Shall The Radical Contextualizers Win?

Revoice theology or the tenets of Side B celibate same-sex attracted Christianity are, at the same time new and not new. They are strikingly current and redolent of revivalism and of the theological liberalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Revoice and Side B do not seek to destroy Christianity or cripple the church. Rather (as with the liberals of yesteryear), they seek to save the church’s mission for a new generation and for some very specific segments of society.

A helpful shorthand term for the clunky  terms “Revoice theology” and “Side B celibate same-sex attracted Christianity” is Johnsonism, after the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) pastor Greg Johnson who personifies the movement. Surely there is range, lexical and doctrinal, in the movement—Greg Johnson is not Revoice and all Side B folk do not agree on every point. But just as Rosaria Butterfield represents one way of dealing with and speaking to believers who struggle with homosexual desires or sexual confusion, Johnson represents another.

Reading Johnson’s 2021 book Still Time to Care (an attack on conversion therapy and an appeal for compassionate ministry to gay Christians) is one way to understand Johnsonism, but now there is another: a very brief booklet meant to supplement the longer work called On Mission with the LGBTQ+ Community In barely seven pages of text Johnson has given us  “some thoughts on ministry to the LGBTQ+ community…and a lot of this is personal experience,” per his introductory Facebook post.

On Mission is Revoice applied, and it starts with Revoice. Johnson begins by recounting the opposition to the inaugural 2018 Revoice Conference (hosted by Johnson’s church—he also spoke at the conference) from the local homosexual activist community, who denounced the celibacy encouraged by Revoice, but quickly turns his shame guns to the right: “There is no community on the planet that longs more deeply for what only the gospel can give. But there is no community on earth that feels more threatened by biblical Christians.”

Biblical Christians are presumed guilty and Johnson has strategies to help the conservative church make amends. Johnson points to the Posture Shift curriculum which pretends to be a “missiological framework” for outreach to “nonstraight people,” but which reminds those versed in church history of the Social Gospel and the ethos of Protestant liberal missionaries of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Posture Shift pithily exhorts:

Offer enhanced inclusion. Prove justice through visible care. Level the playing field. Collaborate. Be humble. Resist the theological hammer. Avoid trigger words/clichés. Never lead with theology. Avoid politics.

There is not much original there. In fact, the above sounds like a general primer on outreach to cities, college campuses, or culture-making leaders in the arts, business, and culture. Further, given the degree to which homosexuals have penetrated these elite circles, the overlap is natural: The culture is gay so you must be gay (in some way) to reach the culture.

From the familiar “for the city” tropes, Johnson turns to the insights of cross-cultural, international missions for help with mission to (or with , per the title) the LGBTQ+ community.  In quoting a missiologist Johnson clearly implies that the Western “sexual minorities” (many of whom enjoy great privilege and favor at the moment) are as different from conservative Christians as are tribal folk in New Guinea. The quoted missiologist mentions a number of sexual perversions that missionaries encounter in certain parts of the world. Somehow, the tolerant, gentle approach of missionaries to tribal people’s bizarre sexual mores is supposed to be helpful since missiology is “attentive both to the possibilities of syncretism with cultural ideology on the one end, and healthy contextualization on the other.”

Contextualization is key for Johnson, who also makes much of the Holy Spirit’s role in calling out the elect but does contextualization mean pausing (indefinitely?) at “pre-evangelism”? Is the Spirit utterly dependent on our modern methods and cultural sensitivities? Johnson says that, in outreach to the “LGBT+ community” being “all about Jesus” means:

We have to repent of our fear and disbelief. Repent of our adversarial posture. Repent of our complicity in North American society’s idolization of marriage and romance. And we have to be ready to learn. We have to learn from the LGBTQ community in a way that does not threaten their safety within the queer spaces they create. We enter their spaces by invitation. We enter to learn and love, not to ram our theology down their throats. God is the one who is on mission. He is the one who awak-ens a soul to spiritual life in Christ. He is the one who saves sinners. This is the mission of God.

Apparently what the Persons of the Trinity really need to save sinners is for Christian missionaries to adopt a range of quite modern and suspiciously socially-acceptable terms, techniques, and concepts—especially when the sinners are in communities built around the practice of (or attraction to) a particularly egregious form of sexual sin.

