In Synod’s long paragraph on Call to Repentance, we find that we must not deny responsibility for or excuse “unnatural desires” even if they began in infancy. (Johnson does not quote that part of the report.) Synod’s report then disagrees with Johnson head on when it speaks of cure when it says, “In sanctification we want to see healing in our misdirected desires as well as actions.”  This sentence alone destroys Johnson’s assertion that the RPCES fits his paradigm that promoting cure is abusive, and that providing care is more consistent with the gospel than sanctification. That is what Still Time to Care is all about. He describes the homosexual condition as “an unchosen orientation with no reliable cure in this life” (p.32), but Synod’s report aimed at healing in this life.

If you cannot find a new argument, use an old one – even when it has been discredited. One theme in Greg Johnson’s recent book is the supposed agreement we in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPCES) had back in 1980 with his “care-not-cure view” for celibate homosexuals who are Christians. He delights in the Synod’s action, as if we (I was a member of the RPCES) were enthusiastically onside with him.

His argument goes on to assert that the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) accepted from us in the RPCES what we had adopted, and things have gone south since. He thinks the RPCES report with its northern notions in 1980 was a high point in a proper care of homosexuals, with the PCA slipping into conversion therapy mode since. When we joined the PCA in 1982, did we bring with us the light of Johnson’s kind of thinking? We did not.

After a review of what the RPCES adopted AND what it amended his interpretation of our report is shown to be misguided. See: (Pastoral Care for the Repentant Homosexual (RPCES, 1980) (pcahistory.org). Johnson revises RPCES history. In 2018 he wrote 10 Surprising Facts About the 1980 RPCES Report on Homosexual Christians. I refuted his claims in “Surprising Errors” in Greg Johnson’s Assessment of the RPCES 1980 Homosexuality Report. I write this response now because Johnson’s repeated misrepresentations appear again in his recent book, Still Time to Care.

How Johnson Presents the RPCES Synod
A very real difficulty with reviewing Greg Johnson’s most recent writing of our RPCES history is his overweening confidence that he knows what that Synod said, and did, and even felt. In pages 12-16 of his recent book, he rewrites history with some facts left in.

His Deliberate Mislabeling
As a starter, in spite of my response in 2019, he fails repeatedly to use the correct title of the report the RPCES adopted. Only tucked away in endnote 21 on p.249 does PASTORAL CARE FOR THE REPENTANT HOMOSEXUAL appear. We inserted the adjective Repentant. Johnson seems oblivious to the fact that the Synod insisted on amending the title so that it would not be labelled the way he has chosen to forty years later in Still Time to Care. We did not identify our report as:

• A position paper on homosexual Christians, as in p.13
• Their report on homosexuality, as in p.14
• The new RPCES report on homosexuality, as in p.15
• The RPCES report on homosexuality, as in p.16

The Role of Dr. Robert L. Reymond
Johnson uses, yes uses, the name of this great man with whom I was close. No one did more to mentor me than Dr. Reymond. I served for two years as an assistant to him in a church he pastored and was often in his home. He helped me immensely to accept Reformed theology. One quite relevant matter now is Reymond’s attitude to theological debate. He once told me, “You let a man have his say.” Our report on repentant homosexuals was both authored and presented to Synod by another friend, Rev. Egon Middelmann. Egon was a closeted gay, a man I hope to see one day in the likeness of Christ. The point now is that Reymond and others offered suggestions to Egon. When Still Time to Care (p.14) presents Reymond as a presenter, he was not. Reymond was not even present at the opening of that Synod. He had simply served as an advisor to Egon.

This report was not from Reymond’s pen, a man who knew English so well he could quote Shakespeare at length. English was not the mother tongue of the report’s German author. I assure you that the report’s errors in grammar and spelling would never have passed Reymond’s scrutiny. Further, he would have caught the error that the Mary of John 11:2 was Mary Magdalene; that little embarrassment is there in Pastoral Care for the Repentant Homosexual. Robert Reymond merely advised Egon. The report came out of a committee he served without his signature attached. The report was very much Egon Middlemann’s.

Attention to Robert Reymond in Still Time to Care springs from Johnson’s wishful thinking that Reymond agreed with his thesis. It must have been very inviting for Johnson to cast this “theological ultra-conservative” (p.13) as enlightened on Side B homosexuality. Dr. Robert L. Reymond, a man Johnson probably never met, died in 2013.

