The Goldilocks Dilemma:
Why the EPC’s Middle Way
Cannot Hold

By Shawn Constance
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.

Consider what Westminster teaches. The Larger Catechism (Q. 75–77) describes sanctification as the Spirit’s work of renewing the whole person after God’s image, enabling mortification of sin and vivification of grace. Sin isn’t simply outward behavior; it includes inward corruption and sinful inclinations (WCF 6.5). Sanctification involves the progressive weakening of sinful desires and the growth of holy affections.

When a candidate publicly identifies with an abiding same-sex attraction — not as remaining corruption being mortified, but as a descriptor of personal identity — what does this communicate about sanctification? About the nature of remaining sin? About the extent of gospel transformation?

Westminster Confession 12–13 teaches that believers are adopted and assured, yet sanctification remains real and progressive. The Confession assumes that sin, even remaining sin, should be named, confessed, and mortified — not embraced as identity.

Officer qualifications (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6–7) require that elders be “above reproach” — not sinless but marked by evident godliness and a life that honors the gospel publicly. The church has always understood this to include not only outward conduct but also the testimony of progressive sanctification.

If presbyteries may grant liberty on this question — if officer qualifications, sanctification, and anthropology can be treated as matters not touching the system of doctrine — then what remains binding in Westminster beyond the seven-point Essentials summary?

The Pattern We’ve Seen Before

This pattern isn’t new. The Presbyterian Church (USA) followed a similar trajectory. The Auburn Affirmation of 1924 argued that doctrines like the virgin birth, the inerrancy of Scripture, and substitutionary atonement were “theories” about which Christians could charitably differ. Each controversy expanded the category of non-binding matters. Each step seemed reasonable in isolation. But the cumulative effect hollowed out confessional identity.

The PC(USA) didn’t drift by explicitly rejecting Westminster. It drifted by making “pastoral allowances,” by granting discretion on disputed matters — by appealing to charity and unity while quietly eroding doctrinal boundaries.

I don’t say this to suggest the EPC is doomed to repeat the PC(USA)’s path. The EPC’s constitution is stronger, and its evangelical commitments are real. But the mechanism is eerily similar: an expanding category of matters treated as outside the binding system of doctrine, a functional minimalism that doesn’t match constitutional intent, and an appeal to charity that overrides confessional clarity.

Two Paths Forward (Neither is “Just Right”)

The EPC now faces a choice. The gap between Confessional commitment and denominational practice is no longer sustainable. The denomination must either strengthen confessional accountability or continue expanding discretionary liberty until confessional substance is functionally lost.

• Path 1: Drift into minimalism. Some presbyteries continue to expand the range of non-binding matters. The seven-point Essentials become the de facto standard. Westminster becomes a historical document — honored in subscription vows but not enforced in practice. This is the PC(USA) trajectory.
• Path 2: Fragmentation without clarity. The EPC constitutionally affirms Westminster fidelity, but without clear boundaries or consistent enforcement. Presbyteries diverge sharply. Some ordain celibate SSA candidates; others refuse. Some ordain women (under the constitutional carve-out); others don’t. The “big tent” tears along predictable fault lines. This is the Anglican Communion’s path — organizational unity without doctrinal coherence, eventually leading to irreconcilable division.

The most troubling reality? The EPC currently shows signs of both paths simultaneously.

A Third Path: Principled Reform

But there’s a third option. The EPC could clarify how system subscription applies to disputed questions, strengthen officer examination standards, and define legitimate areas of presbytery discretion more explicitly. This requires distinguishing between matters truly secondary (baptism mode, millennial views, worship styles) and matters touching the core system of doctrine (sanctification, officer qualifications, sexual ethics, anthropology).

This isn’t abandoning the EPC’s founding vision — it is fulfilling it. The founders intended liberty on genuinely non-essential matters and bounded discretion on others, not liberty to redefine which parts of Westminster are binding.

Here’s what principled reform might look like:

1. Clarify what “system subscription” means. Presbyteries must articulate what constitutes an exception “out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine.” Does Westminster’s doctrine of sanctification bind its teachings on the nature of sin and holiness? If so, how?
2. Strengthen officer examinations. Sessions and presbyteries must examine candidates not only on the seven Essentials but also on sanctification, holiness, and the mortification of sin. Candidates should articulate how the gospel is transforming their desires — not merely managing their behavior.
3. Distinguish pastoral care from officer standards. The church must love, disciple, and walk with all believers struggling with sin, including sexual sin. But pastoral compassion doesn’t require lowering officer standards or treating sanctification as optional.
4. Reclaim charity grounded in truth. The EPC’s motto rightly elevates charity. But charity divorced from truth becomes sentimentalism. Real charity requires clarity about what Scripture teaches, what the church confesses, and what God requires of those who lead.

This path won’t be easy. It may cost the denomination some congregations. But it offers confessional integrity without fragmentation, and unity grounded in truth rather than functional minimalism.

Clarity is Charity

The EPC has long prized charity as its highest virtue — and rightly so. But charity without truth is mere sentimentalism. Charity that refuses to name error or clarify boundaries is cowardice or indifference. Real charity requires clarity: clarity about what Scripture teaches, what the church confesses, and what the church requires of its officers.

Clarity is charity to the candidate, who deserves to know what’s expected. Clarity is charity to the congregation, who have a right to leaders whose lives commend the gospel. Clarity is charity to the watching world, which needs to see that the church takes truth seriously.

The EPC’s founding motto — “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity” — is worthy. But it requires discernment to distinguish the essential from the non-essential. And that discernment can’t be left to sentiment, pragmatism, or unbounded presbytery discretion. It must be grounded in Scripture and the church’s confessional standards.

The Goldilocks Problem

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. The attempt to hold both positions — strict subscription in theory, broad discretion in practice — leads not to wisdom but to incoherence.

The Choice Ahead

The EPC stands at a crossroads. The choice can no longer be avoided. Will the denomination clarify its confessional boundaries and strengthen officer examination standards, accepting the cost of lost unity if necessary? Or will it continue allowing the gap between constitutional commitment and practice to widen until confessional identity is functionally lost?

The Goldilocks option — the “just right” middle way — cannot hold unless the EPC closes the gap between constitutional commitment and denominational practice. Unlike Goldilocks, we cannot go on choosing lukewarm porridge. We all know what the Lord said about a lukewarm church and it wasn’t good (Revelation 3:16). The time for choosing has come.

Note: AI assistance was used in producing this article. However, the theological arguments, structure, and substantive content are entirely the author’s own.