Since the 1970’s, the church governance of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) has recognized different categories of adherence and authority for what is said, believed, and confessed. An important study committee report in 1975 clarified that Scripture is the highest authority, followed by the confessions, and then synodical decisions. Synodical decisions that are doctrinal and ethical in nature “serve the purpose of further expressing the church’s understanding of Scripture and the confessions.”[1]
When the CRC produced a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality Report (HSR) to synod in 2022, one of the most discussed recommendations of the report was recommendation D. That recommendation said that the church’s teaching on matters of sexuality already had confessional status. Opponents argued that the CRC’s former decisions on sexuality were always in the category of “pastoral advice,” which provided them the space to either accept or reject the teaching. They also believed that filing a gravamen with a local council afforded them a process of “formal conscience-driven exemptions to our same-sex marriage position.”[2] This idea was even supported by the denomination’s Church Polity professor.[3] The problem was that many local churches in the denomination did not enforce the plain reading of the Covenant for Officebearers and the Church Order. They claimed that recent synods changed the requirements for officebearers and “elevated” the required adherence from pastoral advice to that of confessional status.
Yet the evidence shows that since even before 1973 until today, the CRC has viewed her stance on marriage and human sexuality as the Biblical position. This means that it already holds an authoritative place in both the Biblical and Confessional categories and is therefore settled and binding.
Scripture and the Confessions
The Church Order of the CRC begins with these words: “The Christian Reformed Church, confessing its complete subjection to the Word of God and the Reformed creeds as a true interpretation of this Word…”[4] This is an amazing gift and testimony that our pioneers in the faith viewed the Scriptures as the highest authority for the church! To say that the Reformed creeds are “a true interpretation of this Word” means that the church believes that our confessions are thoroughly biblical.
Article 5 of the Belgic Confession furthers our understanding of Scripture’s authority by saying that Scripture is “for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.” We believe the teaching of God’s Word “not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God.” When officebearers of the CRC are ordained into office, they sign the Covenant for Officebearers: “Acknowledging the authority of God’s Word, we submit to it in all matters of life and faith.” Officebearers also vow: “We heartily believe and will promote and defend their [the confessions’] doctrines faithfully, conforming our preaching, teaching, writing, serving, and living to them.” The CRC has always recognized that while the Word of God is the highest authority, the Reformed creeds and confessions “fully agree with the Word of God.”
The CRC’s Definition of Marriage
In 1980, synod received a study committee report on divorce and remarriage. The mandate of the study committee was twofold: to “reexamine and set forth the biblical teachings on divorce and remarriage” and “to formulate pastoral guidelines...”[5] The report matched this twofold mandate. Section I of the report was titled, “Biblical Teaching Regarding Marriage.” In Section I, marriage was defined as this: “Marriage is an institution created by God. It is a covenantal relationship established by the mutual vows of a man and a woman to be husband and wife to each other and to live together as such.”[6] How did synod deal with Section I of the report? It passed a recommendation that said, “That synod accept Sections I and II of this report as being basically in accord with the biblical teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage.” Synod also passed a motion that stated: “That synod adopt Section III, ‘Guidelines for the Ministry of the Church’ and refer the same to pastors, consistories, and the church for guidance in handling the important matters of marriage, divorce, and remarriage.” In the grounds, synod made clear that even these guidelines “reflect the demonstrable teaching of Scripture” and that pastors and consistories “must apply the teaching of Scripture to the specific situations and concrete cases of marital difficulty.” [7] With this distinction, synod recognized that the definition of marriage fell into the Biblical category, while also putting forth pastoral guidelines.
Four Study Committees
Further evidence that the CRC has consistently believed that her decisions on human sexuality were indeed biblical and binding are found in four study committees. The first study committee that was appointed to study homosexuality began in 1970, at the request of the Council of the CRC in Canada. Synod commissioned this study not only to study the problem of homosexuality, but also “to delineate the church’s position on this matter.”[8] This report became the foundation-laying understanding of the church’s teaching on homosexuality. After three years of study, Synod 1973 not only recommended the report to the churches, it also passed the following statement: “Homosexualism – as explicit homosexual practice – must be condemned as incompatible with obedience to the will of God as revealed in Holy Scripture.”[9] While the statement was technically a "statement of pastoral advice," the authors of the 1973 report stated clearly that their conclusions regarding chastity were “the biblical position on homosexual practice,” and “that no exception to this position is scripturally defensible.”[10]
A second study committee came to fruition in the 1990’s as the winds of culture continued to affect the church. First, Synod 1994 decided to reaffirm the 1973 stance that the practice of homosexuality is a sin and requires repentance.[11] Classis Grand Rapids East had been studying the issue and had made an ambiguous statement that did not support the CRC’s position.[12] Under pressure from Calvin Theological Seminary faculty whose credentials were held by churches in the classis, Grand Rapids East reaffirmed the 1973 position, once again demonstrating how foundational the 1973 position was.[13] Then Synod 1996 appointed a new study committee to study homosexuality “in a manner consistent with the decision of 1973.”[14] In their deliberations there was a great deal of discussion about who was to be appointed to the committee. After some concerns were raised about a potential member of the committee, both the officers of synod and the CRC’s General Secretary Rev. David Engelhard assured synod that those serving on the committee would adhere to the 1973 position.[15] Later that year, a member of the committee was removed by the Board of Trustees because his views contradicted the 1973 report.[16] The mandate and decisions about those serving on the committee contradicts the claim of many today who say that Synod 2016’s decision to require members of the study committee to adhere to the CRC’s position was unprecedented.
