A Different Reality Check – An Open Letter to Jon Payne and the GRN Council

By Travis Scott, March 14, 2022.  

[Editor’s Note: This Open Letter was sent to Jon Payne and the rest of the GRN Council on March 13, 2022. We have sent it with an invitation to have any reply they might offer published, unedited, with a link to this Open Letter.] 

To Jon Payne and the GRN Council, 

I’m writing to you as a fellow minister in the PCA in response to your recent article “Reality Check & the Future of the PCA.” I’m choosing the format of an Open Letter for two reasons. First, your article was public and therefore warrants a public reply. Second, I truly desire that this letter be open in the sense that I welcome a reply from you or any other member of the GRN council. 

I want to say at the outset that there is much we hold in common. You expressed your appreciation of the historic broadness in the PCA when it comes to matters of ministry and mission. This is something I too appreciate. I was particularly encouraged to hear of your willingness to live in a broad tent, with diverse approaches to Reformed ministry. This is something I too value and is one of the reasons I’ve chosen to be a minister in this denomination. I also agree with your desire to see the PCA holding a line on moral holiness rooted in our union with Christ, and effected by the work of the Holy Spirit. To that end I, like you, affirm our denomination’s confessional standards on repentance and sanctification. I was heartened by the publication of the AIC Report on Human Sexuality, which gives solid biblical, theological, and pastoral guidance on these matters. From your comments it seems you too celebrate the helpful clarity of this report.  

However, despite these areas of agreement and appreciation, I found the rhetoric of your recent article, and what it represents about the recent trend of the GRN, to be deeply troubling. Sadly, I must say I believe your rhetoric is a violation of our confessional commitments and therefore your ordination vows. 

According to the WLC interpretation of the ninth commandment, “Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor”, the duties of this commandment include, but are not limited to: 

- Preserving and promoting truth between man and man. 

- Preserving and promoting the good name of our neighbor. 

- Speaking the truth, and only the truth in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever.

- A charitable esteem of our neighbors. 

- An unwillingness to admit an evil report. 

- A keeping of lawful promises. 

The sins forbidden in this commandment include, but are not limited to:

- A prejudicing of the truth. 

- A prejudicing of the good name of our neighbors. 

- Outfacing and overbearing the truth. 

- Passing unjust sentence. 

- Speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions to

prejudice the truth or justice.

- Slandering and reviling. 

- Misconstruing intentions, words, and actions. 

- Raising false rumors. 

- Countenancing evil reports. 

- Breach of lawful promises.

By this understanding, I believe your article fails to uphold the duties required and commits sins forbidden in the ninth commandment. While I believe the tenor of your article as a whole is in violation of the commandment, there are two main areas in which it clearly fails to meet the bar set by our Lord’s command: (1) The Improper Use of Labels and (2) The Misconstruing of Intentions, Words, and Actions. Whether intentionally or unintentionally done, these things represent a serious violation of your calling as a minister of the Gospel. 

The Improper Use of Labels 

Throughout your article you rely on several labels which are nothing more than shibboleths and catchwords, seemingly employed to vilify those who disagree with your position. You do this without ever defining what you mean by these words/phrases and therefore their use evokes reactionary feelings rather than careful thought on the matters at hand. 

For instance, you regularly refer to “Side B Gay Christianity,” but what does that mean? You never say. The reality is that there is a wide spectrum of opinions and positions within what’s come to be known as “Side B.” Some of the “Side B Christianity” group are clearly opposed to our PCA confessional understanding of sin, repentance and sanctification, while other “Side B” folks are in agreement with the PCA. But by lumping all “Side B Chrsistians” together you fail to “speak the truth, and only the truth in matters of judgement and justice,” and you fail to keep a “charitable esteem of your neighbors” while at the same time, “prejudicing their good name.”

Similarly, you use the phrase “settled gay identity” without defining what you mean by it. Do you define "settled gay identity" as a man who denies the sinfulness of any/all same sex sexual temptations or attractions? Or maybe you define it as a denial of the progressive nature of sanctification in providing strength against those attractions. Either way, you would likely find that many whom you are indicting actually agree with your concerns. 

