As we’ve made our way through this series, I’ve tried to group similar concerns and questions together to allow for as much continuity between topics as possible. But there are a number of ideas, concerns, and problems that have been raised by one group or another that don’t fit perfectly into one of our previous topics. Today, I’m going to address a group of practical concerns which I have heard expressed by “red line” advocates, as well as by others who are critical of the “red line” overture and some specific elements of the AIC report.
Addressing the Concerns of “Red Line” Advocates
The Slippery Slope
I want to affirm first that there is a very real slippery slope to be avoided here. It is always possible for us to fall away from faithfulness to the Lord. And while a sudden fall is possible, so is a slow decline and capitulation to the world, the flesh, and the devil. I want to commend the desire to prevent our denomination from sliding from faithfulness. Yet, I think there are two mistaken assumptions in this concern that keep it from being accurate in its claims.
First – The assumption that the slope has only one slant. I was recently speaking to a TE I greatly respect when he suggested that Christians will always drift toward (and fall off) to the left, into liberalism. While his statement has some merit, being the majority experience in American protestantism of the past hundred years or so, I don’t think it’s a universal experience either here and now,[1] or abroad and throughout history. There are two lost brothers in the parable of the prodigal son. The Pharisees and the tax collectors are both sinners in need of salvation. Proverbs 4:27 urges us, “Do not swerve to the right or to the left; turn your foot away from evil.” I think when we’re walking the road of the Christian life, it’s imperative to know that I can slide down the slope on EITHER side, legalism or licentiousness.
Second – The assumption that the “red line”/plumbline advocates are themselves at the pinnacle and in a position to judge where their opponents are upon the slope and what will cause a fall. In earlier articles I’ve addressed my belief that these advocates are themselves succumbing to cultural and non-Reformed theological sources in their exegesis of key passages and their underlying assumptions about the nature of sin and sanctification.[2] I could be wrong. But I have concerns for anyone who places themselves as the “plumbline” of truth in a debate between two groups of Reformed, Bible-believing Christians who are both seeking the mind of Christ. If EPC elders content with the AIC recommendations are in danger of falling down a leftward “slippery slope”, is it not possible that our “red line” advocate brothers and sisters are in danger of falling down a rightward “slippery slope” into legalism by creating extra rules and regulations absent from the clear teaching of scripture?
Bad for Our Image
Former stated clerk Jeff Jeremiah sent a letter to the majority of EPC congregations last year urging the adoption of the “red line” overture in all presbyteries. One of his stated “what’s at stake” points, if the AIC report is accepted, said, “We will lose our reputation with other bible-believing denominations in the US and globally; the EPC will be perceived as a denomination that no longer submits to the authority of scripture.” In my opinion, Dr. Jeremiah’s letter was full of assertions without basis and his opinions stated as facts.[3][4][5] I do not have the pages nor the desire to address all of them. But I have heard this one echoed at least once elsewhere and think we should make two points.
First – Popularity is not our goal. Later in his ten points Dr. Jeremiah laments that we are having the AIC conversation because, to the EPC elders who disagree with him, “the fear of man is more important than the fear of God.” But, which is it? Do we need to fear God more than man and pursue faithfulness even if it is unpopular, or should we shy back because it will (supposedly) tarnish our image with other Presbyterians?
I believe that scripture says that there is only one acceptable answer here. Faithfulness first, always. If the majority believe the AIC report is faithful to scripture, then what can man do to us?[6] Blessed are those who leave house and home and family and the good regard of imagined denominations for Jesus.[7] This is also true if I’m wrong and we as a denomination do decide to sign on to the “red line”. If that is biblical faithfulness, then so be it. Let us abandon all human approval in pursuing it! Image shouldn’t be a part of this conversation.
Second – Dr. Jeremiah and the other “red line” advocates, via the Plumbline, are the ones who have been maligning and disparaging our denomination on internet forums and in numerous national media interviews for a year and a half. They’ve been letting the whole internet know how awful the EPC is and how much the (imaginary) liberals have taken over. How do we get around to bemoaning the lowered public standing of the denomination after intentionally killing its reputation for a year and a half? The meme has come to life!
Churches Will Leave
There were threats to this end two years ago. Some churches have preemptively left already. This is a legitimate possibility and worthy of consideration. How should we respond?
