Since you asked…
Plumbline question: Do the authors of this letter believe it is inappropriate to discuss these matters with their Session, congregations or the larger church?
My response: I wasn’t an author, just signed my name (if that distinction matters to you), but I will say that it is not inappropriate to discuss these matters with your Session, congregation, or the larger church. Discuss away!
Plumbline question: Are comments only allowed if they go directly to the AIC?
My response: Nope! Comment away!
Plumbline question: Are they attempting to silence and squelch debate?
My response: Not at all! Debate away!
Plumbline statement: To claim that those who share their concerns about the AIC report are “sowing fear and unrest,” is a denial of both our constitutional rights and Presbyterian history, which allow for vigorous discussion and debate.
My response: Not denying your constitutional rights or our Presbyterian history. But you can be within your rights and still sow fear and unrest, right?
Plumbline statement: It would appear from their letter that these pastors are in favor of ordaining same-sex attracted church officers, or at least view it as “non-essential.” The letter includes twelve statements, some of which imply that ordaining SSA persons is a “non-essential.”
My response: This seems like quite the leap of assumption. Nowhere do we state we’re in favor of ordaining same-sex attracted church officers or view the issue as “non-essential.” Instead of insinuating that something is being “implied” why not take us at our word? Or, better yet, call us. Our names are listed at the bottom of the letter. I’ve personally called two of the Plumb Line editors to better understand what they were saying rather than reading into — or assuming I knew — what they were saying.
Plumbline statement: The concept of “Right of Conscience” is an important principle for all Protestants. In the current EPC situation, this declaration of “right of conscience” surely is a reference to ordaining SSA persons to church office.
My response: Interesting interpretation. When I signed the letter, the “right of conscience” meant “those who disagree with the AIC’s work”. That you, the Plumb Line folks, have the “right of conscience” to post, publish, and communicate to your Session, congregation, and the larger church your views and concerns.
Plumbline statement: According to the Westminster Standards, God’s moral law summarized in the Ten Commandments implicitly forbids homosexual desires and acts as sin. Larger Catechism Question 139: “What particular sins does the seventh commandment forbid?” Answer: “In addition to failing to do what is required, the seventh commandment forbids: adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural desires; all impure imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and inclinations; …” The Scripture proof texts include Leviticus 20:15-16 and Romans 1:24, 26, 27.
My response: Keep going. Below is the full answer to question 139 of the WLC along with all of the Scripture references. Based on how often the Plumbline folks use this WLC reference, you’d think it’s solely about unnatural desires. But notice the many particular sins the seventh commandment forbids. For what it’s worth, I’m all for elevating the holiness expectation of our officers. I wonder how many EPC officers would be left if we were equally zealous about “unjust divorce” or “obscene or pornographic” material disqualifying people from office?
In addition to failing to do what is required,1 the seventh commandment forbids: adultery, fornication,2 rape, incest,3 sodomy, and all unnatural desires;4 all impure imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and inclinations;5 all corrupt and nasty talk or listening to such,6 lewd looks,7 shameless or frivolous behavior, and immodest dress;8 prohibiting lawful marriages9 and allowing unlawful ones;10 condoning, tolerating, or organizing prostitution and visiting prostitutes;11 restrictive vows of celibacy,12 unnecessary delays in marrying,13 having more than one wife or husband at the same time;14 unjust divorce15 or desertion;16 idleness, gluttony, drunkenness,17 and keeping impure company;18 obscene or pornographic songs, books, pictures, dancing, or theatrical presentations;19 and all other encouragement to or indulgence in impure activities by us or others.20
- Prv 5.7, 4.23,27.
- Heb 13.4, Gal 5.19, Eph 5.5.
- 2 Sm 13.14, 1 Cor 5.1,13, Mk 6.18.
- Rom 1.24,26-27, Lv 20.15-16.
- Mt 5.28, 15.19, Col 3.5.
- Eph 5.3-4, Prv 7.5,21-22, 19.27.
- Is 3.16, 2 Pt 2.14.
