Darren, thanks for this good work. There has been some strong critique of this work in other Facebook places -- here's what I've written there in reply, for what it's worth.
Sisters and Brothers in Jesus, I myself am glad that such a document as this is shared in Canada. It calls for human solidarity, it invites words and acts of gratitude, and it calls us to live out of our living hope. As such, I am glad it is signed on to by the CRC-Canada. I think it resonates with my hope as a CRC person in Canada to 'stand together' in the midst of this current crisis. And by 'standing together', I do not mean believing the same thing; I mean working together for the common good and finding courage to do so in the acts of loving kindness we experience from and share with our neighbours.
I sense that one of the things that creates the concerns noted here is that this document is signed by people from other religious communities, and that this multiple-religious signing means that we have to hold to the 'lowest common denominator' of meaning. I myself do not think that, just because a communal document is signed by various people, that signing it must mean that I understand ‘how it means’ in the exact same way as everyone else who signs it. I do not need to think that what ‘God’ and ‘Creator’ means to me must mean the same thing as ‘God’ and ‘Creator’ (or even ‘hope’, ‘gratitude,’ etc) means to the other signer(s).
With that in mind, I read the document (and would sign it) as a Christian. And it seems to me that this document, if read as a Christian, is able to be read as fitting orthodox Christian theology (maybe it'd be good to hear quotes from it that I missed - that are clearly not fitting with being a Christian). If it was written ONLY by Christians, for Christians, then I imagine it would have an even more Christian-specific posture/language/orientation (surely it would mention Jesus as the source of our hope, etc).
But it is not written as a specifically Christian document – and that’s where I hear that many on this page are finding it complicated/problematic. I would note that, while it does not add the Christian-specific posture (Jesus is not mentioned), it also does not say things like “We all believe in the same God; we all believe the same things about the Creator and the creation.”
My own work as a Christian chaplain in a multi-faith setting, working alongside of chaplains from 10 other global religions, means that I navigate the challenges presented in this document often. How can we together write something together, that we hold commonly true? We struggled with this when the University asked us to add in a document that we ‘celebrate all diversity.’ Some, including me, struggled with that phrase. All diversity? Do we celebrate that people believe different things about God (or don't believe in God at all?), celebrate that religious diversity? Do we honestly celebrate all diversity? I don’t. So we asked to shift the document to say ‘we respect diversity.’ But even that could be pulled apart and argued with. These are complicated matters, and I think this document demonstrates a good way forward – even if not perfect.
Good work like this seems to stand the test of time. Here I am, 4 years later, finding this helpful and good again. Thanks again, Mark (and any others that helped assemble this piece). It is good to be a part of this denominational community, to be enveloped in the care and wisdom gathered, and to be a part of the work of sharing the wisdom in helpful ways to my local community.
Oh Dee! Remember the first time we met at synod? I had heard so many good things about you from my dad, Rev. Will Verhoef, who enjoyed you at synods and through work as a synodical deputee and classical clerk. Forget hollywood movie stars or famous theologians. Dee Recker was FAMOUS in our house! ;-) And then I FINALLY got to meet you at Synod 2013. All the "Dee" stories were brought to life - your kindness, your care for our community, your excellent work, your smile, and just enough playfulness to feel a bit like family. Thanks for using those God-given gifts for so many years in the CRCNA. We are better because you did -- to God be the glory! Thanks Dee - and so much love to you!
I find the 'global church' and 'history of tradition' conversation to need to be more nuanced. I find a few complicating factors quickly rise to the surface upon my first-blush consideration.
One of those complications is that many of us have experienced a dissonance regarding our traditional theological views BECAUSE we have encountered faithful same-sex married Christian couples who have been together for over a significant time and seem to be flourishing on all fronts. NOTE: this doesn't mean we have abandoned Scripture; rather the dissonance has driven us to return to Scripture to re-examine our traditional perspective with renewed attention (one example of the helpfulness of re-examining traditional conclusions more thoroughly is seen in the work of the 1973 report regarding 'Sodom and Gomorrah' and 'sodomy').
