Did the EPC Rescind Its Old Position Paper on Homosexuality?

The question of whether the EPC rescinded its old Position Paper on Homosexuality, and if so, when this happened, was an item of debate at this year’s General Assembly. This question is unfortunately complicated by the unique combination of the EPC’s traditions, culture, and parliamentary rules. I’m going to address the procedural question first, and then provide some comments on the contents of the Position Paper on Homosexuality.

The EPC has two kinds of documents it produces from time-to-time. The first is Position Papers. Act of Assembly 05-03 (2005) defines Position Papers,

This definition is a refinement of a process that was established by Act of Assembly 84-09 (1984). The second kind of document is Pastoral Letters. Acts of Assembly 97-13 (1997) states,

The question is then, whence do these documents receive their authority and how do they work procedurally? The EPC’s constitution is divided into two parts: The Westminster Confession and Catechisms and the Book of Order. Neither of these standards speak to either Position Papers or Pastoral Letters. Book of Government 16-1C says that each court of the church, including the GA, has the right to establish the rules for its own governance. The GA has done this through its Rules of Assembly, which are published alongside the Book of Order. The Rules of Assembly are subordinate to the constitution, but bind each Assembly. They establish things like permanent committees and rules for handling overtures and votes. The Rules of Assembly can only be amended or suspended by a 3/4 vote, meaning that a future GA is bound by past-established rules unless a very high threshold is met. But the Rules of Assembly are silent on Position Papers and Pastoral Letters.

Below the constitution and Rules of Assembly sits the Acts of Assembly — the votes taken by one GA. Unlike the constitution or Rules of Assembly, the act of one GA does not bind a future GA. A future GA by a simple majority vote can move forward in relation to a past act in whatever way it chooses. This is the same for a Presbytery or Session or any body that operates under Robert’s Rules as the EPC does. For example, if a Session voted that all future church budgets needed 5/6 approval of the Session, a future Session could still approve a budget by a simple majority. The past act could not limit the future act, nor does the future act need to specifically say they are superseding the past act. Under Robert’s Rules, when a body adopts a new policy that conflicts with or covers the same subject matter as an existing one, the newer action supersedes the older to the extent of the conflict or the subject matter being covered. The body’s most recent expression of will governs.

Position Papers and Pastoral Letters are simply acts of the General Assembly.

The EPC’s tradition since the early 1980s has been to treat Position Papers in a distinct way: to approve a preliminary version in one year and then to adopt a finalized version in the subsequent year. This is what was codified in both Act of Assembly 84-09 and 05-03. They both established rules for modifying Position Papers (“…a Preliminary Position Paper may be adopted by one Assembly and modified or changed at any succeeding Assembly“; 84-05), (“…a Preliminary Position Paper…must be adopted or withdrawn by the act of another Assembly“, 05-03). However, those rules are acts of one past assembly and cannot bind a future assembly. A future GA can adjust any past act in any way that it wants.

While it would be counter to the EPC’s tradition and culture, the GA could adopt a new Position Paper on any subject at a single assembly by a simple, majority vote. It can change its understanding of any pre-existing Position Paper by a simple majority vote. But that’s never how the EPC speaks about Position Papers, which is part of the reason for the rise in disagreement about the status of old Position Papers.

Act of Assembly 05-03 speaks of withdrawing a Position Paper, but not modifying it like Act of Assembly 84-09. But this is further complicated because both acts are addressing Preliminary Position Papers, i.e., the version submitted to the first GA before being ratified at a subsequent GA. In 1984 the GA granted its initial approval to a number of Preliminary Position Papers, including one on capital punishment (Act of Assembly 84-14). This Position Paper was never fully approved; this seems to have been first noticed in the minutes in 1992 (Minutes, page 160). In 1995 the GA formally rescinded this Preliminary Position Paper (Act of Assembly 15-31), which was about removing it from its preliminary, pending status, not about retracting a formally adopted Position Paper. In 1994 the GA replaced the Position Papers on AIDS/HIV and Homosexuality with new editions on those subjects (Acts of Assembly 94-20; in 2005 the Position Paper on AIDS/HIV was revised and changed into a Pastoral Letter, 05-06); however, comparing the 1986/1994 editions of the Position Paper on Homosexuality shows that the “replacement” was really a slight modification. The GA has also voted to update Position Papers (Sanctify of Life and Abortion, 30-08) and revise Position Papers (Homosexuality, 14-07; Abortion, 12-01, 13-02; and Value and Respect for Human Life, 12-02).

Notably, none of the verbs used in these acts match the modify or withdraw from either 84-05 or 05-03, nor do they need to.

In short: the EPC does not have a formalized category for updating, revising, rescinding, or otherwise changing the status of its Position Papers. The status of EPC Position Papers depends on a single question: What was the most recent act of the GA related to the subject matter contained in the Position Paper? Asking “Was this paper rescinded?” is the wrong question. The proper question is “What is the status of this paper?”

In 2015 the GA voted to “Draft an expansion of the Position Paper on the Sanctity of Marriage to include revisions of the Position Paper on Homosexuality, a section on biblical singleness and other appropriate topics” (15-07). The rationale of the recommending committee was “that the position paper on homosexuality be revised and placed within a revised sanctity of marriage position paper addressing other like items like singleness” (Minutes, page 127). The committee formed to do this work brought back in 2016 a Preliminary Position Paper on Human Sexuality, which was the 2015 GA-commissioned revisions to the Position Paper on the Sanctity of Marriage and the Position Paper on Homosexuality. The GA in 2016 approved this Preliminary Position Paper and then finalized approval in 2017.

