Trevor Mouw

"Well, the problem you are in is that we didn't start with Love - or Paul's definition of Love."

This is insulting and untrue. Synod worked toward Christ's Love with great vigor. 

This was the most prayer-for Synod that we know of. Unprecedented listening sessions and prayer sessions were held through Zoom. Prayer warriors were praying over Synod the whole time. The delegates came well-prepared. We sat through hours of debate on the floor of Synod. 

Synod called upon the Holy Spirit to come and guide His church. And the Holy Spirit did!

Unsurprisingly, the Holy Spirit agreed with His own words in Scripture and led our synod to stand firm on Jesus's definition of Love, and how Love sometimes has to warn and discipline.

(The Apostle Paul actually had a lot to say about the sexual immorality that Synod 22 discussed!)

Steven, 
Ezekiel mentions that inhospitality was a sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. If the Bible says it, then it's true! But that's not all it says, and skipping Jude's contribution has hugely deceptive implications for this conversation.

The simple truth is that nobody credible holds to "the conclusions we (revisionists) hold to", only agenda-driven scholarship. The HSR points that out adeptly.

The fact is that God's Word is a double-edged sword, and it's the only knife we need in this fight.

Perhaps you betray the foundations of your moral compass with your last two sentences? There is no left or right in God's Word. And your assumption is wrong anyway. I'm not a Republican. I never voted for Trump. This has nothing to do with politics.

Worst of all, though, is the "practical athiesm" inherent in your final line, which shows that you think standing firm on God's Word would do MORE harm than would dismissing God's Word in a therapeutic attempt to make people more comfortable. 

The need for the study committee didn't come from the unclarity of the issue but came from the American culture's growing divergence from Biblical moral values and thus the need for a final and clearly articulated statement that could withstand these growing waves of assault and serve as a final flag in the ground for the CRCNA's position on the topic. Hence the name "Foundation-Laying Biblical Theology".

Again, in your comment, we find a false equivalence that because human sexuality is complex, therefore the Bible's teaching on the topic must be complex, but it isn't. It's beautifully simple! All sexual activity outside of a one-man, one-woman lifelong marraige is forbidden. 

It's frustrating that you call for us to follow the example of Jesus while ignoring Jesus' own teaching on this topic!

Steven,

My entire reply is a reply to the comment that you accidentally deleted. I must have started my comment while it was still up, so I was looking at your reply whole time. 

FYI, "practical atheism" is a specific Theological term, which in this context means claiming to believe God's Word while not behaving like it... aka acting as if modern identity affirmation must be more effective for helping make LGBT individuals feel better than would encouraging and assisting them in Godliness and righteousness.

I do not think you are an Atheist. Though I'm sure this explanation won't be of any consolation...

Staci,

Could you explain why you felt that the replies to Steve's comment were off topic to the original post and thus worthy to delete but Steve's comment was not off topic and not deleted?