In receiving the report, Synod 1999 said that the intent of the study committee was “to affirm Synod 1973’s understanding of the teachings of Scripture about homosexuality and to help the church pastorally apply its recommendations.”[17] Notice once again the distinction between the 1973 foundational teaching of Scripture and pastoral application. Synod also cleaned up some unclear language in the 1999 report. They passed a recommendation replacing the phrase “Scripture seems to forbid such sexual intimacy with persons of the same sex” with the phrase, “Scripture forbids such sexual intimacy with persons of the same sex.”[18] After further study and feedback from the churches, the final report was received in 2002 with no change to the church’s position.
Meanwhile, when a church in Classis Toronto stated their intent to ordain to office those participating in same-sex activity, Synod 2004 instructed Classis Toronto to urge the church to “act in accordance with the guidelines of the reports on homosexuality in 1973 and 2002.”[19] Classis Toronto considered the actions of this church to be a “breaking of the denominational covenant.”[20] Later, the church reported that they would conform with the denomination’s position.[21]
A third study committee was mandated by Synod 2013, stating that the reports on homosexuality in 1973 and 2002 “have served the denomination very well by laying out the biblical principles and foundations clearly.”[22] Synod 2016 received both a majority and minority report as information, but “recommended to the churches the pastoral guidance of the minority report in conversation and in keeping with the synodical decisions of 1973, 1999, and 2002.”[23] That minority report made clear that ministers could not solemnize same-sex marriages. Synod also added a supplement to Church Order article 69-c, stating that those pages of the minority report “represents one example of how synod has determined that a marriage is considered to be in conflict with the Word of God.”[24]
The fourth and most recent study committee was appointed in 2016. Synod set very specific parameters that the committee would be made up of individuals “who adhere to the CRC’s biblical view on marriage and same-sex relationships.”[25] When synod did not meet due to Covid-19, the Council of Delegates, acting as interim of Synod, sent a letter to Neland Avenue CRC of Grand Rapids. The letter expressed grief over Neland’s decision to “break covenant with the CRC” in ordaining a deacon in a same-sex marriage. Then in June of 2021 the COD sent a letter to Synod 2022 reaffirming that grave concern.[26] Synod was finally able to meet in 2022 to discuss the Human Sexuality Report (HSR). Synod recommended the report to the churches as providing “a useful summary of biblical teaching regarding human sexuality” and said that the report is “consistent with Scripture.”[27] Synod decided to “affirm that ‘unchastity’ in Heidelberg Catechism Q. & A. 108 encompasses…[among other listed sins], homosexual sex…In so doing, synod declares this affirmation ‘an interpretation of [a] confession’ (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603). Therefore, this interpretation has confessional status.”[28] The decisions of Synods 2023 and 2024 remained consistent with these confessional beliefs and made clear that a gravamen was never meant to be an exception to the confessions.[29]
Conclusions
This brief study of synodical decisions, especially when it comes to homosexuality, demonstrates that the CRC’s 1973 and 1980 foundational beliefs are received by the church as confessional and believed to be Biblical. It is important to note that synod did not make any changes to the confession. It certainly did not elevate the stance on homosexuality from the category of pastoral advice to that of confession. To “affirm” a teaching makes explicit what the church has always confessed and practiced to be Biblically true. A comparable situation would be that of the canon of scripture. The church did not determine which books were in the canon but simply received and recognized that it had already accepted the sixty-six books of the Bible as the inspired Word of God.[30] In the same way, the church’s teaching on human sexuality has been received by the church as long as it has had the written Word of God.
Some have challenged this consistently held position taken by the CRCNA. Those who deny that this is so are obligated to follow the instructions that are found in the supplement to Church Order Article 5: “No one is free to decide for oneself or for the church what is and what is not a doctrine confessed in the standards. If such a question should arise, the decision of the assemblies of the church shall be sought and acquiesced in” (p. 15). Our assemblies have faithfully answered that question that these certainly are doctrines which we have always confessed.
[1] Agenda for Synod 1975, p. 601
[2] https://blog.reformedjournal.com/2024/06/13/its-time-for-the-crc-synod-to-tell-the-truth/
[3] https://www.thebanner.org/columns/2022/09/what-do-confessing-members-officebearers-do-when-they-no-longer-agree-with-the
[4] https://www.crcna.org/sites/default/files/2023_Church_Order.pdf
[5] Acts of Synod 1980, p. 40-41.
