Trevor Mouw
Theology Teacher in Iowa
Master's Degree in Bible & Theology from Sioux Falls Seminary
Current Seminarian at Calvin Theological Seminary
We want to hear from you.
Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.
Add Your Post
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
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!)
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
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.
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
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!
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
Steven,
My entire reply is a reply to the comment that you accidentally deleted. I must have started my comment while it was still up, so I was looking at your reply whole time.
FYI, "practical atheism" is a specific Theological term, which in this context means claiming to believe God's Word while not behaving like it... aka acting as if modern identity affirmation must be more effective for helping make LGBT individuals feel better than would encouraging and assisting them in Godliness and righteousness.
I do not think you are an Atheist. Though I'm sure this explanation won't be of any consolation...
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
Staci,
Could you explain why you felt that the replies to Steve's comment were off topic to the original post and thus worthy to delete but Steve's comment was not off topic and not deleted?
Posted in: Fear, Flukes & Critical Race Theory
Hi MJill H,
I'm curious if you think that Jesus was "unconsciously racist" as a part of the Jewish social class and the systemic treatment and subjugation of the Samaritan social class?
Because I have concerns about the implications that such a view of systemic racism would turn Jesus into a sinner. Would you have any concerns in this regard?
Thanks
-Trevor
Posted in: Miedos, Flukes y Teoría Crítica de la Raza
La Teoría Crítica de la Raza y el racismo sistémico correspondiente, si se aplica consistentemente, convertirían al mismo Jesús en un pecador y todos estaríamos perdidos en nuestro pecado.
La Biblia nos enseña sobre la responsabilidad individual y el pecado del odio. Como cristianos, no podemos usar CRT.
Posted in: Fear, Flukes & Critical Race Theory
Jonathan,
We're talking about CRT here, which claims that people of the privileged social order can be inherently racist even while actively attempting to be anti-racist. So even if Jesus' teachings were "anti-racist", he himself was still a member of the privileged (and prejudicial) Jewish social order, and thus inherently racist.
Now, I'm going to hope that you consider being racist as something sinful...
Similarly, if the Syrophoenecian woman is correcting Jesus's sinful words of prejudice, that implies Jesus sinned in what he said.
Obviously, if Jesus Christ sinned, we are all damned to eternal destruction, because we have no savior.
All is lost.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
It has been such a discouragement to me in this thread, and other threads, to see older men in my denomination work so hard, through synodical wording or procedural loopholes, to try to make space for sin.
:(
But the most hurtful irony is the false insinuations above that the traditionalists and conservatives, like me, should be viewed as the cause of any resulting church splits!
It is not the conservatives who have been working for decades to change the beliefs and positions of our denomination! It is those who have "progressed" away from the Biblical teachings on homosexuality and the church that are at fault for any split, regardless of whether the split is liberals leaving because the CRCNA holds fast to Biblical teaching or whether it's the conservatives leaving because the CRCNA changes to allow committed LGBT+ members to church leadership. Conservatives don't want to split. We want to remain in a denomination that stands firmly on the Word of God despite whatever pressures come from the secular culture around us.
As Cedric outlined above, there are three possible scenarios, as I see it:
Option A. Disregarding the committee's recommendations and affirming LGBT+ in the CRC.
Option B. Endorse the committee's recommendations, including the suggestion of status confessionis.
Option C. Endorse the committee's recommendations, but decline the suggestion of status confessionis and instead let the report stand as more "pastoral advice" and allows each classis or church to determine how they wish to hand LGBT+ in their churches.
Henry (and others), you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that while option A will create a split in which conservative churches leave the denomination, and while option B will create a split where liberal churches leave, option C will allow for unity in diversity to be maintained for all parties.
This is false.
I promise you that if Synod chooses either option A or option C, the resulting split will be equally large.
We're not stupid. We saw with Women in Office that "option C" inevitably leads toward "option A".
To "punt" this issue is to kill the CRC.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
What Eric said.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Indeed. I had actually wanted to use the word "elder", but didn't want to cause confusion with the church office.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
"All previous synodical actions on the matter are explicitly and tellingly characterized as "pastoral advice.""
Exactly the problem, then?
My hope is that somebody (from the study committee who already has their sources?) will rise to meet your challenge and find the evidence that you seek to show that a previous synod has claimed decisively that 1. marriage is between one man and one woman, and that 2. homosexual behavior is sinful.
Although it seems to me that it's clear that both of those statements have been made by the CRC already (even though they've clearly been made by the Bible already)... but just not up to an "official standard" of what makes something confessional?
Just trying to understand.
I appreciate and thank you for having this conversation now, though, so that we all know what official motions need to be made or don't need to be made at Synod 2021.