By Editorial Board, Presbyterian Plumb Line
“For this is the will of God, your sanctification, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; … For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore, whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gave his Holy Spirit to you.” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5,7-8.)
Recently, some Clerks of Session received a letter by email from a group of EPC Teaching Elders with exhortations and statements apparently aimed at reassuring the church that all is well with the Ad Interim Committee (AIC) and that those who suggest otherwise are “sowing fear and unrest.”1 In fact, things are not well in the EPC. There are legitimate reasons to question the current direction of the EPC.
As editors of the Plumb Line, we earnestly desire the peace, unity, and purity of the church. However, we believe the AIC report — if approved in its current form — will only lead to conflict and division. Concern over this issue is so great that some churches have already left the EPC and others are in the process of leaving. If we compromise on our Biblical standards of sexuality and ordination, it will surely lead to the demise of the EPC, following the example of all the mainline denominations. Ultimately, the peace and unity of the church depends on faithfulness to Christ and obedience to His Word. For this reason, we have been working to inform our elders and sound the alarm. There is indeed “fear and unrest” in the EPC. It is caused by the AIC report, which advocates for the ordination of homosexuals.
Our brothers and sisters who signed the TE letter take issue with us for communicating our concerns about the AIC report on same sex attraction, despite the fact we have all been encouraged to comment and write to the AIC. Do the authors of this letter believe it is inappropriate to discuss these matters with their Session, congregations or the larger church? Are comments only allowed if they go directly to the AIC? Are they attempting to silence and squelch debate? 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. One must live in a bubble to believe the SSA issue is not being discussed, debated, and studied across our entire denomination.
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.” The idea that SSA ordination is a “non-essential” issue is at the core of the Ad Interim Committee (AIC) report which encourages liberty for presbyteries to ordain persons “experiencing SSA” — see the end of the proposed revisions to Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality “Counsel to Sessions and Presbyteries” on pages 19 and 20.
The notion of SSA ordination as “non-essential” is embedded in the “Guidance of the Stated Clerk” from December 2022 which asserted “same-sex attraction by itself does not disqualify a candidate from consideration for ordination.” Unfortunately, the Stated Clerk, AIC, and a few TEs have embraced the notion that liberty of conscience can apply to homosexual ordination. This idea is neither biblical, confessional, nor historically Christian.
Right of Conscience
In the TE letter to Clerks of Sessions, we find this statement: “We respect each person’s right of conscience as we seek the Lord in prayer.” 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. In other words, it is a matter of Christian liberty, i.e., a “non-essential.” Our constitution has some specific things to say about the right of conscience. Book of Government 25-2A acknowledges freedom of conscience, but then adds:
“However, those seeking ordination in the EPC, either initially or by transfer, voluntarily limit their free exercise of conscience to the lawful bounds of the Essentials of Our Faith, the Westminster Standards, and the Book of Order of the EPC.”
In other words, church officers do not have unlimited freedom of conscience because they have taken ordination vows to the EPC constitution. So, what does the constitution say?
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.
There is no allowable liberty of conscience in understanding same-sex (unnatural) desires in the constitution — to suggest otherwise is fiction. 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.
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? Does it imply that all views on same sex attraction are equally valid and legitimate options? If so, then this statement is in direct conflict with the EPC Constitution when it defines unnatural desires (same sex attraction) as a sin. Claiming SSA is a non-essential is not a legitimate Christian position, because Scripture allows nothing of the sort. SSA ordination is an “essential” issue because sexual ethics are non-negotiable in Scripture (1 Thessalonians 4:1-8) and in our doctrinal standards (e.g., L.C. Questions 138 and 139).
Practically speaking, we cannot have one presbytery ordaining SSA candidates and other presbyteries that object to this practice in the same denomination. A church officer’s ordination is recognized by the entire denomination. We cannot have differing ordination standards on human sexuality. For a presbytery to receive a SSA minister would not only be a violation of our constitution, it would also cause unresolvable division. Some may object that we have diversity of practice on women’s ordination, but this is a difference in Biblical interpretation. Homosexuality is a moral issue upon which the Westminster Standards have spoken because Scripture has spoken.
