.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
Level 4
STATEMENT AGAINST HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES ONLY
STATEMENT
The statement can be found at All One Body Counters the Human Sexuality Report.
.
RESPONSE
The following is an overview of ten videos in the category entitled “Biblical-Theological Concerns” that All One Body has produced in response to the Human Sexuality Report.1 Each heading is linked to the page where that video is discussed in further detail.
It must be noted that 4 of the 7 authors in this section make the claim that Rom. 1 only prohibits exploitative or violent acts. A fifth author claims the Bible (hence Rom. 1 as well) does not condemn homosexuality. The Human Sexuality Report gives evidence from the explicit wording of Rom. 1 that it prohibits loving same-sex acts as well (HSR 2021, section XII D, page 104). Yet none of these authors counter that claim. They seem to simply ignore it. Have they read the report thoroughly and honestly?
The question is really whether these videos present valid objections to the Human Sexuality Report.
The ten videos are reviewed below:
.
.“Eight Objections to the HSR”
The eight objections in this video can serve as an overview of the concerns of Dr. Jongsma and All One Body. It does not, however, cover them in sufficient detail so as to discuss their validity. The following points are in response to the more detailed videos.
Conclusion: this video does not contain a valid objection.
.
Jongsma takes a position that Dr. Brownson has rejected. Brownson is the most prominent voice in the RCA and CRC in favor of accepting same-sex marriages. To take this position Jongsma needs to show that Brownson is wrong.
Jongsma also claims Rom. 1 only prohibits exploitative same-sex acts. The HSR gives biblical reasons from Rom. 1 that it also prohibits loving relationships. Jongsma does not respond to that.
On his third point Jongsma misquotes the 1973 synodical report. The 1973 report did not state that homosexual attraction is a creation variant rather than the result of sin. Jongsma needs to address that.
Conclusion: this video, with its three serious short-comings, does not contain a valid objection.
.
Both the Old Testament and the New Testament speak very highly of the laws and commands, or as this video says, the rules of God. How can it be said the Bible is not a set of rules? First under the Law, and then under grace, they are rules for our good.
Conclusion: this video does not contain a valid objection.
.
In this video Rev. Braaksma claims the HSR misses the point of Rom. 1. However, Braaksma doesn’t show how that is the case. The HSR points out that Rom. 1 states the men, “. . . were consumed with passion for one another . . .” Therefore, Rom. 1 prohibits loving same-sex relationships. How is this missing the point? On the contrary, it appears that Rev. Braaksma has missed the point. In order to conclude that the HSR misses the point, evidence of that is needed. One cannot simply claim something is true without attempting to show that it is, in fact, true.
Conclusion: this video does not contain a valid objection.
.
It looks like this video was removed from the website.
Nick Hopkins gives four points he claims demonstrate that the HSR is not a viable report. However, when examined, two of those points are of secondary importance at best and the other two claims are wrong. As is often done, he claims Rom. 1 only prohibits violent acts. Reference the paragraph above. Click on the heading above to see the details of this.
Conclusion: this video does not contain a valid objection.
.
Rev. David Vroege objects to the report’s claim that the Bible’s prohibition of same-sex relationships is clear. He posits that there would be no questions if the Bible were clear. There is nothing in the Bible that is not questioned sometime by somebody! The very divine nature of Christ is questioned. That does not mean that teaching is not solidly biblical. Even among very devout disciples of Christ there are disagreements. Spurgeon and Calvin disagreed about the practice of infant baptism. Rather than pointing out the fact that people disagree, much more would be gained if those favoring same-sex relationships would work to provide biblical reasons people should agree with accepting those relationships.
Conclusion: this video does not contain a valid objection.
.
Dr. Rice rejects “The attitude of I’m right and you’re wrong.” Does he then reject the possibility also of anyone knowing for certain that Christ died for our sins? If not, how are these two different?
