The Presbyterian Plumbline’s Call for an Unobstructed Platform
This one is going to be an “inside baseball” post. If the first couple paragraphs don’t make sense, feel free to ignore and move on and the Lord bless you and keep you. If you’re an EPC TE, RE, or member who is moderately aware of the current debates in the denomination, read on and help me discern our moment.
The Plumbline editors have recently posted a story seemingly to complain about how their voices have been silenced. This confuses me as it seems every time I turn around I see one of them praising the width of their reach and the numbers on their latest call or group meeting or such. I wanted to briefly respond to a number of their points, as there are a couple on which we agree, but a much larger number on which it seems to me that the Plumbline crew have mistaken “being heard” with “everyone listens to and agrees with me”.
I want to address three major points in their latest piece, and then quickly review their bullet points.
1. On the “Silencing” of the original NRP overture
The NRP overture went to a committee of 70+ commissioners with a range of opinions on that particular issue. It, along with 5 other overtures, was consolidated by a near-unanimous vote of that committee into a single motion to create an AIC. That happened in part because leaders from the NRP and Mid-America supported that decision. Both wanting to make the best and most detailed possible response to the issues at hand. The Plumbline regularly complains about the NRP overture not making it to the floor, but they never mention that four other presbyteries and one session had their overtures not make it to the floor in the other direction and none of them are yelling about how silenced they were. The 44th GA was Presbyterian polity in motion. The outcome being undesirable to the Plumbline board doesn’t make it wrong or unbecoming.
In fact, the most underhanded move in this whole process, the one that most reminded me of PCUSA shenanigans, was when Plumbline-aligned folks tried to get every other ascending overture BUT theirs tossed on a technicality. Intending to make it so that ONLY the NRP overture would be discussed. Taking this reality into account, it would seem that the Plumbline’s objection is not to some voices in the denomination being silenced, as they were fine “silencing” whole presbyteries by trying to get their ascending overtures thrown out. Their issue seems to be that their voice is not the only one, or at least the dominant one.
2. On the Language of the Original NRP Overture
The NRP ascending overture did NOT “forbid… the ordination of homosexual pastors” as the editorial claims. The ordination of practicing homosexuals is already, rightly, forbidden. The NRP overture forbade the ordination of individuals who “identify as homosexual.” Oddly, today it is only the AIC side of this argument which has maintained the position of that original overture, that “identifying as homosexual” is unwise, inappropriate, and potentially sinful. Actually the work of the AIC largely agrees with the NRP overture on that point.
Surprisingly (to me at least), it is the Plumbline folks who have repeatedly and consistently come to refer to anyone experiencing SSA as a “homosexual”. It is those who claim offense at the “silencing” of the NRP ascending overture, who now “identify” others as homosexual. It is they, not those they claim are liberalizing or moving toward secular views of sexuality, who deny the ability of those experiencing same-sex temptation to be free from their sin and no longer identified with it or by it, even if their temptation does not fully disappear immediately. Oddly, it is the Plumbline that seems determined to define people as “homosexual” because of their temptations, not their actions or choices. In my view, it’s the Plumbline crew who are capitulating to secular categories around identity and sexuality.
3. On the Source of Conflict
The Editors write, “Wherever the issue of homosexuality has reared its head in the church, it has caused conflict and discord.” I don’t disagree, but think the statement doesn’t reflect the reality in this particular case. We’ve got a group here (Plumbline) who have been picking a verbal fight with anyone and everyone who even slightly disagrees with them since the word go. Plumbline aligned TEs were reaching out to national Christian news outlets the very days after the 44th GA to express their anger and disappointment. This article claims, “The goal of the Plumb Line is not to bash the church but to build it up.” But the Plumbline has existed for two years and I’d challenge anyone to find 10 stories of a truly “positive” tone or nature on their site. If the hope is to build up, I’d argue they haven’t done a good job. The only stories of the Plumbline having an “impact” that I’ve found or experienced have been in causing theologically conservative believers within our pews to believe that there are closet liberals hiding all around them and that they should abandon ship before we fall away like the PCUSA.
So, they must be pushing back against some insidious wave of underhanded darkness pushing back against them, right? But when we look, we have the “other side” who have… quietly waited for the AIC report drafts and submitted feedback on those received? Stood up with concerns and disagreements when Plumbline endorsed, mass-produced ascending overtures get pushed at their presbyteries?
This “conflict” is being fed and directed by one main group and it’s pretty clear who that is. Saying “it’s that y’all are even talking about the issue that FORCES us to go on a crusade” is like the group in the church who hear the session is talking about changes to the facility, assume that means tearing down the historic sanctuary, and immediately try to form a coup.
The Plumbline editorial board and writers constantly compare themselves to Martin Luther, J. Gresham Machen, or the prophets of the Old Testament. “Look at us, the noble voice in the wilderness opposing the evils around us.” But there seems to be no thought as to whether they might be more in the line of any of the dozens of other groups within Presbyterian history who have spun off, not because of great theological gulfs between themselves and their opponents, but because of seemingly minor differences that they have made into “red lines” in their own minds.
