Mark Twain once wrote, “History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
During the course of the debates surrounding my denomination’s current disagreement on the issue of same-sex attraction, those aligned with the “red line” overture have regularly styled the conflict as a “rhyme” of the conflicts over homosexuality in the PCUSA running from the 1970s to the 2000s. In the plumbline version of the rhyme, they are the heroic theological conservatives, vast in number but fighting against institutionalized bureaucracy, a system of elites seeking to silence their voices as they stand up for the truth.[1]
I too feel like I’m the hero in my own story, and I suppose I can hardly fault my brothers and sisters on that side of the current debate for thinking the same. But I think that a careful analysis of the history of the mainline over the past hundred years, as well as of our current denominational divides, reveals a different story and a different picture. I don’t debate that our current situation “rhymes” with the struggles of the past. Yet, I think some might be surprised at exactly how that rhyme is seeming to work this time around.
How Did They Get There?
One of the mistakes that I’ve seen made in this debate, even by church historians whom I hold in great respect, is starting the conversation at the moment that same-sex attraction and homosexuality became an issue within the PCUSA. C.S. Lewis once wrote, “Good and evil both increase at compound interest. That is why the little decisions you and I make every day are of such infinite importance.” If we begin to look for the connection between the fights in the PCUSA in the 70s/80s over sexuality with our disagreements today, we’re missing the steps along the way that help us to see the source of the disagreement.
To find the roots, we have to understand that the PCUSA had been experiencing theological liberalization for fifty years or more before any conversation about homosexuality ever happened. The Auburn Affirmation of 1924 challenged the ability of the church to maintain uniformity on the inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth and deity of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the authenticity of miracles in the biblical account. This is fifty years before homosexuality came onto the radar! The OPC abandoned ship about a decade after the Auburn Affirmation because of their concerns over the liberalization of the church.
The story of the EPC in the late 70s and early 80s continues to tell of the descent into liberalism that continues in the PCUSA to this day. Two church court cases highlighted in the formation of the denomination include that of a pastor who had his ordination revoked for taking an exception to women’s ordination, as well as that of a pastor who was allowed to be ordained despite denying the divinity of Christ. The PCUSA had traded the essentials and non-essentials wholesale. Before homosexuality was on our radar, the PCUSA had lost its mooring to biblical Christianity.
I highlight these cases to note that allowing the ordination of ministers living in homosexual sin in 2010-2011 was not a unique point for the PCUSA. It was not a departure from a pattern, it was one of many logical outcomes of a trend that had been plaguing the denomination for a century. Some in our current conversation treat homosexuality as a super sin,[2] they seem to view it as the thing that broke the PCUSA. But the reality is, the PCUSA was broken a hundred years before that. Homosexuality might have been the breaking point for some when it came to their connection to the PCUSA, but there were numerous theological issues before that could’ve, and some would argue should’ve, been the breaking point.[3]
What’s Different Today?
History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. In this case, we are dealing with some similar issues and topics to discussions going on in the PCUSA 40 and 50 years ago. But the reality is, we’re approaching them from an entirely different place. While the PCUSA was quickly capitulating to liberalism and casting aside biblical merit for cultural capital, the EPC today maintains an extremely strong base of orthodoxy and biblical fidelity.
The conversation in the PCUSA was between those who valued God’s word and those who did not. The conversation in the EPC today is between two sides trying to advocate for what they believe to be biblically faithful positions. We simply do not have a substantive “liberal” wing of the denomination pushing for anything. Yet, this is the claim I’ve often heard from plumbline and “red line” aligned voices. Anyone who is supporting the AIC report is operating in service to liberalism and somehow degrading the denomination’s fidelity to scripture.
The reality is that the AIC report would make us more strict on the examination of candidates who struggle with same-sex attraction than we are currently. It moves us into a place of plain opposition to “identifying” with the sin of homosexuality by calling oneself a “gay christian”.[4] This would be, on paper, a more “conservative” official position than that of any other major North American Presbyterian denomination.
I do not state the above with the thought that being “more conservative” than other Presbyterian denominations is automatically good. Or that the AIC’s conclusions on this matter are all correct or beyond question. I continue to have issues with talking this much in our official documentation about one sin when ignoring so many others.[5] I wonder about the possible interpretation of the proposed amendment of 9-3a being read as making sexual sin more serious than other sins.
I do not discuss the “conservative” nature of the AIC recommendations to laud them without reservation. I bring it up to note that there is no PCUSA, “capitulate to culture whenever we can” voice in this discussion. There is no closet liberal presence. This is a discussion around theology and the applications of Reformed doctrine. Not a fight between conservative and liberal. Our debates rhyme with those of the past, but with completely different participants and goals.
The Strongest Rhyme Today
Almost fifteen years ago, John Frame wrote a detailed look at our theologically conservative, Presbyterian history of divisive issues over the past century.[6] It’s an overview of twenty-one of our areas of theological conflict over the past hundred years.
One of Frame’s takeaways from that century of conflict struck me as particularly applicable to our current debate. Frame wrote, “The Machen movement was born in the controversy over liberal theology. I have no doubt that Machen and his colleagues were right to reject this theology and to fight it. But it is arguable that once the Machenites found themselves in a ‘true Presbyterian church’ they were unable to moderate their martial impulses. Being in a church without liberals to fight, they turned on one another.” There are no liberals in this current debate, yet it feels that those holding to the “red line” position often find themselves unable to believe that and thus revert to old “we the conservatives against you the liberals” thought patterns and tactics.