Here's the complication - same-sex marriage isn't legal in sooooooo many countries - so how can this dissonance be experienced, and without the dissonance, one must at least ask if there is a curiosity to re-examine a traditional perspective and its biblical hermeneutics? Here is a PEW article that gives a glimpse (https://www.pewresearch.org/.../global-snapshot-same-sex.../) - but also note that in MOST of these countries with same-sex marriage, the legalization is recent (so again, how much dissonance will Christians be experiencing)?
So one possible conclusion would be that the history of tradition AND the global church are in (general, not universal) agreement because, for most of human history and in most places today globally, same sex marriage is simply not legal.
Eric - thanks for the reply. It is precisely your concern around the need to 'discern' flourishing that caused me to put in the word 'seem.' I do not know the inner life and know I am not the final judge of these things. On the other hand, it seems that in many stories of Scripture, we are drawn in to places where faith is flourishing in places where the community was not expecting it - so I also would not want to assume that 'faith could never flourish there' and have that assumption close off the community from discerning what may be the work of the Spirit.
Andrew - I think if the CRCNA is going to engage in dialogue around this very controversial topic, it will be helpful for us to be careful with our words. In marriage counselling, in controversial conversations at my work, and also notably in the facilitation training for the "Challenging Conversations Toolkit" - in all those places, it seems helpful to speak from the position of 'I' and not speak in generalizations or accusatory ways about others.
In your reply to me, you say: "As I see it Paul, your experience...drives you to reintepret (revise) Scripture, placing the authority of human experience at the same level (or higher than) Biblical authority." That single statement seems to be accusing me of both revising Scripture and elevating human experience at least parallel to, but perhaps higher than Scripture. As a minister in the CRCNA and a steward of God's Word, I consider these serious statements, indeed serious accusations. I am sure I have made mistakes along the way in how I've interpreted Scripture - indeed, I got a really poor grade on a sermon at Calvin Seminary that exposed to me what biases I brought to that text. And I believe that 'we are in this together' - so I was thankful when Dr. Greidanus and Rev. Roeda served me well by gently and honestly 'calling me into a conversation' about how I had mis-handled God's Word. I invite you to do the same.
But here, it seems that you are making accusations that, as far as I can tell, have no basis in my post itself. My sense is that I was clear that experience can be a cause to return to Scripture to 're-examine it with renewed attention.' I imagine, if you listen to your own life, you can find experiences of your own that have driven you back to Scripture, to re-examine with renewed attention. For me, something as basic as sensing a call to be a minister was one of those experiences - it called me to re-examine Scripture with renewed attention.
I also get concerned about the way you put side-by-side the words reintepret and revise. Twice you wrote 'reinterpret (revise) Scripture.' I think we are called to question our interpretations of Scripture, and re-evaluate them. I appreciated that the 1973 report 42 on Homosexuality did this fairly clearly around the Sodom and Gomorrah story; it challenged what in many places of Christianity was the 'traditional' interpretation of that story, and wondered if the story was not so much directly about homosexual acts (dubbed 'sodomy' in history) and more widely about sexual violence. So...yes, I believe we are called to continually return to Scripture and evaluate our human interpretations of this revelation of God. But putting the word 'revise' as a parallel to 'reinterpret' seems to me to be a problem, especially when the direct object of the verb is Scripture. I have not seen people 'revise Scripture' in this conversation. All those I have read (DeYoung, Sprinkle, Webb, Hays, Vines, Gushee, Achtemeier, etc) have been exceptionally clear that they are working with Scripture as we have received it. None of them have 'revised Scripture' (at least in how I understand that word to mean: alter, amend, modify; there may be a more 'British' use that I think I encountered in Harry Potter that comes closer to re-examine or study carefully). But in our CRCNA climate, it feels to me that saying people are 'revising Scripture' is most commonly heard as 'altering Scripture.' I haven't seen this by any listed above, though some have clearly 'reinterpreted Scripture.' I simply do not think that using those words as synonyms in this particular situation is helpful (maybe in Britain, if I'm interpreting Harry Potter correctly).
