With respect to the teachings addressed by Theological Judgment 3, CIM noted, “The use of terms such as ‘same-sex-attracted’ or ‘gay’ in the way Revoice 18 and many Side B people use them … indulges in needless and potentially dangerous speculation”; “If one takes these terms the way that Revoice and many Side B people take them … then the allegation is true that Revoice has committed at least an error of imprudence by indulging in needless and potentially dangerous speculation, and it remains to be seen whether this error will be used in such a way as to strike at the vitals of religion”; “Revoice leaders and speakers do use terms that historically were synonymous with ‘homoerotic desire’ in a way that expands them to include morally good features that are claimed to be underneath or behind the illicit sexual desires. These terms include ‘homosexual,’ ‘same sex attraction,’ ‘gay,’ and ‘homosexual attraction.’ This leads them to say that not everything about ‘being gay’ or ‘same-sex-attracted’ has to do with sinful sexual desires”; “[the danger is that] this speculation [regarding morally benign qualities tied to homoerotic desire] appears to us to be the prospect of this becoming a central plank in the thinking and approach of some of Revoice’s leaders” ; and “We feel constrained to warn against any expansion of the terms ‘same-sex-attraction’ and ‘being gay’ with its creation of a category of ‘gayness,’ understood as a way of experiencing the world. This seems to us to be a potentially dangerous error of speculation; yet we cannot say with unwavering confidence that we believe it to be an error so serious and obviously destructive of good morals and sound doctrine that we judge it to be an error which ‘strikes at the vitals of religion’ in the areas of doctrine and morals. We do believe it to be at least a lesser error of indulging in necessary and potentially dangerous speculation, something we are warned against as believers (see 1 Timothy 1:3-4).”
…With respect to the teachings addressed by Theological Judgment 4, MOP concluded, “We concur with CIM and deny that it is always a grave and serious error worthy of repudiation to claim something which can be traced to our sin nature as in any sense a part of our ‘identity,’ of [sic] part of ‘who we are,’ as Revoice does with being SSA. While enduring patterns of brokenness and sin remain part of ‘who we are,’ of our ‘identity,’ as children of Adam, nevertheless sinful desires and deeds must be put to death. We concur that the core question is not: ‘Is that which rises from sin part of who you are?” but rather: “What are you doing with all the broken parts and places of who you are?” But CIM’s findings with respect to Theological Judgment 4 raised concerns that MOP’s action did not: “[W]e believe that the language of ‘gay Christian’ … poses a particularly challenging problem for both the Revoice project and its critics. We encourage Revoice and those who would adopt such language to do so with great care, recognizing its potential to cause offense and division within the church.”
…Consider next the findings of CRC. The Complaint Review Committee (CRC), which was appointed to hear an earlier (July, 2019) complaint of TE Speck against actions of MOP taken on recommendation of its CIM, registered particular concerns with Revoice. As to same-sex friendships, “The majority on the CRC along with the CIM itself … were very concerned with this way [i.e. the way advocated at Revoice 18] of applying the truths that are in this passage [i.e., 1 Sam 18:3, Ruth 1:16-17] and concluded that applying texts in this manner was a significant hermeneutical error that needed to be clearly corrected and warned against by the MOP and MPC.” As to a particular speaker’s specific statement with respect to gay orientation – “Without wishing to disparage the speaker whatsoever (who herself acknowledged that she was engaging intentionally in speculation) the CRC nonetheless must conclude that, in this confined moment, speculations were put forward that caused damage to the peace and purity of the church and possibly to the souls of her members.” As to so-called gay culture, “The CRC concurs with complainant’s concerns, based primarily on the language of WCF 20-1 and its supporting proof texts, that [a Revoice speaker] went too far in suggesting that believers in Christ should closely identify with and willfully associate themselves with even the so-called ‘non- homoerotic’ aspects of LGBQT/Queer Culture and in so doing did indeed make assertions that ‘struck at the vitals of religion.’” As to use of language, “We … believe that some of the terms being used are so provocative and so widely misunderstood that believers ought to be extraordinarily careful in their use and perhaps even refrain from using them at all, especially when speaking in public venues.” Read more»
PCA Standing Judicial Commission |”TE Ryan Speck v. Missouri Presbytery” | March 3, 2022 (pp. 9, 10)
- How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button
- Larry Hoop, “SJC Concludes Actions On Matters Related to Revoice 2018) (By Faith Online)
- Resources On LGBTQ And Revoice
- Resources On The PCA
- Presbycast: The SJC’s Revoice Decision
Most are still digesting the full report which of course is the best path to understanding. By Faith magazine, however, has published a summary that some might find helpful
It’s in the post resources.
Can anybody explain (succinctly) what exactly the SJC expects from the Missouri Presbytery?
I have no legal background.
Brad Isbell explains here.