But I believe this has led to a strange end result. When we define ourselves around conflict with another group, there can be a tendency to become like that group in our strategy and methods, if not in our goals. It seems to me that in inventing a liberal opposition within the EPC, the “red line” group seems to have given themselves permission to adopt the tactics of both the conservative movement in the PCUSA, and of the liberal PCUSA minority as they corrupted the church over the past century.
The Tactics of Division
I would offer three examples of ways that I’ve seen “red line” advocates adopt tactics that I saw myself, or have heard stories of, in the conflicts in the PCUSA from the 60s to the 2000s.
Publishing division for the world to see
Less than three weeks after the conclusion of the 44th GA in 2024, EPC teaching elders who are now “red line” advocates were seeking out national publications to complain about the results of the assembly and express disbelief that the AIC would produce anything worthwhile.[7] Less than six months after the assembly, and before the AIC had even begun their work on any proposed changes to EPC documents or positions, the Presbyterian Plumbline was born.[8] In their first volume, every single full article was criticizing an action taken by the General Assembly office, the NLT, or the General Assembly itself in the months prior.[9]
The organizing of secondary bodies for the publication of materials in opposition to the denominational authorities was a strong tactic for conservatives in the PCUSA in the 60s and 70s. But it seems an odd tactic when we have freedom for commissioners to have discussions on these topics at presbytery and GA. It seems a tactic that presupposes ill-intent in those on the other side of the debate, that assumes that conversation is useless and campaigning must begin.
Silencing the opposition while claiming to be silenced
The Plumbline editorial board recently wrote a lengthy article discussing how they are being silenced. I will not go over ground that I have thoroughly walked before,[10] but suffice it to say that (with one exception), I find all their examples of “being silenced” to actually be more along the lines of “being told no or being critiqued in their approach.”
Yet, in the midst of their accusations of being silenced, it was “red line” aligned voices who tried to silence five other presbyteries at the 44th GA. Advocates for the NRP ascending overture (seen as a precursor to the “red line” overture, but as I argue here,[11] more of a contributing voice in the formation of the AIC report), tried to have all other ascending overtures on the topic thrown out because of a paperwork technicality.
The Plumbline complains about being silenced, yet how many public debates on the topic have they assented to? How many contradicting voices are heard in their video calls? How many dissenting voices have been published in the Plumbline to give another perspective? The concern seems not to be with voices being silenced, but with their voice not being the only one heard.
Preparing ahead of time to twist the workings of the court in your favor
There was significant conversation on the most recent Plumbline/”red line” video call[12] of how to circumvent the normal workings of the denomination in order to get their preferred outcomes to the floor even if denied by the PJC or standing committees. I do not point this out to imply moral wrongness to this action. I think these actions are certainly within their rights.
But I think it is also hypocritical to paint others as the descendants of the PCUSA liberals while including “get the outcome I want regardless of the will of the commissioners” as part of the playbook. I would include in this critique the high number of “red-line” advocates who skipped the 2025 GA (and the chance to give in-person feedback to the AIC to shape their recommendations) in order to save up the money to send the maximum number of commissioners possible to the 2026 GA to vote against whatever the AIC produced. Again, not morally wrong, but a tactic I think more reminiscent of the open conflict of the PCUSA than is befitting our disagreements within the EPC today.
Conclusion
When we look at the historical similarities and dissimilarities between the debates of our Presbyterian past and present, I think I want to leave us with three key takeaways.
1. The PCUSA had lost its way more than fifty years before homosexuality became an issue du jour.
2. The current debate does not have a substantive “liberal” side. It’s more this kind of situation…
3. The “red line” advocates disagree with the “no liberals in the fight” analysis and as such seem to feel justified in utilizing the tactics of both the liberals and conservatives of the PCUSA debates of the 60s to 2000s to try and achieve their desired outcome.
- https://entishtheology.wordpress.com/2026/04/10/to-be-heard/ ↑
- https://entishtheology.org/2026/05/15/on-super-sins/ ↑
- I do not mean to disparage those who “fought the good fight”. I simply note that the founders of the EPC saw that it was time to leave even while the denomination was still officially affirming orthodox theology on the topic of homosexuality. ↑
- Only our current pastoral letter addresses the issue, and it says that is a “semantic issue” on which we could agree to disagree. That letter was overwhelmingly approved at the 2018 GA. ↑
- I return to my dead horse; we have no official guidance on pornography in the BoG and only a cursory handle on it in the ministerial vocational committee handbook. It hardly registers in our position paper or pastoral letter on sexuality. ↑
- https://frame-poythress.org/machens-warrior-children/ ↑
- http://www.christianitytoday.com/2024/07/evangelical-presbyterian-church-epc-general-assembly-sexual/ ↑
- Any group of people naming themselves after the dividing line of truth seems at the very least prone to accusations of pride… Perhaps discretion should’ve won out over alliteration there. ↑
- There was one collection of links, book recommendations, and quotes that, while clearly advocating for the same criticisms as the other articles, was not directly critical of the denomination. ↑
- https://entishtheology.wordpress.com/2026/04/10/to-be-heard/ ↑
- https://entishtheology.org/2026/05/26/homosexual-identity-and-arguments-from-convenience/ ↑
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW9eYYjHED4&t=5223s ↑