Recently, EPC churches have received a letter written by three members of the National Leadership Team (NLT). This so-called “encyclical”1 seeks to reassure us that all is well and nothing has changed in the EPC. In reality, this letter does exactly the opposite: it demonstrates the alarming change that has taken place in the leadership and direction of our denomination. Although it is intended to inform, this letter raises far more questions than it answers. Out of deep love and concern for the EPC, we offer the following response to the issues raised in this letter.
Length of the letter
The length of this letter is extraordinary, running 14 pages. It is, by far, the longest letter ever written to EPC Presbyters for the purpose of answering questions and concerns. If it takes 14 pages to address these issues, it surely points to a crisis in the EPC. Never before in our 43-year history has such a letter been necessary.
Use of “CEO and President” as a title
Since taking office three years ago, our Stated Clerk, Dean Weaver, has assumed the title of “President and CEO” of the EPC. Defending the use of this title, the authors of the encyclical claim it was a practical necessity for communicating with those outside the church who don’t understand the title of stated clerk. And yet, for 39 months neither the NLT nor the Stated Clerk found it necessary to inform the EPC about this major change. In our 43-year history, no stated clerk has found it necessary to claim the title of CEO. If the pastor of a local congregation claimed the title of CEO, the congregation would surely protest. There is only one head of the church and that is Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:22). As teaching and ruling elders, why were we not informed of this major change?
Financial Transparency
The authors claim that the financial reporting to the 44th General Assembly was “almost the same” as the last eight years “with one exception.” And yet, the authors acknowledge there was a deliberate omission of actual giving and expenses in their written FY25 budget presentation. Not only that, but commissioners with basic questions about actual giving and expenses received no answers from the NLT standing committee or on the floor. As a result, commissioners voting on the budget at General Assembly were in the dark, having no knowledge of the fiscal health of the church. Even more troubling, the encyclical claims that this financial misinformation was deliberately withheld because the NLT had received numerous questions about the budget in the past and believed that “… leaving those out would simplify things and be less confusing.” When important financial information is deliberately withheld from the General Assembly, it does not “simplify things” but creates mistrust and suspicion. This lack of financial transparency and accountability is without precedent in the EPC.
Election of the Stated Clerk
The encyclical claims that the vote to re-elect the Stated Clerk “occurred on Tuesday instead of at the end of the assembly as we have in the past.” (italics added for emphasis). When the re-election of the stated clerk was moved, a commissioner asked what the norm has been for past re-elections. In response, platform leadership claimed they did not know what the norm had been. The platform leadership included a Teaching Elder who has held a staff role at General Assembly for more than 30 years and a Teaching Elder who has attended General Assemblies since 2007. How is it possible that they did not know the historic practice on such important business? The encyclical also claims that the Stated Clerk was re-elected by “an overwhelming majority of the 900 commissioners present.” What the authors fail to note is that this vote was unprecedented. In the past, re-election of the Stated Clerk has always been unanimous.
Sexual Standards for Ordination
The encyclical claims that there has been no “liberal agenda” to change the EPC’s position on sexuality. “No one on the NLT or GA Staff thinks that same-sex behavior is biblically permissible,” the authors declare. And yet, this statement completely misses the point. The real issue before us is not whether homosexual behavior is permissible, but whether a person who identifies as homosexual and experiences same-sex attraction is qualified for ordination. If we ordain self-identified homosexual persons to ministry, we are implicitly endorsing an identity shaped by broken desires and impulses, rather than God’s creative and redemptive work. Historically, the EPC’s stance on sexual ethics has been rooted in a biblical anthropology that defines believers by their union with Christ, not by their unredeemed sexual desires. The fact that we are even studying this issue is a major red flag and a warning that we are drifting toward an unbiblical view of sexual identity. This shift from an objective, biblical identity to one defined by subjective emotion and experience represents a complete redefinition of what it means to be in union with Christ. While it may be technically accurate that the EPC’s official position has not changed, nevertheless, the question under consideration represents a potential major shift. We pray for the Ad Interim Committee’s deliberations.
