The Response section below contains what is considered to be the critical part of the Statement. Footnotes are included which consist of responses to additional points made in the Statement. Therefore what is contained in the Response is considered to be the chief material to consider. The footnotes are viewed as secondary. If these footnotes do in fact comment on key, germane material, please post a comment below and it will be taken into consideration. Thank you.
This distinction of moral versus other biblical standards is a false distinction. “However, when it comes to confessional matters and moral issues, I think the direction God’s Word gives us is that we cannot agree to disagree”. How can a kind of immorality divide the church unless it is also contrary to our Creeds and Confessions and fully attested in Scripture? It seems to me that those deciding to break fellowship will have to demonstrate that brothers and sisters who are homosexuals as well as those who support them are not only apparently disobedient to a very few Scripture passages[1] but they are also proud, unteachable, dangerous, and therefore cut off from the means of grace.[2]
That is what you are acknowledging. But that is not how I see my homosexual brothers and sisters. I simply don’t see them as today’s versions of reckless Hymenaeus and Alexander or like the man and his supporters who were boasting of his incestuous relationship with his mother. The latter were removed because of their obvious arrogance and heterodoxy. The homosexuals I know are humble, open to instruction, gracious and confess the same gospel of Jesus Christ.[3]
Something is either well attested in Scripture and therefore applicable to Christian living as a matter of conscience or it is not well attested in Scripture and doesn’t stand up according to a healthy redemptive-historic exegesis/application.[4] Morality, as we understand it in the Reformed tradition, is demonstration of personal transformation and by its very nature, is not a binary or legal judgement but a process of life-long conformity to the image of Christ.[5] The only people who are excluded from this process, sometimes permanently, are those who willfully resist both the means of grace and eschew the final goal of sanctification.[6] That’s why the keys of the kingdom are always wielded in a stepped, pastorally sensitive ways (aka “wisdom”).
You say that the CRC got it right in 2000 when it allowed for the ordination of women. It was a matter of wisdom, you say. However, I was in the CRC Synod in 1995 when we reversed the 1994 decision which forbade women’s ordination and judged all such reasoning in support of their ordination as decidedly “unreformed” and unbiblical. We were not welcome in the reformed tent, Synod 1994 said. It seems to me that the people who supported the 1994 decision really believed that people like myself had crossed the confessional boundaries and wandered into serious error. This error was judged to be of the same order as typical “moral” questions such as homosexuality.[7]
But it didn’t occur to Synod 1994 that there never was a well-attested traditional position on female ordination – neither in Scripture nor in our creeds and confessions, nor in Martin Luther nor John Calvin’s Institutes, nor in our CRC church order (which originally specified “persons” not “males”).[8] In fact, the church had a poorly supported practice of ordaining males only and only began to reflect on that practice in light of egalitarianism and feminism in western culture, which made women’s exclusion from leadership offensive. At the same time, key watchwords of the faith were trampled – including the exclusive headship of Christ, the priesthood of all believers, as well as the nature of the spiritual gifts and ecclesiastic offices. I am convinced such a trampling of our distinctly Christian anthropology is occurring in polemics concerning homosexuality today.
This has happened before. And many denominations have suffered painful divisions because of it – when one part of the church assumes it has complete theological clarity, parting ways with “offenders” or shows them the ecclesiastic door. It never occurs to this faction that their zeal for “purity” is infected by spiritual pride, a revulsion for the broken, and a nostalgic, lazy view of holiness.[9]
When Calvinist voices revoked Catholic sanctions on usury, they were criticized for being immoral by way of oppressing the poor. When Christians were promoting democracy against the divine right of kings, they were denounced as treasonous rebels who subverted the “clear teaching” and moral order of Scripture with man-made philosophy and reason. When Wilberforce overturned centuries of “clear teaching” that some people are by nature destined for slavery, it took another century to see that slavery is indeed an “immoral” institution — contrary to the broadest, most well-attested themes of Scripture concerning justice for the human race.
