This is not a debate about loving people
What I’d appreciate from my colleagues who disagree on the Human Sexuality Report.
It’s a contentious time in the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRC). I believe the stand the denomination has taken with regard to human sexuality is a necessary one. But that doesn’t mean I’m indifferent to the grief many are experiencing as a result. In the interest of mutual understanding, I’d like to do two things in this article. First, I’d like to say a few things that some of my colleagues who disagree with Synod’s 2023 decisions might appreciate hearing from someone like myself. Second, I’d like to share what I’d appreciate hearing from my colleagues who disagree.
What those who disagree might appreciate
First, to those who disagree with Synod’s decisions – I can understand your frustration and your grief. I can understand why it’s painful to feel yourself to be at the edges of a denomination that is profoundly precious to you. For those of you in paid ministry, this grief is also tied up in questions about your vocation and livelihood. Those are precious and weighty matters to have thrown out-of-balance. I can empathize with the intensity of emotion that stirs.
Second, like many of you, I serve a church that has had some painful disagreements about what Synod decided. I understand the feeling that a wrench has been thrown into the gears of your ministry context. For many, this matter has demanded an abnormal amount of time, energy, and perhaps even emotional health. I know how much all of us want to see that our labours on behalf of our congregations are contributing to growth and blessing. To see what looks like the opposite is deeply deflating.
Lastly, I admire your genuine concern for the LGBTQ community. I understand that a big piece of what motivates you is the pain of vulnerable people that you’ve witnessed. For others, it’s a pain you’ve experienced first-hand. I appreciate your insistence that we not overlook the personal and pastoral center to this conversation. Some of you are convicted that the CRC’s position is inherently harmful and, given that conviction, I understand the accompanying feelings of dismay.
I’m sure there’s more you’d like me to understand, but I hope that’s at least a start. For whatever’s left of this debate in our denomination, I will do my best to be understanding when intense emotion may lead to less-than-ideal communication.
What I’d appreciate from those who disagree
First, I’d appreciate your understanding as to why so many of us believe this is not a matter on which Christ-honouring churches can simply agree to disagree. We all agree that if a behaviour is not sexually immoral, the church ought not insist that it is. The inverse is equally true: if a behaviour is sexually immoral, a Christ-honouring church must insist that it is. On this the New Testament is sharply and repeatedly unambiguous (e.g. Matt. 5:27-30; 1 Cor. 5:11; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 21:8). From a New Testament perspective, convictions on sexual morality must be a part of our doctrinal accountability as a denomination (even more urgently so than some of the other teachings in our confessions). Unless we are convinced from scripture that same-sex marriage is morally permissible, integrity requires us to take the stand we’re taking – we’d be hypocrites and/or cowards not to. In short, I’d appreciate hearing that you understand the moral obligation inherent in our conviction.
Secondly, I’d appreciate your understanding that this is not a debate about whether or not to love people – it’s a debate about what love requires. If agape love means seeking the true good of another person, the disagreement we’re having is about what is the “true good” of someone who is gay or same-sex attracted. It’s true that forbidding what God has permitted is not seeking the true good of another person, but neither is condoning what God has forbidden. Rather than being accused of homophobia or indifference, I’d rather respond to arguments that we have misunderstood the “true good” that God has revealed in scripture.
Lastly, I’d appreciate hearing that you understand our concern about the much larger implications of the debate we’re having right now. The trajectory of denominations that have softened the church’s prohibition against same-sex marriage is, to put it mildly, disheartening. In the past few years, I have witnessed in the CRC a striking preponderance of non-scriptural arguments put forth against the conclusions of the Human Sexuality Report (in conversations, in articles, and in overtures). I’d appreciate hearing that you understand why we see this as an alarmingly unhealthy symptom with much bigger-picture stakes.
Conclusion
I recognize that for some of us, there isn’t a way forward that involves remaining in the same denomination. I don’t imagine an article like this will do anything to change that. But perhaps it can do some good toward keeping our hearts a little softer toward one another in the midst of a painful disagreement, and even in the midst of parting.
I suggest, respectfully, that you are not speaking much about gender matters here, but about how to treat people who have a different interpretation of scripture than you. My upbringing was in a denomination in which every issue ultimately came to one’s “view of scripture” and–necessarily–our denomination was correct on all of these debates. There was much talk about grace, but a shortage of it offered to those who came to different conclusions on certain matters. I think that, for the present, the view of the Roman Catholic church–bless people, although not blessing same-sex marriages–may be the only solution some Protestant denominations can agree upon. . . . if that.
Pastor Craig,
As we both know, a longer version of a similar article has been posted in December on the Abide Project website. I thought we had a helpful and loving engagement there. It was a bit tricky because the Abide Project website only allows for shorter responses — so the 3.5 page (yes, I wrote a lot) response I wrote had to be divided into three separate posts.
For those who do not wish to go to Abide’s website, here is my full response (all quotes are to the December version of the article): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z1emhVF4qvBj0Ec1bkBzWWhx5qBw_mbaPSTUrHAZSV4/edit?usp=sharing
And here is the first paragraph of your posted response to me:
“Hey Paul, I’m grateful for your engagement, and particularly grateful for your careful reading of my article. I think you understood me well…or at least I feel very understood by your comments, which I receive as a gift. Thank you for that.”
