by Rev. Paul Verhoef
Statements Against Heterosexual Marriages Only
Statement
Exploring the HSR’s claim that same-sex intimate relations already violate the confessional status/teachings of the church.
Rev. Verhoef focuses on one line: “That the church’s teaching on homosexual sex already has confessional status.” The CRC has no stance on polyamory. At Calvin Seminary some say it does have that status, others say it doesn’t. A lot of pastors disagree with 1973. 14% said they would welcome same-sex marriages in their church.
Henry De Moor states that teachings have confessional status that are in the confessions and what synod raises to confessional status. De Moor said Synod 1973 avoided elevating its statement on homosexuality to confessional status.
The HSR answered what has confessional status in an entirely different way. If something all of a sudden jumps from agree to disagree category into confessional status, it is a different approach. Can we make space for those who disagree?
.
Response
Cedric Parsels has an article that must be considered in this connection. In considering Verhoef’s position he cites the Belgic Confession Articles 4 and 5 which list the books of the Bible which are to be considered canonical. He points out that according to Verhoef’s rule Lamentations is not to be considered canonical as those articles do not list it.
Parsels points out that the Belgic Confession’s reference to “Jeremiah” could be taken to include both “Jeremiah” and “Lamentations.”
Parsels also provides a second example of how Verhoef’s approach fails.
The Heidelberg Catechism was written to help teach the basics of the faith. Later, Reformed churches adopted it as one of the standards for church unity, a statement we rally around. Did the Catechism’s authors intend it to be an all-encompassing statement that explicitly spells out every form of unchastity? No. Did the authors intend it to include homosexuality? Using the historical-grammatical method – Yes. So, this is the statement we have today. This is the statement we are bound by, unless we change it.
Although these statements rarely change, they are nevertheless, living, breathing statements.
Following Verhoef’s approach, we can handcuff these statements, very much limit them in their scope and teaching. Or we can treat them as they were intended to be used. Our approach even to Scripture itself is that exegesis is needed in order to faithfully work with it and correctly understand what it teaches.
See Parsels’ Recommendation D Part I at the end – traditionalists and revisionists should both be glad for this recommendation because it gives synod the opportunity to make clear this matter.
On deductions not being included, Parsels (Part III) states that not all deductions are created equal. Some deductions are legitimately binding.
How could it be said that the CRC’s position on homosexuality was in the category of agree to disagree? It does not make sense that an issue that is a matter of salvation (I Cor. 6:9-10) would be considered such that we could agree to disagree.
The statement about De Moor is an interesting statement: “Henry De Moor states that teachings have confessional status that are in the confessions and what synod raises to confessional status. De Moor said Synod 1973 avoided elevating its statement on homosexuality to confessional status.” The issue currently at stake is not that Synod 1973 avoided elevating its statement to confessional status. The question at hand is, is the prohibition of homosexuality already “in the confessions”? Parcels and the HSR make a good claim that it is already in the confessions.