Contextualization is key for Johnsonism, but what form or degree of contextualization can a conservative denomination like the PCA accept? Is contextualization the harmless, small, common-sense adjustments of form and and language that Christians have always made when reaching out to people unlike themselves? Or is it something far more radical and dangerous?

Helpfully, Johnson tells us about his vision for contextualized outreach, describing how his own church allows an unused chapel building on their property to be used as an arts and performance venue. The chapel (called “The Chapel”) hosted for at least two years an annual festival of short plays by transgender non-Christian playwrights.

Our pastors each took a different night to bartend. We provided the drinks for free. After the final night’s show, one of the members of the theatre company went up to one of the pastors at the bar.

Johnson describes the ensuing conversation as a great example of outreach and bridge-building. A more sober assessment might call the whole enterprise a highly-questionable attempt at best at pre-evangelism. Johnson says the “pastor-bartender” apologized a lot, seemingly for other Christians. This form of contextualization seems to mean “we can do whatever we want in the name of outreach in our context.” Such an approach might be acceptable for independent or liberal churches, but for a confessional, connected presbyterian church such an approach is bound to raise red flags.

In the PCA, Johnsonism has raised more than flags of warning, Since 2021’s General Assembly the flags have become banners of war. The antagonists in this ecclesial conflict are not conservatives vs. liberals, Christians vs. post-Christian pagans, or even confessionalists (broadly construed) vs. non-confessionalists. The conflict is between radical contextualizers on one hand and advocates of  simple, ordinary means-of-grace ministry, subject to the plain reading of the denomination’s standards on the other.

Another way to understand this struggle: the presbyterian vs. evangelical paradigm. Evangelicals are the heirs of revivalism and broad Protestantism. Revivalists require new and ever newer measures to accomplish their goals. Accommodation and change are the only constants for evangelicals. Johnsonism as a strategy and ethos are best viewed as the natural outcome of evangelical-revivalist cultural accommodation. Johnsonism is missionary contextualization gone wild. This paradigm, at least, avoids the “You aren’t even Christian!” assessment in favor of “You’re a different kind of Christian.”

Some elders in the PCA believe Johnsonism is essential to the future of the church. Others are willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for now, watching to see where it goes. These men were those who applauded Johnson’s revival-style testimony at the 2019 General Assembly in Dallas. Votes from those in this group likely defeated the proposed PCA constitutional amendments that might have clamped down on same-sex attracted officers.

Is it wise to wait and see? Remember, Johnson uses the acronym “LGBTQ+” when he describes the context the church must reach. He identifies with the “G,” of course, and the “L” goes with the “G.” The bisexual “B” presents a different type of confusion. The transgender “T” is all over the news, and what elder relishes parsing the issues that the “T” presents. And what is the “Q”? The really troubling character is the plus sign (+). The plus sign means the sexual chaos and lexical expansion may never end. What is next? Could it be the p’s of pedophilia and polyamory? Another “B” for bestiality-attracted church members? How many conferences and parachurch groups will the future’s deviancies du jour require?

Some may accuse hesitant or hostile conservatives of cowardice or homophobia(+?) as they look ahead, brows furrowed or maybe the most that those skeptical of radical contextualization are guilty of is possessing a most inconvenient commodity in 2022—sanctified common sense. There used to be no law against that.

©Brad Isbell. All Rights Reserved.

Resources

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


32 comments

  1. Brad Isbell: Knowing what you know and with the defeat of overtures #23 and #37, do you believe that there is a reasonable chance to defeat the effects of “Johnsonism” in the PCA? I don’t mean a shred of a chance. I mean something greater than 50/50. Also, I’m talking about within a time frame of 5 years.

    • Bob,

      “There can be no peace in the PCA until this issue is settled. The defeat of two overtures (constitutional amendments) is not the end of the story. And silly allegations of “stacked” and unrepresentative assemblies may motivate even greater attendance at the 2022 Birmingham assembly. And that could represent a turning point in the PCA.”
      https://www.reformation21.org/blog/the-pca-doctrine-of-election-2022-style

      “The reasonable conclusion in the case of the SSA controversy is that the innovators are the schismatic and contentious ones, not those who question them. It would be an unloving and cowardly act for those who oppose dangerous innovation, encroachments of the modern sexual revolution, and flawed concepts of identity and personhood to quit the fight before every effort has been made to preserve the church. If anyone leaves the PCA over these issues, it ought to be those who would turn the church upside down with new doctrine, not those who seek to preserve her in faithfulness.”
      https://www.reformation21.org/blog/a-word-on-narratives