If you look at the traditionalist arguments in these issues, including the women’s ordination issue, the word “immorality” was used to describe one side’s disgust for the other’s point of view/way of life. Indeed, so disgusted were some Christians with other Christians that they would go to war and smash the heads of their opponents as if they were infidels and not brothers and sisters worthy of respect (and unity). I have personally witnessed that sort of violent spirit.
My definition of morality is a lifestyle of principled love, guided by compassion towards all and justice for all, without favoritism.[10] It can include appeals to natural law, just as Christ and Apostles did. Yet morality isn’t encapsulated by such natural observations since revelation points us to new realities not defined in the present world. Even in nature there are things which seem “unnatural” — I think here particularly of the fact that homosexual behaviours are exhibited in very many sorts of animal species whose same sex inclinations are neither deliberate nor immoral nor a threat to life even if it seems a subversion of Darwinian analysis.[11]
I used to believe that all questions of “morality” are simply summarized by what the Bible teaches us how to live. I now grudgingly admit, following our Lord’s example and what the Apostle has perceived in the world around him, that natural law has a helpful place in discussions concerning same sex relationships, especially in our communications with people outside the faith.[12]
But isn’t it a lazy inflection of morality the Pharisees used when they accused Jesus of consorted with “sinners” (Luke 5:31)? If you polled traditional Christians as to the great moral deficits in society today, they would likely cite homosexual lifestyles, pornography, and adultery. They would not likely cite fake news, conspiracy theories, and endless breaches of the 9th commandment for political advantage as the greatest moral failure of our times. Gossip is well-attested “abomination” (Proverbs 6:16-19) in our church communities yet there is no discussion of parting ways with our meddling aunties and Q Anon addicts among us, is there?[13]
I think the canonizing of morality, with its rubber stamp of “clear teaching”, is but a lazy shortcut for searching one’s own heart and humbly submitting to what God has revealed in Christ in the light of the genuine suffering of others. What is clear is that homosexuals by and large do NOT choose their sexual orientation any more than heterosexuals choose their orientation.[14] Modern medicine doesn’t think of homosexuality as a destructive aberration and certainly any contrived therapy to change what seems natural to homosexuals is going to be perceived as abusive if it is done in the name of Christ. Instead, in the church we have suppressed a necessary honesty and forced a kind of conformity, all the while harboring our pornea in secret. Jesus has shown us how hypocritical and destructive this choice has been (Matthew 5:27-28, et al)
I personally have witnessed the harm done by “conversion therapy”. Surely we can exhibit Christian compassion for homosexuals who are only seeking solace the same way any of us do when it comes to our basic biological impulses and need for companionship. No one needs to be cast out of our walk together since we are all creatures of mercy. The church is not a community devoted to a binary, legalistic holiness but a community devoted to life-long sanctification, beginning with the Great Physician loving the deeply and utterly broken.[15]
. . .
That’s where all of us begin in our pilgrimage, as the Apostle Peter taught us. And in the end, all moral judgements concerning our sexuality will be completely forgiven and dissolved. Scripture teaches us that we are all creatures who, by our sinful nature, pervert the image of God and pursue fleshly desires rather than the spiritual office destined for us. Nature teaches us that there will always a small percentage of human beings, just like penguins and brown bears, who will exhibit persistent homosexual desire. The church exists as a living signpost as to how human beings are to be defined by noble ambitions beyond matters of gender and sexuality.
This is a contra-cultural stand but at least it is a fair one and can only be held in a position of humility. Both gay and straight Christians have the exact same goal in the consummation of history – our resurrected and glorified Christ. Therefore, why on earth should this divide us?
.
