Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 146

Homosexuality and Christian Bigotry

Guest Blogger: Jason Helopoulos

In light of Kevin's series last week on Homosexuality and the RCA, I thought it might be helpful to better understand the mindset of those who accuse Christians of being bigots in the homosexuality discussion. Nancy Pearcey has been very helpful to me in this area.  In her book, Saving Leonardo, she outlines the modern secularist view. I am going to string together a few quotes from her book to help us understand the society we minister in and its objection to the Church's views on homosexuality.

Our society is greatly influenced by the philosophy of empiricism. Pearcey states, "Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from the senses—what we see, hear, hold, weigh, and measure. Obviously, moral truths cannot be stuffed into a test tube or studied under a microscope. As a result, moral statements were no longer considered truths at all, but merely expressions of emotion" (p.24).

David Hume took this view to a new level. "He split traditional philosophy into two opposing categories. Traditionally, truth had been conceived as a comprehensive whole, covering both the natural order and the moral order. But Hume tore those two things apart. The natural order is something we perceive through the senses, so according to empiricism that qualified as genuine knowledge. But the moral order is not perceived through the senses, so that was reduced to subjective feelings. The great moral principles that people had thought were transcendent truths were not truths after all but only preferences" (p.24).

As Pearcey notes, with the rise of Empiricism, religion was thus reduced to private feelings. This "separation of facts from values," is in her opinion, "the key to unlocking the history of the modern Western mind" (p.25). She gives this helpful illustration of the two-story concept of truth:

Values

Private, subjective, relative

_________________________________

Facts

Public, objective, universal

 How does this relate to the homosexuality discussion? As she points out, if all religious claims are put in the "upper story," then our assertions regarding morality are not viewed as truth. They are labeled non facts. Therefore, they are seen as subjective and private. In this light they are merely understood as "ethnic tradition or social glue or ineffable experience" (p.32). She says, "Think of it this way: If something genuinely is a matter of taste or tradition, then it would be wrong to impose it on others" (p. 32).  However, as Christians we believe in a unified whole; values cannot be separated from facts. There is one truth which governs a unified realm. Pearcey rightly notes, "Biblical Christianity refuses to separate historical fact from spiritual meaning" (p.35).

For our purposes, she concludes, "This explains why Christians are often accused of imposing their views, no matter how gentle and polite they may be in person. Christians intend to communicate life-giving, objective truths about the real world. But their statements are interpreted as attempts to impose personal preferences. For the secularist, then, Christians are not merely wrong or mistaken. They are violating the rules of the game in a democratic society. Once we recognize this misunderstanding, the common objections to Christianity become more understandable" (p.32).

As Christians we must understand the secularist mindset and its desire to place religion, morality, and values in a distant upper chamber separated from facts and truth. And armed with such understanding and knowledge, we must stand against this agenda. One must understand that the debate about homosexuality is not tangential. It is not a "mere" moral issue as if it did not bear upon truth. If we give in to the argument that homosexuality is private, personal, and not the business of the church, we have given in to this two-story view where religion, values, and morality are separated from truth. When we lose this argument in the church, we eventually lose the Church.

Monday Morning Humor

The Day the Rain Began

First Things includes several poems in every issue. I liked this one (in the March 2012 issue) by Duane K. Caylor. It's based on Genesis 7:12 and called "The Day the Rain Began."

Today seemed just an ordinary day.

The sun rose like an irritated eye;

wives cooked rice pancakes; children went to play

at tag in dusty fields or caught frogs by

the bank of the Euphrates; while the men

took to the brick kilns, potters' wheels, and plows;

lovers arose to make love once again;

and old men at the gate weighed claims and vows.

But now this afternoon, things have grown tense.

Anxiety as flour-fine as sand

from Aram fills our hearts as we watch dense

cloud ziggurats grow tall above the land,

and weather warnings in cuneiform

alert us of a coming thunderstorm.

Does the Heidelberg Catechism Have Anything to Say About Homosexuality?

It is sometimes claimed by proponents of gay marriage in the RCA that our Standards don't say anything about the subject. For the most part this is true. The Three Forms of Unity were written at a time when no one was questioning the sinfulness of homosexuality. There was no reason to explicate a subject no one was talking about. Our Standards don't say much about alien abductions either.

On closer inspection, however, our Standards do say something about homosexuality. The Heidelberg Catechism intends to condemn homosexuality in Question and Answer 87. It is true that Q/A 87 makes no explicit mention of homosexuality. The new joint CRC-RCA version is accurate: "No unchaste person, no idolater, adulterer, thief, no covetous person, no drunkard, slanderer, robber, or the like will inherit the kingdom of God."  This is an obvious references to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. And yet, unlike Paul, the Catechism does not mention homosexuality. Is this because Ursinus wanted to be open and affirming? Or is something else at work?

