This matter is remanded to MOP Presbytery with instructions that it “hold a new hearing” (BCO 43-10) which need focus only on the following matters: “What steps must MOP take to make clear to the broader Church the errors that were identified in Presbytery’s various investigations with regard to some of the teachings at Revoice 18, particularly with regard to Theological Judgments 2, 3, and 5, and what steps must MOP take to fulfill its responsibilities to protect the peace and purity of the broader Church under BCO 11-3, 11-4 and 13-9(f) in light of those errors?”

Summary of the Case

In July 2018, Memorial Presbyterian Church (PCA) (“Memorial”) in St. Louis hosted the first Revoice Conference (“Revoice 18”). Thereafter, several individuals, sessions, and presbyteries communicated concerns to Memorial and to Missouri Presbytery (“MOP” or “Presbytery”) regarding Revoice 18. In light of these concerns, in October 2018 the pastor of Memorial, TE Greg Johnson, and its Session requested that MOP accept, as a BCO 41 Reference, the Session’s request to investigate it with regard to the allegations pertaining to the hosting of Revoice 2018. MOP voted to approve a lengthy report issued by its investigative committee in May 2019. The report contained, among other things, nine theological judgments. Complainant complained against MOP’s adoption of the nine theological judgments in July 2019. MOP partially sustained his complaint in October 2019 and voted to reconsider its affirmation of the nine theological judgments at a future called meeting. Complainant unsuccessfully tried to add a question about adoption by gay couples and individuals to the matters to be considered at the future meeting.

In December 2019, at a meeting called to reconsider the nine theological judgments, Complainant raised a point of order concerning the procedures used by MOP’s Administrative Committee in preparation for the meeting, but Presbytery’s Moderator ruled the point of order not well taken, a ruling that was sustained after challenge. MOP reconsidered the nine theological judgments and adopted amended statements to eight of them, referring the ninth judgment to an ad hoc committee for reconsideration. In January 2020, Complainant complained against MOP’s actions at the December 2019 meeting, a Complaint which Presbytery denied in July 2020. Complainant then carried his complaint to the SJC. The Panel conducted the hearing on September 14, 2021 and recommended that the Complaint be denied. The full SJC reviewed the case on March 3, 2022 and approved the following decision to sustain the Complaint in part and to deny it in part.

The SJC considered three issues, the first of which was:

At its December 7, 2019, Called Meeting, did Missouri Presbytery (MOP) err in approving six theological judgments (specifically, Judgments # 1-5 and #9) recommended by CIM (Committee to Investigate Memorial)? Complainant’s 34 specifications of errors concern:

MOP Theological Judgment 1 (“Origins of Homoerotic Desire”)
MOP Theological Judgment 2 (“Terminology”)
MOP Theological Judgment 3 (“The Gay Beneath the Gay”)
MOP Theological Judgment 4 (“Gay Identity”)
MOP Theological Judgment 5 (“Spiritual Friendship”)
MOP Theological Judgment 9 (“Roman Catholic Speakers”)

The SJC judgment on this statement of the issue was: Yes, particularly with regard to MOP Theological Judgments 2, 3, and 5.

The Decision concludes with Amends directed to Missouri Presbytery with instructions from the SJC.

This matter is remanded to MOP Presbytery with instructions that it “hold a new hearing” (BCO 43-10) which need focus only on the following matters: “What steps must MOP take to make clear to the broader Church the errors that were identified in Presbytery’s various investigations with regard to some of the teachings at Revoice 18, particularly with regard to Theological Judgments 2, 3, and 5, and what steps must MOP take to fulfill its responsibilities to protect the peace and purity of the broader Church under BCO 11-3, 11-4 and 13-9(f) in light of those errors?”

In its new review, we encourage Presbytery to consider interacting with the May 2020 Report of the General Assembly’s Ad Interim Committee on Human Sexuality and how specific statements of some speakers at Revoice 18 may have differed from the propositions in that Report. We understand the AIC Report had only been published for two months when Presbytery declined to sustain this Complaint, and we recognize the Report does not have Constitutional status.

Read the entire Decision.