First – This is likely true, but true in both directions. I know of churches who feel constantly imposed upon by our fundamentalist wing and the “red line” overture would probably push them over the edge. I know of churches who feel constantly imposed upon by our more baseline evangelical wing and the AIC report would probably push them over the edge. I know of churches who are just tired of having to tolerate female TEs and REs, or female TEs and REs who are tired of only being “tolerated” by some, and either group might see this as the time to split. While it seems the Plumbline/”red line” crew only dislike one of these outcomes, I would be saddened by either.
I love our fundamentalists. They keep me honest in important ways, they sharpen my understanding of righteousness and holiness. I love our broadly evangelical folks. They keep me focused on the great commission in a world where my focus can be so easily drawn aside and help me see God’s love. I don’t want to lose anyone. But we probably will. We live in a fracturing and divisive world and we are not immune. We should cling tightly, but also with an open hand. Knowing that the Lord will work all of this, even churches going to other denominations or independence, together for His glory and our good.
Second – We are explicitly told in the bible, over and over, that what is faithful is not always popular. If a bigger denomination always means better, the SBC is probably the answer.[8] We are called to be Gideon’s faithful 300, to be the remnant who join Phinehas in destroying evil and promoting good even if the whole nation is against us, to be the disciples who when many are leaving, say, “Where else can we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Faithfulness and truth is the standard, not popularity.
Third – Anyone in church leadership knows the intense danger of allowing the “heckler’s veto”. If you allow, “if you do X I’m leaving!” as a valid stop for a necessary conversation, then everything that person doesn’t like becomes an opportunity to do the same thing again. If you give a mouse a cookie… If we make this call based on “if you don’t ____, I’m leaving,” in either direction, what is to keep the same from happening the next time a non-essential which that congregation or group of congregations doesn’t like comes up? Say, women’s ordination?
The Homosexuality Position Paper Is Better
I first heard this one on a recent video call hosted by the Plumbline. Dr. Jeremiah claimed of the homosexuality paper, “It says some things in that position paper that are diametrically opposed to what the AIC is proposing.”[9]
When I heard that claim, I was surprised. I was at the Assembly in 2015 when the decision was made to make the position paper on human sexuality our outward facing voice on the issue and to keep the homosexuality paper but make it available by request like our pastoral letters. I didn’t remember any controversy over it conflicting with the new position paper. Only whether it was still needed, as much of its content was included in the later paper.
That seemed like a pretty big accusation. Especially coming in a section of the call when it was alleged that there is a conspiracy for the current AIC to try and sideline the homosexuality position paper.[10] So I went and read the paper. And I’m making it available here because if that accusation is true, I think it would mean a full reset for the AIC.
But the thing is, I can find nowhere that the homosexuality paper and the AIC’s recommendations contradict. The homosexuality paper never once references homosexual attraction or desire as categories. It was written to confront a different cultural situation and set of questions than what we are tackling today. As someone generally in favor of the AIC recommendations, I have no major disagreements with the position paper on homosexuality. I don’t think it is as well written or as grounded in scripture as the position paper on human sexuality. And it is clearly aiming at a much more narrow target. But it is a good and accurate representation of our position as a denomination and of mine as someone who generally supports the AIC recommendations.[11]
Why Not a Simpler Answer?
I’ve heard this argument from a number of sources, both in national conversations and from my own session. This is likely the objection to which I give the most credence and with which I most empathize. Here are two things to consider when thinking through this objection.
First – We are Presbyterians, have you met us? I once talked to a Christian of a generic, non-denominational background and when I said I was Presbyterian, his response was along the lines of, “Oh, aren’t you, like, the smart and confusing Christians?” Dear reader, I felt seen and I did not like it.
This is who we are. We’re the people who want to plumb the depths of scripture. We want to tread the realm of theological mysteries and explore rabbit holes that 98% of the human population does not care about in the least bit. Our systematic theologies could kill a man if dropped from a high place. Our membership classes are sometimes more intense than other churches’ leadership classes. We are the people of paradox and the ones who want to know God in His majesty to the utmost of our abilities. I want to give grace to folks on the AIC who, perhaps, got a little too excited about mining every theological depth in their writing.