Interestingly, the 1962 translation of the Catechism by Allen Miller and Eugene Osterhaven (longtime professor at Western Theological Seminary) includes "homosexual perversion" in the list of sins mentioned in Answer 87. Miller and Osterhaven understood that Answer 87 is a paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Hence they included the full Corinthians text from the New English Bible in their translation.  Admittedly, this is poor translation practice, which is why the new CRC-RCA translation simply translates the German word unkeuscher with "unchaste." But in keeping with their own stated translation purposes Osterhaven and Miller were trying to capture the authorial intent behind the text.  The translation is poor, but they were right about the meaning.

In summarizing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Ursinus (Heidelberg's chief author) does not include every sin in the vice list.  Most notably, he leaves out several terms related to sexual immorality.  This is certainly not because Ursinus and the reformers were ambiguous in their assessment of homosexuality.  The reason no explicit mention is made of homosexuality in Answer 87 is because it was considered inappropriate and obscene to even mention such deeds. This is why the Catechism includes the phrase "or the like" (the German text of the Catechism contains no ellipsis as in the old RCA edition). We are meant to fill in the blanks with the rest of the text, the part of the text not fit to be printed for all to see.  As Robert Gagnon, one of the world's foremost scholars on homosexuality and a member of the PCUSA, points out, when Calvin comments on Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9, and Jude 7 in his commentaries he mentions homosexuality only obliquely, referring to the actions and desires as "monstrous," "polluted," "most filthy and detestable," and "the most abominable."  Gagnon also notes that as late as the early 20th century the standard edition of ancient Greek texts published by Harvard University Press "would routinely render Greek classical texts into Latin rather than English whenever coming across favorable discussions of homosexual practice." To talk or write openly about homosexuality was, for many, simply impolite.

Furthermore, we must remember that Frederick's first purpose in commissioning the Heidelberg Catechism was "that our youth may be trained." The Catechism was meant first of all for children, and children, it was thought, should not be corrupted by exposure to such unnatural behavior.  Adults would have understood that Answer 87 forbids all the vices mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, including the ones left out or too unseemly to mention.

Clearly, Ursinus believed homosexual behavior to be a sin.  In his Commentary on the Catechism, he defines marriage as "a lawful and indissoluble union between one man and one woman, instituted by God for the propagation of the human race" (592). Just as importantly, he says with regard to the seventh commandment: "The first class or kind [of lust] are those which are contrary to nature, and from the devil—such as are even contrary to this our corrupt nature; not only because they are corrupt and spoil it of conformity with God, but also because this our corrupt nature shrinks from them and abhors them.  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 the sexes, also abuses of the female sex" (591). Not only do we see here an unmistakable rejection of homosexual behavior, we also see Ursinus' reticence to talk of it in frank terms, referring to such behavior as "the confounding of the sexes" and "the lusts of which the Apostle Paul speaks in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans."

There is inescapable evidence, then, that the chief author of the Heidelberg Catechism thought homosexuality a sin (which should come as no surprise since every Reformer would have assumed as much). We also have good evidence that Christians of the sixteenth century, not to mention Ursinus himself, were embarrassed to openly name the act of same-sex intercourse.  We also have evidence in the words "or the like" that we are meant to fill in the blanks with the rest of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 referenced in Answer 87 (see also Q/A 109).  All of this leads to the strong conclusion that while Osterhaven and Miller may have been wrong, from the standpoint of translation philosophy, to insert words in the Catechism that weren't there in the original, they were not wrong to think that the words they inserted (e.g., "homosexual perversion") captured the spirit of the Catechism and the true authorial intent of the text. The "unchaste person" or "fornicator" in Answer 87 includes those engaged in same-sex behavior.

An Overture Regarding Homosexuality and the RCA

NOTE: This overture is under consideration and has not been approved by my classis (South Grand Rapids). If approved, the overture may undergo revision and amendment. Other RCA classes may also be considering the same or a similar overture. The General Synod will consider overtures at its annual meeting this June in Palos Heights, IL.

The Classis of ___________ overtures the General Synod to adopt the following resolution:

While compassion, patience, and loving support should be shown to all those who struggle to overcome same-sex desires, we also state unequivocally that homosexual behavior is a sin according to the Holy Scriptures. Further, as a violation of Scripture, those persons engaged in the celebration, promotion, blessing, solemnization, or activity of homosexual behavior are subject to discipline in the Reformed Church in America.

Reasons:

1. According to the Book of Church Order, the only offenses subject to discipline are "those which can be shown to be such from the Holy Scriptures, or from the Constitution of the Reformed Church in America" (Chapter 2, Part I, Art. 2, Sec. 1).

