Four Strikes and You’re Out

The struggle to maintain orthodoxy in the CRC regarding human sexuality has wrought all sorts of reactions.  Articles abound and proliferate since Synod 2022 and the following synods of 2023 and 2024 which reinforced and built on the work of 2022.  A recent contribution to this analytical/reactionary trend is an article by former Calvin University professor Joseph Kuilema.  

Kuilema was dismissed from Calvin University due to choices that he made that were in opposition to the faith and practice of the CRC and Calvin U.  In like manner to many who have adopted a theology at odds with historic CRC doctrine, Kuilema has presented himself as a victim, choosing to sue Calvin U. in a lawsuit that is slowly winding its way through the court system.  

Since Kuilema works in the realm of academia we might hope for an academic treatment or analysis from him, but that is not what we get in this article.  Instead, Kuilema argues by raw assertion, making no attempt to interact with the thoughts, words, or stated theology of those with whom he differs. It is enough for Kuilema to dismiss his opponents with a convenient and unsupported smear.  

The smear that Kuilema chooses is a multi-pronged smear based on his unsupported assertion that efforts to maintain historic orthodoxy on human sexuality in the CRC are part of “the larger, idolatrous, project of ‘white Western male supremacy’”.  In forwarding this smear Kuilema goes on to describe those with whom he disagrees as bigots, racists, and misogynists.  This indeed would be a huge revelation were such accusations true and proven.  But alas, proof for Kuilema seems to be too much to ask.  Rather, he wants his audience to simply accept his premise based on his word and select quotes from a Dutch-Canadian Reformed philosopher.  

So, let’s consider the four words that form the basis of Kuilema’s premise: “White Western male supremacy.”

“White”- Kuilema has a problem here, right from the beginning, but it seems as though he wants the reader to simply sail past the problem.  Let’s ask ourselves: In the CRC and in the catholic church more broadly, is the effort to maintain historic orthodoxy on human sexuality primarily a project of people commonly understood to be “white” (granting for a moment that whiteness is a coherent concept, simply for the sake of argument)?  No, it is not.  This is not true in the CRC and it is not true in the church worldwide.   This is something that Andy Sytsma was pointing to in the Abide article quoted by Kuilema. There is no ethnic minority group in the CRC that has been the vanguard of sexual liberation – quite the opposite, as our non-Dutch, non-white brothers and sisters have consistently called us to maintain historic orthodoxy on this matter.  Contrary to Kuilema’s assertion, in the CRC the decidedly pale group has been the group seeking to promote revisionist sexual mores.  This is also true more broadly in North America and across the world – white progressives are the ones seeking revision of historic theology and practice regarding human sexuality.  Kuilema wants you to ignore this reality in favor of his preferred fantasy.  

In ignoring the ethnic minorities in the CRC who have spoken plainly and consistently on this point, Kuilema degrades them and disrespects them.  Kuilema would have you believe that they are part of this larger project of white western male supremacy.  Can we see and understand just how condescending that is?  Are our Korean brothers and sisters working for white supremacy as unwitting dupes?  Have our Hispanic brothers and sisters internalized anti-Hispanic racism so that they can be part of the project?  Are these groups and others simply too dense to realize what they are caught up in, and they must be taught by Kuilema? Kuilema would paint himself as a liberator of the racial minority, but his savior complex reveals him as paternalistic and dismissive instead.  Physician, heal thyself.  Swing and a miss.

“Western” – Here again one wonders just how much Kuilema has looked around the world.  Is it the Global South that is leading the charge to change sexual mores?  How about the church in Africa, the Middle East, or perhaps Asia?  No, once again Kuilema has his facts inverted.  It is the church in the western world that has led the charge to change historic orthodoxy on human sexuality while the rest of the world has had to chide the church in Europe and North America.  Maintaining historic orthodoxy on human sexuality is in no manner a “western” concept or project.  The assertion that Kuilema makes again simply fits the fantasy he would like the reader to believe.  Swing and a miss.

“Male” – Once again we see a fundamental flaw in Kuilema’s thesis in that he completely ignores the role and beliefs of women in seeking to maintain historic orthodoxy.  In Kuilema’s framing we must conclude one of the following about women who promote and defend historic orthodoxy on human sexuality: 
1.    They are stupid.  They cannot comprehend the truth of the Bible or the truth that they are simply serving the needs of male supremacy.
2.    They are weak.  They don’t really want to support male supremacy, but they are unable to stand against its tide.
3.    They are wicked.  They know that they are supporting something against God’s will but find that it suits their needs and so they go along for their own interests.
4.    They are unable to speak for themselves. Kuilema must interpret reality and speak for them.  
5.    Their testimony is not to be believed.  How they testify to the work of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God making them aware of his will expressed in Scripture is not trustworthy.  
6.    They have internalized misogyny.  Having been exposed to male oppression for so long they have been conditioned to hate themselves, often without even knowing it.  

None of these options are flattering, respectful, or liberating for these women.  One wonders: Just who is demonstrating a lack of respect for women as image bearers?  No, historic orthodoxy on human sexuality is not a “male” issue or project, and Kuilema’s assertion simply demonstrates his own willingness to ignore, stifle and disrespect the voice and agency of women. Swing and a miss.

“Supremacy” – Kuilema would like the reader to believe that efforts to maintain historic orthodoxy on human sexuality are about oppression, dominance, “the exclusion of Queer people” or narrowing what is “God’s norm for being human”.  Kuilema would like the reader to believe that what is being fought for is “exclusivity of the image of God in the white male”.  Kuilema is making this up out of whole cloth.  Kuilema ignores and contradicts all CRC stated theology on this matter.  Kuilema ignores the entire Human Sexuality Report (HSR) on this matter.  Kuilema ignores the testimony of those at synod fighting for orthodoxy on this matter.  In singling out the Abide Project Kuilema also ignores the entire published corpus of Abide Project thought on this matter.  There is not a hint of supremacy in any of the preceding, except for the supremacy of Christ and His Word.  Nothing singles out men as supreme.  Nothing singles out heterosexuals as supreme.  Nothing denies the image of God in another.  Nothing excludes “queers” from the life of the church.  Oppression is not tantamount to living under the law of God and holding each other to that standard in the church.  The law for saved Christians is freedom, not oppression.  We find again that Kuilema asserts without demonstrating.  Swing and a miss.

How many strikes does one get?  Kuilema gets more than usual and still strikes out.  He makes up a fantasy of a conspiratorial project to maintain “White Western male supremacy” in the church. He attempts to read the hearts of others and assigns malign motivations where none have been expressed.  He belittles and ignores women and ethnic minorities, making them nothing more than pawns in a wicked agenda to which they are blind or accomplices.  How sad that opponents of the church’s historic and affirmed doctrine have sunk to these levels.  I will not return kind and speculate on Kuilema’s motivations.  That matter lies between God and him.  But I can and will judge his words, and I cannot see them as honest, truthful, compelling, edifying for the church, or glorifying to God.