- Prv 7.10,13.
- 1 Tm 4.3.
- Lv 18.1-21, Mk 6.18, Mal 2.11-12.
- 1 Kgs 15.12, 2 Kgs 23.7, Dt 23.17-18, Lv 19.29, Jer 5.7, Prv 7.24-27.
- Mt 19.10-12.
- 1 Cor 7.7-9, Gn 38.26, 1 Tm 5.14-15.
- Mal 2.14-15, Mt 19.5, 1 Cor 7.2.
- Mal 2.16, Mt 5.32.
- 1 Cor 7.12-13. See citations under Q. 138
- Ez 16.49, Prv 23.30-33, Jer 5.7.
- Gn 39.10, Prv 5.8, Eph 5.11.
- Eph 5.4, Ez 23.14-16, Is 23.15-17, 3.16, Mk 6.22, Rom 13.13, 1 Pt 4.3.
- 2 Kgs 9.30, Jer 4.30, Ez 23.40, Rom 13.14, 2 Pt 2.17-18.
Plumbline statement: In the TE letter to Clerks of Sessions, we also find this statement: “We respect that differing views are present.” What does this sentence mean?
My response: To me this means that “we respect that different views are present” in the EPC when it comes to the wording used in the Plumbline overture versus the AIC’s work. Neither are perfect. Both are a group project, though the AIC is a group project with a thousand or so voices trying to get the exact wording they want, whereas the Plumbline overture, from what I’ve heard, was primarily written by one individual and has been presented exactly as written when it comes from a church Session. One could ask, “Which one of these documents has been, or is being, created in a more Presbyterian like way?”
BE SURE TO READ THIS
Plumbline statement: Same-sex attraction is not a sin-free weakness; it is sin according to our constitution. Thus, it requires repentance. Anyone experiencing ongoing same-sex attraction who has not repented of this sin and has not experienced progressive freedom from unnatural sexual desires would certainly not qualify for church office. This is not a matter of opinion, it is the constitutional doctrinal position of the EPC.
My response: I 100% agree with this statement and I voted against the Plumbline overture and support the work of the AIC. If the Plumbline folks agree with what they’ve written, as do I, then what’s the issue? I haven’t heard anyone argue otherwise on this specific point. I’ve heard people talk past one another, imply that others believe differently on this, but where are these individuals in the EPC? I’ve yet to hear anyone hold a position contrary to what the Plumbline folks state in the sentences above.
Maybe the problem is what I just said. Instead of talking to one another, we’re talking past one another. Instead of picking up the phone and calling one another, we’re guessing and assuming what each other means.
And, yes, I get the irony in me saying this while publishing all of this. Read below. It’s not because I haven’t tried practicing what I preach.
A FINAL PLEA TO A FRIEND
To the Plumbline guys, especially to Peter, as I know him best (but Paul, you and I have talked on the phone as well).
Peter, after our most recent presbytery meeting, I texted you to tell you I appreciate and love you despite the fact that we were on opposite sides of the Plumbline overture vote. I’m grateful that you responded and that we ended up talking on the phone for nearly an hour. Afterward, we texted a few more times.
I vocalized my support of your right, and the rest of the Plumbline guys’ rights, to do exactly what you’ve done in your most recent article. I told you that I would defend your right to voice concern, publish articles, etc. I’m all for open debate and your freedom of speech.
Yet, what saddens me is that you didn’t mention that this article was about to be published or ask me for my responses to the questions asked in the article even though you had to know that my name was on the letter.
How does this promote the peace and unity of the EPC? How does this demonstrate friendship? How does this show an unbelieving world what it means to love your fellow EPC TE neighbor?
And this is what grieves me most about all of this. Maybe, instead of being concerned about our “rights” we should all focus on our “responsibilities” when it comes to our relationship with each other. Pick up the phone and have a conversation. Have a three hour face to face conversation with each other (right, Peter?). I don’t know, maybe even practice loving one another.
I think doing so would make Jesus pretty proud of us. And we may even find ourselves being a better denomination because of it.