Homosexual behavior is repeatedly and clearly forbidden in Scripture.  The order of creation informs us that God's plan for sexuality is one woman and one man (Genesis 2:18-25).  This order is reaffirmed by Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6) and Paul (Ephesians 5:22-33).  The Old Testament law forbade homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13).  Paul reiterates this prohibition by using the same Greek construction (arsenokoitai) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.  Paul condemns same sex behavior in Romans 1:26-27.  Jude 7 links sexual immorality and the "unnatural lust" (NRSV) present in Sodom and Gomorrah.

On top of this, Jesus condemned the sin of porneia (Mark 7:21) which is defined by a leading New Testament lexicon as "unlawful sexual intercourse, prostitution, unchastity, fornication" (BDAG). Likewise, James Edwards of Whitworth College states that porneia "can be found in Greek literature with reference to a variety of illicit sexual practices, including adultery, fornication, prostitution, and homosexuality. In the OT it occurs for any sexual practice outside marriage between a man and a woman that is prohibited by the Torah" (The Gospel According to Mark, 213).

2. In addition to calling on the church to acknowledge its offenses toward homosexuals and make a genuine effort to understand the complex phenomenon of homosexuality, the General Synod has consistently and frequently affirmed that homosexual behavior is sinful.

In 1978, the General Synod approved a paper entitled "Homosexuality: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal."  The paper stated clearly that "Paul's rejection of homosexual activity is beyond question" and "we cannot affirm homosexual behavior." The paper concluded, "Heterosexuality is not only normal; it is normative. Homosexual acts are contrary to the will of God for human sexuality." (MGS 1978: 233-39)


In 1980, General Synod voted to adopt a resolution "To bring to the awareness of RCA members, congregations, classes, and synods competent programs and persons which can successfully help the practicing homosexual and lesbian, minister or layperson, overcome his or her homosexual behavior." (MGS 1980: 97)


In 1990, the General Synod adopted R-11: "To adopt as the position of the Reformed Church in America that the practicing homosexual lifestyle is contrary to scripture, while at the same time encouraging love and sensitivity towards such persons as fellow human beings" (MGS 1990: 461)


In 1995, the General Synod approved that a faithful summary of the RCA position on homosexuality includes, among other statements, that "Homosexual behavior is not God's intended expression of sexuality."


In 2004, the General Synod adopted R-92: "To affirm that marriage is properly defined as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others." (MGS 2004: 332)

3. The judicial actions of the 2005 General Synod set a strong precedent concerning the unlawfulness in the RCA of blessing same-sex partnerships. In a trial before the whole General Synod, three charges were heard and upheld against the Rev. Dr. Norman Kansfield for presiding at a same-sex "marriage." The minutes of the General Synod report the judicial actions and the imposition of discipline:

Charge One:

In a letter, dated November 2004, Rev Kansfield disclosed that during 2004 he had "presided at the marriage of his daughter to another woman" to quote his own words. This action allegedly took place in June of 2004 according to a letter addressed to the General Synod by the classis of Illiana in March of 2004. The Reformed Church in America has reaffirmed its stand against the marriage of same-sex partners several times in the past few decades. Rev. Kansfield's actions were contrary to our faith and beliefs as affirmed by the Holy Scriptures and the decisions of the General Synod concerning the relationships of active homosexuality.

The judicatory determined that this charge was proven with a high degree of probability. Voted: 182 yes; 65 no.

Charge Two:

In his actions Dr. Kansfield has contradicted his affirmations in the three Declarations mentioned above (Declaration for Licensed Candidates, Declaration for Ministers of the Word and Sacrament, and Declaration for General Synod Professors of Theology), all of which say "I promise to walk in the Spirit of Christ, in love and fellowship within the church, seeking the things that make for unity, purity and peace."

The judicatory determined that this charge was proven with a high degree of probability. Voted: 164 yes; 83 no.

Charge Three:

By his actions Dr. Kansfield has violated his promise, in the Declaration for General Synod Professors of Theology, in which he promised: "I will submit myself to the counsel and admonition of the General Synod, always ready, with gentleness and reverence, to give an account of my understanding of the Christian faith." If there was ever a situation where this statement could and should have been applied it would have been the June 3-9, 2004, meeting of General Synod, before the 'marriage' in Massachusetts later in June.

The judicatory determined that this charge was proven with a high degree of probability. Voted: 167 yes; 80 no.

Upon completion of deliberations, the judicatory:

VOTED: To exercise discipline of the Rev. Dr. Norman Kansfield by deposing him from [the] office of General Synod Professor of Theology and suspending him from the Office of Minister of Word and sacrament. (MGS 2005: 43-44).

