Essential Issues and Legitimate Differences in the EPC

An open letter and accompanying theological paper on same-sex attraction and ministerial ordination have been making the rounds of the EPC this past week. There is much I could say on the substance of the letter and paper (my thoughts on the topic are well documented on this page, especially in my recent talk on same-sex attraction and pastoral care) but instead I wanted to highlight and engage an unassuming paragraph in the paper. This was written by Don Fortson, a retired professor of church history from Reformed Theological Seminary, who has worked extensively on American presbyterian history, and authored Liberty In Non-Essentials, the official history of the EPC. He also has written quite a bit on confessional subscription and authored the EPC’s official guide on adopting and receiving the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. What Fortson said in the paper is,

This [homosexuality and the ordination of celibate, same-sex attracted people] is not a liberty in non-essentials issue. The EPC position on women’s ordination, is put in the non-essential category because it is recognized that there are legitimate differences in biblical interpretation on this topic. Both sides agree that there are texts of Scripture that may be understood to support either position. This is not true of homosexuality; there aren’t any passages, anywhere in the Bible, that say anything positive whatsoever about homosexuality.

The EPC’s motto is “Unity in Essentials. Liberty in Non-Essentials. In All Things Charity.” This motto is the true creed of the EPC. It shapes the way we think and act more than other doctrinal statement, its informal status notwithstanding. And Fortson’s argument here demonstrates that — to persuade people in the EPC he has to convince them that this is an “essentials” issue…