Our conversation went on a bit longer. I would summarize our concluding agreements as these two things:
1. We both see the CRCNA as heading towards a divide given the mutually exclusive biblical conclusions, and a desire to let all people live out of their deeply held convictions. Some feel the need to be in a covenant community that exclusively holds the traditional position; some do not feel this need, finding it possible to live in ‘unity without uniformity’ (to quote my daughter’s upcoming communication to Synod 2024). And THIS ESPECIALLY: if there is a divide coming, we both want to do what we can to help it be done well, gently and wisely.
2. We both recognize that there will be Christians who will come to the biblical conclusions that affirm same-sex marriage. Since that is happening, we both wanted to have available for this community the best biblical, theological, and confessional articulations of an “affirming” position — since, yes, there are some bad ones.
In response to this article in March and it’s timing, let me further articulate a few things.
First, regarding biblical and theological work for the ‘affirming’ position. You write that there is a ‘striking preponderance of non-scriptural arguments put forth against the conclusions of the Human Sexuality Report’ (HSR). Here is an article I published with Christian Courier a full year before Synod 2022 — https://www.christiancourier.ca/five-major-concerns/.
As noted in my May 2021 article, the concerns listed in the overtures against the HSR were NOT ONLY about biblical and theological matters. There were many other concerns. That is one reason for non-scriptural arguments — some arguments were about excluding voices, some about harm, some about proper church order, and some about proper use of science — the concerns were not MERELY about biblical and theological interpretation.
A second reason why there is less biblical and theological response is because the decisions of Synod 2022 effectively muted those of us who are biblically and theologically trained. I know the CRC has many non-pastors who are astute biblical and theologically. But imagine the challenge of a healthy conversation when Synod 2022 muted the ones whom the denomination has trained in biblical languages and Reformed systematic theology from the conversation! As an example, I was asked to provide an “affirming” biblical, theological and confessional case at a local CRC. Part 1 was in late May 2022. Part 2 was in late June 2022. I participated in part 1. But then Synod 2022 made a decision that — to be faithful to my Covenant as an Officebearers in the CRC — meant that I could not participate in Part 2.
In response to this ‘muting of officebearers’, I have written an overture to Synod 2023 — that is now coming to Synod 2024 — which asked specifically that those desiring to write a confessional revision gravamen be allowed to openly collaborate without disciplinary action (Agenda for Synod 2023, Overture 69, specifically item A on page 578). Somehow, I was NOT SURPRISED when the Majority Advisory Committee Report simply did not respond to that request, or even mention ‘confessional revision gravamen’ at all.
SUMMARY of first point: How can we have a healthy conversation when those who speak out will be disciplined?
Secondly, regarding the need for a “Gentle Pathway towards Separation”, I wrote an overture that will be coming to Synod 2024 with that title. It asks Synod 2024 to assemble a Task Force, and suggests at least ten pieces of work that task force could do to help the upcoming division within the CRCNA to be done well, gently and wisely. Again, I was NOT SURPRISED when that overture met with strong resistance.
It would seem to me, Pastor Craig, that one helpful thing you could do — as someone connected strongly in the Abide camp — is to help foster a conversation there that aligns with our two mutual goals:
– speak highly within your community of some sort of healthy pathway toward separation, one that is respectful of the differences, honours convictions, minimizes lawsuits, does not punish those desiring to leave.
– given the upcoming separation, also affirm your own desire to allow those with an ‘affirming’ theology to collaborate such that the Reformed world and beyond could be offered the best biblical, theological and confessional case for affirming same-sex marriage.
Third and finally, the Christian Courier is primarily distributed in Canada. While in your former article, you referenced all the ways that denominations have not been able to navigate this conversation without a painful divide, I do want to note a couple things.
All the denominations that Aaron Vriesman (whom you referenced) has written about are primarily denominations in the USA. Since this is primarily a Canadian publication, I wonder if we should look at Canadian denominations. And what about looking at more ‘success’ stories — which HAVE HAPPENED in Canada.
Kathy Vandergrift has shared stories about Mennonite Canada – perhaps the only evangelical Christian community that voted in favour of the local option, and has quite successfully stayed together.
In addition, I was speaking with my Lutheran colleague, Rev. Wallace Bornhuse (ELCIC). He has said that the ELCIC went with the local option and only had three churches outside of Alberta leave. Apparently, my home province is a bit more complicated – just like my home classis. But how many churches were able to stick together?
Someone recently quoted to me Krister Stendahl’s second rule of inter-religious understanding: “Don’t compare your best to their worst”. I found that the HSR itself often put forward a weaker version of their opponents’ biblical arguments (simply ask Brian Walsh, Sylvia Keesmaat, or James Brownson, etc). In a similar way, I am also disappointed when Abide only looks at the problematic cases of denominations, and seems unwilling to share with the world the particularly Canadian successes of ‘unity without uniformity.’