Are We Fully Equipped?

The Apostle Paul needed neither a Synodical Study Committee nor a "robust theology of embodiment and sexuality" (???) to identify certain lifestyles as sinful and neither should we.

People who struggle with these temptations need what all of us sinners need- to die away to our old selves and come to new life in Christ.

For those who don't feel equipped; is there something lacking in the official CRC postion on homosexuality or the report on Pastoral Care for Homosexual Members (PDF) that is lacking?

Is there more needed than what these documents provide?

The Reformed tradition offers a plethora of scholarship on a number of issues, but unfortunately, the Synod of Dort, Bavinck, and Calvin weren't in contexts anything like the context that we presently face in North America. Our robust theology and understanding that pastoral care needs to offer balanced accountability and support require more than a brief position statement and report that most pastors find insufficient (hence, the overtures). 

As someone who hopes to be ordained in the CRC soon, I have been frustrated with how the North American Church has allowed popular culture to dictate the conversation about, and define, sexuality. It is time to reclaim the conversation as the Church. Reformed theology puts us in an excellent position to show how every square inch of human hearts, minds, souls and communities belong to our Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer and Restorer.

For those who don't feel equipped, I suggest that you look for and purchase some  Christian literature on the subject, as there is much available.   In response to Daniel Z, while we agree that it is not always easy to love the sinner while not making the sin seem acceptable, this is something that does need to be done and worked at.  There is not always a simple formula for it. 

On the other hand, Daniel's other comments stray into the area of making the sin seem acceptable.   By simply saying that there are two points of view on this, both supposedly equally valid, and that we ought to study this all over again, the sin begins to seem acceptable.   This is an old topic now, discussed at least for forty years.   There is much literature available on understanding the scriptures that speak to this issue.   No matter what physiological conditions are attributed to certain inclinations, it does not really change the moral implications.   So putting together a new study on scripture directions for homosex will never make it better, only worse, because of our own sinful inclinations to make excuses for sin.  

We can better concentrate on how to love the sinner without excusing the sin, without making the sin seem acceptable.   This applies to a much broader area than just homosex, since it also includes dealing with premarital sex, adultery, theft, porn, vulgar language, abortion, etc.    I think we already have lots of information on that, and know what our direction should be on that, but we instinctively don't want to walk the talk.   We are naturally inclined, as our confessions and scripture indicate, to make excuses for our sin, to "turn the grace of God into a license for immorality" (Jude).   What we need to do is pray more for God to give us strength to mount up like eagles and live the life of faith.  As in Romans 1, we are "called to the obedience that comes from faith..." 

Specifically in terms of church order, what may need to be discussed is an expansion/explanation of church order article 69c, "ministers shall not solemnize marriages which would be in conflict with the word of God."

so, yes and no.

We could use more pastoral guidance and help in this regard.

I find it ironic, not to mention troubling, that people here seem to speak contemptuously of study committees (it seems that disdain for such committees reflects disdain for the CRCNA) and then those same persons say the study committee from 1973 is good enough, despite the fact that it's 40 years old and uses outdated and unhelpful terms such as "homosexualism." It seems like this reflects fear that the CRCNA is going to cave into the "gay agenda" that Meg mentioned. If you really want to minister to persons, families, and churches struggling with this issue, you shouldn't be afraid to discuss it. Fear is not a Christian virtue. And a "robust" theology is not opposed to a biblical one; rather, it is a reference to the virtue of Reformed theology that it deals thoughtfully with biblical interpretation and scientific understanding. This does not imply that we must or even should change our basic position on the issue, but given our current social climate on this issue, a 40 year old study is no longer adequate to address the challenges pastors and church members face.

One resource that may serve as an example of how we could be better served with deeper reflection and practical, pastoral guidance is Dr. Heather Looy's article "Same Sex Attraction" in the volume Delight in Creation, edited by Deborah Haarsma & Scott Hoezee. You can read it online here: http://ministrytheorem.calvinseminary.edu/essays/wiwmpk/4_looy.pdf
 

No. I would strongly support Synod's consideration of these recommendations.

