When discussing some of the recent developments in the CRC one person commented that there are a number of CRC pastors who have convictions that differ from synodical decisions of the last several years (2022-2024). That person referred to an article by Pastor Clayton Libolt as an example (A CONVERSATION: WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT SEX. PART 2 – Peripatetic Pastor).
Let’s take a look at that article. The key part of the reasoning given can be found in the following quote:
And for this last, it would seem to me that the church would do much better if instead of ruling LGBTQ+ people out, we ruled them in. We would be [a] more Christlike church, holier, if we accepted LGBTQ+ people and accepted them not as some think they should be but as they actually are. Part of what should be distinctive about holy community is that it includes those whom others exclude. And if we read the Bible in this way—not as a set of ancient rules set in stone, but as a living conversation between communities trying to be God’s holy people in different times—we will find that the Bible comes alive. In our conversations, the Spirit will speak.Clay distinguishes between ancient rules such as the prohibition of mixing two kinds of fabric in a cloth. It is true that such laws strike us as very strange today. One guideline for correctly understanding, especially the laws of the Old Testament, is that if a law is repeated in the New Testament, then it is a principle that is relevant for all ages. If it is only found in the Old Testament, then it is part of the ceremonial law that was done away with at the cross.
As Clay points out in this article, the law against homosexuality as contained in Leviticus 18:22 is also contained in I Corinthians 6 and I Timothy 1. One does not, however, find the law against combining two kinds of fabric in the New Testament. From this we can conclude that homosexuality goes against God’s will in the New Testament, but mixing types of fabric is not something we need to be concerned about today. The law against mixing fabrics was a ceremonial law.
A good way of discerning whether a line of reasoning is solid is to consider whether it might possibly prove too much. Let’s try that test here.
In I Corinthians 5 Paul instructs the church to remove a man from their fellowship. That man was sleeping with his father’s wife. Taking the approach of the above, one could reason that it is possible the father was a good farmer and could provide very well for the family. Assuming the son didn’t force himself on his father’s wife, it is possible she saw something desirable about the son. So, it is in fact possible the three found the arrangement each to their liking, even though, for different reasons.
Clay does not want to rule people out, he prefers to rule them in. So, his approach to this scenario could be used to say the church would be holier if it would accept these three for who they are, not who they are not. Should the church accept this kind of adultery and incest? If not, how would this example be different than Clay’s example concerning LGBTQ+ people? Let me be clear, I am not saying Clay believes this kind of polyamory should be accepted. What I am doing is to examine the approach or line of reasoning Clay is using. If the approach is the same in this case as in the case Clay raises, then the conclusion reached here tells us something about the approach Clay uses.
Due to the fact that Clay’s approach could be used to approve a wide range of unacceptable practices, we can see that his reasoning is not a biblical approach.