And I think the connecting or paralleling of the two words in our context could lead us to something that concerns me: we could forget that our interpretations are fallible. To me, this is one of the concerns in the 'science' area of the Human Sexuality Report. It rightly notes that science is a fallible tool that we use to 'interpret' God's revelation in creation. Creation is the revelation - but our interpretations may be wrong. But I wish a parallel statement was made about 'hermeneutics and exegesis.' I wish the report would have followed up by noting that our hermeneutics and exegesis are fallible tools that we use to interpret God's revelation in Scripture. Scripture is the revelation - but our interpretations may be wrong. To use the image from the report, we may sometimes need to check the prescription of our glasses - we may not be seeing as clearly as we think.
It is my understanding that Dr. DeMoor is saying, "The discernment of how to flesh out these larger category words (like 'unchastity'), considering what they mean in the particular temporal and geographical context, is the very work of the local church. The confessions were written with these wide words; and the history of the church is that it does the work, usually at the local level, of applying these wide words."
I would suggest that it is generally unwise to ask Synod to maintain lists of sins that fall under each large-category word: "belittle, hate, insult" (HC 105), "theft and robbery,...scheming and swindling,...greed" (HC 110), "do what I can to guard and advance my neighbor's good name" (HC 112). There are likely all sorts of ways that we would agree, as a denomination of local churches, on what constitutes some of those pieces. But we have not gone as far to make those clarifications 'binding.' For instance, we could deliberate and decide denominationally around the question, "Is charging interest on a loan "greed"? How much interest is too much? When does it become 'usury'?" What if we discovered that Ursinus, in his commentary on the Catechism, had written that 3% interest is the maximum; anything more is greed? Would Ursinus's perspective be 'confessional' for the CRC today? Absolutely not.
I think the point Dr. De Moor is making is that the CRCNA has not, at a denominational/Synodical level ever made the clear decision that 'homosexual sex' is part of the CRCNA's confessional standards as sinful. He has acknowledged that Ursinus thinks it is sinful. Also, that Ursinus considers homosexual set to be in the category of 'unchastity'. Dr. DeMoor has clearly said that the CRCNA has said it is sinful. What the CRCNA has NOT said is that the belief that 'homosexual sex is sinful' needs to be held at the confessional level of agreement/adherence. And he is asking us to do the work to disprove him - so look at the history. Has the CRCNA ever made a statement that we (the CRCNA) decided that 'homosexual sex is sinful' is a statement held to the highest level of denominational agreement (confession/creedal agreement)? The answer, at least as I read every response in this chain, is "No, we cannot point to that place in CRCNA history." We have said, "Homosexual sex is a sin", and that is our CRCNA's 'position', but we have not raised that position to the level of 'confessional/creedal agreement.' Instead, it has been at the agreement level called "pastoral advice."
He has also said that Synod 2021 may change that. Synod's have the freedom to do so. But he disagrees with the Human Sexuality reports conclusion that 'it is already confessional.' That's the conversation as I am reading it.
I agree that things can get absurd. Here is why I would suggest that this is not in the category of absurd.
In 1970, the CRCNA asked a committee "to study the problem of homosexuality and to delineate the church's position on this matter" (Acts 1970, p 121). So they considered delineating a position worth a study committee; it was an open-enough question to consider. It was not seen as an absurd question.
If Synod 1970 shared your mind in this matter, it would seem that the Synod would have said something like, "No need to study it; it is both obviously a sin, obviously 'unchaste' sexuality, and thus obviously a matter of confessional-level agreement." I would note that Synod did speak clearly and directly and immediately on the matter of Kinism. They did not create a study committee on Kinism; they simply declared it heretical. So clearly Synod is willing to say, "This is obviously sin; no need for further study."
I assume that if Synod was seriously asked, "Is breaking a window on someone else's car and taking it, never to return it, considered stealing?" that Synod would have said, hopefully with compassion, "That's an unnecessary question for a study committee. That's absurd."
Our CRCNA history has said, "This is not an absurd question." And what's more, when that report came back, the Advisory Committee considered the report and DID NOT add a recommendation to make their report an interpretation of the confession (which they could have).