Response
The best place to start is to emphasize that any kind of breaking of fellowship must not be taken lightly. Scripture is full of calls to deal patiently with fellow Christians and, in keeping with that also states how God is extremely patient with us. There is no room in biblical living for swift pronouncements of self-righteousness. Christians cannot take a stand concerning same-sex marriage without making a clear case for what the Bible teaches on the topic. The case has to be clear for members of the laity who struggle with same-sex attraction as well. It cannot be clear only to theologians.
In my opinion one important area that needs to be considered further is the clarity of the Bible’s teaching concerning same-sex marriage. The 2000 Agenda to the CRC Synod lists the more obvious wrongs such as adultery, murder etc. when it comes to moral behavior. Moral matters include those that are right to do, immoral acts are wrong. Wrong acts are sin. Immoral acts are those which, if we do not repent of them, we cannot inherit the Kingdom of God and we cannot spend eternity with God in heaven. It seems to me at this point that morality is a beneficial distinction and can help provide insights and clarity into how we should live.
If moral/wisdom distinction is not helpful in general, or, if it does not apply to this specific topic of same-sex marriage in particular, it would be helpful to directly assess that. The Statement contains a number of experiences and background are all good for us to be aware of as we examine the Bible’s teachings on same-sex marriage. In order for this discussion to help the whole process of studying same-sex marriage, it needs to tie directly to the topic of same-sex marriage.
Topics such as this one are inevitably connected to a whole host of related theological concerns. As we look at the question of whether or not the concept of morality is beneficial in gaining a clearer understanding of the relevant biblical truths it is important that we focus specifically on this concept of the proposed moral category and weigh those specific pros and cons. The website is wide open to including discussions of any and all related theological topics. And they should be put under the microscope on a page or pages that focus specifically on them.
[1] There are at least five biblical passages which prohibit same-sex erotic acts (Lev. 18:22, 20:13, Rom. 1, I Cor. 6:9-10 and I Tim. 1:10). How many passages are required to establish a teaching is biblical? There are no passages explicitly teaching the Trinity, yet that doctrine is considered essential by all orthodox Christianity. This claim is considered inconsequential as far as the necessity of unity or the validity of same-sex marriage is concerned.
[2] According to II Thessalonians 3:14-15 striving to correct a fellow church member who has erred does not require one to consider them to be proud and unteachable. That passage reads, “If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.” As far as the matter of breaking fellowship is concerned, the first thing that must be done is to discern what the Bible teaches concerning same-sex marriage. Only then can one proceed to correctly deal with a particular individual who deals with same-sex attraction.
[3] It is possible for one to live a very moral and upright life and still be vulnerable to temptation in a particular area. It is not possible for us to survey a group of people who in many respects are living commendable lives and from that in turn to conclude that everything they do and think is righteous. We cannot determine what is moral by observing people’s lives. The Bible is our only standard for faith and practice when it comes to determining what is and what is not sin.
[4] Concerning this matter of being well attested in Scripture, how does the doctrine of the Trinity stand up to this requirement?
[5] I believe that Christian living or holiness is a process or a personal transformation. I am not acquainted with the use of the term morality to reflect such growth. An act is either moral or it is immoral. An act is either sin or it is not sin. That is a binary matter.
[6] I Corinthians 5:4-5, in speaking of a man who has erred in a major way says this, “When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” Paul states the ultimate goal here as being that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Therefore, at times people who are participating in this lifelong conformity to Christ are people that we are called to remove from the fellowship.
[7] It would be interesting to go through the documentation of the proceedings and decisions of Synod 1994 to see if it was officially stated that they considered the ordination of women issue to be a moral matter, above and beyond a wisdom matter. Allowing the ordination of women was a major change from the practice of not allowing it. One wouldn’t be surprised to find language indicating people considered this very significant. Although, it wasn’t until the Agenda of 2000 that the material on the four categories of confessional, moral, wisdom and adiaphora was dealt with. If those distinctions were not being utilized it is easy to see how delegates would have considered a difference of opinion on a very significant matter to be “unreformed” and unbiblical. It could be said that even matters of wisdom, granted not being as significant as moral matters, decisions concerning wisdom matters can still be un-biblical. We do not consider infant baptism a matter of salvation, yet we do very much believe it is a biblical practice. Therefore, the practice of baptizing only believers is to some extent unbiblical. Do these experiences somehow indicate that considering the matter of same-sex marriage to be a moral matter and therefore a nonnegotiable to be an incorrect position to hold? That is the matter at stake here.
