by Dr. James Payton
Statements Against Heterosexual Marriages Only
Statement
Contrary to the claim of the HSR, LGBTQ+ concerns and inclusion is far from a “settled” issue in the RCA.
He claims the committee is misleading. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. RCA is constitutional. CRC is synodical. In the RCA synodical decisions are not binding. A revision to their constitution is required.
Minutes of the RCA 2017 decision show the HSR ignores what led up to that decision. Overtures claimed that decision argued for the definition of marriage that it is to be only between one man one woman. Objections were that this decision was going contrary to the constitutional nature of the RCA. It was an attempt to make it binding on all officers. Instead, it needed to go through all the processes to ultimately revising the constitution.
.
Response
Parsels says Payton’s claim that the HSR misleads people into thinking the RCA has reached a “settled” interpretation, when it has not is a red herring fallacy. The HSR in fact is not claiming the RCA is settled with respect to this issue. Anyone aware of current developments in the RCA knows it has not taken a firm stand for marriage being between one man and one woman. This was also the case in 2020 when the HSR was published. A number of congregations were exiting the RCA at that time. From this it is clear that Payton’s objection is without traction.
The claim the HSR makes is that the RCA ruled the Heidelberg Catechism prohibits same-sex relationships. The RCA did in fact officially make that decision.
There is always more info that could be included in such a report as the HSR. As a number of people have said, including some who have produced these videos at All One Body, the committee had a huge task in front of them. It was not possible, nor is it ever, to cover every detail in an exhaustive manner.