  2. “Radical contextualization” sounds like a term the Pharisees would have used when Jesus hung out with the prostitutes and tax collectors (Luke 5:31-32). It reflects an unawareness of the author’s own unrighteousness in the eyes of a perfectly Holy God, were it not for the cleansing work of Christ. It reminds me of the prayer of the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14 “The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed this prayer: ‘I thank you, God, that I am not like other people— those with SSA thoughts ((radically contextualized version), sinners, adulterers. I’m certainly not like that tax collector!…”. I agree that there is a red line the PCA can not cross (when a SSA clergy member does not mortify the flesh, in the same way as if any other sinner who happens to be a clergy member does not mortify the flesh for their particular sin), but it seems to me that particular red line has not been crossed, and therefore the hyperventilation about the failure of the overtures to be ratified is a bit overdone.

    • Thanks, Jeffrey. This post is not about the overtures and I’m breathing normally. If everyone agreed where the line in the PCA is there would be no controversy.

    • Jeffrey,
      For every charge of your opponent being a pharisee, there’s a charge of you having a log in your own eye, but claiming to see another’s speck, all b/c you’re wise in your own eyes. In persuasive debate, everybody wordsmiths (“Side B”?). Parallel to our debate: maybe post-damascus-road Paul forever had a side B orientation toward killing blasphemers? I think most would say that’s not Biblical.

    • Brad Cain, you said “maybe post-damascus-road Paul forever had a side B orientation toward killing blasphemers? I think most would say that’s not Biblical.”. Not sure how that relates to my post. Can you enlighten me? By the way, Jesus was much harsher on Pharisees than he was on the “younger brother” types. It is not unfair to point out that continually going after a minister who has admitted his sin, has built accountability into his weekly routine in order to mortify the flesh, and just wants the “elder brother” in the church to mortify their flesh from pride.

      • Jeffrey,
        Tx for asking for clarification – bless you for patience. I hope I will communicate with as much gentleness as sincerity.

        I was comparing SSA orientation to the possibility of St. Paul having a similar murderer orientation that he would say was “Side B.” I don’t think Paul was so oriented, nor were other teachers Pedo-oriented, porno-oriented, addiction-oriented, etc. On the human level (I’m not saying vertically or salvifically, and maybe I disagree with many current reformed thinkers) I disagree that all sins are of equal severity (humanly aka horizontally), needing equal gracious understanding and equal restoration of trust. Love, pray for, walk with, and forgive? Absolutely. Trust? That’s not a commandment, I don’t think.

        Call it “respectable” sin (an oxymoron, I’m sure we agree on that!) or what, but I think there are “common” sins (anger, ambivalence, envy, worry, pride…) such that “no temptation has overcome you except that common to man.” So I believe there is fair reason not to trust the teachings of an overseer who says he is currently and especially “oriented” to sins of debauchery, adultery, fornication, pedophilia, porn, ssa…

        • At the bottom of this post is the part of Romans 1 just after the section on homosexuality. Here are some of the non-sexual sins referred to as deserving of death. There’s gossip… slander… haughty (pride)… covetousness (that covers a broad spectrum of situations)… envy… strife… Johnson is a virgin. He has never slept with anyone. I think he is less likely to do damage as a minister than someone who is proud, gossips, slanders… Keep in mind that we all have an orientation (tendency) toward some sin or sins. For some it might be sinful anger. For others it might be unkindness. For others it might be greed. Admitting to our weak areas and where we have sinful tendencies is a step in the process of transformation. (James 5:16) The anti-Plan B side is focused on the semantics Johnson uses. He is exhibiting his poor-in-spirit character by being transparent about his particular area of temptation, and calling others to do likewise in whatever area that orientation may be. Here is the Romans 1 section I mentioned above: 1: 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

          • You are free to have your opinion and warn others to “Keep in mind…” I disagree that anyone has a particular, permanently-indwelt sin orientation that is not common to everyone.  Every human is born in sin; but I do not read Romans 1 to say: therefore all sinners are so oriented in some way as to be “given over to a debased mind…filled with all manner of unrighteousness.”  (not to mention that v.29 begins “And since they…” they refers to those described in v.18, not most believers.) All mankind is like Peter (doubting and denying); not all are like Judas (given over to…).

