Recently, I read “An Open Letter to the EPC.”[1] In it, a group of concerned individuals address a denomination, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), and their consideration of receiving into fellowship Memorial Presbyterian Church and her teaching elders, including Greg Johnson, a same-sex attracted man committed to a biblical ethic for sexuality.
While I don’t have a categorical objection to “open letters,” they are… by their very nature… an extrajudicial effort to accomplish desired ends. In other words, it is a political effort.
Does that make it wrong? Not necessarily but the contents of this “open letter” is framing the discussion in unhelpful and inaccurate ways. Perhaps by defining the argument as a stand for “biblical purity and orthodoxy,” it will stoke the necessary political furor to prevent Memorial from being admitted into fellowship. I am not accusing anyone of being disingenuous. The anxiety and concern over compromising biblical standards are real. But I must be clear with my brothers and sisters in the EPC: the concerns as expressed are misplaced. Also, the level of anxiety I am witnessing seems to be inspiring behavior that is unbecoming of our Christian testimony.
I have been a Teaching Elder (pastor) in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) for over 15 years and served as chair of the regional committee overseeing credentials and accountability of pastors (Ministerial Committee of the Mid-America Presbytery, EPC) for the past 10 years.[2] I have recently left this roll, but I am well acquainted with, not only the work of Mid-America Presbytery as it engaged Memorial Church, but also the history of Memorial in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the denomination they recently left.
Out of my continuing affection for the EPC, I would like to reach out to my brothers and sisters in the denomination to address, first, the substance of the “Open Letter” and, second, the disturbing tenor of our “conversations” pertaining to Memorial.
First, for the substance. The letter makes four points why a same-sex attracted person[3] should be prohibited from ordination, and I will respond to them briefly.
“1. The Old Testament priority of sexual purity in the priesthood as a model for ministerial ordination.”
Sexual purity here must mean purity in practice. If it refers to desires as well, I don’t know a man alive who would qualify as sexually pure. As for Greg Johnson and the pastors of Memorial, they would affirm this sentiment. They are seeking to live either in a faithful marriage between a man and woman or in celibacy. I am not guessing. I have spoken with all of Memorial’s pastors directly. I find their testimony on this matter credible.
“2. The New Testament understanding of sexual ethics, temptation, and qualifications for church office.”
By a “New Testament understanding of sexual ethics, etc.,” I assume the authors mean abstaining for sexual practices condemned by the New Testament as sinful, including homosexual activity. As for temptations, I am again assuming this is a reference to the exhortations to lean against sin and sinful desires. This might be more explicit in the next point regarding concupiscence (the sinfulness of certain desires themselves). Greg Johnson and the pastors of Memorial agree with this sentiment, affirming New Testament sexual ethics, leaning against temptation and not only seeking to mortify sinful actions but sinful desires as well. I am not guessing. I have spoken with all of Memorial’s pastors directly. I find their testimony on this matter credible.
“3. The teaching of the Westminster Standards on the moral law, concupiscence, sanctification, and the heinous sin of homosexuality.”
Greg Johnson and the pastors of Memorial would agree with this sentiment, affirming the Reformed understanding of concupiscence, sanctification and the heinous nature of all sin, including homosexuality. I am not guessing. I have spoken with all of Memorial’s pastors directly. I find their testimony on this matter credible.
Some may have concerns about Johnson’s caution about the feasibility of “bringing to life” heterosexual attraction in same-sex attracted people. This seems to be a disagreement about whether having heterosexual desire should be included in our understanding of sanctification. Certainly, Johnson affirms that God has the power to do whatever He wills but makes the pastoral argument that ongoing sanctification may likely include a life-long leaning against addiction, alcoholism or same-sex attraction, as the case may be. Can God take these away? Of course. Will God take away our particular thorn in the flesh? He told the Apostle Paul, “no.” He may say the same to us. Disagreements about this is a worthy theological conversation. However, it seems a stretch to define this as an exception to the confession or our polity.
“4. Lessons from mainline Presbyterian history on the ordination of celibate homosexuals.”
I find this a curious inclusion as it implies (and later stated more clearly[4]) that acquiescence on the moral issue of homosexuality led to the apostasy of the mainline Presbyterian Church. If anything “led” to apostasy, it was the acquiescence on the doctrine of scripture and this happened decades ago. The mainline church also ordained a person failing to clearly affirm the divinity of Christ decades ago, an incident which contributed to the formation of the EPC in the early 1980’s (over 40 years ago). It was the combination of the cultural shift on matters of homosexuality and the lack of respect for scripture that led to the mainline affirmation of individuals engaged in the homosexual lifestyle in the ministry. The argument that this led to the apostasy of the mainline seems… to be frank… anachronistic. This is confusing a symptom with the cause. The mainline denomination… as a denomination… failed to uphold the orthodox Christian faith for decades before this shift on sexual ethics.[5] Though many make the comparison to what happened in the mainline denomination, the current circumstances couldn’t be more different. The EPC has a strong affirmation on the doctrine of scripture and so do the pastors of Memorial Church.
