.
“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).” (Minutes, 803).
“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.” (Minutes, 803).
“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 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.” (Minutes, 803, 804).
“In his arguments TE Johnson … 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.” (Minutes, 804).
“… 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.” (Minutes, 804).
“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]” (Minutes, 804).
“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.” (Minutes, 805).
“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.” (Minutes, 806).
“By this standard no sexual predilection is disqualifying so 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 a child … is eligible for ordination. The same would also clearly be true of someone who struggled with illicit heterosexual attractions under the same conditions, yet 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.” (Minutes, 806).
“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.” (Minutes, 806).
In summary, it is noteworthy that 7 SJC members voted against the 2021 SJC decision (5 REs and 2 REs). They contended that Johnson identifies himself as a “same-sex attracted man” which “disqualifies him from ordained service.” This judgment parallels the assertion of another 8 SJC members who signed the Concurring Opinion, declaring that Johnson has “spoken of his same-sex attraction and identity in ways that have unsettled and alarmed the church.” Thus, two-thirds (15 of 23) of the SJC members believed the record of the case demonstrated that Johnson does indeed claim to be same-sex attracted and one-third of the SJC believed that this self-identity disqualifies him from ordained ministry.
The PCA record of this case does not indicate a judgment that Greg Johnson is orthodox. Far from it. In fact, the record of the case points to Johnson’s duplicity and his resolute assertion that he is a gay man with a fixed homosexual orientation with no expectation that Christ will heal him. Is this someone qualified for ordination in the EPC? The obvious answer is NO!
The Aftermath of the Johnson Case
After the 2021 SJC case concluded, Johnson’s views continued to unsettle, alarm, and trouble the PCA. By March of 2022, the second SJC case addressing theological concerns about Revoice was decided (see 2022 PCA Minutes, Part II, pp. 826-864). Also in the spring of 2022, two PCA presbyteries requested that the General Assembly assume original jurisdiction over TE Johnson. The overture from both presbyteries included an attachment citing 10 examples of “public comments from TE Greg Johnson either contradicting or offering confusion to his affirmations to Missouri Presbytery’s BCO 31-2 investigation.” The overture from South Alabama Presbytery stated:
“…Whereas since the record of the case of the original Missouri Presbytery investigation of him (July 21, 2020), and even subsequent to the Standing Judicial Commission judicial case 2020-12 (October 21, 2021), TE Greg Johnson has made numerous public comments that appear to either contradict or at least offer confusion to his previous affirmations in these matters (see examples in the attached addendum) …
Whereas TE Greg Johnson uses the same confusing and misleading terminology as Revoice 18 throughout his book, Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality (Zondervan, 12/7/21) [“homosexual Christian” p. 25, “gay believer” pp. 8, 14, “homosexual believers” p. 9, 116, “sexual minorities” pp. 33, 221, 230]
Therefore be it resolved that Southeast Alabama Presbytery requests that the General Assembly assume original jurisdiction in the case of the doctrinal error of Teaching Elder Greg Johnson per BCO 34-1.”
The Southeast Alabama Presbytery overture along with an almost identical one from Grace Presbytery were referred to the SJC. In the midst of the SJC’s deliberations, Memorial voted to withdraw from the PCA and TE Johnson (and two other TEs) requested that their names be removed from the membership rolls of Missouri Presbytery. The Presbytery had recently begun another investigation of Johnson which they decided not to conduct after Johnson’s name was removed from the Missouri Presbytery rolls. By his departure from the PCA, TE Johnson became a fugitive from ecclesiastical discipline to which he had promised submission in ordination vows.
Conclusion
With the obvious turmoil that Greg Johnson’s views produced in the PCA, it was a mystery to many why the EPC’s Mid-America Presbytery would not have swiftly rejected a request from Johnson and Memorial Church to enter the EPC. This is especially the case given that the ninth ordination vow states, “Do you promise to be zealous and faithful in promoting the truths of the gospel and the peace and unity of the Church, whatever persecution or opposition may arise unto you on that account?” (emphasis mine).
When this situation became known, it initially distressed many across our denomination. Now that questions related to same-sex attraction and ordination have been referred to an Ad Interim Committee, this has given the EPC an opportunity to definitely clarify and affirm that only heterosexuals qualify for church office in the EPC. We trust the Ad Interim Committee will provide solid biblical and confessional answers which will anchor the EPC firmly within historic orthodox Christian views on homosexuality.
Leave a Comment