Five Major Concerns

by Rev. Paul Verhoef

Why 31 overtures are against full adoption of the CRC’s Human Sexuality Report.

Statements Against Heterosexual Marriages Only

.

Statement

What the 31 are not asking for, “. . . – unity without uniformity, diversity without fragmentation. In short, unity in our diversity.”

.

1. Excluded Voices

The requirement that all committee members agree with the 1973 report is objected to.

.

2. Naming the Harm

“Responses suggest that the committee’s synodically-shaped representation was disrespectfully inadequate and willfully exclusive.”

One overture states, “Members of our community will be harmed by the adoption of this report, as demonstrated by the personal impact statements that follow,” providing six anonymous personal impact statements (Agenda for Synod 2021, 421-425).

There is one more commonly mentioned harm – or at least real concern – of adopting the HSR: would we lose the leadership of the many affirming pastors, elders and deacons if we named the “traditional” position to be confessional?

.

3. Clarifying Confessional Status

“. . .  is there room for respectful disagreement?”

“The overtures say that the 1973 position on same-sex marriage was never given confessional status by Synod. It’s a position, not a confession. Unless Synod declares a position to have confessional status, it doesn’t. That’s what Synod said in 1975: office-bearers should operate with healthy respect for all CRC positions, but do not need to affirm them as confessions.”

.

4. Biblical and Theological Concerns

There is more careful scholarship for an “affirming” biblical theology today than there has been at any point in history. That doesn’t mean it’s right, but it is “out there.”

And there are concerns about the exegesis and conclusions around Matthew 19, a foundational text for the HSR.

.

5. Poor Scientific Representation

“If bias is a concern in how the HSR approaches its biblical and theological work, the concern about bias is amplified in regard to how the report uses science.”

.

A PLEA FOR UNITY FRAMED BY MUTUAL RESPECT

“One of the recurring themes from those overtures against fully adopting the HSR is a plea for unity. An overture from 25 students asks Synod to “prioritize the unity of the body of Christ.” Many churches name their experience of already having unity in mission while having diverse perspectives in their congregation.”

“I wonder if we need to have an honest conversation about mutual respect. What does the ‘respect’ in ‘respectful disagreement’ look like?”

.

Response

1. Excluded Voices

The matter of the requirement for committee members to agree with the report from 1973 has been covered here. Comments can either be posted at the bottom of this page or at the page linked above in order to continue this discussion.

.

2. Naming the Harm

“Members of our community will be harmed by the adoption of this report . . .” In order for the church to properly assess what harm would be caused, it is necessary to determine if the church’s historic stand on passages like I Cor. 6 has been correct or not. If it was correct, then eternal separation from God is the greatest harm one could experience. God gave us Special Revelation to guide our footsteps on matters like this so that we wouldn’t have to first comprehend all the biology, psychology, etc. etc. Do we really know what harm is caused by same-sex attracted people not being able to be in a relationship? Do we totally understand it? Some scientists are saying people are regretting transsexual procedures. At the least, is it unreasonable to think that leaders in a church, an organization based on the Bible, if they are moving in the direction of accepting same-sex marriages would have a good interpretation of passages like I Cor. 6:9-10? I haven’t been able to find any such good explanations. If anyone is aware of such, please let me know.

Those who become greatly dependent on alcohol also experience great suffering. They also get to the point sometimes that they commit suicide. That suffering is due to the fact that consuming too much alcohol is not a good thing. Do we know for sure that the difficulties, the suffering experienced by people who are same-sex attracted is not due to same-sex erotic acts being bad for a person just like drinking too much alcohol is bad? 

Concerning the quote, “fails to discuss or take into account the well-documented harms experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer youth” (426). Is this a matter of self-diagnosis? Is it reliable?

Concerning leaders leaving – is it good, healthy, for a denomination to have leaders who encourage people to do things that will exclude them from the Kingdom of God? Again, we must fully address our understanding of passages like I Cor. 6 in order to know which way to go. Yet very few people who are for accepting same-sex marriages will even discuss passages like that. If the experiences of denominations like the RCA and the United Methodist denomination are any indication, the CRC will likely loose leaders either way. It comes down to a question of needing to make the right decision because there will likely be losses regardless.