However, if by “settled gay identity” you mean the openness and vulnerability of a person who rightly acknowledges the call to mortify unwanted, detested, and sinful homosexual attractions, but admits that such mortification will likely be a lifelong calling, and who out of honesty and care for neighbor, chooses a celibate lifestyle because they feel called by God to do so – then I have to admit I don’t understand why you take issue with such a  position. The AIC Report, which you have publicly affirmed, affirms such an approach to the life long struggle against the flesh. [1]

The problem is that you use this nebulous “settled gay identity” phrase, combined with the shibboleth of Side B Gay Christianity, with no explanation. The result of this is that the natural reading of your words leads to the impugning of the men in question. This does not promote a charitable esteem of your neighbor and instead prejudices their good name. 

Of course, the biggest shibboleth employed in your article is the term progressive. As you know, this term is one which is incredibly loaded theologically speaking. In the “wider evangelical world,” progressive Christianity is equated with the denial of a confessional understanding of Scripture, the uniqueness and efficacy of Christ, the nature of salvation, as well as many other central tenets of the Faith. Therefore, it behooves you to use the term meaningfully and accurately, rather than as a general catchall for positions you disagree with. 

You apply the term progressive loosely while neither defining it, nor giving any substantial evidence for its usage. In doing this you prejudice the good name of a large swath of our denomination. In your words, “Many of our churches, presbyteries, and agencies have shifted from broad to progressive, not unlike the wider evangelical world.” Besides people voting differently than you, what actual evidence can you put forth to prove that “many” of our churches, presbyteries, and agencies have made a theological shift into true progressivism? Also, what number constitutes many? Where is your evidence for this number? In a similar vein, you claim, “The problem lies in the fact that a significant percentage of the PCA has moved from broad expressions of worship, ministry, and mission to progressive ones.” Again, what constitutes a significant percentage here and where is your evidence for such an incendiary assertion? 

You state that, “Our convictions on union with Christ, regeneration, definitive and progressive sanctification, sin, concupiscence, biblical justice, and sexual ethics haven’t changed. We are happy to live in a broad tent, with diverse approaches to Reformed ministry, just not a progressive one.” I agree. But where is the evidence that many churches, presbyteries, and agencies have abandoned a Reformed conviction on these matters? You apply this label with no proof and thereby raise false rumours and demonstrate a willingness to admit and spread an evil report. 

Apart from evidence demonstrating actual theological progressivism, your labeling of the “many” as progressive is nothing more than slander, reviling, and the passing of an unjust sentence. 

Misconstruing intentions, words, and actions. 

A second way in which your article violates the ninth commandment is the manner in which you misconstrue the intentions and actions of those who have a different viewpoint than you and thereby impugn their motives with no evidence. 

At one point you state that, “the failure of the overtures reveals that a significant number of ordained elders in the PCA are either in support of, comfortable with, or indifferent to having self-identified gay celibate pastors in the denomination.” Beyond the point that your reference to “self-identified gay celibate pastors” is merely another vaguely defined shibboleth, the fact is that your statement of what the failure of the overtures reveals is again offered with no evidence. 

Contrary to your opinion, many presbyters, like David Coffin, have given credible and faithful reasons for voting against the overtures. These men have expressly laid out their reasons and intentions for voting as they have; and yet, rather than engaging in good faith with those reasons you ignore them completely and replace them with your own assumptions. This group would include members of the AIC on Human Sexuality who helped author our fantastic study report. Yet, based on the logic of your article, because they have written and spoken against the overtures, it would seem that you see them as progressives.

In a similar way you speculate, “Could it be that a large number of presbyters are agreeable to the PCA possessing a non-binding study report, but not to the application of the report to our constitution and church courts? It’s a fair question that I’ve heard asked more than once.” Your speculation here once again misconstrues the words and intentions of those who voted opposite you on the overtures; it also prejudices their good name, fails to maintain a charitable esteem of them, and countenances and evil report against them by implying duplicitous reasons for their voting record motivated by deceit and the willingness to tolerate wickedness. You are wrong to say it is a fair question. Even if it were true (which I don’t believe it is) that many voted against the overtures for these reasons, it is incumbent upon you to prove that rather than merely insinuate it. By misconstruing the intentions of your brethren with such a question you once more prejudice the truth and their good name, and you do so with zero evidence. 