Instead, what Synod 1973 DID DO was appoint a new study committee to ask the question, "What does it mean that something is 'settled and binding' as it comes to decisions Synod makes?" And that study committee came back to Synod 1975 and said (I think this is an appropriate summary) that, "Decisions of Synod are all settled and binding,... and that decisions differ in their nature of authority and in the measure of agreement expected" (among other differences).
This is the situation as far as I can tell: 'homosexual sex is a sin' is settled and binding not at the confessional level, but at the level of a position held by the CRCNA at the level of 'pastoral advice and guidance.' As such, there has historically been room for respectful disagreement, even among office-holders. That may change.
Henry, I am thankful that you entered into this conversation. Indeed, the report's declaration that "the church's teaching on premarital sex, extramarital sex, adultery, polyamory, pornography, and homosexual sex already has confessional status" (followed by a parallel recommendation for Synod to adopt) was surprising to me. I posted this article the network on October 20, 2020, before the report came out: https://network.crcna.org/crcna-and-synod/same-sex-marriage-resources-and-church-order-history-crcna. At the very end of that linked resource, I had written: The fact that the committee was asked to reflect on and evaluate whether future synods should consider the confessional status of this matter demonstrates that it currently is not in that category. It has been a decision of pastoral advice to the churches since 1973. And with you, I focus that whole resource on same-sex marriage (though of course this current report's declaration and following recommendation include much more than only homosexual sex.
But this report also seems to ask quite clear questions that it does not answer about what would happen if Synod agrees with that declaration/recommendation or if Synod decides itself to make the report's articulation on homosexual sex a confessional-status position.
Here is the pertinent paragraph from page 145 of the report:
If a teaching is declared to have confessional status, questions arise about what that means for those who sign the Covenant for Officebearers (CFO) in the CRCNA. Will those who have already signed it need to accept this new item as having confessional status? What happens if they don’t? Will those who subsequently sign the CFO need to accept this new item?
This paragraph has already been reference on the CRC Pastors Facebook page, and councils have already asked, "What could this mean? Would we (elders, deacons, and pastors) need to all affirm that we agree with this report's conclusions, or leave office?"
It is my sense that since Synod 1973, the CRC has had a clear position (that's the language from their mandate - 'position') - but that statements of pastoral advice are what constitute that position. As you've written in your Commentary on the Church Order (2010 edition, pp 168-169), "[Synod] expected a “healthy respect” for its decisions, not creedal attachment. Officebearers would not be subject to dismissal from office based on unorthodox views, but only on disrespect for what the synod decided."
So my sense is that, for 48 years, the CRC has had space for respectful disagreement about homosexual sex (and by extension, same-sex marriage). Any office-bearer could disagree with the CRCNA's position, and still respect it. If the recommendations of this report are accepted, it seems to me that the CRCNA has made a significant change - that space for respectful disagreement shrinks considerably. The question being asked is: how small does it become?
The report itself mentions some potential room: "Even if a teaching has confessional status, that does not mean there is no room for disagreement within the bounds of that teaching. In addition, the church sometimes allows for pastoral accommodations. For example, our confessions say that the children of believers should be baptized. Yet some congregations are willing to allow members not to baptize their children." (145)
So again, Henry (and others who wish to enter in), how would you articulate how that 'space for respectful disagreement' will change? How much does it shrink? How would you articulate the space left, and who can be there? While Synod is able to make this decision, is there a history of other decisions where Synod 'changes the rules' significantly after 48 years? I would imagine for some, a similar 'threat to belonging' was sense if the Belhar was added to the CfO (which it was not because of that concern, I believe). If this goes through, I imagine one response may be that some office-bearers will be dusting off the part of the Church Order around gravamans. Another response is that some churches may simply not worry about any new declaration of Synod. I also imagine a third response: if the CRC's position on homosexual sex is raised to a confessional-status agreement, it provides leverage to push out those who for 48 years felt like they were able to belong even though they 'respectfully disagreed.' What's your sense of all this possibility?
Posted in: A Message to Canadians From Religious Leaders in Response to Covid19
Darren, thanks for this good work. There has been some strong critique of this work in other Facebook places -- here's what I've written there in reply, for what it's worth.
