Ever since the 44th General Assembly, tensions have been high in the EPC. As the Ad Interim Committee (AIC) has begun meeting with individual presbyteries, the tension seems to be increasing. What’s hard to know with any certainty, at least not until the presbytery I’m part of meets to discuss the AIC’s work, is what the reality of the situation in the EPC is. Is it just a few voices making a lot of noise? Is the group opposing the AIC much larger than is realized? Etc.
Now that one of the Midwest presbytery churches has officially brought the redline/plumbline overture to the presbytery to be discussed next month (February 2026), I have spent more time comparing the AIC’s work with the redline/plumbline overture.
This post will include my concerns with the redline/plumbline overture, areas of agreement, and some final thoughts.
ON THE OVERTURE
The fifth “whereas” of the overture states “there is a clear distinction between self-conception (“this is who I am”) and their remaining indwelling sin (“this is what I must daily mortify”).
I 100% agree with this statement.
When it comes to the topic of Same Sex Attraction (SSA), we must reject the identity statement often made in our culture that is the equivalent of “this is who I am.” This is black-and-white for me.
However, where things get gray is in regard to “remaining indwelling sin.” One person may be further along in mortifying their sin daily than another. But I’m not sure how we can clarify this in Book of Government language. And I believe this is really the issue causing division in the EPC at this time.
An imperfect, yet I hope helpful, illustration.
Imagine two alcoholics. One hasn’t had a drink in 10 years. Is mortifying the temptation to drink every day and is victorious. The fight is easily won every day.
The other person hasn’t had a drink in 10 years either and has successfully resisted the temptation to drink every day…but the fight isn’t easy. Every day, he breaks out in sweat as the temptation comes upon him. He drives to the liquor store, but leaves before buying anything. He’s never given in, but the war is real.
The first guy I’d be comfortable with being an officer in the church. The second guy…not so much. I don’t know that he’s disqualified; he hasn’t sinned. Yet, I don’t know that he’s qualified at this time either.
You may feel differently, strongly even, on the matter. You may hate my illustration altogether. That’s why I said this part is “gray” for me. But I don’t see justification for a hard stance from anyone, since the second person hasn’t actually sinned. He’s been victorious.
We should praise God and encourage this individual. We shouldn’t throw stones.
My bigger concern is that the overture appears to contradict the distinction it draws between “identity” and “remaining indwelling sin” in the next “whereas” statement, as well as in the eighth and twelfth statements.
The next “whereas” (number six) states “whereas, identification (category one, identity, in the fifth “whereas”) or ongoing experience as “Same Sex Attracted” (category two, remaining indwelling sin, in the fifth “whereas”) or any other identification (category one) or ongoing experience contrary to the biblical sexual ethic (category two) is sinful…and is not fitting for an officer of the Church of Christ.
Whew. Let me see if I understand what the overture is stating.
It appears to be stating that, “No matter how much mortification a person has done, if the sin of homosexuality is still indwelling in you, you are disqualified from ministry” (see also the eighth and twelfth “whereas” statements).
This now appears to combine the two categories (identification and indwelling sin) that were earlier separated in “whereas” number five.
Why make the distinction between identity and mortifying sin if, at the end, both result in disqualification?
Add to the above, “whereas” number nine, which states “the practice of homosexuality, including lust, is a grievous sin, and that any who continue to engage in such activity face the consequences of God’s condemning judgment.”
What does it mean to “engage in such activity”?
The act of homosexual sex? Yes.
Identifying with the sin of homosexuality? Yes.
Lusting? Yes.
But what about having “remaining indwelling sin” in a person that is mortified daily?
The answer, for me, is no. This is not “engaging in.” This is fighting the good fight.
This is why I cannot support the redline/plumbline overture.
ON THE BOOK OF GOVERNMENT UPDATES
Regarding the updates to BOG 9-3A, I like changing the word “should” to “shall” in both places. It’s stronger language than what the AIC is proposing and leaves no room for interpretation.
I also think the first bold sentence (“Therefore, persons eligible for church office shall conform in heart, mind, and conduct to God’s design for human sexuality, embracing with gratitude the calling of either chastity in singleness or fidelity within marriage between one man and one woman.”) is better than what is proposed by the AIC (“Officers must conform to the biblical requirement of chastity and sexual purity in their descriptions of themselves, their convictions, character, and conduct.”). Though I would prefer adding the last part of the AIC sentence (“in their description… “) to the redline/plumbline sentence. However, some editing would be needed to make the sentence clearer (feel free to give it a go!).
Yet I do not like the next sentence in the redline/plumbline proposal (“Those who profess, persist in, or identify with…”). “Those who profess” is what bothers me most. The current wording leaves no room for someone to be honestly fighting (mortifying) this specific sin in their life. According to the overture wording, an individual cannot profess their struggle and fight against this sin; otherwise, they’re disqualified.
But I realize that getting consensus on the exact wording by all REs and TEs in the EPC is impossible. We all have to be willing to give up what we believe is the perfect or preferred wording for the sake of unity in the EPC.
A FINAL WORD
Having recently read all the minutes of our denomination’s General Assembly history (yep, I recently went full nerd), I am convinced we must fight against a congregationalist mindset. Where, instead of being Presbyterian and viewing ourselves primarily as part of something bigger than our local churches or as individual pastors, we view ourselves as local churches and individual pastors that also happen to be part of a denomination (congregationalism).
This has been the Achilles heel of the EPC from its beginning, with many pastors, elders, and churches coming out of the PCUSA with PTSD and a lack of trust in others and having too much of an individualistic mindset. Go read the Moderator reports from the early years of the EPC, and you’ll see remark after remark about this mindset in the EPC.
I know this is hard (it’s hard for me!), but if this issue is all it took for us to start distrusting whether or not pastors and elders in our denomination have the same view of the Bible that we have, or the same view of sin, then we need to prepare ourselves to not be surprised when people in our church do the same with us.
The goal is not to be duped or gullible. The goal is also to not be pharisaical, thinking I alone hold the truth. Help me toe the line. And I’ll help you.
Finally, we need to protect the EPC from two errors. The first error is allowing the unrepentant sinner to serve in office. The second error is not to allow the repentant sinner to serve in office.
Lord, where we have sinned either by failing to love the truth or by failing to love our brothers and sisters in our disagreements about the truth, forgive us and help us. For those of us who tend to fight too much over theology, help us to remember that you also died for the unity of the church, your precious bride. Give us softer hearts. For those of us who tend to fight too little over theology, help us to feel our need for courage and resilience. Give us stronger backbones. Help us to be people who tremble at your word and therefore ultimately fear no one but you. Lead us toward that healthy, happy balance of adhering to all your teaching while embracing all your people. Amen. (Gavin Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On, pg 152)