Incidentally, your assertion/assumption that the overtures in question were a fair, in good faith, appropriate, and balanced application of the AIC Report on Human Sexuality, and your claim that, “the failed overtures communicate the same truth as the unanimously approved PCA Study Report on Human Sexuality” is at odds with the fact that a majority of the members which produced that report have spoken publicly against the overtures. Given that, to claim that the now failed overtures were simply an honest and fair good faith application of the AIC Report borders on speaking the truth unseasonably, to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions to prejudice the truth or justice.

Suffice it to say, there are ways in which the two areas above lead to further, compounding violations of the ninth commandment in your article. There are also other reasons to take issue with your article, yet, the two main areas highlighted above seem to me to be the most grievous. 

I do not know you, nor do I claim to know your motives for writing. I also acknowledge that your words may be based on a genuine ignorance of the facts. Regardless, I would urge you to retract or at least edit your article so that it is one you can offer without violating your ordination vows to seek the unity and peace of the church and to sincerely receive and adopt the ethical teachings of the Larger Catechism. 

While you have vowed these things this article is evidence that in your right and admirable zeal to maintain the purity of the Church you have been overbearing with the truth and outfaced it in such a way that you have needlessly disrupted her peace and unity. In this you have also failed to edify the church. Sadly, this reveals another violation of the ninth commandment as it means you have failed to keep the lawful promise of your sixth ordination vow. 

Of course, it could be that I myself am grievously mistaken and/or blinded by my own bias. It is also possible that I am completely misreading your words. This is a part of the reason for presenting this response to your article as an “Open Letter.” If you or any other member of the GRN Council choose to reply, not only will I seek to prayerfully consider what you have to say, but for the sake of fairness we will also publish an unedited version of your reply alongside what I’ve written to you on Semper Ref. 

As a brother in Christ who cares for you, our orthodoxy, and our beloved PCA; I urge you to revisit the sections quoted from our WCF Larger Catechism at the beginning of this letter. In doing this I ask you to also prayerfully reflect and consider if, in your passion and concern, you have ignored or violated the constitutional documents we vowed to obey - the same Westminster Confession you so passionately want our denomination, including her Pastor and Elders, to faithfully subscribe to. 

In closing, I’m happy to say that you and I are in complete agreement on at least one central claim in your article. You have rightfully and encouragingly said, “Whatever happens in the future, we can be confident that Christ will build His Church, and the gates and armies of hell shall not prevail against it.”  

Amen. 

In Christ, 

Travis Scott

Pastor, Grace & Peace PCA 

Pittsburgh Presbytery

[1] Consider the following for example: 

"We give thanks for penitent believers who, though they continue to struggle with same-sex attraction, are living lives of chastity and obedience." AIC Report on Human Sexuality, p. 13.

"While Christians should not identify with their sin so as to embrace it or seek to base their identity on it, Christians ought to acknowledge their sin in an effort to overcome it. There is a difference between speaking about a phenomenological facet of a person’s sin-stained reality and employing the language of sinful desires as a personal identity marker." p. 11

"It has not been uncommon for those with homosexual attractions to be made, intentionally or unintentionally, to feel as though they cannot be real Christians unless they experience in this life a reversal or eradication of their attractions. If this experience is presented in the form of a promise, as in some expressions of what has been called “reparative therapy,” it is not a promise based on a full understanding of the gospel. If the reversal or eradication is presented in the form of a demand, in the exhortations or discipline of the church, then that demand is an anti-gospel that only crushes and condemns." p.22

"The error of some Christian approaches to same-sex sexual desire has been to tie faithfulness to the elimination of homosexual temptation (or even the development of heterosexual desire) as though if Christians really did enough therapy, had enough faith, or repented sufficiently, God would deliver them in some final and complete way, changing their orientation.... The error of other Christian approaches to same-sex sexual desire is to treat it as a sort of fixed reality that has no malleability or capacity for change whatsoever. In its most extreme forms, this reflects our broader culture’s notions of one’s sexual orientation being a completely fixed reality—contending that there is no sense in which sexual desires can meaningfully change over time." p. 25

[2] See for example the thoughts of Kyle Keating, Jim Pocta, and Tim Keller.