Sisters and Brothers in Jesus, I myself am glad that such a document as this is shared in Canada. It calls for human solidarity, it invites words and acts of gratitude, and it calls us to live out of our living hope. As such, I am glad it is signed on to by the CRC-Canada. I think it resonates with my hope as a CRC person in Canada to 'stand together' in the midst of this current crisis. And by 'standing together', I do not mean believing the same thing; I mean working together for the common good and finding courage to do so in the acts of loving kindness we experience from and share with our neighbours.
I sense that one of the things that creates the concerns noted here is that this document is signed by people from other religious communities, and that this multiple-religious signing means that we have to hold to the 'lowest common denominator' of meaning. I myself do not think that, just because a communal document is signed by various people, that signing it must mean that I understand ‘how it means’ in the exact same way as everyone else who signs it. I do not need to think that what ‘God’ and ‘Creator’ means to me must mean the same thing as ‘God’ and ‘Creator’ (or even ‘hope’, ‘gratitude,’ etc) means to the other signer(s).
With that in mind, I read the document (and would sign it) as a Christian. And it seems to me that this document, if read as a Christian, is able to be read as fitting orthodox Christian theology (maybe it'd be good to hear quotes from it that I missed - that are clearly not fitting with being a Christian). If it was written ONLY by Christians, for Christians, then I imagine it would have an even more Christian-specific posture/language/orientation (surely it would mention Jesus as the source of our hope, etc).
But it is not written as a specifically Christian document – and that’s where I hear that many on this page are finding it complicated/problematic. I would note that, while it does not add the Christian-specific posture (Jesus is not mentioned), it also does not say things like “We all believe in the same God; we all believe the same things about the Creator and the creation.”
My own work as a Christian chaplain in a multi-faith setting, working alongside of chaplains from 10 other global religions, means that I navigate the challenges presented in this document often. How can we together write something together, that we hold commonly true? We struggled with this when the University asked us to add in a document that we ‘celebrate all diversity.’ Some, including me, struggled with that phrase. All diversity? Do we celebrate that people believe different things about God (or don't believe in God at all?), celebrate that religious diversity? Do we honestly celebrate all diversity? I don’t. So we asked to shift the document to say ‘we respect diversity.’ But even that could be pulled apart and argued with. These are complicated matters, and I think this document demonstrates a good way forward – even if not perfect.
Posted in: 'Guide for a Clergy Leave of Absence for Mental Health Reasons' Toolkit
Good work like this seems to stand the test of time. Here I am, 4 years later, finding this helpful and good again. Thanks again, Mark (and any others that helped assemble this piece). It is good to be a part of this denominational community, to be enveloped in the care and wisdom gathered, and to be a part of the work of sharing the wisdom in helpful ways to my local community.
Posted in: Dee Recker Retires After 23 Years! Share a Memory or Note Here
Oh Dee! Remember the first time we met at synod? I had heard so many good things about you from my dad, Rev. Will Verhoef, who enjoyed you at synods and through work as a synodical deputee and classical clerk. Forget hollywood movie stars or famous theologians. Dee Recker was FAMOUS in our house! ;-) And then I FINALLY got to meet you at Synod 2013. All the "Dee" stories were brought to life - your kindness, your care for our community, your excellent work, your smile, and just enough playfulness to feel a bit like family. Thanks for using those God-given gifts for so many years in the CRCNA. We are better because you did -- to God be the glory! Thanks Dee - and so much love to you!
Posted in: Homosexuality and Our Missional Calling
Andrew,
I find the 'global church' and 'history of tradition' conversation to need to be more nuanced. I find a few complicating factors quickly rise to the surface upon my first-blush consideration.
One of those complications is that many of us have experienced a dissonance regarding our traditional theological views BECAUSE we have encountered faithful same-sex married Christian couples who have been together for over a significant time and seem to be flourishing on all fronts. NOTE: this doesn't mean we have abandoned Scripture; rather the dissonance has driven us to return to Scripture to re-examine our traditional perspective with renewed attention (one example of the helpfulness of re-examining traditional conclusions more thoroughly is seen in the work of the 1973 report regarding 'Sodom and Gomorrah' and 'sodomy').
