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…
Roman and Reformed Right-Worship
“I’ve been very vocal in my love and devotion to the [Traditional Latin Mass] and its necessity for our lives. But what I think gets misunderstood is that people who attend the TLM do so out of pride or preference. I can speak to my own experience, but for most people I have come across within these communities this simply is not true. I do not attend the TLM because I think I am better than others, or for the smells and bells, or even for the love of Latin. I attend the TLM because I believe, just as the God of the Old Testament was pretty particular in how he wanted to be worshipped, the same holds true for us today. It is through the TLM that I encountered order, and began to pursue it in my own life.”
This was NFL kicker Harrison Butker’s explanation in a recent commencement address at a Catholic college for why he attends the Latin Mass. Michael Brendan Dougherty agrees, saying, “One reason to attend the Traditional Latin Mass is that the God of the Bible is revealed to be especially interested in right-worship.”
Absolutely God is interested in right worship, and both Butker and Dougherty go on to have good insights about the good ordering of worship that comes with a structured, rooted, reverent liturgy. However, they both make a logical leap that is characteristic of Roman Catholics on this point. Yes, God is interested in right worship and is very particular about how he is worshiped. But God nowhere reveals or commands that particularity be expressed in the Traditional Latin Mass.
This is where the Roman and the Reformed catholics differ: we both believe God is particular about worship, but we Reformed think he’s actually revealed what right worship looks like in the Bible, whereas the Romanists think the church’s traditions capture God’s design. In Matthew 15:9, Jesus makes the point that well intentioned, well designed worship of God is vain if the commandments and traditions of people are held to be divine in nature.
Church Leadership Book Reading, Year 2
This past year I continued hosting a monthly book club with the leaders (mostly aimed at elders) of my church, aimed at theological and biblical development, conversation starters for ministry, and growing in a shared, cohesive vision for our church. The year 1 list can be found here. Below are the books we read together this year.
Same-Sex Identity and Pastoral Care
This is a lightly edited manuscript of a training talk I delivered to my presbytery on Saturday, April 27th 2024 on same-sex identity and pastoral care. The audio can be found here. The assumed audience is a mix of pastors and lay elders who have a passing familiarity with the topic. They were provided this reading list in advance. This talk doesn’t nearly hit everything related to this subject (I’ve written a good bit on other aspects of it here) but was aimed at providing a Reformed, Westminsterian framework for ministry to those who are same-sex attracted. As an aside, I am very aware that I mispronounced “concupiscence” in my talk; alas, it is a mistake I slip into all too often!
Introduction
I’d like us to imagine two pastoral situations, that if you haven’t already encountered, you’re likely to. First, a man in your congregation comes to you and says “I believe in the traditional Christian sexual ethic, that sex is reserved for marriage and marriage is the monogamous union of a man and a woman. But I’ve always struggled with same-sex attraction. I don’t indulge that desire in thought or action, but that compulsion or orientation to same-sex attraction has been present with me my entire adult life. Pastor, do I need to repent of that orientation?”
A lot of us are wondering what the big deal with the question is. Half are probably thinking, “He’s not acting on it, so of course he doesn’t need to repent! He’s already given up so much for Jesus, it’s cruel to add new laws on top of him.” The other half are probably thinking “Of course he needs to repent! A same-sex orientation is sinful, and ignoring any remnant of sin is a form of indulging sin!…”
Learning from the Exvangelicals
I have a review of Sarah McCammon’s book The Exvangelicals up at Mere Orthodoxy. Here’s an excerpt:
