Status Confessionis

Henry, 

I think your 'challenge' points to the inherently contradictory way that Synod has handled this issue over the last thirty or so years. Since 1973, the CRCNA has officially 'advised' its members to believe that "homosexual practice must be condemned as incompatible with the will of God as revealed in Holy Scripture" and it has 'advised' its members to believe that homosexual practice is incompatible with "a life of chastity" (Acts of Synod 1973, p.53). Given this advice,  many members have drawn the completely reasonable conclusion that - given the wording of HC Q/A 108 - the CRCNA is advising its membership to view homosexual practice as incompatible with the seventh commandment and, thus, as incompatible with the teaching of our confessions. You can't deny that the reasoning is natural and intuitive. 

Over the last thirty years or so, however, the CRCNA has offered the "pastoral advice" loophole to revisionist officebearers and members in an effort to keep them in the denomination. So, now we are in our present untenable position. On the one hand, the CRCNA has more or less implicitly encouraged traditionalists for the last fifty years to view homosexual practice as a confessional issue. On the other hand, however, the CRCNA has more or less encouraged 'progressives' or 'revisionists' to view homosexual practice as a non-confessional issue and to emphasize the 'advice' aspect of 1973's statements. This situation is inherently unstable. And we are simply at the point where the contradiction has become utterly apparent.

I think the committee is right to point out the confessional implication of Synod 1973's statements on homosexual practice. If Synod 1973 is correct that "homosexual practice must be condemned as incompatible with the will of God as revealed in Holy Scripture" and if it is correct that homosexual practice is incompatible with "a life of chastity," then, logically, homosexual practice is incompatible with our confessions. Synod 2021 should make a decision: either (A) endorse the clear confessional implications that Synod 1973's statements have or (B) withdraw those statements. Admittedly, if Synod chooses (A), revisionist congregations will likely begin to leave the denomination or be forced out. And, if Synod chooses (B), traditionalists congregations will likely begin to leave the denomination. And, if Synod chooses (C), i.e., neither (A) nor (B), I predict that traditionalist congregations will largely still leave the denomination. In short, there is no happy exit out of this mess. 

Isn't the opposite the true challenge?  Has there ever been a time in the history of the Protestant tradition - particularly the Reformed branch; more particularly the CRC branch - that homosexual acts were considered anything other than unchastity?  Doesn't the burden of proof lie with those who desire to say that homosexuality acts are not unchaste?  

The phrases "what is currently called" and "in a committed same-sex relationship" are red herrings.  Homosexual acts are homosexual acts, just as lust is lust and adultery is adultery.  There is no modern, sophisticated form of acceptable lust or adultery that the Bible could not anticipate.  

Certainly there are other forms of unchastity that CRC synods have never made pronouncements on.  Does it follow that as an elder I am free to promote and engage in any activity not specifically declared to fall within unchastity (or greed, covetousness, pick your category of sin) without fear of being judged to be contra-confessional?

Beyond that, does not Belgic Article 29 become utterly meaningless as to the practice of discipline if it is thought that each matter worthy of discipline must be individually and specifically enumerated by Synod?  So, for discipline to be a confessional matter do we have to have a synodical reference for every kind of sin that is worthy of discipline?  Can DeMoor point to a time when Synod did not consider homosexual acts to be sinful and worthy of discipline?  

Henry,

I have fond memories of studying Church Polity under you in seminary.  And I believed then and I believe now you are very knowledgeable and wise.  I too read the entire report.  But on this this issue I have different understanding that you do.  Up to this point in history all of Christendom understood the Bible's condemnation of sexual immorality as including homosexual acts.  Our church reaffirmed this common understanding in the report it passed in 1973, which clearly stated that revisionist interpretations were wrong.  Then in 2003 (I think) our Synod and Classis Toronto relied on this common understanding to pressure First CRC in Toronto to withdraw their intention to ordain practicing homosexuals.  Back then the church assumed that its decision had confessional repercussions.  So, even if Synod does not accept the committee's report (unless it directly denies it) it would seem that churches that ordain practicing homosexuals are in violation of the confessions.   And if this committee's report is likewise passed by synod,  synod would again reject revisionist interpretations, which would mean that homosexual acts are covered under the broader classification of sexual immorality.  This time the report would have even more punch, given the committee's mandate. 

Even though there is a lot of discussion as to whether this report does have or should have confessional status, we should remember that this is not some magic pill that will solve the divisions within our church.  Confessional status will mean nothing if the CRC fails to discipline erring pastors, councils, and congregations.  Interestingly,  way back in the 1880's Synod  decided that their position on The Lord's Day had the status of the confessions.  Are we really following that decision today? 

Maybe the time has come for our churches to agree to amicably part ways over this issue, and become separate denominations.  To do this cooperatively with a common plan may prevent some of acrimony that occurred when we split from the Reformed Church in the nineteenth century, and that has occurred more recently when the United Reformed Church split from us.  Perhaps, the more conservative elements of the RCA and CRC may unite, as might the more progressive elements of our two denominations.  And perhaps all groups could cooperate in areas where we agree. 

Even though denominations may not be the best way to live out Christ's prayer that his followers be one, it is the way this mandate is already being lived out in the world today.  The invisible church is one.  But because we Christians live in different countries, because we interpret the Bible differently, and because of a host of other reasons, the visible church is divided.  The current trend among Christians toward nondenominational churches  has fragmented the visible church even more.  None of this means we can't pray and worship together and long for the day when Christ will make us completely one. When I was a pastor in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, our church, along with other evangelical and mainline Protestant churches and The Roman Catholic Church had for years been meeting with them for joint Good Friday and other special worship services.  Sometime in the middle of those years The Evangelical Lutheran Church and The Presbyterian Church USA decided to ordain members who were practicing homosexuals and to allow their ministers to preside over same-sex marriages.  And their local congregations went along with that.  But this didn't stop us from having joint worship together with them.  We continued to praise God together and to experience the blessing of our fellowship and worship.  It is my prayer that by God's grace many of our churches will do the same, even if we can no longer be one church organizationally.

Henry, 
I am thankful that you entered into this conversation.  Indeed, the report's declaration that "the church's teaching on premarital sex, extramarital sex, adultery, polyamory, pornography, and homosexual sex already has confessional status" (followed by a parallel recommendation for Synod to adopt) was surprising to me.  I posted this article the network on October 20, 2020, before the report came out: https://network.crcna.org/crcna-and-synod/same-sex-marriage-resources-an....  At the very end of that linked resource, I had written: The fact that the committee was asked to reflect on and evaluate whether future synods should consider the confessional status of this matter demonstrates that it currently is not in that category.  It has been a decision of pastoral advice to the churches since 1973.  And with you, I focus that whole resource on same-sex marriage (though of course this current report's declaration and following recommendation include much more than only homosexual sex.

But this report also seems to ask quite clear questions that it does not answer about what would happen if Synod agrees with that declaration/recommendation or if Synod decides itself to make the report's articulation on homosexual sex a confessional-status position.

Here is the pertinent paragraph from page 145 of the report:

If a teaching is declared to have confessional status, questions arise about what that means for those who sign the Covenant for Officebearers (CFO) in the CRCNA. Will those who have already signed it need to accept this new item as having confessional status? What happens if they don’t? Will those who subsequently sign the CFO need to accept this new item?

This paragraph has already been reference on the CRC Pastors Facebook page, and councils have already asked, "What could this mean?  Would we (elders, deacons, and pastors) need to all affirm that we agree with this report's conclusions, or leave office?"