4. The frequent pronouncements of Synod, together with the judicial actions of 2005, have established that the General Synod considers homosexual behavior and the solemnization of gay partnerships to be contrary to Scripture. This established position renders other interpretations of Scripture on the matter to be out of bounds.

Prior to the trial in 2005 an Investigative Committee was appointed by the General Synod Council to investigate the various charges filed against Rev. Kansfield. In this report, the Committee comments on "The Binding Nature of General Synod Statements and Decisions."

The Committee concluded that the RCA Constitution "lays a firm foundation for accepting the statements and decisions of the General Synod as binding with regard to our interpretation of Scripture" (11).


Likewise, the report stated: "We believe that the vesting of this authority of General Synod is not only considered as a positive grant of such authority, but would also necessarily restrict the exercise of such authority by ministers and professors of theology when in conflict with the statements and decisions of the General Synod" (13).

Whether or not some people in the RCA interpret Scripture differently on the matter of homosexuality, the General Synod has concluded time and time again that the proper interpretation of Scripture is one that sees homosexual behavior as a sin contrary to the will of God.

5. While our stated position is clear, there continue to be some in the RCA who teach, practice, and promote what is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and the pronouncements of the General Synod with regards to homosexuality.

In 2005, at the same Synod in which Rev. Norm Kansfield was disciplined, an item was included under "new business" with the title "Engage in Dialogue or Hold Us Accountable, Too." The letter stated: "We believe that the Church of Jesus Christ, full of the Spirit, should bless covenantal same-sex relationships, as it does heterosexual relationships. We believe committed same-sex relationships are not sinful, but rather a blessing from God. We believe that the Reformed Church in America ought to confess its sinfulness in adhering for too long to an oppressive position on homosexuality and ought to seek the forgiveness of its lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered brothers and sisters." The letter included more than 150 signatures, including dozens of RCA ministers, scores of elders and deacons, and several professors at RCA institutions. (MGS 2005: 378-81)


In 2007, Rev. Jacqui Lewis was invited be the guest preacher at General Synod, this despite the fact that she and her church had recently made very public statements supporting and promoting homosexuality.


Room For All continues to pursue its mission, with seeming immunity, in "supporting, educating, and advocating for the full inclusion of LGBT persons in the Reformed Church in America." Their website lists 16 board members, including eight RCA ministers, and lists 15 "Welcoming and Affirming" RCA congregations (four "Collegiate" churches in New York City, plus four New Jersey churches, and five New York state churches).  Room For All offers several regional conferences and saw over 150 people attend some or all of their national conference hosted by Central Reformed Church in Grand Rapids. [Note: Since drafting the overture there are now 17 Room For All congregations, the latest Hope Church in Holland, Michigan.]


The Reformed Church of Highland Park (NJ), in partnership with a local Lutheran church and Unitarian Society, hosted a Room For All Christian camp for GLBTQ teens. The effort was spearheaded by Rev. Patty Fox, a pastor at RCHP and a lesbian with a longtime partner.  According to the Room For All newsletter (Summer 2011), "Youth who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or trans-gender were given the opportunity to spend time with other teens and adult staff who acknowledge their own Christian orientation."


The legalization of gay marriage in New York has opened a door for RCA congregations and pastors there to perform same-sex marriages, even though this is in violation of the Scriptures and the official position of the RCA. For example, consider this announcement from an RCA church's website in June 2011: "Tonight the New York State Senate voted in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. The consistory of the Greenpoint Reformed Church has voted to encourage committed same-sex couples to prayerfully consider marriage, and pledge our support to couples wishing to get married in our church. If you would like to be married at the Greenpoint Reformed Church or would like one of our ministers to officiate at your wedding, please email us. . . ." Likewise, in an online article focusing on the wedding of a lesbian couple in an RCA church, one person reports: "I regularly attend Middle Collegiate Church where our Pastor, a fierce advocate for Marriage Equality, invited us to share our commitment along with two other gay male couples a week later, on July 31, 2011. Our families came to that ceremony where, in front of an affirming church community, three homosexual couples renewed their spiritual commitment through marriage."


Ann Kansfield, the daughter of Rev. Norman Kansfield, was ordained by in the UCC in 2011. Ann and her partner Jennifer Aull (also ordained in the UCC), are listed by the Greenpoint Reformed Church in Brooklyn as their co-pastors.


According to a recent article in the Grand Rapids Press, "An RCA classis in New Jersey in September embraced the ordination of the Rev. Ursula Cargill, a gay woman credentialed in the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches."