            I’m acquainted with sexual sin and debauchery; by sin, I pray that I did not grieve the holy spirit or damage my soul into false assurance. My expectant hope is that God (as in common grace to unbelievers, too) is restoring me to good desires and free conscience, without haughtiness and misplaced pride about my recovery (though haughtiness and pride are especially common to everyone). I choose to trust that God does not beset his own believers with an inescapable “orientation” toward an intimacy opposite of the good he so explicitly designed in Creation before the Fall.  God may not give all believers a desire for His intended intimacy, and instead give singleness, but I am persuaded that He does not ordain that a particular temptation beset someone inescapably.

            It is right to restrict the office of overseer to a man/men who can humbly attest that, by God’s grace, he is not especially beset by any temptations so strong that he needs to call them “Side B” of his faith.

            Thanks be to God for his new mercies this Sabbath day!

    • Jeffrey Slenker: The reason TE Johnson is so vigorously opposed is that he is a false prophet who is teaching a false gospel. The gospel he teaches is that “…if any man is in Christ (and he is homosexual), (some of the) old things are passed away (but not homosexuality). Behold (not) all things are become new (especially homosexuality).” The apostle Paul reserved his fiercest condemnation for false prophets. TE Johnson knows full well that he should not be in the ministry. But despite knowing that, he uses his position to try to corrupt the body of Christ. Those who do so deserve the greater condemnation. And don’t try to compare those who defend the faith today with Pharisees. You’ve got it completely backwards. The Pharisees were teaching a false gospel of men. Christ saved his greatest condemnation for them precisely because they, like TE Johnson, were supposed to be God’s ministers but they were teaching a false gospel of men and leading men to destruction.

      • Hi Bob. Thanks for the response. You said “The reason TE Johnson is so vigorously opposed is that he is a false prophet who is teaching a false gospel. The gospel he teaches is that ‘…if any man is in Christ (and he is homosexual), (some of the) old things are passed away (but not homosexuality). Behold (not) all things are become new (especially homosexuality).’ ” I would argue that Johnson is not saying that homosexual practice and lust is to be accepted on an ongoing basis. He is saying that SSA is still unhappily present and that it needs to be mortified just like you mortify your rage, heterosexual lust, pride, etc. The Apostle Paul said he was “the worst of sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15). Notice that Paul uses “am”, not “was”. Would you consider Paul a false prophet because of that statement? There is no magic to pretending that we are perfectly without sin in an area. I have to be careful about what I view in order not to lust after a woman not my wife. We all mortify the flesh in some way. Johnson is not saying that the attraction won’t lessen over time. He is being transparent about his area of sin and is receiving the accountability support he needs in that area. You said “TE Johnson knows full well that he should not be in the ministry. But despite knowing that, he uses his position to try to corrupt the body of Christ.”. I think the body of Christ may be corrupted in many ways. I think slander, gossip, pride and other respectable sins are greater dangers to the PCA than is SSA, properly mortified. You said “And don’t try to compare those who defend the faith today with Pharisees. You’ve got it completely backwards. The Pharisees were teaching a false gospel of men. Christ saved his greatest condemnation for them precisely because they, like TE Johnson, were supposed to be God’s ministers but they were teaching a false gospel of men and leading men to destruction.” The comparison to the Pharisees is apt for some of those opposing Johnson because their attitudes are similar to the Pharisees toward those with more colorful sins (or more obvious) than they had. That shows a blindness to their own sinfulness and lack of humility. When someone uses “Sodomites” on Facebook (at an anti-Revoice group’s page) to describe his SSA brothers and sisters in Christ, who are struggling to mortify their flesh on a daily basis, it indicates the attitude I am talking about. The Pharisees trusted in their own righteousness. Does Johnson trust in his? No, he meets with an accountability partner every week and allows every screen he views to be recorded by his accountability partner in order to keep him on the straight and narrow. He has a more Biblical view of celibate SSA Christians than do many on the other side. Do you think all of those prostitutes and tax collectors were entirely perfect immediately? I would doubt it. But they depended on Christ alone for their salvation, and he was working to transform them nevertheless over time. Be careful that you don’t get into the perfectionism of some Christian sects because when you indicate that even the attraction must go away perfectly, that is the direction you are going in.

    • Jeffrey Slenker: You can try as hard as you want but you will never be able to make the case that TE Johnson meets the biblical qualifications for a Teaching Elder.

