Jun 9, 2022·edited Jun 14, 2022Liked by Ryan Biese
I continue to pray for all of you. However, I fear this Assembly will be known to historians as the Great Acquiescence of 2022. Faithful Confessional Elders simply must: put up a fuss; not allow themselves to be cowed into submission for the sake of fake unity; and not give in to the flesh's natural desire to be gullible. If there is not a loud and clear call for all NPP members to publicly confess and repent (including Chapell), if the PCA does not withdraw from the sodomy-affirming NAE, and if Johnson and Sodomy is not dealt with firmly and decisively (his voluntary leaving does not solve the problem, he must be removed), then the PCA fails to meet the tests of a valid church. Its pretty clear, even to tenors like me. Time to man up, time to watch from the walls, time for the Shepherds to shep. Anything less is capitulation to the enemy, and acquiesce to cowardliness. The back door is wide open in most churches, and faithful believers may start availing themselves of the exit if the PCA Elders don't do their duty. Sorry for the harsh tone, but you seem to be the kind of man who will do the brave and hard things that are needed. So I will be praying for you to be the Paul challenging the peters in the PCA.
I was curious if you had read the article by J. Lance Acree ("The standing judicial commission just violated the PCA constitution and standards- again") on the Aquila Report? In it he makes the claim that the TVP licensed a man "who , during his oral examination, explicitly approved the ordination of homosexuals and pedophiles as pastors (Teaching Elders.)"
This is a very serious charge.
1: Are you aware of it?
2: Is it true as stated by Mr. Acree?
I've emailed the TVP, to no avail. Could you comment on this, please?
Hi Nick, I am not sure whether the presbytery has instructed the clerk how to speak to this matter at this time.
I have read the article you reference, but it was a long article and a (relatively) long time ago. I regret I do not have the time right now to re-read it to give a fair response.
I voted against the man's licensure, but I recall many of the issues raised in his licensure exam were resolved and clarified by the time he came before us for ordination after being further instructed by a seminary faculty member. I voted for his ordination and found his clarifications satisfactory.
Maybe you could help me understand just what your understanding of a 31-2 investigation is since you seem to have a very strong sense of certainty about TE Johnson never being "tried." My recollection, as a member of MOP, is that TE Johnson specifically requested a 31-2 investigation of his views, which our presbytery took up and concluded that they did not rise to the level of warranting a trial. TE Speck then complained against this and carried his complaint to the SJC which found by a super-majority that the MOP correctly concluded its case and that TE Johnson need not be "tried." One might quibble about TE Johnson's statement that he was "exonerated," but I think in essence it is correct to say that he was not disciplined or rebuked, as his critics had hoped. Thanks. CP
Hi Chris, I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you're asking. A 31-2 investigation is to determine whether (or not) there is a strong presumption of guilt. It does not exonerate. To claim exoneration by a court, one must have been a party before that court. As TE Johnson was not a party before the SJC, it is improper to claim exoneration by the SJC. It is indeed, as you note, absolutely factually correct to say your presbytery has not disciplined him for his statements and activities. Thanks for taking the time to read and interact!
So I guess my point is this: If I was accused of stealing my neighbor's dog, and the police did an investigation and determined that there was not enough evidence to arrest me, or if, at another level, they did arrest me because they thought I might be guilty and then submitted the evidence they had to a grand jury and the grand jury declined to prosecute me, what word would we use to describe my situation?
Hi Chris. That is an interesting hypothetical. As I’m not a lawyer, I couldn’t be certain. So I checked with a lawyer friend. He said in such a situation (alleged dog theft) it would not be exoneration. To be investigated, but not charged for lack of evidence is not the same as exoneration.
Additionally the Speck/MoP before SJC cases were ones of process rather than substance. As I think I noted even the “supermajority” on SJC has noted serious concerns with what TE Johnson has said especially since 2020.
In such Short, to claim “exoneration” in a your situation, would be incorrect.
Interestingly, I too spoke to a lawyer friend of mine about this. He agreed with your friend that exoneration isn't really a legal term that would apply to this situation. It's not a legal term at all. He indicated that the legal term pertaining to an accused person is either guilty, not guilty or acquitted. Exoneration is a far less technical term. According to Webster exoneration is...
1 : to relieve of a responsibility, obligation, or hardship
2 : to clear from accusation or blame
I guess this is really the point that I am trying to make about those that are upset with TE Johnson for using the term exoneration. It's not a legal term at all. He needed some way to describe the fact that he was investigated and that the investigation did not move forward. Maybe you could suggest a better word. I want to also note that I agree that TE Johnson has said and continues to say some things that I don't agree with. But I think people need to be fair-minded about the critiques they level and I think the critique that TE Johnson did something wrong when he said he was exonerated is an unfair critique.