On October 18, 2011, the Rev. Dr. Norman Kansfield was reinstated as a Minister of Word and Sacrament by a nearly unanimous vote of the Classis of Rockland-Westchester. The RCA Disciplinary Procedures (Part I, Article 6, Section 2, page 83) stipulate: "A person who has been suspended or deposed from office may be restored to office upon repentance and renewal of vows before the judicatory which suspended or deposed that person, provided that the judicatory is satisfied that the honor of the office will not be impaired and that the welfare of the church will be served by such a restoration, and provided that the restoration is approved by a two-thirds vote of those present at the meeting of the judicatory. Restoration after deposition shall include reordination to office." It is hard to imagine how Rev. Kansfield has repented of Charge One which found him guilty of acting "contrary to our faith and beliefs as affirmed by the Holy Scriptures and the decisions of the General Synod concerning the relationships of active homosexuality."A few days after his reinstatement Kansfield administered communion with his daughter Ann at the Room For All national conference. He gave a seminar entitled "Uncomplicated Theology for Same-Sex Marriage."


On December 29, 2011, Rev. Jon Norton, who is on staff with the Synod of New York, posted the following announcement from Rev. Rob Williams (an RCA pastor in Rockland-Westchester Classis) on that Regional Synod's website: "I am excited about one of the best Christmas presents I have ever received. On Wednesday, December 7th, Clark & David Cameron-Gonzalez allowed me to perform their wedding at our church (the United Church of Spring Valley). I had truly married them nine years before at the Marble Collegiate Church, but this wedding, on the ninth anniversary of the original, has the force of New York State law. Hallelujah!"

6. "The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults" (Belgic Confession, Article 29). Although we will not do so perfectly here on earth, we should strive to have a holy church that reflects the character of our holy God. To allow blatant and open sin to flourish in the RCA is to dishonor the testimony and history of the global church, the witness of Scripture, and the character of God. The question is not whether we can have an entirely pristine church. The issue is whether, in exercising the marks of the church, we will defend what is true and take courage to oppose what is false.

Homosexuality and the RCA: A Call for Action, Consistency, and Faithfulness (Part 2)

Several Options, No Waffling

I believe the time for waffling is over. As a denomination we have a clear position. Some choose to disregard, disobey, and disrespect that position. This should not be. The PCUSA, the ELCA, and the Episcopal Church fought these same battles over many years. They often urged patience, insisted on unity, and encouraged their people to focus on mission. Now they all welcome gay clergy in one way or another. Those on the side of historic orthodoxy "trusted the process" and the process let them down. Now is the time for action. Later will be too late. There are many different steps many different churches and classes should take. The overture from our church is one of these possible—and we think necessary—steps.

I recognize that the common retort at this point is to ask, "Why single out homosexuality? Why are you picking on this one sin? Why don't you people talk about all other sins in the church? Are we going to pass resolutions for every sin?" There are several good responses to these questions. For starters, we do talk about lots of other sins—at least we do in my church. This is certainly not the only sin out there, and not even the main sin in the vast majority of our churches. But it is one of the principal areas where the church is under pressure from the culture to compromise. Every generation faces difficult issues and theological controversies. They require the church to speak out and speak clearly. Sexuality just happens to be one of those issues for our day. And the fact that many of our churches fail to practice the necessary discipline in a whole host of areas (from heterosexual fornication to unbiblical divorce) does not mean we should further compromise in this area of homosexuality. We ought to exercise loving, restorative discipline in every church. But as long as people in the RCA are not marshaling forces to celebrate marital affairs and divorce, it is a smokescreen to suggest that caring about those issues precludes us speaking out on this one.

I want unity and believe Christ commands us to be one. But we cannot be one institutionally unless we are truly one spiritually. The differences over sexuality are serious enough, but the issue is only symptomatic of disagreements that go wider and deeper, disagreements that touch on the authority and interpretation of Scripture, the authority and interpretation of our Standards, the reality of eternal hell, the reality of divine wrath, that nature of the atonement, and the nature of the gospel itself. We cannot pretend forever that an ambiguous understanding of "shared mission" can cover over our profound theological, biblical, and ethical disagreements. Let the RCA decide once and for all whether homosexuality is acceptable in our fellowship and then peaceably allow congregations and pastors to figure out if the RCA is still right for them.

Truth and Grace

Believe it or not, I really have no desire to engage in a long, protracted fight over homosexuality. What pastor does? But I do want to be faithful. And compromising on something the Bible speaks to so clearly is not faithfulness. It is cowardice. Of course it would be nice to do nothing. I begrudge the time and effort involved in controversy. More than that, I do not enjoy making people upset. I do not relish being thought narrow, judgmental, intolerant, mean-spirited or whatever else opposition to homosexuality is now considered in our culture. But even more I loathe doing nothing when so much is at stake. If it is true that homosexual behavior is sinful—as the Law of Moses and the gospels and the letter of Paul and our Catechism and our General Synod pronouncements conclude—then we are helping no one by saying "peace, peace," where there is no peace. We are not helping the RCA fulfill its mission of making disciples in the world. We are not helping persons with same-gender attraction who need love and the truth in equal measure. We are not helping the consistories and pastors and professors in the RCA who continue to promote sin at risk to their congregations, their students, and their own souls. Most importantly, we are not helping to magnify the glory of our holy God and his all-forgiving, all-transforming grace.

