Statement For Overture 20 – We Need To Delay So More Studying Can Be Done
.
Statement: Theology That Does Harm Is Questionable
Overture 20 contains the following statement about theologies that do harm:
As we continue in careful deliberation around these human sexuality issues and a Christian pastoral response, it is essential that we highlight and grapple with the issue of harm toward LGBTQIA+ people at the hands of the church. Theology that does harm calls into question the validity of the theology and biblical interpretation itself. (Page 400.)
.
Response
One of the greatest harms realized in all human history was the excruciating pain Christ experienced when He died as a result of the cruel death of crucifixion. Can it be concluded that the theology behind Christ’s crucifixion is questionable? There is without doubt a theology that drove Christ to the cross. Was the harm done to Christ caused by questionable theology?
Ultimately, the harm done to Christ was caused by the presence of sin in the world. It was caused first and foremost by that sin not by the theology which required atonement for that sin.
There has no doubt been theologies that have harmed people. Some churches had a theology that supported the practice of slavery. That practice did untold harm to many people spanning hundreds of years. However, making a very brief statement such as, “Theology that does harm calls into question the validity of the theology and biblical interpretation itself” is not complete, it might contain a profoundly serious omission. In addition to the harm and the theology is there somehow sin in the picture as well? If so, how does that sin relate to the theology?
Probably the most direct path to answering the question of whether or not the theology is what caused the harm is to determine if the theology is biblical. No one today would accept the theology that supported slavery. And rightfully so. If a given theology is biblical, then it is pretty much a given that sin is somehow involved and that sin is ultimately the cause of the harm. The Human Sexuality Report covers a number of the claims that the Bible does not condemn same-sex relations. It concludes that those claims are incorrect, and that the Bible does prohibit such acts. If the Human Sexuality Report has made errors in that assessment, the greatest value that can be added at this point in time would be to point out those errors. The group putting forth the Overture above said they were limited by time to develop all of their biblical arguments. Since there is a delay in taking up the sexuality report until next year this group could further develop their arguments.
.
Conclusion
Overture 20 contains recommendations that the CRC should not adopt the conclusions of the Human Sexuality Report and that the CRC should mandate another committee to study sexuality further. The question in front of us here is whether the statement concerning harm caused by theology being questionable is a sufficient statement to support such a position.
With the omission of addressing sin and without a solid case showing the Bible does not prohibit same-sex erotic acts, this point does not contain the discernable merit that is required. As such, this does not support the recommendation of the overture.
.
Please share your thoughts below.
Thank You
3 replies on “Overture 20: Theology That Harms”
For better or for worse, across the spectrum of denominations, fellowships and independent congregations there is a diversity of opinion on several theological issues. Each is held by individuals who profess to be followers of Jesus and who support their convictions by an appeal to scripture. Though I wish we could reconcile our stances on the issue of human sexuality and I pray that we might, at the moment realism is trumping faith for me.
Whichever position one takes, we believe we are taking the godly stance and, for most, no amount of referring to biblical texts, culture, psychology, science, etc. is likely to away us.
Doing a switch for a moment, do we give up on our conviction that Jesus is the only way to God (Yup, I simplified it) simply because steadfast adherence to and proclamation of that truth is hurtful to those of the Buddhist or Hindu faith? From yet another perspective–and we have been called out on this, do we dismiss with church discipline generally simply because some individuals are uncomfortable with it or would have their feelings hurt if called to account for their words and/or actions?
I suspect that none of us will be satisfied with studies and reports and overtures until we get our own way . . . or what we perceive to be God’s way. I wonder what the good Lord is thinking.
“This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you.” John 15:12. May we all remember who we are. We are loved by Jesus so that we love one another. There are no restrictions on this love. This love is for all.
Of course we are to love one another. The question is, “What do we understand ‘love’ to mean?”
I would offer up that it does not mean accepting one’s behavior. Jesus would say to the woman caught in adultery, “I do not condemn, go and do not sin again.” The man healed was seen doing something and Jesus spoke to him, “Stop what you’re doing or something worse will befall you.” There was consistently an acceptance; but also a call to change.
The critical question seem to be not ones desires or orientation but whether sexual activity between other than a married man and woman is sin. Those with whom I have spoke who would affirm that it is also affirm that we are still called to love them in terms of seeking their welfare, while rejecting the sin. I loved my children as they grew up and that love would sometimes show itself in discipline. I was in tears yesterday when one of our foster sons stopped by and, unplanned, spoke with appreciation for the discipline he received when he was growing up. In the most biblical of fashions, he spoke of his reaction at the time but now, having grow and having a committed relationship and a good position as the IT manager for a major investment firm, he saw the caring that the majority of his friends missed out on. Love does not turn a blind eye.