Was the old Position Paper on Homosexuality rescinded? No — it was revised and placed into a new a Position Paper on Human Sexuality. The GA does not need to vote to withdraw or rescind the old paper because it voted to revise and place it into the newly updated paper. The fact that the 2016 and 2017 votes on the new paper did not include the words “rescind”, “withdraw”, “revise”, or “replace” does not change this because under Robert’s Rules when a body adopts a new policy that conflicts with or covers the same subject matter as an existing one, the newer action supersedes the older to the extent of the conflict or the subject matter being covered.

Imagine a church with children’s minister and youth minister, each with their own job description. The Session decides they want a single position of family minister and that they want to combine the two current job descriptions into a new, single job description. At one meeting the Session votes to revise and place the two current job descriptions into a new job description and forms a subcommittee to handle that task. At a future meeting the subcommittee comes back with a recommendation to adopt the new job description, which the Session does. The Session at this second meeting does not need to include in its motion the statement “And this new job description formally replaces the two old job descriptions” for that unwritten statement to be true. The first votes makes it clear and the new job description covers the same subject material as the previous descriptions. There is now one active job description, not three.

So when was the status of the Position Paper on Homosexuality changed? In 2017, when the process of adopting the new Position Paper on Human Sexuality, into which the old paper was revised and placed, was completed. This is why the 2026 revision to the Position Paper on Human Sexuality included this footnote for clarification:

Position Papers are but acts of the General Assembly, and therefore the GA is free to determine their status. In 2026 the GA voted that the “‘Position Paper on Human Sexuality’; is the official update and revision of both the older ‘Position Paper on Homosexuality’ and the ‘Position Paper on The Sanctity of Marriage.'” The official status of the old Position Paper on Homosexuality is that it was updated and revised into the current edition of the Position Paper on Human Sexuality, a status that has been true since 2017 and formally clarified in 2026.

Now, I do think the Rules of Assembly should be updated to codify how Position Papers and Pastoral Letters are handled. But until then, this is how those documents are addressed.

The Content of the Position Paper on Homosexuality

The old Position Paper can be read here. It has been suggested that there is a significant gulf between the Position Paper on Homosexuality and the newer Position Paper on Human Sexuality, or at least its 2026 revisions. This is simply not true.

The old Position Paper was framed by two simple theses: 1) homosexuality is a sin; and 2) God forgives repentant sinners. It is almost entirely focused on the question of behavior and practice, while the newer Position Paper and Pastoral Letter also address issues of the heart. It does not address the question of attraction or desire, it makes only passing reference to orientation, and its singular comment about homosexual lust treat it as a subset of homosexual practice. The old paper also makes a series of claims about the similarities between homosexual sin and other sins that dissenters of the 2026 revisions, who tended to be supportive of the old paper, heavily criticized.

For example,

• “The Bible teaches that greed, lust, envy strife, etc., are characteristic of fallen man, and in that sense are our orientation from birth. But while they may be our natural orientation, they are still sin. Simply put, the Old and New Testaments consistently condemn homosexual practice and repeatedly affirm that God forgives the repentant sinner.”
  • Homosexuality is just like other sins that may be our “natural orientation” (i.e. “latent propensity”) and which demand repentance.
• “Some contend that for those engaged in homosexual practice, such practice can be considered ‘natural; and therefore pleasing to God. Using the same rationale, heterosexual persons could say, ‘It’s “natural” for me to be promiscuous; therefore, I feel that in God’s eyes, promiscuity is approved for me.’ God rejects this kind of rationalization. Romans 1:26 points back to the relations God established at the dawn of human history, that of husband and wife being one flesh.
  • In the same way that heterosexual promiscuity is unnatural, homosexual sin is unnatural. What makes sexual sin unnatural is its departure not simply from God’s design for heterosexuality, but God’s design for marriage.
• “The spiritual impact of homosexual practice is no different from any other sin.”

The conclusion of the paper was that homosexual practice, of which lust is a subset, is sinful, and that true repentance means turning from homosexual behavior to faithful obedience to Jesus.

The very literal final words of the actual paper are “Unrepentant homosexual behavior is incompatible with the ordination vows for the offices of Deacon, Ruling Elder and Teaching Elder.” It is the homosexual practice which disqualifies from ministry; the old paper is silent on issues of the heart.

The 2026 revisions to the Position Paper on Human Sexuality and Pastoral Letter on Same-Sex Attraction stand in direct continuity with the EPC’s position on homosexuality since the denomination’s inception. Homosexual behavior is sinful and disqualifying for church leadership, which includes the practice of homosexual lust, and Jesus can save his people even from destructive, sinful behaviors. There is no change here; what is new is that the EPC has now clarified what we expect that repentant heart to look like. The EPC’s newer material neither contradicts nor departs from its old position, but enhances it. Simply put, prior to the 2026 revisions, the EPC never had formal criteria in place for addressing what repentance and mortification of same-sex attraction looked like in the heart. The old addressed behavior; the new addresses character, conduct, self description, and the heart.