[6] Agenda for Synod 1980, p. 473.
[7] Emphasis added, Acts of Synod 1980, p. 41.
[8] Emphasis added, Acts of Synod 1970, p. 121.
[9] Emphasis added, Acts of Synod 1973, p. 52.
[10] Agenda for Synod 1973, p. 631.
[11] Acts of Synod 1994, p. 448.
[12] https://christian.net/pub/resources/text/reformed/archive95/nr95-101.txt
[13]https://christian.net/pub/resources/text/reformed/archive95/nr95-113.txt
Christian Renewal, Feb 12, 1996, 6.
[14] Acts of Synod 1996, p. 572.
[15] https://christian.net/pub/resources/text/reformed/archive96/nr96-081.txt
[16] https://christian.net/pub/resources/text/reformed/archive96/nr96-124.txt
[17] Emphasis added, Acts of Synod 1999, p. 602.
[18] Emphasis added, Acts 1999, p. 602.
[19] Acts of Synod 2004, p. 632
[20] Agenda for Synod 2006, p. 459
[21] Acts of Synod 2006, p. 653.
[22] Emphasis added, Agenda for Synod 2013, p. 616.
[23] Agenda for Synod 2016, pp. 436-43, Acts of Synod 2016, p. 917.
[24] Emphasis added, Acts of Synod 2016, p. 918.
[25] Emphasis added, Acts of Synod 2016, p. 926.
[26] https://www.thebanner.org/news/2021/06/neland-avenue-council-defers-action-sends-communication-to-synod-2022
[27] Acts of Synod 2022, p. 919.
[28] Acts of Synod 2022, p. 921-922.
[29] Acts of Synod 2024, p. 871.
[30] Belgic Confession, Article 5.
Comments
I appreciate the information you researched regarding the confessional standards regarding the CRC’s position on same sex marriage.
It is clear that we as a denomination take scripture and our confessions seriously.
And now that we as a denomination have clearly established our biblical and confessional stand on same sex marriage in the context of the seventh commandment and in our definition of the word “chaste”, I’m wondering if future synods are going to go through each of the commandments with the same amount of effort and study and concern as it did the seventh commandment? For example, is the CRC at all concerned with those who commit the sin of idolatry? Will there be study committees set up to define what idolatry is? Will there be disciplinary action given to congregations who welcome idolaters as members or allow them into leadership positions? Or how about murderers as Jesus defined murderers in the Sermon on the Mount. Are there known violators of that commandment in our congregations who get to call others names with little to no disciplinary action? Are they allowed to be members and can they hold positions of leadership? And if so, why? And what about coveting, or bearing false witness? How about breaking the Sabbath? Will these commandments get the same amount of study time, definition as that of the seventh? And if not, why not? Are these commandments of any lesser importance both biblically and confessionally than the seventh? Are we confident these sins don't exist in our denomination? Are we working hard at ensuring we deal with violators of these sins with the same level of serious concern as those who sin against the seventh commandment by choosing unchaste relationships like same sex marriage?
If the other nine commandments are as important as the seventh and we are as equally concerned about violations of these commandments are as defined in our confessions, then why are we not giving these commandments the same amount of concern and study time as that of the seventh? Why are we not detailing how congregations aught to be disciplined when they support people who are clear violators of these commandments? Are we becoming the denomination that picks and chooses which sins are important enough to discipline and which ones aren't. Are we as a denomination becoming pharisaical, hypocritical, and self-righteous in that we are selective in determining which commandments are important enough to clarify and focus disciplinary action on and which ones we're willing to let slide?
If we as a denomination are so concerned about sin, repentance and discipleship, then shouldn't we be giving the same amount of serious study and clarity to all the commandments and not just the seventh?
Thank you Peter. Yes - we should be concerned about any and all sin. Jesus said not an iota or a dot will pass from the law until it was all accomplished. I think what you are getting at is a good question though. Why did synod pay so much attention to this one sin? Other issues have come up over the years besides this one sin. In reading overtures that led to study committees, it's sometimes hard to read into them the motives for studying the issue. Most of them began with a concern about pastoral care and that we weren't doing it well. My hunch is that there were some in the denomination that wanted to study the issue more because they were hoping it would allow us to relax the commandments, especially since the culture and the Supreme Court had a trajectory to be more open to this sin. Many churches publicly stated that they believed same-sex behavior is not a sin. Are there any churches openly advocating for theft or idolatry or breaking the Sabbath? No I don't believe for a minute that we are being selective in picking and choosing which sins are more important. No one should relax any of them, as Jesus said.
Let's Discuss
We love your comments! Thank you for helping us uphold the Community Guidelines to make this an encouraging and respectful community for everyone.