I too know of persons who struggle with homosexual desires. Some of them will reject the church if we do not affirm their lifestyle. That is true, just like the greedy and self-righteous may turn away if we preach against those sins. But others know they lack sexual wholeness and are looking for a church body to help them fight against sin. They are hungry to hear the truth of God's word and eager to know the expulsive power of a new affection. We do not help them by soft-pedaling the truth or giving them a lie. We do not help them by celebrating what the Lord would have us tearfully correct. We do not help them by joining hands with those who would offer them a stone instead of a piece of bread. We help them by repenting of our hurtful attitudes, by speaking the truth in love, by folding them into our communities, and by walking together in faith and repentance, all to the end that we may live into the "such were some of you" gospel hope of 1 Corinthians 6.

I've been in the RCA my whole life.  I'm convinced that the best and worst thing about our denomination is that we don't like to draw lines in the sand.  This is good in so far as it keep us from majoring on the minors and focusing on each other's faults.  This is bad in so far as it keeps us from acting decisively when faithfulness demands that we must.  There are some denominations who can't say yes to anything.  Thankfully, that's not us.  And yet, sometimes we have a hard time saying no to anything.  We are a small group, tight knit, held together by relationships that stretch back into seminary, college, and family reunions. We don't like to make people waves. We don't want to start a fight. That's good. But the word of God calls us to a higher standard than niceness and warm relationships.

We are not called to be abrasive and arrogant, harsh and hateful.  But we are called to be strong and courageous, willing to do the hard, uncomfortable, painful act of holding each other accountable and saying no to ungodliness and worldly passions (Titus 2:11).  Do not be cowed into silence by those who claim all that's at stake are two different interpretations of Scripture.  There comes a time when we must rule certain interpretations—no matter how sincerely held—out of bounds with Christian orthodoxy, unfaithful to Scripture, and unacceptable in our churches.  Do not be afraid of strong words and hard labels. Jesus himself commended the church at Ephesus because they did not "bear with those who are evil" and hated "the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" (Rev. 2:2, 6). Do not take the easy way out and allow what you know to be unbiblical under the guise of unity and mission. With hearts of love and theological backbones of steel we must not compromise on homosexuality.

A Call to Courage

How many in the RCA will put their reputations and their ease on the line that we might decisively confront this issue? If we fail to discipline such intransigent disobedience to the Scriptures and to our own pronouncements it will be fair to wonder whether we have lost the third mark of the church, and consequently, whether we as a denomination can still be recognized as a true church (Belgic Confession, Article 29).

The question is not whether we can have an entirely pristine church. The issue is whether we care to defend what is true and take courage to oppose what is false. In a recent blog post, Carl Trueman brings this point home with reference to a different denomination struggling with homosexuality:

It is, of course, not a question of whether the Church of Scotland is morally perfect in her membership or behaviour; no church ever has been and that is not the point at issue here.  It is rather a matter of whether, as an institution, she will not merely tolerate but actively encourage, promote and defend the true preaching of the word of God, of the whole counsel of God, and oppose—and depose by due and decent process—those who do not do so yet who claim to minister in Christ's name.

If we truly believe in "one, holy, universal, apostolic church" we should make every effort to be true to the apostle's teaching (no matter how countercultural) and in step with the faith confessed around the world throughout the ages, no matter how strange it may seem to our Western sensibilities. We should also strive to have a holy church that reflects the character of our holy God. To hunker down in our own friendly confines and do nothing at this moment in the life of the RCA is to dishonor the history of the church, the witness of Scripture, and the character of God.

Now is the time for broken-hearted courage. Now is the time for doctrinal integrity. Now is the time to not only say the right thing but do the right thing. I can hear the voice of Elijah calling to us: "How long will you go limping between two different opinions?" (1 Kings 18:21).

Homosexuality and the RCA: A Call for Action, Consistency, and Faithfulness (Part 1)

The middle path can be the way of wisdom. Sometimes issues get polarized, positions get hardened, and straddling the fence is the better part of valor. Sometimes it's best to look at both sides of a controversy and conclude that there is a third way in between them. Sometimes the middle of the road is where you want to be.

And sometimes the middle of the road is where you get flattened by a semi.

For several years the Reformed Church in America has approached the issue of homosexuality as an opportunity to have our cake and eat it too. On the one hand, we have numerous official statements which condemn homosexual behavior and affirm the normativity of heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman. And on the other hand, we can easily compile a growing number of incidents where our official statements are being disregarded with apparent immunity. We have a position that says one thing and a practice that allows for another.