Here's the complication - same-sex marriage isn't legal in sooooooo many countries - so how can this dissonance be experienced, and without the dissonance, one must at least ask if there is a curiosity to re-examine a traditional perspective and its biblical hermeneutics? Here is a PEW article that gives a glimpse (https://www.pewresearch.org/.../global-snapshot-same-sex.../) - but also note that in MOST of these countries with same-sex marriage, the legalization is recent (so again, how much dissonance will Christians be experiencing)?
So one possible conclusion would be that the history of tradition AND the global church are in (general, not universal) agreement because, for most of human history and in most places today globally, same sex marriage is simply not legal.
Thoughts about that?
Posted in: Homosexuality and Our Missional Calling
Eric - thanks for the reply. It is precisely your concern around the need to 'discern' flourishing that caused me to put in the word 'seem.' I do not know the inner life and know I am not the final judge of these things. On the other hand, it seems that in many stories of Scripture, we are drawn in to places where faith is flourishing in places where the community was not expecting it - so I also would not want to assume that 'faith could never flourish there' and have that assumption close off the community from discerning what may be the work of the Spirit.
Andrew - I think if the CRCNA is going to engage in dialogue around this very controversial topic, it will be helpful for us to be careful with our words. In marriage counselling, in controversial conversations at my work, and also notably in the facilitation training for the "Challenging Conversations Toolkit" - in all those places, it seems helpful to speak from the position of 'I' and not speak in generalizations or accusatory ways about others.
In your reply to me, you say: "As I see it Paul, your experience...drives you to reintepret (revise) Scripture, placing the authority of human experience at the same level (or higher than) Biblical authority." That single statement seems to be accusing me of both revising Scripture and elevating human experience at least parallel to, but perhaps higher than Scripture. As a minister in the CRCNA and a steward of God's Word, I consider these serious statements, indeed serious accusations. I am sure I have made mistakes along the way in how I've interpreted Scripture - indeed, I got a really poor grade on a sermon at Calvin Seminary that exposed to me what biases I brought to that text. And I believe that 'we are in this together' - so I was thankful when Dr. Greidanus and Rev. Roeda served me well by gently and honestly 'calling me into a conversation' about how I had mis-handled God's Word. I invite you to do the same.
But here, it seems that you are making accusations that, as far as I can tell, have no basis in my post itself. My sense is that I was clear that experience can be a cause to return to Scripture to 're-examine it with renewed attention.' I imagine, if you listen to your own life, you can find experiences of your own that have driven you back to Scripture, to re-examine with renewed attention. For me, something as basic as sensing a call to be a minister was one of those experiences - it called me to re-examine Scripture with renewed attention.
I also get concerned about the way you put side-by-side the words reintepret and revise. Twice you wrote 'reinterpret (revise) Scripture.' I think we are called to question our interpretations of Scripture, and re-evaluate them. I appreciated that the 1973 report 42 on Homosexuality did this fairly clearly around the Sodom and Gomorrah story; it challenged what in many places of Christianity was the 'traditional' interpretation of that story, and wondered if the story was not so much directly about homosexual acts (dubbed 'sodomy' in history) and more widely about sexual violence. So...yes, I believe we are called to continually return to Scripture and evaluate our human interpretations of this revelation of God. But putting the word 'revise' as a parallel to 'reinterpret' seems to me to be a problem, especially when the direct object of the verb is Scripture. I have not seen people 'revise Scripture' in this conversation. All those I have read (DeYoung, Sprinkle, Webb, Hays, Vines, Gushee, Achtemeier, etc) have been exceptionally clear that they are working with Scripture as we have received it. None of them have 'revised Scripture' (at least in how I understand that word to mean: alter, amend, modify; there may be a more 'British' use that I think I encountered in Harry Potter that comes closer to re-examine or study carefully). But in our CRCNA climate, it feels to me that saying people are 'revising Scripture' is most commonly heard as 'altering Scripture.' I haven't seen this by any listed above, though some have clearly 'reinterpreted Scripture.' I simply do not think that using those words as synonyms in this particular situation is helpful (maybe in Britain, if I'm interpreting Harry Potter correctly).