As it relates to the LGBTQ+ community, Memorial’s desire is to build bridges, preach the Gospel and advocate for a godly life. I am not guessing. I have spoken with all of Memorial’s pastors directly. I find their testimony on this matter credible.
There are some substantive matters on which even I have some questions. Memorial has been involved with the ReVoice Conference and have their own arts ministry, The Chapel. There are questions about the theological positions advocated by ReVoice and the nature of some events at the Chapel (Transluminate for example). In response to the questions related to these matters, Mid-America Presbytery sent observers to the most recent ReVoice Conference and representatives from the Ministerial Committee spoke with the director of the Chapel. The reports back to presbytery, broadly speaking, were that there was admiration for their evangelistic desire, concerns about some speakers at ReVoice and that even Memorial felt at times they didn’t exercise the wisdom they should have in the presentation held at the Chapel. This may not satisfy many (or even any), but then talk about these matters and not about things like concupiscence.
Am I trying to argue that the EPC should admit Memorial to her fellowship? This may seem hard to believe, but I am not advocating one way or another. I am simply pointing out two things: (1.) the concerns explicitly mentioned in the “open letter” have been well addressed, and (2.) the tenor or the current dialogue may have long-term deleterious impact on the denomination.
Now for what I consider to be that disturbing tenor. In writing this article, I realize that it may not make one wit of difference in the minds of those who have objections to Memorial entering the EPC. I first witnessed this at a presbytery council meeting when we began to talk about Memorial Church. Some members didn’t even know why we were bringing this up as the matter seemed clear. I asked what made it so clear. “You just need to open your Bible.” I found that remark incredibly dismissive and unhelpful. And I said so.
The Apostle Paul struggled with sin. He talked about this struggle clearly in Romans 7. He not only had sinful desires, but he also had sinful actions. Admittedly, some sinful actions do disqualify us from ministry. But do sinful desires disqualify us as well? Does a lustful look at someone who is not our spouse disqualify us? Does a desire to lose ourselves in a drink disqualify us? Is an addict continuing to lean against desires to get high disqualified? This is the conversation we should be having.
At another presbytery council meeting, we attempted to have that conversation. Again, some presbyters expressed dismay that we would even talk about admitting a self-confessed same-sex attracted, albeit celibate, man to the ministry. There was no engagement or discussion. When someone attempted to explain why this is not as clear cut as some may think (quite persuasively, I might add), my read was that it made no difference in the minds of those who disagreed. So asked to be sure: “Having heard these points, does this change your thoughts on the matter even an iota.” The simple response was, “no.”
The “conversation” doesn’t seem to be a conversation. We aren’t listening. We aren’t engaging. Sometimes the “conversation” seems unmoored from the facts. We are involved in a political exercise. The existence of an “open letter” at this stage of things seems proof of this.
And this is my greatest concern for the EPC: the character of the fellowship. For years, the EPC has thought of itself as the “less wound-tight, more friendly” option to the PCA. “We are more convivial, more open, more dialogue oriented than the PCA.” I must confess, having served in both the PCA and the EPC, I wondered how true this is. I sometimes think the EPC, while more pleasant on the surface, can also be conflict avoidant. Well, it seems the conflict cannot be avoided. What will it show about the character of the EPC? Some will argue, ‘any problems will be caused by Memorial.’ I am more inclined to think that this circumstance will reveal the defects already existing.
To my friends, colleagues and co-laborers for the Gospel in the EPC, as you participate in the General Assembly this week, remember that how you engage in this process may be as important… maybe even more important… than what you decide. My prayer for you is the same as I prayed with my children every night at bedtime. “Lord, make them bold in loving people, courageous in doing what’s right.”
Blessings on you all this week at General Assembly.
[1] https://sites.google.com/view/epcopenletter
[2] I rolled off that committee and moved into another denomination (the Presbyterian Church in America, PCA) in January 2024 but I remain invested in the general health of the EPC.
[3] In this circumstance, we are talking about an individual who experiences same sex attraction but adheres to a biblical ethic that affirms heterosexual marriage and sexual relations as God’s design, and that homosexual activity is outside of God’s stated will.
[4] From the Open Letter: “We earnestly plea that the EPC be discerning on this issue, which brought apostasy to the mainline church.”
[5] This is not to say that many orthodox congregations didn’t exist within the denomination.
Concord Solutions 