A Kairos Moment

The time has come for the RCA to make up its mind on homosexuality. There are basically two different paths the denomination can take.

There is virtually no chance the RCA will change its official opinion in the near future. The General Synod has never come close to affirming the legitimacy of homosexuality in its official statements. So changing our position and coming out as an aggressively pro-gay denomination is, thankfully, not a realistic possibility.

But there are two other paths before us.

Option one is to do nothing. We can push aside the controversy and tell everyone to get back to the important work of "staying on mission." In the meantime, we can allow each classis to handle the issue for itself, essentially saying, "If your classis doesn't allow for homosexuality, that's your business. But if our classis does, you have to respect our judgment." This makes the issue someone else's problem (at least for now). And if all else fails, we can dialogue the issue to death, talking a few more years about our experiences until we all learn by a hundred unspoken statements that we should just get along and not let this issue divide us.

The other option is to do something. We can dare to say that this issue is truly a gospel issue. We can realize that the church's mission is never strengthened and blessed by God through doctrinal and ethical compromise. We can turn away from the easy "let's all get along" option. We can turn from the convenient approach that says, "As long as I can do my ministry, why should I bother with all this controversy." If we do something-be it church discipline or some kind of amicable separation-it will come with a cost. It will mean strained relationships. You will hear words like "witch hunt" and "homophobic." People will think you are mean and narrow. People will not believe you if you say love gays and lesbians. They may consider you oppressive, repressive, and reactionary. But if the integrity of our denomination, the glory of the gospel, the truthfulness of the Bible, and the spiritual well-being of homosexual persons (and heterosexual for that matter) are at stake, then we cannot afford to take the easy path.

Why Can't We Agree to Disagree?

In the past the controversy surrounding homosexuality has often been cast as an "agree to disagree" issue. The biblical command to unity has been held high, but it not always been clear that true unity can only be found in the truth. We have been told that "mission comes first," but we have not stopped to think whether our mission is helped by undermining the gospel. Over and over it's been suggested—usually implicitly, sometimes explicitly—that the problem is not with the existence of two positions on this issue; the problem with those who distract us from more important work by insisting that there is only one faithful position.

This was the message we frequently heard from our former General Secretary. Wes Granberg-Michaelson was an effective leader in many ways and helped encourage church planting and evangelism, for which we should be thankful. But on this issue, unfortunately, he pushed an agree-to-disagree middle path. Whether he was talking about the need for dialogue or the need to stay away from divisive disciplinary proceedings, his message was consistent. "Our challenge," Granberg-Michaelson wrote in the Church Herald in the middle of the Kansfield gay marriage crisis, "is to keep our focus clearly on our mission.  And then, if we renew our vows of fidelity, we can learn to argue while still holding hands" (Church Herald, February 2005, 14). Similarly, in his memoir Unexpected Destinations, Granberg-Michaelson concludes that the debate over homosexuality involves a minor issue that should not threaten our fellowship:

In the end, the church's debate over homosexuality revolves around a very narrow question. If a couple of the same sex are committed publicly to a monogamous, lifelong relationship, should they, in the privacy of their bedroom, be celibate or sexually expressive? I understand that there are different convictions around that matter. But what I don't understand is why those differences should rupture fellowship between brothers and sisters in the body of Christ.

It seems completely mistaken that this narrow ethical difference become a church-dividing matter in the Anglican communion, or should alter how Rome has fellowship with historic Protestants, or should cause Lutherans to break their bonds of communion with one another, or should cause anyone to question whether they can maintain their vow to fellowship and unity in the Reformed Church in America. (223)

This is one way to view the controversy—same sex behavior is simply a small matter of personal consequence. But of course, it hardly would have been the conviction of Calvin or Luther or Ursinus or De Bres or virtually anyone else in Christendom before the twentieth century that two men or two women in a homoerotic relationship was only a "narrow ethical" matter concerning private expressions. More to the point, it's hard to fathom (impossible really) that the Lord Jesus and his Apostles would have considered sexual immorality such a trivial matter. I know this will sound strange, even offensive perhaps, but imagine if Jesus discovered that two of his disciples were having sex together in a committed monogamous relationship, do we really think Jesus—the holy Son of God and a first century Jew who never broke the Law and never questioned the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures, would have tolerated, let alone celebrated, their actions?