Note the Synod’s careful choice of words in the RPCES minutes about the large segment of the report that was adopted:

ACTION: After several motions to refer or to table the [original] report, the recommendation was adopted, as amended, to read “that the Synod commend the above study, entitled ‘Pastoral Care for the Repentant Homosexual,’ with the deletion of Section III, to our sessions and congregations as an aid for their ministry to those struggling with homosexuality” (all emphases added).

Much of what the Synod deleted has still found its way into Still Time to Care; see the long endnote 24, p.249.

In the RPCES report, the wording of Synod’s adopted counsel is characterized as pastoral care for repentant homosexuals. In Still Time to Care Johnson deleted that critical qualification for what the Synod thought is inherent in Christian maturity – repentance. In fact, in the body of his book he always omitted “repentant” when referring to Synod’s report. What the Synod eventually adopted has repentant four times. But Johnson found the single instance where the adjective repentant was not included with “brother and sister” and the adjective homosexual was. Repentant is even in the title of the subsection Johnson’s quotation comes from. We failed to add that word everywhere; in Still Time to Care he failed to include it anywhere.

Five times we spoke of “brothers and sisters” without the label “homosexual.” He found the one place where the report says “homosexual brother and sister;” naturally, that is the one he landed on.

In 2002, Johnson’s book The World According to God came out. Back then he emphasized repentance when he said, “Since we’re the rebels, sexual wholeness must begin with repentance and forgiveness” (p.142). Back then repentance was important in his writing, just as it was in the RPCES report. It may be understatement to say that by the time Still Time to Care appeared, Greg Johnson has gone through a change of emphasis. He used to believe in cure, for on that same page he spoke of “overcome[ing] sexual sin as we learn to claim God’s promises.” The gay community would find the recent book more congenial to its thinking.

A Distorted Paragraph in Still Time to Care

The report spoke affectionately of “our homosexual brothers and sisters.” It grounded unspecified nonnormative experiences of sexuality in those whom Jesus said were born eunuchs. Citing Paul’s thorn in the flesh, the report stated that gay people who follow Jesus shouldn’t assume that sexual orientation change will be possible. The report praised David and Jonathan as an example of what nonromantic, nonsexual commitment can look like with members of the same sex (p.14).

The Emotional Ethos
Johnson senses a very positive flavor within the report. After excising repentance, three times he reports we spoke “affectionately” (pp.14; 83; 207). We did note affection between the Lord Jesus and Mary (with no mention of Martha and Lazarus), plus David and Jonathan. Johnson can read a dry report and tell you convincingly how happy we were with Middlemann’s report, even though there were several motions to table or refer it – hardly an enthusiastic response! He missed that our enthusiasm was on the mild side.

I have yet to meet anyone who was at that Synod in Seattle who shares Johnson’s appraisal of it. The minutes do not reveal sorrow for our lack of love. I do not deny that empathy for gay people is there, but it is a stretch to claim that our empathy “pervaded much of the report” (p.15), since we were at times in a correction mode. Still Time to Care is not on the same wave length as the 1980 Synod. Our ministry envisioned coming out of homosexuality; it did not conceive of nurturing a sinful condition in those cling to it without repentance.

The Slippery Use of Matthew 19
In Still Time to Care we run into a statement that is important enough that Johnson asserts the RPCES report grounded a view on it, yet it is vague enough that it covers unspecified experiences. Johnson claims that the RPCES “grounded unspecified nonnormative experiences of sexuality in those Jesus said were born eunuchs.” In other words, Jesus recognized and spoke without prejudice of people born as homosexuals, just as from birth some are eunuchs. And we do not hold that against them – got the hint?  Johnson asserts that we in the RPCES thought that Jesus also had gays in mind in Matthew 19. One sentence in our report does allow such an opening. See my article Greg Johnson and His Surprising Book for more on this. I think the great majority of us thought Matthew 19 was about lifelong eunuchs, or people who were turned into eunuchs, or those who for the sake of the kingdom chose to live like eunuchs.

What happened? Follow the reasoning. Eunuchs do not have sex with women, though most men do. Men without desire for a woman are a minority of the male population of the world. Similarly, gays are a sexual minority not specified in that text.  Thus, Jesus in this text also has homosexuals in mind. In this way Johnson proves (make that asserts) that what Jesus said of eunuchs applies to homosexuals. In Johnson’s reasoning in Matthew 19, homosexuals are quite like innocent incurable eunuchs.