    • Jeff,
      I’ve read and followed this debate closely for some time. It’s not clear to me that you understand that center of the objection against Greg’s teaching.

      A simple test for you to prove that “Greg practices mortification” is to hold up what he describes as mortification and progressive sanctification against what we believe those ideas Biblically entail.

      Nobody claims that Greg is engaging in homosexual acts. Persons are arrested for pedophilia who purchase and are addicted to child porn. Greg points out that he was a porn addict for years, so the idea that “he has never held hands” with another man or is a virgin is quite beside the point if we all believe the same ideas about the power of the flesh and the lusts thereof.

      Biblically, mortification is not “I would look at porn tomorrow if it wasn’t for the fact that I have to show what I did on my computer with my accountability partner”. Yet, when Johnson talks about progressive sanctification, he often talks about Covenant Eyes as if that is what it means to be progressively sanctified.

      There is a reason why many who still put the flesh to death in the area of SSA are very much opposed to Johnson’s theology and it is because it is not Biblical. He repeatedly talks about the fact that “orientation” is permanent unless there is some sort of miraculous change. This is not Biblical. It’s a flip side of the error of perfectionism. The perfectionist expects that a Christian is healed from sin, while Johnson insists that (like the perfectionist) that if he is not “healed” that one must continue to identify with the sin one is struggling with.

      The Biblical category is neither the Wesleyan/Pentecostal view nor Johnson’s. Our flesh is an enemy that leads to sin. It is variously called original corruption or sinfulness and it is the fount of all actual sins (whether simply conceived or acted upon). It’s cominion over us is subdued as we are united to Christ. We are united as sinners and we are always sinners but the flesh no longer has dominion. Thus, to speak of “permanent orientation” is to speak in a way that acts as if the flesh has some sort of unchanging and permanent dominion. Johnson errs in wanting to maintain solidarity with the flesh (being gay) rather than seeing (as the Apostle regularly notes) that it is “sin in me” that is bidding me to desire the wrong.

      The reason this will never stand in the PCA or any other Reformed congregation is not that we are singularly focused against a particular kind of lust. Men and women have been battling and mortifying sinful lusts (including SSA) for centuries. There have been vibrant ministries ministering to those enslaved to these sins to bring them out of bondage into the light (as we all are in the Gospel). Johnson stands outside the “sinners are sinners” camp and gives a new kind of category to “orientation” that is not the flesh. He wants it to be something different. If he didn’t then he wouldn’t chaff when his lust is compared to pedophilia (because that is not respectable). It will not stand precisely because his form of Christianity is not Reformed and not because anyone is bird-dogging those with SSA.

      • Hi Rich. Thanks for your comments. On the comments about the permanence of orientation, I think it matters what is entailed in this word. We all have sinful tendencies. We will have sinful tendencies until the day we die, even if they lessen over time. Thus, the Bible talks about life as running a race, beating one’s body into submission, fighting the good fight. It’s a battle. We use the means of grace provided to us by God in addition to James 5:16 accountability to fight the battle successfully, to win the race, to overcome. If we don’t have accountability, a band of brothers (or sisters) we are like the isolated wildebeest being circled by the Enemy (I Peter 5:8). I think those in Christian leadership have a particular need for accountability, since that kind of job can be isolating and lead to hypocrisy because of church member expectations. Ravi Zacharias and many others have found that out and have done great damage due to the lack of true accountability. If Johnson has set up accountability in a way that helps him to mortify the flesh, he has no quarrel from me. If other ministers had the same kind of transparency about their sins and accountability steps, I would only have more respect for them as well. You said “Biblically, mortification is not ‘I would look at porn tomorrow if it wasn’t for the fact that I have to show what I did on my computer with my accountability partner’.” I know several pastors who have met several times a year and who call each other from the road for accountability in the area of the temptation of the pornography as close as the remote control in their hotel room. You may look down on that, but I guarantee that you have your own sinful tendencies for which you either have looked for accountability with others, or that could be helped considerably by accountability of some sort or another.
        You said “Johnson insists that … if he is not “healed” that one must continue to identify with the sin one is struggling with.”. Is he saying he “must” identify with the sin of homosexuality, or is he attempting to reach seekers in the homosexual community who could be helped by his experience of walking the narrow path out of love for Christ.
        You said “Thus, to speak of “permanent orientation” is to speak in a way that acts as if the flesh has some sort of unchanging and permanent dominion.” I think “dominion” is not the appropriate word. He recognizes the presence of the flesh, in this case his gay orientation. That’s all it is.
        You said “Johnson errs in wanting to maintain solidarity with the flesh (being gay) rather than seeing (as the Apostle regularly notes) that it is “sin in me” that is bidding me to desire the wrong.”. Again, I believe Johnson is transparent about the manifestation his flesh takes, since it can be helpful to others facing the same battle.
        You said “Johnson stands outside the “sinners are sinners” camp and gives a new kind of category to “orientation” that is not the flesh. He wants it to be something different.” Everything I have heard Johnson says indicates that he is reacting to the special difficulties SSA people have in some Biblically-faithful churches. He wants those who battle SSA and seek to mortify it to be able to bring it into the light, where it will be less likely to grow without being hurt by their brothers and sisters in Christ. (Again James 5:16) Why do you think many of them have turned to Revoice? I haven’t heard him say his orientation isn’t the flesh. If you can show an instance I would be happy to learn.
        You say “If he didn’t then he wouldn’t chaff when his lust is compared to pedophilia (because that is not respectable)”. I think you may misread his frustration. My guess is that he has heard many people make the assumption the SSA people are also likely to be pedophiles, which has the additional heinousness of violating a child’s innocence.
        You said “It will not stand precisely because his form of Christianity is not Reformed and not because anyone is bird-dogging those with SSA.” I think Johnson’s view on orientation is what I mentioned at the beginning. If you can offer specific instances that show your point it would be helpful.