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I do want to provoke you to think this through. Are we to suppose that if Peter started a church and ordained a gay couple as co-pastors that Paul would have thought, "Well, Jesus said we should be one.  So no big deal." Does anyone honestly think that if we could take a time machine back to A.D. 60 and we found (what we certainly would not find) that Timothy and Titus were joined in a civil ceremony and now were sleeping together that Paul would have told the other churches "Relax, it's only an ethical issue"?  We can do all the mental gymnastics we want with word studies and the dialectics of trajectory hermeneutics, but at the end of the day it takes an extraordinary degree of historical re-invention to imagine the Apostles or the Church Fathers or the Reformers or Domine Van Raalte or Samuel Zwemer marching in gay parades and promoting homosexuality. If we "agree to disagree" on homosexuality and consider same-sex behavior nothing more than a narrow ethical decision, we are agreeing to disagree with the near unanimous consensus of our church for almost 400 years and the Church for virtually all of its history.

A Series on Homosexuality and the RCA

Starting tomorrow I'll be running a series of posts about homosexuality and the RCA. For those outside the Reformed Church in America (and that's almost all of you), you may not understand all the issues and historical events at first. But you'll see the issues at stake pretty quickly.

For those in the RCA I am posting this series for a couple reasons. (1) Many classes (think: presbyteries) will be voting on overtures in the coming weeks. My classis will vote on overtures next Tuesday. I hope this series will persuade RCA pastors and elders to approve strong overtures that can make their way to the General Synod this summer. (2) People in the RCA need to know what is going on in their denomination and see the need for a faithful response. Reading these posts will be uncomfortable  at times. I imagine, they will make folks upset for various reasons. But staring at the truth will help us all in the long run.

Here is the schedule for the rest of the week:

Tuesday – Homosexuality and the RCA: A Call for Action, Consistency, and Faithfulness (Part 1)

Wednesday – Homosexuality and the RCA: A Call for Action, Consistency, and Faithfulness (Part 2)

Thursday – An Overture Regarding Homosexuality and the RCA

Friday – Does the Heidelberg Catechism Have Anything to Say About Homosexuality?

One final note: as you may recall, I am traveling overseas at the moment. I didn't want to post this series while I was gone, but this was the best time to lead up to the vote by our classis (which I will miss). Being out of town, I will not be able to do much to monitor the comments on these posts. I have someone from the church helping to check the comments for me and see if things get out of control. Please be respectful with your agreements or disagreements. I will turn off the comments if they veer off into the inappropriate or become a distraction from the posts themselves.

Breadth from Depth

William Still was a gifted pastor in the United Kingdom. He has impacted the lives of great preachers in our day like Sinclair Ferguson, Ian Hamilton, and Phil Ryken. This is a quote from his book The Work of the Pastor. In our churches we need to labor for both breadth and depth. But as he asserts, the breadth, often and necessarily flows from the depth:

Some of the hardest nuts to crack in the Christian world are those who have been so busy evangelizing that they have never allowed the Word to be turned upon them, and who therefore regard the Bible as a mere book of Gospel texts to hurl at others, or at least to bait them with. The sad decline in the quality of Christian life and witness in our country (United Kingdom) is largely due to the fact that the evangelical church has for several generations been a huge nursery, not only of infant babes but, much worse, grown-up babes…If our use and direction of the power and gifts of the Spirit tend in practice towards a short-sighted tactic rather than to long-term strategy, then we shall precipitate a problem that we may not have the means to solve. As a result the whole school of Christ will become one vast kindergarten, overflowing the classrooms. Nor will there be any teachers for them, because all the should-be teachers are out driving more and more infants to school. And when the teacher is away, the children play! Here then we have a school overrun, almost infested with infants, and all the monitors, guardians and teachers are out looking for more!…It is doubtless, a fine thing to be evangelistic: who is not, who deals faithfully with the Word? But it is one thing to gain converts, another to produce evangelists, missionaries, ministers—not to speak of powerful witnesses for Christ in innumerable lay fields. The church's task is not only to gain converts, but so to build them up that they are 'thrustable out.'

Lloyd-Jones' Faith on Trial offer

Reformation Heritage Books has arranged a special deal with Christian Focus on Lloyd-Jones' Faith on Trial.

Here's a description of the book and the offer.

Why do the godly suffer while the ungodly seem to prosper? This is a problem that has often perplexed and discouraged God's people—from unfavorable doctor's reports, employment troubles, to some of life's most painful circumstances. Thankfully, the Bible does not leave us without an answer. This is the very question the Psalmist wrestles with in Psalm 73. This book, by one of the twentieth century's most beloved pastors on one of the most beloved Psalms was a labor of love and true joy. Delivered on eleven successive Sunday mornings Lloyd-Jones opens this text, like a door of hope, and invites those whose feet are 'almost gone' and whose steps have 'well nigh slipped' to fall back again on the precious promises of God. Powerfully, biblically, pastorally, and experientially Lloyd-Jones shows how faith can triumph over the sorest trials. Reformation Heritage Books would like to offer this book at an all-time low cost of $5/copy. Click here to order the book.