Near the beginning of the RPCES report, various texts are listed which deal with homosexuality, and Matthew 19 is not in the list!  Since Johnson has no passage in God’s Word which teaches the unrelenting, unchangeable presence of same-sex sexual inclinations in godly people, in desperation he seizes this text for support.

Another Distortion in That Paragraph
We did not cite “Paul’s thorn in the flesh,” nor did we state what we did not say. When the Synod referenced 2 Corinthians 12:9, it did not speak of Paul’s thorn. Elsewhere the report says, “Change from homosexual desires to heterosexual attraction is only one possible expression of sanctification. 2 Corinthians 12:9 indicates one other way in which God might show his strength in our weakness …”

The RPCES report did not draw from 2 Corinthians 12 that “gay people who follow Jesus shouldn’t assume that sexual orientation change will be possible.” Yet Johnson says that that is what we stated! Of course, he could not provide a quotation of it, because there is nothing like that in the report.

Johnson’s misrepresentations continue. We affirmed that change from homosexual desire is possible, “Change from homosexual desires to heterosexual attraction is only one possible expression of sanctification.”  So the RPCES report expressed that such change really can happen. Still Time to Care is wrong to report that we considered orientation change so rare we should not assume it is even possible. Of course, we did not assume that any sinful desire would disappear without a trace.

By pointing to 2 Corinthians 12:9, we declared that God may show his strength, in a repentant homosexual in a different way. We never suggested a certainty that homosexual desire would be exterminated in this life. Neither do we assume total removal of misery from any other sin before the Lord comes. But for those with same-sex attraction (not a term we used back then) there is such a thing in the grace of God as contented singleness in the face of disappointment.

Perhaps reading the 2 Corinthians verse will shed more light on our thoughts back in 1980. Verse 9 says, “But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” Paul’s thorn is not in that verse. Verse 9 was in the report as Christian reassurance that the Lord’s power is there to sustain us, even if we do not experience the kind of change we prefer which is good counsel for the repentant homosexual. We did not presume the degree or speed of the moral change which the Lord assuredly works in every repentant soul.

It is false for Johnson to say that “the report stated that gay people who follow Jesus shouldn’t assume that sexual orientation change will be possible.” Here is the great divide: we spoke of what Johnson shuns, namely of a change so great it could even be from homosexual desires to heterosexual attraction! We said that is possible, but it is only one possible expression of sanctification. Johnson then comes along and “informs” his readers that the RPCES position was that we who follow Jesus should not assume that orientation change is possible. If so, in Johnson’s paradigm, a Christian should assume that it is probably impossible, so a person should just accept that he or she will be gay for the duration, and not ashamed to say so, because such change is out of reach. On the part of the RPCES, we indicated that in the grace of God, an intimate interest in a person of the other sex may truly happen.

Greg Johnson is highly educated and holds a tremendous store of detail in his mind. But when it suits him, he can style us as saying the opposite of what we said. He does not report history accurately when he scrounges for agreement wherever he can find it. This is one of those times. His quite mistaken appraisal of much agreement with the RPCES report is off the tracks enough that he should not be trusted as reliable in reporting history – and note, his book dwells much on history. It is rather telling that the word “orientation” never even appears in the RPCES report.

Johnson on Francis Schaeffer
Johnson’s bias in selective reading of the record comes to light when we read this take on four models of forty years ago: “Lewis, Schaeffer, Graham, and Stott viewed the homosexual condition not as a cognitive behavioral challenge to be cured but as an unchosen orientation with no reliable cure in this life” (p.32).  That sentence has at least two misrepresentations. In Letters of Francis Schaeffer, we find that that homosexuality is not always quite so unchosen. Schaeffer (a RPCES minister from the same presbytery as Reymond and me), said:

Homosexuality and lesbianism are growing by leaps and bounds. Of course there have always been these practices. But now that society is becoming permissive about them, some who otherwise might have felt tempted, but who would have not entered into open practice, now easily fall into the practice of the thing. It is, of course, all a part of our present post-Christian relativism (p.193).

First, Schaeffer was not on board with the idea that this is entirely an unchosen orientation. He would surely agree that many discover themselves same-sex attracted without a clue how that came about. That always stirred Schaeffer’s sympathy deeply, but, second, he did not buy into the sweeping notion of no reliable cure as Johnson asserts. Francis Schaeffer wrote in the very same letter, “There are those with homosexual tendencies who can be cured, and happily we have seen a number of cases here at L’Abri involving both men and women” (p.194).