    • Jeff,

      You don’t need to tell me what Johnson writes or says. I’ve read his book. Have you?

      Can you point to where he writes in his book about progressive sanctification and line it up with what the Scriptures say fully about it.

      I don’t “look down” on Greg for having accountability, but when he writes about definitive sanctification, he boils it down to having accountability partners. His book represents the consistent theme where he writes elsewhere – lauding himself for never having held hands and being a virgin. He neglects to point out that it he has not been looking at porn for about a decade that, prior to that, he was self-professedly addicted to the same and still calls himself an addict. This while a minister of the Gospel. He was guilty of the sin of adultery according to Jesus’ own words. Now we all sin in this way. My point is that Johnson should stop patting himself on the back.

      Returning to the issue of definitive and progressive sanctification, Johnson never writes properly concerning it and you seem to be ignorant of the Biblical and confessional status relating to it because you do not directly address the substantive issues. This ignorance is common among many who profess to be Reformed.

      Please watch this video to get a sense of why the labels and approaches that Greg uses are so antithetical to the Gospel. I don’t have time to explain it to you because you keep misdirecting the concern and I don’t have the space to catechize on sanctification only to have you think I’m speaking about perfection. If you’re not thinking in terms of the Covenant of Grace (union with Adam, union with Christ) then you are missing the point.

      https://youtu.be/cLtJTgzSyS4

      Incidentally, Revoice is not (as you ascribe) a conference that came about because people struggling with SSA had nowhere to go. Spiritual Friendship has been around for many years and grew out of the ex-Gay movement. When you write in ignorance about the reasons, you only point out that you haven’t been following this for very long and really need to dig into the concerns that many who have been ministering to people struggling with sexual sin have concerns with. You will never understand the division and destruction that Johnson is causing until you fully understand and can re-articulate the Reformed view (as articulated in the PCA AIC study report on human sexuality).

      • Hi Rich. I just listened to the video you sent. Thanks! I just downloaded Greg Johnson’s book and will wait to respond until I read it. It is a really complicated issue that requires more study on my part.

      • Hi Rich. You said “I’ve read his book. Have you?”. I thought it was a fair question, so I downloaded his e-book and just finished it. So I can discuss it in more detail.

        You asked “Can you point to where he writes in his book about progressive sanctification and line it up with what the Scriptures say fully about it.”. Johnson says on Page 144 “…God was in fact changing us— helping us entertain fewer lustful thoughts, breaking us free from a pornography addiction,…”. How does that view of sanctification differ from the Biblical view, in your opinion?