[8] Is the implication here that in order for something to be considered unreformed it must be clearly defined in our confessions and in the writings of Calvin and Luther etc.? It would seem very tenable that if something had not been worked out explicitly in our theology but was deeply embedded in our practice that it could be considered a Reformed matter. Some denominations have had women ministers for over 100 years. Prior to the second half of the 20th century that was not the case in our churches. Calvin and Luther had many matters they had to address; there probably was very little if any need to address the ordination of women and probably even less time to do so. This is an interesting aspect to consider as far as helping to clarify what theological concerns are moral matters and which ones are matters of wisdom. Does this have a direct bearing on the specific position that considering same-sex marriage to be a moral matter is a false distinction?
[9] Christian unity must be taken very seriously. That is something the churches in North America have not done too well in the past. In passages such as I Corinthians 5 and II Thessalonians 3:14-15 the Bible does call for us to break unity. So for us to do well supporting Christian unity we need to understand when we maintain unity and when the correct biblical response is to break that unity. The four categories seem to be a very helpful, sound biblical approach for providing direction in this regard. If the divisions of the past can help to shed light on how one ought to handle the matter of same-sex marriage, that is good. To gain that benefit we need to connect those experiences from the past did this particular topic at hand.
[10] True Christian living will certainly include compassion toward others. It did in ancient Rome when many Christians endangered their own lives attending to those who suffered from diseases. In the present, it is apparent by such things as hospitals founded by churches. Justice for all, as is often the case, can take a variety of forms. One of those forms is that if God has called same-sex erotic acts sinful, we cannot be doing others justice if we say it is fine for them to marry someone of the same sex. However, the focus of this particular essay is the question of whether or not same-sex erotic acts are a moral matter. The question of whether or not same-sex erotic acts are sinful is taken up in a different section of this website.
[11] I am by no means knowledgeable on the topic of animals and morality. For humans murder is a sin. When cats capture and kill a mouse, is that likewise a sin? When humans in turn kill cows in order to sustain human life, is that sinful? Again, that topic could require another synodical study committee five years to address in full. Same-sex acts among animals certainly seems to be relevant to the topic among humans. It is perhaps several steps removed from the question of whether or not same-sex acts by humans is a moral matter. It might very well be helpful to take up this topic and dedicated pages. That is certainly an option.
[12] Natural law definitely has the potential to be relevant to this topic. It, too, would perhaps best be handled on its own right and not as a sub topic of the matter of morality.
[13] The matter of gossip, as far as I have observed, is taken up in a fairly consistent basis in Bible studies and adult discussion classes. It is certainly an area where we in the church can do better. In general, this is a good matter for us to think about. Although, I don’t think we want to go in the direction that if we do not do well in one area then we can also do poorly in another. Even these comments venture from the topic at hand of whether or not morality is a helpful topic in examining the question of same-sex marriage.
[14] The question of whether or not those who are same-sex attracted choose their orientation is a major aspect as far as same-sex marriage is concerned. The purpose of this paper is not to address a wide spectrum of related issues. That would be to take on far more in a few pages than is possible to do justice to. The website is very much open to taking up this consideration on its own merit.
[15] The church certainly cannot be a community of instant pass/fail judgments. If that were the case, the church would have no members at all. We must be communities devoted to lifelong sanctification. Isn’t this particular consideration true of all aspect of Christian living? Isn’t it true of gossip, secret pornea etc.? Does this tie in specifically to whether or not morality is a helpful category?