Statement For Overture 20 – We Need To Delay So More Studying Can Be Done
.
Statement: This Teaching Does Not Have Confessional Status
Overture 20 states, “Proposing that the teaching of this report already has confessional status is both erroneous and an overreach.” (page 412)
.
Response
We must note that Overture 20 does not give any reasons for this claim, it simply states it as though it were fact.
Let’s take a look at what the report says about the matter of confessional status.
The Heidelberg Catechism is one of three confessions in our Reformed tradition.
Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108, which explains the meaning of the seventh commandment (“You shall not commit adultery”), states that “God condemns all unchastity, and that therefore we should thoroughly detest it and live decent and chaste lives, within or outside of the holy state of marriage.”
.
Homosexual activity is covered in the Heidelberg Catechism.
The RCA affirmed this in 2017.
By the word “unchastity” the catechism intends to encompass all sexual immorality, including homosexual activity. The Reformed Church in America acknowledged this in 2017, affirming that in the catechism “God condemns ‘all unchastity,’ which includes same-sex sexual activity.”
Ursinus, one of the authors, confirms homosexuality was included.
Ursinus, one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, confirms this in his commentary on Q&A 108. He writes that the first class of lusts included in unchastity “are those which are contrary to nature and from the devil. . . . The lusts of which the apostle Paul speaks in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans are of this class, as the confounding of sexes, [and] also abuses of the female sex.”
The above, if taken before a jury in a courtroom, would seem to be quite strong evidence. Homosexuality is mentioned in and is prohibited by our confession. The RCA, our sister denomination, ruled that to be the case. What more would be needed? On what basis does Overture 20 say that the report’s position is “erroneous and an overreach”? Without the authors of the overture making a case for their claim, wouldn’t a reasonable evaluation be to conclude the prohibition of homosexuality has confessional status?
.
Conclusion
In evaluating the pros and cons of points like this, one must approach it in the way that debates are evaluated. On the one hand, from a most basic perspective, the statement above claims that the Human Sexuality Report’s position that this topic already has confessional status is erroneous. On the other hand, the Report gives examples from our confessions of statements prohibiting same-sex relationships. In most instances that would seem to qualify as confessional status.
Overture 20 simply states that the Report’s claim is erroneous, it doesn’t present any reasons backing that up. In the absence of the Overture presenting reasons for its claim and in the absence of any reasons to believe that the Report’s quotes from the confessions are incorrect, the scales tip in favor of the Human Sexuality Report. The Overture does not, at this point, succeed in supporting its recommendation that more studying of the topic is required.
.
Please post your thoughts on this topic.
Thank you.
3 replies on “Overture 20: Confessional Status”
I have a very difficult time to make this whole study on sexuality a confessional statement. I know why people wish to do so, for a confessional statement is far more difficult to review and overturn, if necessary. The report may reference some of the Church’s Confession, but an interpretation of a confession is never the same as a confession. Interpretations may and should change, if other information becomes pertinent. Just think back on the whole issue of women in office, which took from 1971, Report 44, until 1995 to change once the issue came up. If the church had made the whole male leadership and headship issue a confessional statement, we would still be arguing about this issue despite overwhelming evidence of the cultural influence on a biblical [not, the] issue of women in office. I think the same will be true about same sex marriage, but that is a different issue completely. I am just talking about what some believe to be a furtherance of our confessional statements. Just think about the struggles of the Belhar Confession becoming an official confession of the CRC. Any Synodical Report on sexuality, it seems to me, should never reach the standard of an additional confessional statement.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comments here, John. The more who chime in, the better it will be all the way around.
I would like to take a look at the statement, “Any Synodical Report on sexuality, it seems to me, should never reach the standard of an additional confessional statement.”
As the Human Sexuality Report states, the priority of authority in our Reformed faith is 1. Scripture, 2. creed, 3 confession, 4 Church Order and finally 5 synodical decision. So you are correct that a synodical decision cannot by definition rise to the level of confessional status (level 3).
As far as confessional status goes, is the question in front of us whether what the synodical report states is authoritative? The Report makes a case that same-sex erotic acts are already covered in our confessions. So the issue at stake is not at level 5, synodical reports. (We must also note that a synodical report is not the same as a synodical decision.) It would seem the question in front of us is do our confessions (level 3) already cover whether or not same-sex erotic acts are sinful.
Our Athanasian Creed very clearly spells out that it is necessary for salvation to believe in the deity of Christ. It doesn’t matter what any future synodical report (or decision for that matter) might state about the deity of Christ, we are obligated to adhere to it.
If the case made in the Human Sexuality Report is in fact correct, it would seem we have only two options in front of us: 1) we as a church must adhere to the belief that same-sex erotic acts are sinful, or 2) if this part of our confessions is contrary to Scripture, we need to modify the confessions concerning this topic.
Herb:
I do not have an issue whether a final decision of Synod is or is not authoritative for the time being. And I add “for the time being” on purpose. Synodical decisions have been completely changed and overturned. The most recent one of which I am aware is the opening up of all offices to women. It took 24 years of tortuous Synodical Reports to finally state that God’s call to women is exactly the same as God’s call to men. It began with the [infamous] Report 44 in 1971 and culminated in ordaining our first group of women in 1995. I struggled through majority Reports, Minority Reports, some times as ridiculous as a Minority 1, 2 and even 3 Reports. And still Synod could not unanimously decree that there was no room for men only ordination practices. Some Classes to this day do not permit women to be ordained and some Classes are no longer a group of neighboring churches meeting together, but a group of like-minded believing congregations. Enough of that. I personally see the same struggles coming with the whole concept of same sex marriages. Many in our denomination believe this to be true and others not. Perhaps we can come up with the same both/and Synodical decision and allow churches to meet together with yet another similar faith commitment.
Personally, I predict that it will take several decades, but we will change. It is inevitable. The Report on Human Sexuality, limiting itself to the defined boundaries of the 1973 Synodical Report, has done a real disservice to the current issue of same sex relationships.
I do not wish to engage in the content itself now, nor do I wish to state that the current issue is supported by the Athanasian Creed. I know of no Christians in same sex relationships that would deny the deity of Christ. That point is moot.
I have rambled enough. Thanks for listening.