        You said “He was guilty of the sin of adultery according to Jesus’ own words. Now we all sin in this way. My point is that Johnson should stop patting himself on the back.”. I did not find Johnson self-congratulatory at all in his book. I don’t think you can treat Johnson’s lust in the same way as if he had committed actual sex acts. Jesus’ point in the lust = adultery passage was that all of us need a Savior, even if we have been “good” compared to others. It is aimed at the Pharisee types who were saying “Thank you, God, that I am not like this sinner…”

        You said “Returning to the issue of definitive and progressive sanctification, Johnson never writes properly concerning it and you seem to be ignorant of the Biblical and confessional status relating to it because you do not directly address the substantive issues. This ignorance is common among many who profess to be Reformed.”. Please enlighten me on how your understanding of Biblical sanctification should play out in Johnson’s case.

        You said “Please watch this video to get a sense of why the labels and approaches that Greg uses are so antithetical to the Gospel.” I watched the video and at 1:06:00 in the video, the 3 of them spoke about the issue of how to respond to the question “Do you still deal with same-sex attraction?”, which is what Johnson means when he says he is “gay”. The two men responded to that question in the same way by saying that they think we are all tempted to sin in many ways, including in this way. Rosario stated that she never experiences same-sex attraction. So, if Johnson says he is gay (i.e. experiences temptation due to SSA) he is antithetical to the Gospel, but the two men on the video are OK even though they both admit to experiencing SSA even now? I don’t get your point.

        https://youtu.be/cLtJTgzSyS4

        You said “You will never understand the division and destruction that Johnson is causing until you fully understand and can re-articulate the Reformed view (as articulated in the PCA AIC study report on human sexuality).” I have read the report and believe that I understand what it says. Is there a particular point in the report that you think I am missing?

    • It seems that the supporters of TE Johnson expect others to believe his self-reported sexual piety. It makes a very convenient narrative if true but is there any reason we should believe him? Since he is promoting a false gospel where Christ can save but can’t do much to change the desires of the homosexual, why would his falsehoods be limited to that issue?

      • Hi Bob. You said “It seems that the supporters of TE Johnson expect others to believe his self-reported sexual piety. It makes a very convenient narrative if true but is there any reason we should believe him?”. I would argue that those closest to Johnson are vouching for his mortification of sin in this area. Is a record to all of the screens he accesses by his accountability partner “self-reported”? Is the work by the relevant presbytery based solely on self-reporting? He has allowed others in to provide him with accountability. Not sure where you get the “self-reported sexual piety” from. Also, you said “Since he is promoting a false gospel where Christ can save but can’t do much to change the desires of the homosexual…”. Is the Gospel falsified if you confess that you notice the attractive woman in the same pew at church, who is not your wife. Or if you allow that instant of noticing to develop into more lustful thoughts. I don’t think so. God uses accountability and the means of grace to allow us all to mortify our sinful desires, which are the flesh.

    • Jeffrey Slenker: I may sin but I’m not a teaching elder who teaches that whatever particular sin that I might struggle with is something God doesn’t or can’t do much about. I also don’t hyphenate my spiritual identity as (insert sin here)-Christian. I say TE Johnson’s sexual piety is self-reported because we have only had testimony about the details of his accountability from TE Johnson. Even if he has someone who checks his electronic devices, how would we know that the devices he checks are the only one TE Johnson owns? Not to put too fine a point on it, I have no basis for trusting anything TE says.

      • Hi Bob. I read Johnson’s most recent book and want to respond to your comments based on that. You said “I may sin but I’m not a teaching elder who teaches that whatever particular sin that I might struggle with is something God doesn’t or can’t do much about.”. Johnson says that God helps him overcome his sin. In fact he says “God was in fact changing us— helping us entertain fewer lustful thoughts, breaking us free from a pornography addiction,…” and he says “My struggle with sexual sin is no different than my straight brother’s. Look the other way, don’t take a second look, try not to save an image for later retrieval, have accountability on my internet, meet regularly with other guys.”. His point is that people with SSA almost never become heterosexual, but that God gives resources to mortify the flesh in this area as for any other sin. You said “I also don’t hyphenate my spiritual identity as (insert sin here)-Christian.”. In his book, Johnson says very clearly “If by identity you mean the core identity that defines me, the identity that then becomes what I aspire more fully to be, my defining narrative, then no Christian should have a sexual orientation as their core identity. Our core identity as Christians is that we have been adopted as sons and daughters of the Father into his family. That’s the objective identity that names and claims me and to which I owe my life, my love, and my treasure.”. He also says “There are … very good and valid reasons why many followers of Jesus choose to describe themselves as gay and celibate. They may be … using the term gay in its descriptive sense, … They may not be saying, “This is who I am at core” but be merely saying, “This describes my experience.”” He also indicates that the Gospel is for SSA people as much as for other sinners and that he uses the term “gay Christian” to mean “SSA Christian” so that they know there is a straight and narrow path for them to follow as much as there is for the Christian coming out of alcoholism, gluttony, lust, etc. You said “I say TE Johnson’s sexual piety is self-reported because we have only had testimony about the details of his accountability from TE Johnson. Even if he has someone who checks his electronic devices, how would we know that the devices he checks are the only one TE Johnson owns? Not to put too fine a point on it, I have no basis for trusting anything TE says.” My response is that when someone is transparent about their struggle with any sin, when they take the trouble to ask someone to be an accountability partner, when they meet with that person weekly and use software to share the screens that they visit with that person, they are unlikely to be seeking to hide with an extra device of some sort. Look at Ravi Zacharius. He had no accountability at all, gave the appearance of holiness, while behind the scenes abusing a number of women. I think that those who give the appearance of a pristine life are more likely to be hiding something than those who welcome accountability.