Second – Simple isn’t always right. We all know Christian groups whose doctrine is more “straight forward” than our own that we would say is also deficient. I teach pre-destination, the Ordo Salutis, TULIP, and spiritual presence in the Lord’s Supper every time we welcome new members as a church. I KNOW there’s some pastor out there doing it WAY more simply than I do. That doesn’t mean they’re right.
I think simplicity is a worthy goal. I am receptive to criticisms that the AIC has gotten too “in the weeds” on some of their recommendations. I urged REs during the formative stages of the AIC’s work to send in just that criticism and make sure that it was heard. But I don’t think being complex disqualifies the report IF it is also biblically faithful.
Addressing the Concerns of “Red Line” Opponents
One thing that I think has gone largely undiscussed in the vocal nature of the Plumbline/”red line” advocates’ complaints toward the AIC report is that there might be other individuals or groups in the denomination who have struggles with the AIC report for very different reasons. I’ve reached out to a number of folks to try and get a sense for any issues they personally might see or that they are hearing from their elders or congregations, and I identified a handful of issues that seem worth addressing here.
Why Elevate One Type of Sin Above Others
The argument here is that, by including the “chastity and sexual purity” language in the book of government[12], we are elevating one group of sins (sexual) above all others. I am sympathetic to this concern in a similar way to the “Why is this so complex?” and “Is this a slippery slope?” objections above. This is a good question to ask and an important one for all commissioners to answer. We do not want to be like the PCUSA or others in subtracting from God’s word. But we also do not want to be like the Pharisees in adding to it by inserting our own traditions and structures if they do not match to the Word of God.
This said, my primary reason in not personally feeling the sting of this objection is that I don’t think we have to read the AIC’s BoG edits as “elevating” sexual sin, so much as adding further clarity to the already existing description of what the life of an exemplary candidate for office looks like. The pre-existing part of BoG 9-3 which remains unchanged describes many of the character requirements found in the qualifications for ministry of I Timothy and Titus. But it does not currently include a reference to the “husband of one wife” clause which we, as theologically conservative Christians, would say requires chastity in singleness or fidelity in a one man/one woman marriage.
Could we not view the additions to 9-3 as an expansion upon those character traits required of ordinands in the pastoral epistles, rather than as an implicit note of condemnation upon one type of sin? In other words, is this edit elevating a category of sin, or are we doing so in our hearts because of the conversation and debate that has led to this change? If this were the original language of the BoG, would we read it the same way that we do today in our current disagreements? I think that the language in and of itself, without reference to outside events or rationale, does not strike me as necessarily elevating one form of sin above others.
Is “Gay Christian” Always Bad?
I’ve heard from folks who largely agree with the old pastoral letter’s footnote position on “gay Christian” that stressed that a person could use the term with good intentions.[13] So, the argument here goes, why spend multiple paragraphs arguing (my summary, not the AIC’s) that while someone could refer to themselves that way innocently out of ignorance and with a good heart, we should nevertheless consider the cultural lens of our day and discourage the use of that phrase, going so far as to see it as a red flag for an ordinand? Again, I have sympathy for this concern and think it is coming with a good heart.
My answer would be, there may be some places in the world and times in history where “gay christian” doesn’t have the connotations that it does here and now in the United States.[14] But I don’t live in any of those places, I live here and now. And it would, in almost all cases, be a red flag to me for an ordinand to describe themselves as a “gay christian”, knowing the connotations carried by that terminology in our world today.
I agree with the position that Christians struggling against same-sex attraction could use such language out of a naive lack of understanding, certainly. But I would want to hold ordinands to a higher standard, both in their presentation to the watching world and in their knowledge of the conscience issues of brothers or sisters in the denomination regarding that terminology.
Why Remove “No Condemnation” Language from the Pastoral Letter?
The short answer is, I don’t know! I can see in the revisions that they began a long and involved rewrite at that paragraph (page nine on the comparison document available here.) My guess would be that they felt that that particular sentence was confusingly written (I’d agree) and that they would add the general idea later in the replacement paragraphs (arguable). I’m not sure how else to address this concern as it speaks more to motives and heart than I have knowledge of. The AIC has been very open to communication throughout the process and I would guess that they would continue to be so in these final weeks before the Assembly.