Johnson has to be aware of this paragraph not shared with us in his book. He quotes from the prior paragraph. So Schaeffer, if we check Johnson’s sources, did not plant both feet within Greg Johnson’s assessments. Johnson is good at quoting people in heaven who cannot contradict him. I am 80 years old with a declining mind and will not be able to contradict Johnson much more, but my red flag is: When Johnson speaks, check his sources. We can learn from him. I have. But beware of his sweeping assessments.

An unintentional (I hope) and humorous example of a breakdown in diligence is the reputed word of Jerry Falwell that he would shoot a homosexual dog: “If I had a dog that did what [gays] do, I’d shoot it.” Johnson had one questionable witness for that remark, Franky. Twenty pages later in an awkward evolution of that quotation, Johnson advises us, “… Like Schaeffer, save your disgust for homophobic preachers who joke about killing gay people.” Johnson undoubtedly did some proofreading of Still Time to Care before it was published. His discipline for accuracy is wanting.

Gays in the Pulpit
Here is another Johnsonian spin. The RPCES said of a repentant homosexual:

If he who once was involved in homosexuality is growing in grace to such an extent that he can “walk with exemplary piety before the flock” there ought not be any reason for a generalized exclusion from church office. Judgment must be made in individual cases by the session and/or presbytery, keeping in mind those aggravations that make some sins more heinous then [sic] others …

And Greg Johnson’s reading of it: “The [RPCES] report rejected any categorical exclusion to church office on account of sexual orientation” (p.14).

What happened?  Johnson is not arguing, and never has, for the admission of practicing gays into the gospel ministry. Yet, in his view, orientation is unchangeable in this life, a central theme in his book. Sometimes he says it is rare, but he is emphatic that it is not to be expected. The RPCES statement is not about orientation at all. The report speaks of growing in grace from what the homosexual was at one time. It is a change so real that the minister “once involved” (i.e., in the practice of it) must have become already an example of holiness in order to be ordained.

Johnson is very involved even absorbed in his orientation – preaching it, teaching it, defending it, and building his church and community around it. We should not overlook that if homosexual practice is abominable, the desire for it is as well. Writing Still Time to Care, while all bound up with his own erotic inclination, signifies a public refusal to flee homosexuality in every way.

The “exemplary piety before the flock” includes the heart. One cannot be pious while coveting his neighbor’s wife. Neither can a man be pious by coveting his neighbor’s husband. Furthermore, no one can “walk with exemplary piety before the flock” while broadcasting his sinfully disordered desires. Johnson claims that his personal same-sex preference has not changed one millimeter (in a dialogue with Preston Sprinkle on YouTube). The RPCES position would very properly exclude Johnson from leadership in the church. The RPCES believed that the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, really does cleanse from all sin. No special sins are excluded from the Lord’s holy cure. Johnson somehow discerns the opposite of what the RPCES document says about an office holder in the church.

The RPCES categories, which would make exclusion from church office no longer necessary, were: repentance, faith, manifest growth in this new life, and a reputable testimony in the community which does not give the church the image of overlooking heinous sin. Johnson boils these down to no exclusion for an orientation like his.

Other Elements in the RPCES Report
The report adopted by the RPCES is not vague when it speaks of sanctification involving a new heart, emphasizing that our lusts are more and more weakened – a Westminster Confession stance through and through.

In Synod’s long paragraph on Call to Repentance, we find that we must not deny responsibility for or excuse “unnatural desires” even if they began in infancy. (Johnson does not quote that part of the report.) Synod’s report then disagrees with Johnson head on when it speaks of cure when it says, “In sanctification we want to see healing in our misdirected desires as well as actions.”  This sentence alone destroys Johnson’s assertion that the RPCES fits his paradigm that promoting cure is abusive, and that providing care is more consistent with the gospel than sanctification. That is what Still Time to Care is all about. He describes the homosexual condition as “an unchosen orientation with no reliable cure in this life” (p.32), but Synod’s report aimed at healing in this life. His “no reliable cure” is a terribly low view of the power and purpose of the Holy Spirit. The RPCES report treats healing as the normal gracious work of God in sanctification, even when change may not come “immediately or totally.” But please hear, in no way did Synod say that one may remain gay all his life as long as he does not act on it, and he may fill a pulpit as well.

Furthermore, Synod’s adopted report ended with about two pages of Resources, all related to Exodus International and the ex-gay movement, and probably all with the goal of change not just care. Thus, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod Report does not serve as an exemplar of offering care while skipping cure. Synod did not embrace the “no-cure-now” paradigm found throughout Still Time to Care, and so fervently advanced by Greg Johnson. As a PCA minister, he fails to see that true care includes cleansing from defilement so deep it is hidden in our spirits (2 Corinthians 7:1).

