.
Statement For Overture 20 – We Need To Delay So More Studying Can Be Done
.
The heading of Overture 20, as contained in the Agenda to Synod reads as follows:
Overture 20: Amend Recommendations of the Human Sexuality Report; Continue Deliberation re Human Sexuality; Delegate the Issue of Same-Sex Marriage as a Decision of Local Conscience
The agenda to the Synod of 2021 will be found here. Overture 20 begins on page 395.
The specifics of this overture are being considered in order to learn how this overture can contribute to the over all understanding of human sexuality. It is also important for the church to listen to its younger members. No one of us has the corner on truth and beneficial insights.
The recommendations of the overture, among other things, is that a final decision on the Human Sexuality Report should be delayed and further study of the topic should take place. Much has been written, especially in the last 10 years on this topic. The purpose behind this review of Overture 20 is to look at the considerations it brings forward to see how they stack up in comparison to the Human Sexuality Report and available thoughts on relevant biblical interpretation. With a topic of such far-reaching consequences and of such great impact as sexuality holds for so many people, the church could continue studying it for 100 years and still not be finished resolving all the differing understandings. Are there, in fact, valid biblical arguments both for same-sex marriage and against it? It is true that one can find theologians on both sides of the issue. But the church has always been called to discern whether a particular interpretation is valid. Dr. Brownson’s book has been examined in detail and the claim has been made that it contains 15 critical errors. At this point, none of those 15 supposed errors have been shown to be wrong. If Brownson’s position is in fact valid, then it will be possible to defend it and show that those supposed 15 errors are actually not errors after all.
As this overture is considered we need to ask if it is sufficient evidence for either a.) the CRC to delay making a decision on the Human Sexuality Report in order to study this point further, or b.) if this point is evidence for the CRC to not accept the report.
The following are important considerations which the overture brings forward:
- Unity, local option (page 395)
- Fruit of the Spirit in LGBTQ people (page 399)
- Theology that does harm – questionable (page 400)
- One’s identity as created in the image of God (page 400)
- Careful deliberation still required (page 400)
- Constituency yields imbalanced biblical interpretation (page 400)
- Lack of gender minorities “markedly insufficient” (page 401)
- Younger generation more accepting of unity (page 401)
- Faithful and respected scholars hold those views (page 402); credible views (page 411, twice)
- Local discernment can bear healthier fruit on some vulnerable, contentious matters because it is harmful to remove the “particulars” of an individual’s story to create a “universal rule” in our quest for the false idol of certainty (page 403)
- Would this proposed confessional status apply retroactively to remove church membership for those in disagreement with the report or only apply to new members? (page 403)
- A careful, in-depth exploration of biblical and theological foundations for alternate viewpoints that favor the celebration of gender/sexual minorities and same-sex marriage. (page 411)
- Curriculum (page 411)
- Confessional status is both erroneous and an overreach (page 412)
- Article 69-c (page 412)
- Harm to them, reconciliation . . . (page 414)
.
Response
At this stage each of the points given above are worth considering. For example, unity is very important in the pages of Scripture. However, going to the topics that are linked to their own page, it is quite consistent, each of these topics needs to be developed further. Is unity a completely unrestricted matter, one of highest priority regardless of any other consideration? Concerning the fruit of the Spirit, can we as humans discern from people’s actions whether they are acting out of a pure heart? And isn’t God’s Word on such matters a clearer indicator of what is right in God’s eyes?
Unless the ideas listed above are developed further at this point it appears there really isn’t reason here to object to the Human Sexuality Report.
.
Conclusion
Each of the main points raised by the overture are relevant points to be considered. However, each of these points is essentially introduced in the overture, but is not developed very far. Even with the coverage of these topics through emails no further development of the points was realized. It is our understanding that as the separate points currently stand they do not comprise sufficient grounds to delay acting on the Human Sexuality Report so that more studying can be done.
As more comments are made and as further studying is done these statements will be reviewed in the event this estimation should change.
2 replies on “Overture 20 to the CRC Synod of 2021 (2022)”
The creeds of the church were formulated not just on the basis of unity — they were decisive responses to a conflict. We have never needed to declare some things before because they were always a given. The differences highlighted by the overture are an indicator that we no longer agree on basic Genesis 1-3 distinctions. 1) The distinction between the creator and the createe 2) The distinction between humanity and animals 3) The distinction of a God pleasing marriage between a biologically born male and a biologically born female 4) The role of male and female 5) and in today’s political environment – the role of the parent vs. government. It is going to become more and more difficult if our conversations do not arise out of similar distinctions which are biblically undeniable.
I would like to revisit this “confessional status” issue one more time. Just because Ursinus clarifies one of the statements in our confessions does not raise his comment to the same level as that of the confession itself. I signed the three forms of unity not Ursinus’ interpretation. It seems we so glibly state that slavery and women’s ordination are now different from the sixteenth century, we no longer agree with its implied interpretation. Slavery was an accepted part of society included the life of the church. Barring women from office was an accepted part of the church. Now that we have officially changed our positions from that held by those who wrote the Confession, might we not do the same on the issue of human sexuality? It seems to me that we are going through the same process we did with slavery and barring women from office. Now we are holding as tightly on same sex relationships as we previously did on the other two. Additionally, we claim that this position is affirmed by the church’s Confessions and thus ought to be cast in concrete as are the Confessions. That does not logically follow at all, it seems to me.
I have signed the three forms of unity as being [mostly] faithful to Scripture, but I do not nor will I agree to Synodical decisions in the same manner. I stated, mostly, for I have a hard time with double predestination, for example–reprobation, not predestination. Let me cite yet another example. Synod in 1981 stated that capital punishment was permitted under very carefully defined circumstances. Synod in 2005 approved the Report on Restorative Justice which negates the 1981 decision on capital punishment. If the church believes in restorative justice, it cannot at the same time believe in the ultimate form of retributive justice that of state-sanctioned executions. I have never believed in capital punishment as a balancing of the justice scales and won’t. My 25 years as a prison chaplain with the Federal Bureau of Prisons affirmed my own position of being against executions which, I assume, is a direct violation of the 1981 Synodical decision affirming capital punishment. Capital punishment too was assumed to be a just form of punishment by the authors of our confessions.
My point is that we have allowed for historical conditions present at the time of the writings of our Confession. As those historical conditions have changed, and radically so, the church has officially changed its position. Might not the same happen in the future with same sex relationships? Confessional statements cast in concrete have proven to be not so solidly based as originally intended and at least in three instances, the concrete has completely crumbled. In the same manner, if Synod approves the Human Sexuality Report, and it will, it is simply a Synodical decision, to be followed, but it never reaches the level of our historical Confessions. It is simply a Synodical decision–no more and no less.
Thank you.