A (Not So) Hypothetical Case
I beg your patience for one final thought. There is a group of people who have gone unaddressed in practically every conversation I have been a part of on this topic. What about believers who struggle with SSA, but choose Jesus AND choose a marriage to another Christian of the opposite sex, even in the midst of that struggle?
This is a group that, while rare in previous generations, was not unheard of. What if we pass the “red line” overture, and you have a member of your college of elders ask for a meeting. He’s a pillar of the community. A widower who loved and was faithful to his wife for fifty years, five kids, ten grandkids, etc. And he says that in his day, you didn’t worry about what you wanted sexually, if you were a Christian, you got married and had kids. But the temptation, while mortified and a very small part of his life, never fully went away. Even in his old age, he thinks that propensity is in there somewhere. Does this person need to resign his eldership?
This isn’t a tiny side group we can shuffle to the side because it’s hard to discuss. It’s a group that is increasing in number amongst Gen Z Christians. It’s a group that contains some of the finest apologists for a Christian view of sex and marriage, the Christians doing the most to stand up for a Biblical view of sexuality in front of a watching world.
I think of Rebecca McLaughlin, writer of multiple excellent works that defend an orthodox view of sexuality. Rebecca is married to a Christian husband and confesses that she continues to be prone to SSA. If she is tempted to lust, it is toward a woman. Yet, Jesus is more important to her than her sexual desires. She testifies to God giving her the gift of specific love and desire for one man, her husband, and their pursuing Christ together.
Would she be disqualified from office, despite pursuing the Lord in her heart, mind, soul, and strength and pursuing a Christian marriage? And If not, why not? There is no carve out in the “red line” for her or any other case which could be imagined.
We’ve discussed a number of questions, concerns, and issues in this article! I hope you come away with some food for thought. I hope you come away thinking well of brothers and sisters with different convictions on this issue. I hope you come away with a renewed passion to work out our differences and pursue the mind of Christ together in his Word and in our Confession.
- The rise of the post-Christian right in recent years, who value the trappings of Christianity but not a Lord and Savior, should prove that a “second slope” is becoming more prominent even now. ↑
- https://entishtheology.org/2026/05/19/sanctification/ ↑
- “The historic orthodox Christian church has never knowingly ordained a person with ongoing unnatural sexual desires.” This is a laughable claim for total knowledge of church history. It’s also claiming that the PCA is not a “historic orthodox Christian church” as they’ve done this very thing in recent history. ↑
- “We will be affirming ‘gay is ok’” – At no point is this statement or sentiment encouraged in the AIC report, read them for yourselves. Don’t trust the statements of those who chose to reject whatever came out of the AIC before they had even met. ↑
- “This [homosexuality] is one of the primary reasons the founders [of the EPC] left PCUSA” Dr. Don Fortson in his exhaustive history of the EPC’s founding, “Liberty in Essentials”, only passingly mentions homosexuality as one of many signs of liberalism that were of concern to the founders, and in fact emphasized that the PCUSA was still officially espousing an orthodox position on the issue at the time of the EPC’s founding. See “Liberty in Essentials” pages 35-37. ↑
- Psalm 118:6 ↑
- Matthew 19:29 ↑
- Shudder. No offense, Baptist friends. ↑
- Direct quote. I and another TE have both watched to make sure I am not misrepresenting Dr. Jeremiah. ↑
- Again, another TE listened and made sure I wasn’t hearing things. ↑
- In fact, the main difference between the two that I found is a specific sentence which would seem to be even further from a “red line” position than the AIC report. The old Position Paper on Homosexuality says, “the spiritual impact of homosexual practice is no different from any other sin”, seemingly going further than the AIC report in declaring homosexuality to be a sin, but not a super sin. ↑
- Here is a link to find all of the AIC’s proposed revisions to the BoG, Position Paper on Human Sexuality, and Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality. https://epconnect.org/adinterimonssa/ ↑
- I know some of the “red line” folks will say, “look, it’s them, the closet liberals!” To which I would say, we overwhelmingly (I was there, there wasn’t significant opposition) approved the pastoral letter including that footnote within the last 8 years. Let’s have some grace for the people who thought what you thought a few years ago. ↑
- And the Bahamas, Puerto Rico, and Spain. Welcome to our Floridian, Caribbean, (and soon Spanish) brothers and sisters! ↑