And I think the connecting or paralleling of the two words in our context could lead us to something that concerns me: we could forget that our interpretations are fallible. To me, this is one of the concerns in the 'science' area of the Human Sexuality Report. It rightly notes that science is a fallible tool that we use to 'interpret' God's revelation in creation. Creation is the revelation - but our interpretations may be wrong. But I wish a parallel statement was made about 'hermeneutics and exegesis.' I wish the report would have followed up by noting that our hermeneutics and exegesis are fallible tools that we use to interpret God's revelation in Scripture. Scripture is the revelation - but our interpretations may be wrong. To use the image from the report, we may sometimes need to check the prescription of our glasses - we may not be seeing as clearly as we think.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
It is my understanding that Dr. DeMoor is saying, "The discernment of how to flesh out these larger category words (like 'unchastity'), considering what they mean in the particular temporal and geographical context, is the very work of the local church. The confessions were written with these wide words; and the history of the church is that it does the work, usually at the local level, of applying these wide words."
I would suggest that it is generally unwise to ask Synod to maintain lists of sins that fall under each large-category word: "belittle, hate, insult" (HC 105), "theft and robbery,...scheming and swindling,...greed" (HC 110), "do what I can to guard and advance my neighbor's good name" (HC 112). There are likely all sorts of ways that we would agree, as a denomination of local churches, on what constitutes some of those pieces. But we have not gone as far to make those clarifications 'binding.' For instance, we could deliberate and decide denominationally around the question, "Is charging interest on a loan "greed"? How much interest is too much? When does it become 'usury'?" What if we discovered that Ursinus, in his commentary on the Catechism, had written that 3% interest is the maximum; anything more is greed? Would Ursinus's perspective be 'confessional' for the CRC today? Absolutely not.
I think the point Dr. De Moor is making is that the CRCNA has not, at a denominational/Synodical level ever made the clear decision that 'homosexual sex' is part of the CRCNA's confessional standards as sinful. He has acknowledged that Ursinus thinks it is sinful. Also, that Ursinus considers homosexual set to be in the category of 'unchastity'. Dr. DeMoor has clearly said that the CRCNA has said it is sinful. What the CRCNA has NOT said is that the belief that 'homosexual sex is sinful' needs to be held at the confessional level of agreement/adherence. And he is asking us to do the work to disprove him - so look at the history. Has the CRCNA ever made a statement that we (the CRCNA) decided that 'homosexual sex is sinful' is a statement held to the highest level of denominational agreement (confession/creedal agreement)? The answer, at least as I read every response in this chain, is "No, we cannot point to that place in CRCNA history." We have said, "Homosexual sex is a sin", and that is our CRCNA's 'position', but we have not raised that position to the level of 'confessional/creedal agreement.' Instead, it has been at the agreement level called "pastoral advice."
He has also said that Synod 2021 may change that. Synod's have the freedom to do so. But he disagrees with the Human Sexuality reports conclusion that 'it is already confessional.' That's the conversation as I am reading it.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Eric,
I agree that things can get absurd. Here is why I would suggest that this is not in the category of absurd.
In 1970, the CRCNA asked a committee "to study the problem of homosexuality and to delineate the church's position on this matter" (Acts 1970, p 121). So they considered delineating a position worth a study committee; it was an open-enough question to consider. It was not seen as an absurd question.
If Synod 1970 shared your mind in this matter, it would seem that the Synod would have said something like, "No need to study it; it is both obviously a sin, obviously 'unchaste' sexuality, and thus obviously a matter of confessional-level agreement." I would note that Synod did speak clearly and directly and immediately on the matter of Kinism. They did not create a study committee on Kinism; they simply declared it heretical. So clearly Synod is willing to say, "This is obviously sin; no need for further study."
I assume that if Synod was seriously asked, "Is breaking a window on someone else's car and taking it, never to return it, considered stealing?" that Synod would have said, hopefully with compassion, "That's an unnecessary question for a study committee. That's absurd."
