Weaponizing the Ethos

By Editorial Board, Presbyterian Plumb Line

For 46 years the EPC has been guided by its motto: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. In times of conflict and disagreement, our ethos has served us well. 

But what happens when the ethos becomes a weapon? What happens when it is used to silence disagreement and dissent? What happens when those who question the direction of the EPC are accused of being divisive and threatened with church discipline?

Three years ago, New River Presbytery approved an overture forbidding the ordination of homosexual pastors. Rejected as unconstitutional by the Permanent Judicial Commission without any explanation, the overture never came to the floor for a vote. Instead, the General Assembly approved the formation of an Ad-Interim Committee on Same Sex Attraction (SSA) to study the issue and report back to the General Assembly in 2026.

The issue of same sex attraction (homosexual celibacy) has caused tremendous controversy. The Plumb Line has criticized the AIC report for opening the door to ordination of homosexual candidates. Seven former moderators, former Stated Clerk Jeff Jeremiah, and missionary Andrew Brunson have warned that the AIC report — if approved in its current form — threatens to compromise our witness to the gospel and undermine our Christian orthodoxy. 

None of this is surprising. Wherever the issue of homosexuality has reared its head in the church, it has caused conflict and discord. What is surprising, however, is the way some people have reacted. In public and private communications, the Plumb Line has been accused of spreading fear, causing discord, and being contentious.

• At a recent meeting of Midwest Presbytery, a member of the AIC declared, “There is no freedom of speech in the church,” and stated that some in the EPC are guilty of “the respectable sin of being contentious.” 
• An open letter signed by 59 EPC pastors criticized those who are sowing “fear and unrest” in the EPC by criticizing the AIC report. 
• A certified letter sent by 14 pastors accused some of us of violating our ordination vows. In a follow-up face to face meeting, one pastor demanded that the Plumb Line cease publication.
• Those who criticize the AIC report have been accused in social media of slander and violating the ninth commandment.
• In the Presbytery of the Alleghenies, it took a finding by the Permanent Judicial Commission to establish that the “gentleman’s agreement” approved at General Assembly was unconstitutional and cannot not be used to deny a church its right to present an overture.
• In one Presbytery, a Plumb Line writer has been threatened with church discipline by the ministerial committee.
• In a 14-page “Encyclical” letter mailed to all EPC churches in Nov. 2024, three members of the National Leadership Team discouraged “online disagreement” and accused unnamed persons of spreading “lies,” “innuendo,” and “half-truths.”
• When a church in Gulf South Presbytery presented an overture recommending that the job description for the GA Stated Clerk be re-examined, they were attacked on the floor of Presbytery for being “mean-spirited.” Speaking against the overture, one TE became extremely emotional in describing how it made him “feel.”  

Clearly, the ethos has been weaponized: If you disagree with the AIC report, you are being divisive. If you publish your Biblical convictions in the Plumb Line, you are violating your ordination vows. If you wish to examine the role of the GA Stated Clerk, you are being “mean spirited.” Instead of fostering mutual respect, the ethos has become an excuse for bullying and intimidation. 

Such heavy-handed tactics have no place in the church and are a denial of our constitutional rights and our Protestant heritage. Our constitution tells us that God alone is Lord of the conscience. The Book of Government G 25-2A states:

“The church may make no laws to bind the conscience with respect to the interpretation of Scripture.”

As Presbyterians, we are free to express our Biblical convictions. Of course, this freedom is not absolute; we do not have the right to say things that are false, malicious, or heretical. We must limit our freedom to the bounds of the constitution. Book of Government 25-2A states,

“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.”

However, within these Biblical and confessional boundaries we have freedom of speech. In fact, the life and health of the church depend on it. As Christians, we have a God-given responsibility to follow the dictates of our conscience. Without vigorous debate, the church falls very quickly into groupthink and error.

Critics of the Plumb Line argue that all debate should be limited to the church courts — not aired online or publicly. Again, this is false. Nowhere in the Book of Order are we prohibited from sharing our Biblical convictions publicly or in writing. The Reformation began when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Wittenberg door, calling for debate. Within weeks, Luther’s theses were being published in broadsheet in London. With the invention of the printing press, the truth of the gospel became unstoppable. As Luther himself declared: “Printing is the ultimate gift of God and the greatest one.”

Luther called for debate within the church. Instead, he was excommunicated by ecclesiastical authorities who accused him of disturbing the peace. As Protestants, we are heirs of Luther and Calvin, free to speak and publish our Biblical convictions. There are thousands of Christians (including many Presbyterians) who publish books, articles, blogs, and podcasts offering commentary and critique on church issues. Historically, Presbyterians in the United States have published journals and publications expressing different theological viewpoints. To suggest that this is somehow wrong or divisive is, again, a denial of our Reformed history and heritage. 

Critics also accuse the Plumb Line of being too negative. While it is true that we have been critical of the AIC report and the Pastoral Letter of Racial Lament, we believe this criticism is warranted. When a house is on fire, you sound the alarm. Criticism is not evil or divisive but something that is vitally needed. As WCF 31:3 states,

“Since apostolic times all synods and councils, whether general or local, may make mistakes and many have.”

The goal of the Plumb Line is not to bash the church but to build it up. The best way to do that, we believe, is by holding up the unerring standard of Scripture by which all truth is measured. A plumb line is not a tool for demolition, but for solid construction.

If it is a sin to speak critically, then most of the Old Testament prophets were guilty of this sin. King Ahab referred to the Prophet Elijah as a “troubler or Israel,” when, in fact, Elijah was only speaking God’s truth (1 Kings 18:17).

The prophet Miciah son of Imlah was despised by King Ahab for being too negative:

“There is still one man through whom we can inquire of the LORD, but I hate him because he never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad.” (1 Kings 22:10).

In the time of Isaiah, the people pleaded with Isaiah to stop being so negative:

“They say to the seers, ‘See no more visions!’ and to the prophets, ‘Give us no more visions of what is right. Tell us pleasant things, prophecy illusions. Leave this way, get off this path, and stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!’” (Isaiah 30:10-11).

Throughout history, prophets have spoken God’s truth to people who didn’t want to hear it. At the Diet of Worms, Martin Luther stood trial before the assembled church authorities and crowned heads of Europe. His accusers pointed to a table filled with books Luther had written and demanded that he recant and repent. In response, Luther declared: 

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of Holy Scripture or by evident reason … I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me.”

It is wrong to weaponize the ethos. It is wrong to shame and blame those with whom we disagree. Criticism is not contention and disagreement is not disunity. To critics of the Plumb Line we would simply say: We love the EPC as much as you do. In all that we have written in the Plumb Line, we are seeking to uphold our ordination vows and to preserve the peace, unity, and purity of the church. We do not want to see the EPC harmed or divided. If you disagree with us, fine. However, it is better to respond with Biblical arguments rather than threats and baseless accusations. The true purpose of the ethos is not to silence debate but to encourage it.