As reported previously in the Plumb Line, New River Presbytery (NRP) wrote a letter to the National Leadership Team (NLT) in August 2024 seeking reconciliation after the prejudicial handling by leaders of the EPC of the NRP’s unanimously passed overture. The NLT met with representatives of the NRP in January 2025 and listened to their complaints. The NRP leadership report that they voiced the following theological concerns at the January meeting:
“At the January meeting between the NLT and the Leadership Team of NRP the Presbyters from New River were clear about three broad points. First, that sexual ethical downgrade in the EPC would present an existential crisis for the denomination. Second, that Side B cannot be held by Christians of good conscience. Third, that some of the arguments deployed against the 2024 NRP overture were condescending, ahistorical, and nonsensical …
In January, the delegation from NRP argued that Side B is heresy and not error. Primarily this is built on the fact that abstinence from vice is not the embodiment of virtue. That someone has yet to kill anyone does not mean that they embody Christian love of neighbor. Claims of celibacy are not license to adopt an anti-biblical understanding of human sexuality. In the view of the NRP this was one of the most problematic parts of the Stated Clerk’s Guidance of December 2022 … Side B, while presenting a veneer of doctrinal orthodoxy, advocates the embrace of spiritual and cultural forms of gay identity. The embrace of such identities will inevitably lead to moral and theological downgrade.
The third point made by the Elders of New River was that some arguments against the 2024 overture were problematic. Specifically, they pointed out that when sin becomes a matter of ‘interpretation’ controversy always follows. They pointed to the theological assertions of the Auburn Affirmation, (published in May 1924) which did so much damage to the northern Presbyterian Church. The Auburn Affirmation sought to elevate liberty of conscience over the Bible and the Westminster Standards in the name of freedom of interpretation within the bounds of ‘evangelical Christianity.’ Because unity and freedom are highly commended, the right of a General Assembly to address a matter of controversy or speak authoritatively on a doctrinal issue is denied. Some of the PJC’s most contested rulings last year skated extremely close to adopting such a position.”
In a late March 2025 letter of reply from the NLT chairman to NRP leadership, he offered this perspective on the January meeting:
“I found the conversation to be both productive and enlightening, providing us with a clearer understanding of the concerns raised by the New River Presbytery …. Please rest assured that the EPC remains steadfast in its commitment to Biblical Orthodoxy and our foundational ethos, just as it has since its inception.”
While this letter from the chairman did not address leadership concerns, the NRP reaction to the chairman’s letter was as follows:
“What became clear in the letter to NRP from the chair of the NLT was that there is broad agreement about the importance, urgency, and peril in the issues presented by Side B and its potential place in the EPC. Importantly, the conversation at the January meeting was characterized as productive and enlightening. The officers and members of the New River Presbytery have good reason to rest assured that the EPC remains steadfast in its commitment to biblical orthodoxy and to its founding ethos. Under God’s good providence our shared commitment to biblical truth and confessional clarity will continue to be the foundation of our peace as the EPC.”
Leave a Comment