I continue to pray for all of you. However, I fear this Assembly will be known to historians as the Great Acquiescence of 2022. Faithful Confessional Elders simply must: put up a fuss; not allow themselves to be cowed into submission for the sake of fake unity; and not give in to the flesh's natural desire to be gullible. If there is not a loud and clear call for all NPP members to publicly confess and repent (including Chapell), if the PCA does not withdraw from the sodomy-affirming NAE, and if Johnson and Sodomy is not dealt with firmly and decisively (his voluntary leaving does not solve the problem, he must be removed), then the PCA fails to meet the tests of a valid church. Its pretty clear, even to tenors like me. Time to man up, time to watch from the walls, time for the Shepherds to shep. Anything less is capitulation to the enemy, and acquiesce to cowardliness. The back door is wide open in most churches, and faithful believers may start availing themselves of the exit if the PCA Elders don't do their duty. Sorry for the harsh tone, but you seem to be the kind of man who will do the brave and hard things that are needed. So I will be praying for you to be the Paul challenging the peters in the PCA.
Hi Ryan,
I was curious if you had read the article by J. Lance Acree ("The standing judicial commission just violated the PCA constitution and standards- again") on the Aquila Report? In it he makes the claim that the TVP licensed a man "who , during his oral examination, explicitly approved the ordination of homosexuals and pedophiles as pastors (Teaching Elders.)"
This is a very serious charge.
1: Are you aware of it?
2: Is it true as stated by Mr. Acree?
I've emailed the TVP, to no avail. Could you comment on this, please?
Hi Nick, I am not sure whether the presbytery has instructed the clerk how to speak to this matter at this time.
I have read the article you reference, but it was a long article and a (relatively) long time ago. I regret I do not have the time right now to re-read it to give a fair response.
I voted against the man's licensure, but I recall many of the issues raised in his licensure exam were resolved and clarified by the time he came before us for ordination after being further instructed by a seminary faculty member. I voted for his ordination and found his clarifications satisfactory.
PCUSA 2.0….. no thanks.
Ryan,
Maybe you could help me understand just what your understanding of a 31-2 investigation is since you seem to have a very strong sense of certainty about TE Johnson never being "tried." My recollection, as a member of MOP, is that TE Johnson specifically requested a 31-2 investigation of his views, which our presbytery took up and concluded that they did not rise to the level of warranting a trial. TE Speck then complained against this and carried his complaint to the SJC which found by a super-majority that the MOP correctly concluded its case and that TE Johnson need not be "tried." One might quibble about TE Johnson's statement that he was "exonerated," but I think in essence it is correct to say that he was not disciplined or rebuked, as his critics had hoped. Thanks. CP
Hi Chris, I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you're asking. A 31-2 investigation is to determine whether (or not) there is a strong presumption of guilt. It does not exonerate. To claim exoneration by a court, one must have been a party before that court. As TE Johnson was not a party before the SJC, it is improper to claim exoneration by the SJC. It is indeed, as you note, absolutely factually correct to say your presbytery has not disciplined him for his statements and activities. Thanks for taking the time to read and interact!
So I guess my point is this: If I was accused of stealing my neighbor's dog, and the police did an investigation and determined that there was not enough evidence to arrest me, or if, at another level, they did arrest me because they thought I might be guilty and then submitted the evidence they had to a grand jury and the grand jury declined to prosecute me, what word would we use to describe my situation?
Hi Chris. That is an interesting hypothetical. As I’m not a lawyer, I couldn’t be certain. So I checked with a lawyer friend. He said in such a situation (alleged dog theft) it would not be exoneration. To be investigated, but not charged for lack of evidence is not the same as exoneration.
Additionally the Speck/MoP before SJC cases were ones of process rather than substance. As I think I noted even the “supermajority” on SJC has noted serious concerns with what TE Johnson has said especially since 2020.
In such Short, to claim “exoneration” in a your situation, would be incorrect.
Ryan,
Interestingly, I too spoke to a lawyer friend of mine about this. He agreed with your friend that exoneration isn't really a legal term that would apply to this situation. It's not a legal term at all. He indicated that the legal term pertaining to an accused person is either guilty, not guilty or acquitted. Exoneration is a far less technical term. According to Webster exoneration is...
1 : to relieve of a responsibility, obligation, or hardship
2 : to clear from accusation or blame
I guess this is really the point that I am trying to make about those that are upset with TE Johnson for using the term exoneration. It's not a legal term at all. He needed some way to describe the fact that he was investigated and that the investigation did not move forward. Maybe you could suggest a better word. I want to also note that I agree that TE Johnson has said and continues to say some things that I don't agree with. But I think people need to be fair-minded about the critiques they level and I think the critique that TE Johnson did something wrong when he said he was exonerated is an unfair critique.
Grace to you brother. Chris P