Losing our balance
An obsessive focus on sexuality distracts from the CRC’s central mission.
The Synod of the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRC) will soon meet for a week in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Agenda for Synod 2023 weighs in at 629 pages, with 76 overtures plus various communications. Over 60 of them respond in some way to the decision of last year’s Synod to declare that the Heidelberg Catechism’s meaning of “unchaste” in Question & Answer 108 includes adultery, premarital sex, extra-marital sex, polyamory, pornography and homosexual sex. This decision did not need the following synod’s ratification, which went against the recommendation of the official Church Order advisor. After all the debates, the Chair of Synod said that this was the “beginning of a conversation.” Well, the sheer bulk of overtures to Synod 2023 shows that the conversation has been thoroughly engaged – in volume and with considerable acrimony. And it’s also affected classes and council meetings across North America.
Overture overview
This past winter, for example, the host church council of Classis Alberta South-Saskatchewan wrote to at least five churches (The Road, Emmanuel, Taber, River Park and The Lantern) asking that they “repent of [their] covenant breaking position” before attending the next Classis meeting. Throughout the denomination, councils and classes – both supporting or disagreeing with synod’s decision regarding unchastity – have debated vetting deacons, elders and pastors about their stand on the issue as criteria for selection as delegates to this year’s synod. Such procedures deliberately politicize and surely contravene the declared character of classes and synods as deliberative assemblies.
Then we look at the overtures in the Agenda. Classis Zeeland proposes to break up Classis Grand Rapids East by redistricting. Other overtures propose future steps for churches, pastors and members to leave the CRC either voluntarily or to be disfellowshipped following a process of discipline. As well, overtures request changes to the process of Councils processing “confessional difficulty” or “confessional revision” gravamina such that the local Council must report to Classis who submitted gravamina and of which type. Related to this are overtures to revise the Church Order to remove local councils as the source of church discipline and move that process to classes or synod.
An overture from Classis Southeast (p. 461) is recommending, among much else, that same-sex attraction is a sinful personal choice, thus contradicting Synod 1973. That effectively targets one group of God’s image-bearers as needing to be singled out as more defective than all the rest of us.
Shrunk to one issue
Beginning officially with Synod 2016’s appointment of the study committee to examine human sexuality and continuing to (and most likely after) Synod 2023, sexuality has taken up far more public and official thought, emotions and energy than any other issue. The spark that started these years of fiery arguments was the requirement to name to the HSR Study Committee only those who agreed with Synod 1973’s report on homosexuality. Though it did include a promotor fidei as a non-voting member of the committee, the person chosen wasn’t a current member of the denomination. Historically, our flexible but strong Reformed perspective encourages intellectual and spiritual dialogue on a variety of complex issues and Synodical study committees usually intentionally appoint voting members with differing points of view.
Irrespective of my own personal stance as “carefully affirming,” all of this suggests to me that sexuality has sadly become the most important issue of the first part of the 21st century in the CRC and in many other denominations. That process and fact have shoved much more crucial ecclesiastical and spiritual ministry goals way down the line.
Sexuality has grown into the ever-larger tail that threatens to wag our ever-weaker and obsessive dog as the central issue of our identity. I believe that gradually the CRC has been losing its direction and central mission, namely to attractively present the Gospel of Christ as full-orbed and not radically shrunk down to one issue. We are more than our sexuality.
A perilous position
Synod’s decision to declare as confessional that homosexual relations are unchaste has effectively subverted Christian Reformed theology, turning it upside down. With sexuality declared confessional and thus a salvation issue depending on an individual’s choice, it appears that the decision of who is saved falls to individual persons, no longer relying on the mysterious Grace of Christ.
With that decision, the richness, depth, integrity and balance of our Gospel witness have disappeared. It appears that as ever more angry debate burns, our Reformed theology is attempting to dance on the head of the pin of sexuality. It is impossible to maintain any poise or balance with such an all-consuming agenda. If this state of affairs continues without a humble, soberly deliberated change of direction, I’m afraid the CRC cannot survive.
Absolutely! But the answer isn’t the status quo of leaving LGBTQ Christians in the shadows with marginal status. The answer is leaving to God the things that are God’s (like judgment) and living out Christ’s love command with no exceptions.
Yes we’ve lost our balance if the CRC thinks it’s more important to be “right” than to be merciful.
I seldom get drawn into these debates, but this cries out for a response. How is it that allowing unrepentant adultery, fornication etc. to remain as confessional issues does not turn a theology of grace upside down, but including unrepentant homosexual activity does? Does anyone seriously think the authors of the HC would not have agreed with Synod 2022’s decision, if it had been a live issue in their day? Besides, Olevianus made his personal position clear in his commentary. Why is it that it is always those who wish to uphold the Christian church’s historic position who are guilty of distracting attention away from the centrality of the gospel? Had the HSR not met with significant push-back, we wouldn’t be having these discussions. The underlying issue is the authority and interpretation of Scripture (e.g. 1 Cor 6: 9-11, which does seem to make this a salvation issue). I know there are hermeneutical ways around that, but it’s the reason that several other evangelical and Reformed churches celebrated Synod 2022 as a hopeful development in the CRC.
As to the hearsay about the host pastor in Classis Alberta S & Sask disinviting other churches from attending, I respectfully suggest you check the facts with him. Being the host pastor was incidental and he was following the advice of three denominational leaders. (I am a former states clerk of classis, although not actively involved at present.)
Thanks for raising those questions, Cameron. We’ve made a change to the sentence about the host pastor, and we’ll keep your first paragraph in consideration on an upcoming Letters to the Editor page.
I checked out this article because a friend told me that you had written about me without ever contacting me.
I am the pastor you referenced in this article, and your details are false and lack context.
1) I did not write the letter. The council, of which I am a part, wrote the letter.
2) We did not disinvite anyone. We expressed our concern with certain councils who effectively said that they are promising to not “promote and defend” our statements of faith (particularly in regards to unchastity), which is breaking of the Covenant for Officebearers, as we understand it. Our letter of concern was written after guidance from denominational leadership on how we should deal with our concerns. In the letter we expressed our desire that the Holy Spirit would led them to repentance, but we never demanded them to repent to us. Nor did we ever suggest that they could not come to classis. That is not our call. That would only be the call of our classis. We respect good order and process.
It might also be noted that two of these churches you cited have been affirming churches in opposition to our denomination’s clear position on unchastity. Also, very recently, another church council in this group voted that their church would now become an affirming congregation. This is what happens when we fail to practice the 3rd mark of the true Church.
Thank you, Matt, for your response. I apologize for not accurately stating that your council authored the letter, but as a pastor I do know that we are pretty influential in what our councils do. My misattribution has been corrected online in Christian Courier. As for the letter itself, what the council sent to those churches was more than the “concern” three CRC leaders advised Covenant council to present. It was, rather, a very harsh admonition, not emblematic of the love pledged in the opening paragraph. As well, before that classis meeting, the classis executive decided to emphasize that all delegates were welcome to attend. That is where the warning or admonition should originate in regards to classis business. Council’s letter bypassed the broader authority of classis to decide who may or may not attend and thus did not respect the important mechanics of Church Order.