The New River Overture
An overture submitted to the 44th General Assembly by New River Presbytery recommended changing our constitution to prohibit the ordination of those who identify as homosexual, whether they are celibate or not. The encyclical assures us that this overture got a “fair shake” and that the Permanent Judicial Commission followed “proper process,” in killing this overture. In reality, the ruling by the Permanent Judicial Commission was deemed unconstitutional and was overturned by a vote of GA commissioners. In addition, there was political maneuvering behind the scenes to make sure this overture was referred to an interim committee for two years of study and did not come up for a vote. In no way did this overture get a “fair shake.” As a result, New River Presbytery has written a letter of protest to Dean Weaver expressing their grievances and calling for confession, repentance, and reconciliation.
Lilly Foundation Grant
The EPC received an $888,000 grant from the Lilly Foundation for the purpose of church health and revitalization. Relative to the annual budget of the EPC, this represents a huge infusion of money from an outside organization. This is about one-third of the annual EPC budget. The encyclical reassures us that this money came with no restrictions or “strings attached.” And yet, how do we know this? Will this funding make us beholden or dependent on the Lilly Foundation for future funding? These are valid questions and ought to be decided by the whole church, rather than a few individuals.
Top-Down Leadership
The encyclical seeks to assure us that General Assembly is not acting in a top-down or hierarchical manner. And yet, this letter communicates exactly the opposite. The tone is scolding, patronizing and defensive. Instead of apologizing or accepting blame, there is mostly denial and doubling down. Instead of encouraging free and open debate, the encyclical seeks to silence and shut it down. Those who disagree with the national leadership are accused of “knee-jerk” reactions and spreading “half-truths and outright lies.” The letter bluntly states: “Thus, should you see any online dissent that shares wildly differing accounts to the answers above, you should be skeptical of the intent of the authors.” In other words, anyone who dares to disagree with the authors of this encyclical is suspect and guilty of spreading disinformation. Ironically, the letter discourages dissent outside of official channels while itself communicating outside those channels. The encyclical urges us to trust in the process and take our concerns only to the church courts which seems dismissive, especially after the New River Presbytery overture got sidetracked by the Permanent Judicial Commission. The push to keep disagreements within church courts is difficult to accept at face value, especially when the very path of the overture process was shut down at the recent General Assembly. It is hard to trust in the church courts when you believe they are no longer fair or impartial and that the deck has been stacked against you. The message seems clear: the national leadership can communicate as it wishes, while the rest of us should practice restraint. For commissioners who care deeply about the EPC’s future, this feels less like a call to unity and more like an attempt to avoid dealing with the real issues. It is an approach that risks dividing us further instead of drawing us together.
Conclusion:
This encyclical is further evidence of top-down leadership that has permeated the EPC: the desire to silence criticism and control the narrative. If the EPC is in turmoil, the blame does not lie with critics but with EPC leadership. Under this leadership, we have been plunged quite suddenly into discord and division. The peace and unity of the church have been recklessly squandered. Instead of focusing on the Gospel, we have been distracted by issues of homosexuality, identity politics, woke ideology, hierarchical leadership, pursuit of cultural relevance and a failure to communicate basic financial information with GA commissioners. Instead of keeping Presbyters informed, we have been kept in the dark. Those on the side of the truth do not discourage open, honest debate or attempt to silence criticism. As a result, EPC leadership has lost the trust and confidence of many within the EPC.
We encourage you to share this response with your Session and with other ruling and teaching elders who are concerned about the leadership and direction of the EPC. We also encourage you to submit overtures to your Presbytery to address these issues. Most of all, we encourage you to pray for the EPC, that these serious issues will be addressed and our unity restored.
Your servants in Christ,
Presbyterian Plumb Line Editors
____________________
1The word “encyclical” has a very definite history and meaning. By definition, it refers to a letter written by the Pope to Roman Catholic bishops, often about the church’s official opinion on a subject. Although the authors claim that this letter is “informal” and not an authoritative document, nevertheless they describe it as an encyclical. On whose behalf and by what authority was this letter written? Are the authors speaking for themselves, for the National Leadership Team, for the Office of the General Assembly or on behalf of the entire EPC? Why should their words have any more weight or authority than those of an ordinary teaching or ruling elder?
Leave a Comment