Defining Essentials and Non-Essentials
The EPC has an “Essentials of our Faith” document which is “an irenic statement of historic evangelicalism … not intended to be an exclusive test of orthodoxy for ordination … not to be construed as a substitute for the Westminster Confession of Faith.”2 And, we have two Position Papers adopted by the founders that are “Non-Essentials” of the EPC — the Position Paper on Women’s Ordination (1986) and the Position Paper on the Holy Spirit (1986).
The founding generation went on record with these two issues that had divided Presbyterians, declaring that there is allowable difference of perspective. The EPC has some charismatic churches and many churches that would not fit that category; there is liberty on gifts of the Spirit. On women’s ordination there are allowable differences of biblical interpretation; there is liberty on women’s ordination. On both issues freedom of conscience is possible because these things are not addressed in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, our standard of doctrine.
The report of the AIC, supported by the Stated Clerk and the TE letter, would make ordaining SSA persons a third “non-essential” in the EPC. Such a recommendation would violate the EPC’s own constitution:
- Book of Government 25-2A states that those ordained “voluntarily limit their free exercise of conscience to the lawful bounds of the Essentials of Our Faith, the Westminster Standards, and the Book of Order of the EPC;
- The Larger Catechism states that SSA (“unnatural desires”) breaks the 7th Commandment. According to our own constitution, church officers do not have the option to support SSA ordination! Either we are going to submit to our constitution as we promised in ordination vows or we are going to be dishonorable by doing whatever we want with no biblical or confessional warrant.
Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality and Ordination
The historic Christian Church has never knowingly ordained anyone experiencing same sex attraction to church office. The Church has struggled long and hard to guard the purity of the Body of Christ. The Church Fathers combated multilayered heresy within the Church for centuries. The Fathers were not hesitant to call out false teaching and purge it from the Christian community. They recognized that there is no peace in the church without purity of doctrine and practice. There is no peace when false teaching is tolerated. The Fathers condemned homosexuality in Roman society in no uncertain terms. The Reformers likewise spoke out against homosexual desires, and specifically called out the hypocrisy of “celibate” monks, condemning homosexuality in the monasteries.
Ordaining “same-sex attracted” persons (unnatural desires) to church office would have been inconceivable for all the Church Fathers and Reformers. Sexual desires for someone of the same gender was considered the sin against nature, an unmentionable sin and an affront to the Creator who created us male and female. All of the Fathers and Reformers took Romans 1:26-27 at face value and understood unnatural affection and sodomy as intrinsically disordered. The idea of putting such a person in church office would have been considered heresy. To declare same sex attracted ordination is a non-essential is diametrically opposed to what the Church has understood historically about sexual sin.3
Conclusion
Same sex attraction is sexual impurity; it is sin. SSA persons need repentance, discipleship, and pastoral care. Putting a person with homosexual attraction in leadership would be disobedience to God and a failure to protect the bride of Christ. It is unthinkable to make a wounded sheep the shepherd of the flock. We have some ministers in our denomination who don’t believe this and favor ordaining celibate homosexuals in the EPC. This position cannot be supported by Scripture, and violates our constitution.
If the EPC General Assembly adopts the current version of the AIC report, the three distinguishing marks of the EPC will become liberty on women’s ordination, gifts of the Spirit, and celibate homosexual ministers. If this happens the EPC will have lost its way, losing its testimony for the gospel in the U.S. and around the globe.
____________________
1 www.presbyterianplumbline.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Unity-Liberty-Charity-Letter.pdf (paragraph 8, “We are concerned …”).
2 See “Explanatory Statement to ‘Essentials of Our Faith’” at www.presbyterianplumbline.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/The-Essentials.pdf, p. 3.
3 See S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams, Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (B&H Academic, 2016).
Leave a Reply to Parson BrownCancel reply