.

3. Confessional Status

The matter of respectful disagreement is raised here. If my son or daughter would go to a university where proponents of same-sex marriage are serving, the concern here is that they would be telling them it is alright to embark on a path that excludes them from heaven. With respect to a matter like that, in my mind there is not room for respectful disagreement. Can you help me to see this matter otherwise?

Verhoef is not addressing what the HSR advises. The HSR advises something that is different from what was decided in 1973 and 1975. If the Heidelberg Catechism requires office bearers to adhere to marriage being between one man and one woman, that is one thing. If the Catechism does not require it, that is quite a different matter. That is what is on the table currently and must be addressed.

.

4. Biblical and Theological Concerns

There is more scholarship for an “affirming” theology. But, so far, it is not convincing. Dr. Brownson’s book has been covered in considerable detail. The result was that it contains 15 critical errors. That claim has not been shown to be incorrect. The Grand Rapids East Report of 2016 was also covered in detail. It was shown to fall short of making a clear case.  

Concerning Matthew 19 being a foundational text for the HSR – the HSR’s treatment of I Cor. 6 is certainly foundational. Yet, all the authors of the videos have ignored the HSR’s exegesis. While Matthew 19 covers divorce, and is relevant to the nature of marriage, I Cor. 6 is very explicit in mentioning homosexuality. And it clearly prohibits it. Those in favor of same-sex marriage must address that passage. There is an open opportunity to do so at I Corinthians 6:9-10.

.

5. Poor Scientific Representation

Conversely, the fact that I Cor. 6 is not dealt with at all causes people to be concerned about how those advocating same-sex marriage deal with Scripture. The Bible is our only standard for faith and practice. True, the Reformed faith has always listened carefully to science as well. However, the Bible is our ultimate authority. Does science, for example, bring forward facts that cause us to question our historic reading of I Cor. 6? By ignoring the most explicit passages of Scripture and placing a heavy emphasis on science, science is actually being given the predominant position of authority, even over Scripture.

.

Concerning A Plea For Unity

Unity is certainly a matter that Christians need to take very seriously, we must work hard to foster unity. Verhoef raises the question, “I wonder if we need to have an honest conversation about mutual respect. What does the ‘respect’ in ‘respectful disagreement’ look like?” It is fortunate that a past synod has provided information that is very helpful in this regard. As a result of the matter of the ordination of women the Agenda for Synod 2000 (page 374-376) contains a section entitled “Differences and ecclesiastical unity.” According to this article if a matter is an essential doctrine or a moral standard, it is not something that we can agree to disagree on. Same-sex marriage is a moral matter. Matters of sexuality have always been considered very significant by the church over the millennia.

Therefore, this material from the 2000 Agenda provides direction that Verhoef is looking for.  

Verhoef refers to the overture from 25 students That also has been covered quite thoroughly at this website.

.

By way of overview of the above we have:

1. There are a number of good forums for those advocating same-sex marriage. They need to speak up.
2. Naming the harm, is there anything more harmful for a person than exclusion from heaven?
3. Concerning confessional status – I personally do not want to be in fellowship with anyone who encourages others to engage in actions that exclude them from heaven.
4. Biblical and Theological Concerns – it is very troubling that those advocating same-sex marriage do not propose an understanding of I Corinthians 6:9-10 that is compatible with acceptance of same-sex marriage.
5. Scientific Representation – is there solid scientific data that supports same-sex marriage? Is science a higher authority than passages such as I Corinthians 6?
6. Concerning a Plea for Unity – the Agenda for Synod 2000 contains good, biblical advice for how to assess the significance of this issue; we cannot agree to disagree.

Is there sufficient substance in these five points to merit not accepting the report? The Bible is God’s Special Revelation, given to provide light and direction for our daily lives. The choice is ours, we can either turn our backs to it or we can follow it and be blessed by it.