It is my sense that since Synod 1973, the CRC has had a clear position (that's the language from their mandate - 'position') - but that statements of pastoral advice are what constitute that position.  As you've written in your Commentary on the Church Order (2010 edition, pp 168-169), "[Synod] expected a “healthy respect” for its decisions, not creedal attachment. Officebearers would not be subject to dismissal from office based on unorthodox views, but only on disrespect for what the synod decided."

So my sense is that, for 48 years, the CRC has had space for respectful disagreement about homosexual sex (and by extension, same-sex marriage).  Any office-bearer could disagree with the CRCNA's position, and still respect it.  If the recommendations of this report are accepted, it seems to me that the CRCNA has made a significant change - that space for respectful disagreement shrinks considerably.  The question being asked is: how small does it become?

The report itself mentions some potential room: "Even if a teaching has confessional status, that does not mean there is no room for disagreement within the bounds of that teaching. In addition, the church sometimes allows for pastoral accommodations. For example, our confessions say that the children of believers should be baptized. Yet some congregations are willing to allow members not to baptize their children." (145)

So again, Henry (and others who wish to enter in), how would you articulate how that 'space for respectful disagreement' will change?  How much does it shrink?  How would you articulate the space left, and who can be there?  While Synod is able to make this decision, is there a history of other decisions where Synod 'changes the rules' significantly after 48 years? I would imagine for some, a similar 'threat to belonging' was sense if the Belhar was added to the CfO (which it was not because of that concern, I believe).  If this goes through, I imagine one response may be that some office-bearers will be dusting off the part of the Church Order around gravamans.  Another response is that some churches may simply not worry about any new declaration of Synod.  I also imagine a third response: if the CRC's position on homosexual sex is raised to a confessional-status agreement, it provides leverage to push out those who for 48 years felt like they were able to belong even though they 'respectfully disagreed.'  What's your sense of all this possibility?

I know that I already signed off, and I promise this will be my last submission.  But after reading all of your comments I realized that I never explained how I would envision an amicable split. 

 Perhaps, if we accepted the committee's assertion that this understanding of human sexuality already has the force of the confession, we might also say the following:

1.  Present clergy and officers who do not agree may in good conscience remain in within the denomination.  If they choose to leave, they will honorably released.  Of course at all times, any member may using the procedure outlined in the church may overture Synod to reexamine our position, and  any ordained clergy may present a gravamen.

2. All future clergy, elders, and deacons must be informed that signing the covenant for officebearers commits them publicly to this understanding of human sexuality, unless Synod at a later date allows for other interpretations.  Our seminary will be responsible for explaining this understanding to those it recommends for candidacy.

3.  No current Christian Reformed Church or pastor in their official role as pastor may bless a same-sex union, nor may such a union take place within a CRC building.  All future pastors are advised against doing this at all.

4. Because all our churches are incorporated as congregations, they may leave the denomination with their building if a majority of their members vote to do so.   In this case, the denomination would also agree that they may leave without financially compensating the minority who wish to remain in the CRC, and that the denomination will consult with and, if needed, provide financial aid for that group.

I may be wrong in this assumption, but I think that outside the Classis Grand Rapids East area and maybe a few areas in Canada, very few of our members and pastors view the Bible to say anything differently that what the committee laid-out in its report.  So, we are probably speaking of a few pastors and a few congregations and members. 

Many of those who have written have expressed concerns about our brothers and sisters who hold a different view from that expressed in the report.  I share those concerns.  But what about those members who agree with the report and who believe that it is sin for our churches to be accepting of same-sex sexual relationships.   What about those who always believed that they were part of a denomination that agreed with them on this issue.  Is it right to say that although they hold the majority opinion, they should leave, and those who want to change should be encouraged to stay?  Is is even right to create conditions in the church that encourage them to leave? That will happen if some congregations and pastors openly defy our stance on this, or certainly if we give them encouragement to do so.  In my opinion,  trying accommodate both views in our church will lead to more division and to more of the grief Henry was describing than if we clearly accepted the committee's report in its entirety.