Rice claims Rom. 2 indicates Rom. 1 does not prohibit homosexuality, but rather the two chapters prohibit being over-scrupulous. It is one thing to make a claim that something is true, but again what is needed is evidence. The HSR brings forward evidence that Rom. 1 prohibits both exploitative (or violent) sex acts and also loving sex acts between members of the same sex (HSR 2021, section XII D, page 104). With Rice’s position needing supporting evidence and the position of the HSR being based on the actual words of Rom. 1, it seems that the HSR has the stronger position concerning what the Bible teaches.
Rice spends much of his effort on the possibility that the committee might have been over-scrupulous. That concern has to do with how the committee did its work (which is a secondary matter), rather than its conclusions. Of primary importance is the question of whether the conclusions of the report are biblical.
Conclusion: this video does not contain a valid objection.
.
If Rev. Mannes’s position here is correctly understood, he says that same-sex relationships are wrong, but, because we all sin, we should accept people in same-sex relationships. He says he would now perform marriages for people of the same sex.
Doesn’t this effectively do away with the keys of the kingdom (Matt. 16:19)? Yes, we are all sinners. And we all sin frequently. When we see fellow church members sinning, aren’t we obligated to strive to help those around us who have erred? For a church to marry two people of the same-sex, isn’t that putting the church’s approval on that relationship? We must accept all people, into our worship services and fellowship, but it is not biblical to accept all behavior.
Conclusion: this video does not contain a valid objection.
.
In this video Dr. Aron Reppmann seems to be placing the ultimate authority on man’s ability to creatively name a person according to that person’s perceived nature. (Again, for more detail, click on the above link.) This act determines, or indicates what that person really is. How does this fit with the emphasis in the Reformed tradition on the Bible being our only standard for faith and practice?
Conclusion: this video does not contain a valid objection.
.
This video simply states as fact that LGBTQ orientations are creation variants, not defects. It is implied that they are part of God’s perfect creation, not the result of sin. That is a major, major shift in theology. It merits being proven, not simply stated as being factual. Is such a case for creation variant to be found anywhere?
This video states that nowhere does the Bible condemn loving same-sex relations. As stated under “A Devotional Response” above, the HSR points out that the Bible does in fact condemn loving, mutual relationships.
In this video it is also stated that this is a matter we can agree to disagree on. Can we agree to disagree on matters of salvation? In I Cor. 6 we read that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. This is a salvation matter.
Do these three major points of this video hold up under scrutiny?
Conclusion: this video does not contain a valid objection.
.
* * *
.
It is our assessment that these videos do not, in fact, offer valid biblical objections to the Human Sexuality Report. If you disagree with that assessment, please send us your thoughts and they will be carefully considered. You can also post your thoughts in the blog below, where they will be available for all to read. Substantial contributions will be added to these web pages and emailed to ministers in the RCA and the CRC for further consideration.
Thank you.
.
.
1The Human Sexuality Report is a report mandated by the Christian Reformed Church in 2016. The mandate was to produce a report which covers all aspect of human sexuality. This report was initiated by current concerns surrounding same-sex marriage. The committee was given five years to produce the report, rather than the typical three years. The reason for this was due to the magnitude of the mandate. The report is scheduled to be taken up in Synod 2022.
One reply on “CONCLUSION RE BIBLICAL CONCERNS”
Human Sexuality Report, 2020: a Personal Analysis
The Report from the Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality is a well-written report. Unfortunately, its content does not reflect the quality of its writing. By far, the best sections of the Report are Sections VIII, IX AND X, dealing with Gender Identity, its Cultural Context and Pastoral Care. The Pastoral Care section demonstrates the most loving, caring, affirming and accepting of those who have gender identity issues in the whole report.
Unfortunately, the rest of the Report does not provide new ideas to the discussion of how the church is able to pastorally respond to those who are identified as homosexual or are in same sex relationships or marriages. One of the requirements for being a member of the Study Committee was adherence to a biblical understanding of marriage as approved by the Synod of 1973. In other words, the whole report assumes conclusions approved back in 1973; hence, the conclusions of the Human Sexuality Report to be discussed at the next in-person Synod were already present before this Committee ever met.