I think there is room to help all of us grow in our understanding of this issue and how to respond, both personally to those in our lives, and as churches. I especially appreciate the need suggested by the first question. 

While I appreciate and respect those who have commented and and encouraged us not to bend to cultural influence, I think the current questions before the U.S. Supreme Court are likely to have an outcome that is going to necessitate that we are more prepared than we are now to respond. (My apologies to Canadians who may be following along, as I am not up to date on the social/political climate where you are.)

Even if I'm wrong, which I may be, and even if any study committee makes no changes to the current theology/position, we help the church by reviewing and responding to the cultural changes, scientific work and Biblical scholarship that has taken place, especially with a long time having gone by since this topic was last addressed.

At our last congregational meeting we thought it would be time to look at the issue BEFORE we have a member that wants to be part of a gay marriage. No body knows how such a look would be and nobody knew how to start such a look. A careful and thoughful study may help us.

Since as Brian says, these overtures do not ask to revisit the biblical grounds, nor the pastoral advice, then that leaves only the question of legal implications for refusing to marry homosex couples.  I was under the impression that our policy was already not to marry couples under circumstances or conditions which are contrary to biblical principles, and that our facilities would not be used for that (relative to Jeff Brouwer's comment).  If all we need to be covered legally is to state that in our bylaws or minutes, then it would not seem we would need a study committee for that.   Correct me if I am missing something....  

NO.  But will another study really matter?  In 1973, the CRC made a fairly brave declaration about homosexuality.  In the 40 years since, we have done little to live out those initial convictions, or to follow them through to reasonable conclusions.  Ironically, that same era launched the "women in ecclesiastical office" foray.  Forty years later (forty years?!?) synod is asked to deal with requests to form a classis for congregations that want neither to live with the decisions arrived at studiously, prayerfully, and painfully nor to join with those who have "left" us to form a more perfect union.  While I appreciate the sentiments that "culture" should not dictate our interpretations of Scripture, has anybody considered that there have never been interpretations of Scripture (including the creeds and confessions) outside of "culture?"  Perhaps, more importantly, have we considered that WE ourselves may have become the "culture" we should be most cautious about allowing to influence our confrontation with the Scriptures.  In the early 1970's, I was privileged to have breakfast with William Stringfellow.  As I bumbled around explaining my little-known-mostly-Dutch denomination, he responded to the effect that immigrant congregations represented great hope for American Christianity since they were as yet untainted by the absorption of the faith into a national enterprise.  That was yesterday.  I fear that today the CRC is also "church as enterprise," absorbed in management debates, cautiously holding onto our original customers, avoiding the controversial, packaging for new consumers while "walking back" any bold Kingdom imperative that might offend.  Like most of the rest of American "conservative" christianity, we have little or nothing to say of great Scriptural mandates about wealth and power, catering to economic "success," the market as servant rather than god, creation-keeping, the stranger in our midst, war and peace, or the overwhelming prophetic call for social justice.  We are silent (and complicit) in the demonizing of gay people, the scape-goating of the world's economic and war-ravaged refugees, and the devastating devaluation of humanity that accompanies the growing global gap between the very wealthy and the rest of us.  If another study will help...well, why not?  But I'm not holding my breath...at my age, I don't have that much to hold.

No on both counts, and it's made being a young adult who looks to CRC doctrine for guidance particularly challenging. 

We all are aware that this study committee's mandate won't be to change or re-hash the 1973 document or the Pastoral Care document. But this topic needs to be discussed on an ongoing basis. I am Canadian. Gay marriage is legal here.

Our denomination is made up of three groups of people: (1) those who affirm homosexuality and gay marriage, (2) those who want to ensure LGBT people who are welcomed in our churches without necessarily affirming their relationships, and (3) those who believe that LGBT need to be healed of their attractions (i.e., "ex-gay ministries).

These three groups of people DO need to co-exist and need to be able to have civil dialogue. I hope this study committee can tackle this. I am  a delegate at Synod and I have already made it clear that I want to serve on this committee.

Fair disclosure: I am a 44-year-old single, celibate, chaste, yet openly gay man. With God's grace I intend to remain single, chaste, and celibate my whole life.