Our CRCNA history has said, "This is not an absurd question." And what's more, when that report came back, the Advisory Committee considered the report and DID NOT add a recommendation to make their report an interpretation of the confession (which they could have).
Instead, what Synod 1973 DID DO was appoint a new study committee to ask the question, "What does it mean that something is 'settled and binding' as it comes to decisions Synod makes?" And that study committee came back to Synod 1975 and said (I think this is an appropriate summary) that, "Decisions of Synod are all settled and binding,... and that decisions differ in their nature of authority and in the measure of agreement expected" (among other differences).
This is the situation as far as I can tell: 'homosexual sex is a sin' is settled and binding not at the confessional level, but at the level of a position held by the CRCNA at the level of 'pastoral advice and guidance.' As such, there has historically been room for respectful disagreement, even among office-holders. That may change.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Henry,
I am thankful that you entered into this conversation. Indeed, the report's declaration that "the church's teaching on premarital sex, extramarital sex, adultery, polyamory, pornography, and homosexual sex already has confessional status" (followed by a parallel recommendation for Synod to adopt) was surprising to me. I posted this article the network on October 20, 2020, before the report came out: https://network.crcna.org/crcna-and-synod/same-sex-marriage-resources-and-church-order-history-crcna. At the very end of that linked resource, I had written: The fact that the committee was asked to reflect on and evaluate whether future synods should consider the confessional status of this matter demonstrates that it currently is not in that category. It has been a decision of pastoral advice to the churches since 1973. And with you, I focus that whole resource on same-sex marriage (though of course this current report's declaration and following recommendation include much more than only homosexual sex.
But this report also seems to ask quite clear questions that it does not answer about what would happen if Synod agrees with that declaration/recommendation or if Synod decides itself to make the report's articulation on homosexual sex a confessional-status position.
Here is the pertinent paragraph from page 145 of the report:
If a teaching is declared to have confessional status, questions arise about what that means for those who sign the Covenant for Officebearers (CFO) in the CRCNA. Will those who have already signed it need to accept this new item as having confessional status? What happens if they don’t? Will those who subsequently sign the CFO need to accept this new item?
This paragraph has already been reference on the CRC Pastors Facebook page, and councils have already asked, "What could this mean? Would we (elders, deacons, and pastors) need to all affirm that we agree with this report's conclusions, or leave office?"
It is my sense that since Synod 1973, the CRC has had a clear position (that's the language from their mandate - 'position') - but that statements of pastoral advice are what constitute that position. As you've written in your Commentary on the Church Order (2010 edition, pp 168-169), "[Synod] expected a “healthy respect” for its decisions, not creedal attachment. Officebearers would not be subject to dismissal from office based on unorthodox views, but only on disrespect for what the synod decided."
So my sense is that, for 48 years, the CRC has had space for respectful disagreement about homosexual sex (and by extension, same-sex marriage). Any office-bearer could disagree with the CRCNA's position, and still respect it. If the recommendations of this report are accepted, it seems to me that the CRCNA has made a significant change - that space for respectful disagreement shrinks considerably. The question being asked is: how small does it become?
The report itself mentions some potential room: "Even if a teaching has confessional status, that does not mean there is no room for disagreement within the bounds of that teaching. In addition, the church sometimes allows for pastoral accommodations. For example, our confessions say that the children of believers should be baptized. Yet some congregations are willing to allow members not to baptize their children." (145)
So again, Henry (and others who wish to enter in), how would you articulate how that 'space for respectful disagreement' will change? How much does it shrink? How would you articulate the space left, and who can be there? While Synod is able to make this decision, is there a history of other decisions where Synod 'changes the rules' significantly after 48 years? I would imagine for some, a similar 'threat to belonging' was sense if the Belhar was added to the CfO (which it was not because of that concern, I believe). If this goes through, I imagine one response may be that some office-bearers will be dusting off the part of the Church Order around gravamans. Another response is that some churches may simply not worry about any new declaration of Synod. I also imagine a third response: if the CRC's position on homosexual sex is raised to a confessional-status agreement, it provides leverage to push out those who for 48 years felt like they were able to belong even though they 'respectfully disagreed.' What's your sense of all this possibility?