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!)

The failure of churches to hold Christians accountable for their sins of pornography usage is a problem for our churches. Yes, it's difficult because people work hard to hide their pornography use. No one walks around with a "Pornography Pride" flag. Yet it's prevalence is so profound that our denomination would do well to begin a monumental campaign, working together as churches to emphasize repentance or discipline, and providing support as people work to kill that sin in their life!

But I don't think that a failure to adequately eradicate one sin should give us permission to allow space for another sin.

Nick, I'm afraid that if you wish Synod to make no decision, you asking Synod 2022 to deny the explicit calling that previous synods, such as Synod 2016, have specifically asked it to do. And you'd also be asking it to not do the very thing which synods were created for and have always done.

It is to the church's shame that it took 300 years to "reach consensus" on the Trinity, but we might give them some slack because 1. the Trinity is so completely supernatural, unexpected, and relatively novel to these Jewish and gentile converts... plus 2. the New Testament, while completely written, is being passed around as individual parchments. With finality of Holy Canon comes the clarity needed for the Holy Trinity.

And then think about how it ended... the "concensus" declared all those with diverse views as HERETICS and thus not-saved and not-Christian!

And you're conveniently forgetting Synod 50. In the book of Acts, Synod 50 in Jerusalem placed a "light" burden on churches, which did not include much... but it DID declare that churches cannot allow for sexual immorality!

The Trinity is complex. The Bible's teaching on marriage, sex, and non-heterosexual behavior has been clear for the past 2000(+) years! It actually hurts your argument to bring up contested discussions in Christianity, because this has never been one of them until cultural pressure began making Christians feel uncomfortable. Non-heterosexual behavior and lifelong same-sex unions have existed long before Christianity began. 

We must not disunite from the global church of all ages! It was the African churches which stood up against the LGBT affirmation in the United Methodist Church! Minority churches look down on the Scriptural infidelity of the CRCNA already as it is!

I digress...

The purpose of Synods is to deliberate and make decisions. We've had 2000 years of deliberation (including over 50 years of deliberation in the CRC alone). Synod 2022 should affirm the decision of Synod 50! The position of the HSR already has confessional status because it already has Biblical status.

PS. It is disingenuous and wrong to claim that the Bible ever promoted chattel slavery as anything other than sin. In the Torah already, the punishment for kidnapping was death. The year of Jubiliee released the "slaves" (bondservants) and granted freedom. Except for some greedy colonizers, the church through all ages and places has rid the world of slavery.

Besides... even then, what is the point you're making? Do you wish that the slavery discussions would have lasted LONGER? When something is a sin, it is then a sin to prolong discussions which allow the sin to continue!

Haven't had much time to review? The Report has been out for 2 years and was previewed 2 years before that. If anyone hasn't read the Report by now, I'm not sure they really want to have a say in the discussion.

Besides, the CRCNA has been debating this topic for over 50 years. 

Even then, there is nothing new in the Report. It merely repeats what has been known for 2000 years.

It's not like the CRCNA is the only deliberating body... Biblical denominations have already stood firm on Christ's teachings about marriage and worldly churches have already declared LGBT behavior as no longer sinful. Those who end up upset at Synod 2022's decisions can find churches that will welcome their beliefs.

But as for the CRCNA, we will serve the Lord.

Steven De Ruiter,
What does Jude say the sin of Sodom was in Jude verse 7?

The sin(s) of Sodom can be more than one thing! Ezekiel doesn't negate Jude, but they are both correct.

Sodom was destroyed for "sexual immorality and unnatural desire" (and more!)

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!