  3. Thanks for the post, and for the link. It seems to be all the rage to critique these kinds of advocates and their viewpoints. Given Johnson is a TE, a PhD, and a pastor. He knows what he is doing, he knows the theological import of it, he knows the pastoral consequences, and he must know the implications from Church History. When is it time to call him a Wolf? When will the Watchmen on the walls do more than chat among themselves about the Orc-like folk coming their way, and blow the horns? If not now, when? If not them, who?

    • Amen! The idolatry of winsomeness and behind the scenes influencing has supplanted courage and direct action from our Shepherds. Johnson has a clear agenda and is being protected and supported in it by at least a subset of the Missouri Presbytery leadership, if not the whole of it.

      Just like “seeker-sensitive” gave way to “seeker-driven” methods, so too will LGBTQ-SENSITIVE become LGBTQ-driven as the predominant way to grow “ministries” if this garbage is not killed at the root.

  4. “…Some elders in the PCA believe Johnsonism is essential to the future of the church. Others are willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for now, watching to see where it goes…Votes from those in this group likely defeated the proposed PCA constitutional amendments that might have clamped down on same-sex attracted officers…”

    These people would do well to read Rev. 3:14-22 to see what John reveals in his vision regarding the church at Laodicea. “Waiting to see what happens” and seeing a wayward trend as necessary for the future of the church constitute the kind of fence riding that God condemns as “lukewarm” and “spits out of his mouth.”

  5. Since amending the BCO is not likely, I would like to see multiple overtures adopted in 2022 at the GA. Among those, I would like to see a public condemnation of the Missouri Presbytery, the National Partnership, and TE Johnson citing chapter and verse about their scandals. I think these could pass and should be call for them to publicly repent and let them know the danger into which their actions have placed them. Symbolic? Yes, but sometimes symbolism can have substance.

  6. I’m glad that Brad clarified the use of contextualization in Johnsonism vs the many way it’s used in a sound sense. Johnsonism reminds me of insiderism in its attempt to make the Bible and Christianity acceptable to the Muslim world. Who put an end to that? Muslim background believers who refused to have anything to do with it. Remember the debate over divine filial language in the NT?

  7. Alright. All of us struggle with all manner of things condemned in both Tables of the Law, even if an LGBTQ+ orientation may be a sin “above” us (forgive me for reerencing C.S. Lewis). But, contextualizers working in Far Formosa still need to lead people drawn to Christ out of gross idolatry, ancestor worship, and the like. Do Bro. Johnson and his friends have a plan for leading others out of slavery to sexual sin? This, I hope, is a major concern of those opposed to his Side Whatever.

    • The purpose of Revoice was to offer support for those SSA Christians who wanted to mortify the flesh since those people were not able to come into the light in some PCA churches. The Biblical basis for this is “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.”(James 5:16) There was another organization for SSA Christians that was pulling folks deeper into the lifestyle by celebrating the sinful behavior, supporting gay marriage, etc. which they left. I don’t support every speaker, every comment, etc. out of Revoice, but the question many are overlooking is whether Revoice, Johnson, etc. beneficial to these folks, and also, is the rest of the Bible-believing church helping them to mortify the flesh, or are they being shoved into a dark place, where sin can only grow? I have a relative currently in the lifestyle, who I hope will find Revoice if she ever tires of the place where she is.

Comments are closed.