Goldilocks wanted porridge that was “just right” — not too hot, not too cold. However, the fairy tale does not have a happy ending. In the end, Goldilocks is confronted by the three bears and runs away into the forest. The EPC’s “just right” middle way has held the denomination together for 45 years, but can it continue? Either Westminster is binding as the system of doctrine, or it is advisory and optional. Either the standards for ordination are clearly enforced and understood, or they are subjective and negotiable. 

RE, Presbytery of the Central South

In the beloved fairy tale “Goldilocks and the Three Bears,” Goldilocks rejects the bowls of porridge that are too hot and too cold, choosing instead the porridge that is “just right.” It is a charming children’s story. But when applied to denominational identity, the search for “just right” and a middle way can lead to inevitable conflict.

For over 45 years, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has tried to steer a middle course among Presbyterian denominations. Unlike the PC(USA) — too liberal — and the PCA — too rigid on secondary matters — the EPC offered a safe haven for those who were committed to confessional orthodoxy while granting liberty in non-essentials. The denomination’s founding motto captures this vision: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.”

This wasn’t a pragmatic compromise. The EPC’s founders believed they were recovering something both Biblical and historically Reformed — a way to unite around Westminster’s doctrinal core while avoiding needless division over truly secondary matters. For four decades, the EPC has managed to maintain this “just right” vision and preserve its peace, purity, and unity.

However, what if the middle way — however well-intentioned — rests on structural tension? What if the current debate on same-sex attraction has exposed a gap between the EPC’s constitutional commitments and its practice — a conflict the founding vision cannot resolve? What happens when we cannot agree on what is essential?

The Theological Vision

The EPC’s founding vision was neither naïve nor unprincipled. It emerged from a specific theological conviction: that Reformed unity could be preserved by distinguishing between the system of doctrine contained in Westminster and particular applications left to Christian liberty.

The framers believed officers could “sincerely receive and adopt” the Westminster Standards and Book of Order as containing Scripture’s system of doctrine, while presbyteries retained freedom to judge stated exceptions — “scruples” not at odds with that system. The “Essentials of the Faith” — a seven-point summary covering Scripture’s authority, the Trinity, human sinfulness, Christ’s person and work, justification by faith, the Spirit’s work in regeneration and sanctification, and Christ’s return — would serve as a unifying doctrinal center. Beyond matters clearly touching the system of doctrine, charity and presbytery judgment would guide practice.

This model has genuine appeal. It honors the Westminster Standards through system subscription while allowing officers to state exceptions on matters not essential to the system. It creates space for evangelicals who share core Reformed convictions but differ on baptism mode, eschatological timing, or how they apply the regulative principle.

Can the Model Hold?

The question isn’t whether the EPC’s vision is attractive. It is. The question is whether the gap between constitutional commitment and actual practice can be sustained without undermining confessional integrity.

Here’s the tension: Westminster is comprehensive. It addresses not only the gospel but also ecclesiology, the sacraments, the moral law, worship, and officer qualifications. Officers who subscribe to Westminster “sincerely receive and adopt” it — along with the Book of Order — as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture. Presbyteries judge whether stated exceptions are “out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine.”

Constitutionally, the EPC affirms Westminster’s binding authority. In practice, however, the combination of system subscription, presbytery discretion, and the Essentials as a constitutional summary can drift toward doctrinal minimalism. When presbyteries exercise broad discretion without clear boundaries, the Essentials can become a de facto floor rather than a unifying center within a broader confessional framework.

The result isn’t structural subordination of Westminster to the Essentials — the constitution doesn’t say that. But the practical result can feel very similar: Westminster gets affirmed in principle, while some presbyteries treat matters outside the seven Essentials as open to nearly unlimited liberty.

For forty years, this approach worked. The disputed issues — women’s ordination (a specific constitutional carve-out), charismatic gifts, eschatology — could plausibly be treated as genuinely secondary without undermining Reformed orthodoxy. But now, the same-sex debate has threatened to change the equation.

Why the SSA Debate is Different

The EPC is considering a report by the Ad Interim Committee on Same-Sex Attraction that would permit presbyteries to ordain celibate candidates who identify with same-sex attraction, provided they meet certain pastoral conditions. Although wrapped in ambiguous language, the report strongly suggests that a person who identifies as homosexual and experiences ongoing same-sex attraction would not be disqualified from being ordained.

The proposed language uses strong Biblical terminology. It affirms that same-sex attraction is disordered and sinful, a result of the fall. It maintains the church’s historic teaching on sexual ethics. It calls for repentance and mortification of sinful desires. But it also grants presbyteries constitutional discretion to ordain celibate SSA candidates. That’s where the confessional tension emerges.

This isn’t primarily a pastoral question about how to love struggling believers. It’s a confessional question about anthropology, sanctification, and officer qualifications.

Read More