What is missing in Section III, “A Biblical Theology of human sexuality” is a theological description of a biblical understanding of same sex marriage as expressed, lived and struggled by those who are theologically trained and in a same sex marital union. Reading books and quoting from them in the Report is no substitute for actual theological and pastoral dialogue with ordained ministers, or seminary professors who are in same sex marriages. As accurately as possible, place such dialogue in Section III. The Committee may need to reach outside the CRC for such couples. Several Denominations within our broader Reformed tradition permit same sex marriages. This does not mean that Committee members are required to agree with their theological understanding; it just provides a more complete framework in which to hammer out a current understanding of the CRC’s position. What the report has done instead is just throw darts against any position which differs from the one described in Section III. To me, this means that we are always dealing from a position of superiority in which we state that our view is correct and yours is not. It is impossible to provide loving, affirming and caring pastoral advice to those who are different from us under such conditions. It seems to me, that without such personal, theological and pastoral struggles those different from us have makes it equally difficult to see homosexuals and those in same sex marriages as fully human as we believe ourselves to be.
Sections XI, XII and XIII of the Study Report deal with Homosexuality: Cultural context, Scripture and Pastoral Care. Revisionists believe that since Jesus did not specifically address the issue of homosexuality why can that not mean acceptance? The Committee members, who might be termed traditionalists, believe this is a weak argument. Yet, the Committee uses the same argument of silence to indicate that the culture of the time was so prohibitively against homosexual behavior that Jesus’ silence simply affirms the cultural norms. They then quote several theologians who affirm their position.
But is the argument of silence a definitive statement against homosexuality? Let’s look at another argument of silence, that of slavery at the time of Jesus. Jesus did not address the issue of slavery at all. Does this mean that Jesus approved of slavery? For the Israelites themselves, slavery was a temporary condition. During the year of Jubilee debts were erased and all were set free again. On the basis of his silence, am I able to draw the conclusion that Jesus did not really address the type of slavery found within our own country, for example? Does this mean his silence affirmed such slavery? No one would draw such conclusion from his silence.
Kurt Schaefer, a retired professor at Calvin University, wrote an article titled, “Does the Bible Support Slavery?” in the January 2022 issue of The Banner. His answer is “Yes, but….” Although slavery in the Roman world was every bit as bad, dehumanizing and evil as the slavery practiced in our own country, Jesus’ ministry to the least in society, Paul’s emphasis on human equality before God undermined [my words] the institution of slavery to such an extent that it was eventually abolished.
If silence on the issue of slavery ultimately led to the abolition of slavery, might not the same argument be used to ensure equality before God of homosexual human beings when expressed in monogamous relationships? Ought the other New Testament passages used in the Biblical Section of the Report against homosexual behavior, be viewed from a similar perspective? Ultimately, slavery was abolished as one of the most serious violations of the sacredness of persons, a concept described by Lewis Smedes in his book, “Mere Morality.” Might the same not be said to end the discrimination the church has expressed against homosexuals and those in same sex marriages? Does the “sacredness of persons” not allow for the full expression of life in all its intimate relationship possibilities for every human being regardless of sexual orientation? If such a parallel in arguing from silence can be drawn, the church has done a great wrong to homosexuals and those in same sex marriages. If this Report is approved as written, and I expect the CRC to approve the Study Report at its next in-person Synod, the church perpetuates this wrongful behavior.
Section XIII, “Homosexuality, Pastoral care” is twelve pages long. The Committee is aware of how difficult it is to change CRC culture to become truly accepting of homosexuals within its midst, especially given the limited role they are allowed to have within congregational settings. The denomination does not have a good track record in changing its culture to become more loving and accepting of others who are different. The Civil Rights movement exposed racism within our own denomination. In many ways, we have not dealt lovingly with those frightfully impacted by racism. The issue of ordaining women to office of teaching elder, is still a contentious issue even after women have celebrated 25 years of ordination. There are many individual congregations who have overcome these barriers and I am grateful for those congregations. But they are few within our denomination.
My own pastoral recommendation to those who are sexually different is very simple. Find existing congregations which have demonstrated that these barriers have come down. If such a Christian Reformed congregation cannot be found locally, find a local congregation in another denomination which has already successfully integrated those whose sexual expression is different from the norm.
John Lamsma