Our inability to plot the sanctification of other believers when they repent of sinful desires does not nullify the reality that saving grace occurs in every genuine believer in Christ. In 1980 the RPCES thought true change could even include something unthinkable to Johnson and yet wonderful for a Christian man, namely a man pursuing a woman. Sadly, he thinks the RPCES Report framed the issue as he does, but much that Synod said in 1980 is quite contrary to Still Time to Care.

Greg Johnson thinks the RPCES’s Pastoral Care for the Repentant Homosexual lines up well with his notion of care with very minimal progress, if any, against homosexual desire. He is wrong. When he omits and avoids repentance, he avoids the power of salvation. Our Savior cures all our diseases. He redeems our lives from the pit, and crowns us with steadfast love and mercy (Psalm 103). Our Lord has started this gracious work in all who have come to him. What is underway now will be brought to completion “at the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6). Completing, by definition, is not starting. What God has begun in this life he will finish in that great day. In the Lord’s kind of care, cure has begun and is on the way to completion, but will be fully completed in that great day. We must not deny God’s current cleansing with mistaken arguments found throughout Still Time to Care. Instead, in order to glorify God, we embrace the Spirit’s work deep in our spirits (2 Corinthians 7:1).

David Linden is a retired Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America; he lives in Delaware.

A POST SCRIPT
David Linden has done a superb job of reviewing Johnson’s Still Time to Care by noting the many “out of context” quotations from the 1980 Synod Report from the RPCES Minutes.  Not only “out of context” but also deliberate omissions of key words as “repentance” and terms relating to a changed life culture which the Scriptures call for.  It is unfortunate if not dishonest for Johnson to twist and distort the RPCES Study to make it support his views and actions.  I wonder if 2 Peter 3:16-18 might apply in a similar way when speaking of Paul’s epistles things hard to understand in which “the unstable distort, as they do also the rest if Scriptures, to their own destruction”? And Peter adds the warning, “Be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled men, you fall from your own steadfastness.” And for Johnson to try to put words into Dr. Robert Reymond’s writings, to make him appear as supporting his views, is an insult to the memory to a godly Christian and solid theologian.  I also knew him.

Let me say a few words about the RPCES.
First, they took great care that people quoting the Minutes of Synod should be careful to accurately reflect the ACTION taken in response to the RECOMMENDATION of a committee report.  Note that both recommendation and action “commend the study to our sessions and congregations as an aid for their ministry to those struggling with homosexuality” which the Synod amended by adding, “and commend the above study, entitled ‘Pastoral Care for the Repentant Homosexual,’ with the deletion of section III.

A couple of comments: 1) Note the significant word “repentant” which assumes that change in conduct is a serious aspect of this “care.”  2) Note further, this report “commend[s] the study” as an aid “to the ministry “to those struggling with homosexuality.”  Unfortunately, some Christians have swallowed the current cultural notion that there can be no change for homosexual behavior and hence there is no need to struggle.  No, the Apostle Paul “struggled” with indwelling sin (Romans 7:13-25) and found the solution in the “Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus” which “set you free from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2).

Second,  deleting section III:  The Synod deleted this section because it had recommendations regarding believers seeking to be involved in political and civil actions concerning this issue.  The Synod wisely left that out.

Third, when the RPCES joined the PCA in 1982, the PCA General Assembly recognized “the history of the respective denominations as part of her total history and receives their historical documents as valuable and significant material which will be used in the perfecting of the Church.”

Study papers, such as the 1980 one, falls under the category of “deliverances, resolutions” which carry no ecclesiastical authority as the Confession and Catechism and the Book of Church Order, but are designed to aid in the ministry (see BCO 14-7). The PCA (like the RPCES) has shown patience and love, not going first to formal procedures of discipline, hence “aid in the ministry.”

One final thought. The issue of homosexuality has been around for a long time.  As our culture changes, so the ins and outs of ethical Christian conduct will need to examine the Scriptures (as the Berean believers did in Acts 17:11) for evaluating what is the norm, for in them we will find the solutions to dilemmas raised by advocates in this world.  May the Lord God of Abraham and David have mercy on us all.

Rev. Paul R. Gilchrist, Ph. D.
Former Stated Clerk of the RPCES and later of the PCA.
March 13, 2022