Church history is full of Presbyterians splitting off from each other because of what we later view as less-than-essential issues. I don’t know for sure that this is one of those times, but it sure seems like the question hasn’t so much as crossed the minds of the editorial board. I’d argue that our divides aren’t nearly as wide as the Plumbline makes them out to be. We aren’t arguing about the sinfulness of homosexuality, but of the semantics and specks of what degree of sanctification from homosexual sin and temptation should be expected before considering someone as a candidate to be an officer. Yet the Plumbline is desperate for elders to see this as an existential fight, even if it means exaggerating or hyperbolizing their complaints and quibbles.
4. Bullet point parade – This is, as I read it, mostly a litany of “how dare you call me out for my questionable behavior?”
– We do have Christian freedom, but it’s freedom to bless and help. Our freedom in Christ is for a purpose. And some members of the Plumbline and their aligned group have been undeniably contentious online. Some have arguably violated the WLC’s wide interpretation of the 9th commandment, (being generous, failing to assume the best about brothers in Christ until proved otherwise). I would and do easily admit that I, on the other side of this debate, have struggled to rightly obey the 9th commandment. I’ve needed to repent at times of making ill assumptions of others in my heart. And I’m not the one sending out monthly Jeremiads about the evils that those I disagree with are bringing upon the denomination. I’m not sure why the Plumbline crew is so convinced of their own perfection on this same question and their lack of need for self-reflection is troubling. If the plank is always in “their” eye, we’re probably doing it wrong.
– The open letter referred to by the Plumbline didn’t say anything about sowing distrust by questioning the AIC. While specifically trying to avoid pointing fingers at individuals, it expressed concern about sowing distrust through such means as the letter that was mailed to every EPC session with a one-sided perspective (using celebrity bias by seeking the highest profile individuals to author material). The open letter that the Plumbline complains about also said, “We respect each person’s right of conscience,” and, “We respect that differing views are present.” If anything, it seems like this letter supports the Plumbline’s supposed point that all voices should be heard in a decent and orderly way. Perhaps the real issue isn’t silencing, but rather others speaking out in a way with which they disagree.
– Church Discipline – I will not speak in depth on this because of lack of certainty (the Plumbline seems to often lob general, “I know a guy who…” type accusations which might not look as legitimate if the details were made more explicit). But if this is who I think it is, that dispute was around the unquestioned fact that the individual publicly accused others of sinful heart inclinations and motives using edited and abbreviated statements without context or permission. The individual was not formally disciplined despite making it very clear to everyone who confronted him and asked him to repent (including myself) that he would not repent and thought that he had done nothing wrong.
– One of the bullet points ends with a derisive, “Speaking against the overture, one TE became extremely emotional in describing how it made him ‘feel.'” How dare a commissioner talk about their feelings. We are Presbyterian and do not believe in emotions. Rule them out of order immediately.
– Regarding the Presbytery of the Alleghenies, this is the one place of agreement I have here. I think it silly and unnecessary to attack work before it’s even finished (let’s vote on the AIC changes and the Jeremiah amendment in June, then launch AO’s if unhappy with the outcome), and I do think it violates the expressed will of the 44th GA. But that GA does not constitutionally have the ability to bind other courts or later courts in sending ascending overtures. The ultimate decision to allow the motion (which was subsequently voted down) was the correct decision in my opinion.
Who Gets to be Heard? What Does “Silencing” Look Like?
The Plumbline complains about being “silenced” when they are the loudest voice in a room where no one else is trying to shout. Plumbline-aligned TE’s send letters to every church session and constantly publish their thoughts in any outlet which will publish them. In a post constantly complaining about the times they have been confronted and implying that those opposing them should not have spoken up, the Plumbline claims to be arguing that everyone should be heard.
Their claim of desiring freedom for all to be heard stands in stark contrast to their efforts to enforce their own position as the only viable option, such as seeking to get all opposing ascending overtures tossed at the 44th GA. The final paragraph begins “It is wrong to shame and blame those with whom we disagree”, which feels tone deaf after about 1400 words of shaming and blaming the way those who oppose them have voiced their dissent.
You, Plumbline inclined brother or sister, have the right to speak up for your convictions. And others have the right to then disagree, even to the point of respectful opposition within the courts of the church and voting against motions you might bring. That’s how Presbyterianism works. The Plumbline seems to believe that if they are opposed or voted down, then they must have been somehow “silenced”. It seems that they have such a mighty assurance of their own rightness that any opposition means their position must not have been heard.
In short, the Plumbline seems to think that their dissent, originally voiced before a single AIC preliminary report had ever been written or the AIC had even met, is entirely founded and in fact makes them brave crusaders against injustice. Whereas, anyone who disagrees with them, and does so by voting down their motions and ascending overtures within the courts of the church or speaking against their chosen position, is an authoritarian who seeks to silence their opponents.
It seems to me that the thing to which the Plumbline objects is not in fact being silenced, but rather not having the power to enforce that theirs be the only voice heard.