Henry DeMoor

Yes, Dan, but only if a synod of the CRCNA has made this a confessional issue.  Currently it is a position that we have adopted and synod has called that "pastoral advice" to the churches.  So the signing of the Covenant for Officebearers by said deacon did not involve confessional status.  If, however, Synod 2021 were minded to interpret our confession by insisting that "unchastity" includes same gender sexual relations, that deacon might have to send such a confessional difficulty gravamen unless they are both chaste in their marriage.  And if that is sent, I doubt that the broader assemblies would grant the request.  In that case she would likely have to resign.

Josh,

It looks like we will need to agree on what "respecting" a decision means.  It does not mean obeying what a synod has declared.  If it did, our having a negative vote recorded means very little.  Let me give you an example out of my own past.  I was interviewed by Synod 1988 after the Calvin Seminary board nominated me to serve as an assistant professor of church polity.  The delegates already knew, by way of prior overtures and the public press, that I favored the nomination of women to serve as ordained officebearers.  So a number of delegates wondered how I could possibly hold that view and yet respect the synodical decisions not to allow it.  My response was that seminary students were adults and clever enough to be able to distinguish between what the CRC held as its position on the matter and my own views on it.  So in all the years I taught church polity I always presented what the CRC held and why, and I also presented what those who didn't agree with that position held and why so that said students could make up their own minds.  The same is true of synodical delegates who had their negative vote on a decision recorded.  They went back to their classis, reported on what synod decided (respectfully) and why they voted against it.  There's no problem with that in our system.  Of course, no synod allows a negative vote on a matter that is obviously a confessional issue.  Women in office, as Synod 1987 declared, was and is not a confessional issue.

As for Classis Toronto, I have enough awareness of their actions to know that not only did the council of that congregation respectfully differ on a matter that was at that point not a confessional issue, but that the council also held their belief so forcefully that it didn't leave much of a choice for classis to act as it did.  Those actions reflected a response to one council's approach.  There were many other councils that dealt pastorally with those who professed to be homosexual in orientation and sought to help them live with the synodical decisions of 1973.  Elders may even have differed with synod's position, but respecting synod's decisions means that they would be obliged to accurately report what its position was and is.

Everyone,

On this Thanksgiving weekend I want to express to all of you my gratitude for your insightful contributions responding to my "challenge."

I believe that what we need from synod now is clarity.  People differ on how we understand "pastoral advice."  Some say it's just a matter of allowing elders to do their own thing, even with a denominational "position" in place.  Others think it means that synod is asking us to minister in a specific way, i.e., we are not to go outside of the bounds that synodical decisions have put in place, and we should be telling those with homosexual orientation to be chaste.  But we also need synod to affirm our church political history.  As a matter of fact, nobody has thus far demonstrated that synod has wanted to raise this issue to a confessional status, i.e., it has never specifically indicated what in today's world and culture the word "chaste" in the Heidelberg Catechism actually condemns.

So what I believe should happen is that Synod 2021 should consider a declaration that with the increasing pressure of our culture we believe that sexual activity among persons of the same gender has now brought us to a "status confessionis."  Synod should then deliberate on that proposal.  If it winds up then, secondly, approving it, synod should make clear what is expected of the churches.  Specific answers to questions like: may we ordain homosexual persons? Only if they are chaste?  Should we then expect chastity in the lives of all persons who experience this orientation?  Should we ask them not to marry since their doing so shows a lack of repentance for sexual activity among persons of the same gender?  If, on the other hand, synod does not approve of such a declaration, it should indicate why it is not a confessional issue and make it clear that officebearers at the local level are free to minister to their members with that in mind.  It should then also make it clear whether persons with a homosexual orientation may be nominated for office in spite of our 1973 decision ("incompatible with the will of God").

So rather than framing everything in the context of "pastoral advice," it is now time to decide one way or the other even though this may well sow division among us and force possible loss of membership or even our denominational makeup.

I wish it didn't have to be this way because I feel like we should be uniting around even this issue.  But I find that no amount of new hermeneutic can convince us that the Scriptures are actually quite tolerant of homosexual acts, and, as opposed to the women in office issue, doesn't speak in favorable terms about it, whatever the cultural expression of this was at the time, different from ours or not.  (I suspect not, but will trust good exegetes.)

In any case, to boil it right down to the basis of my "challenge," I win that one and synod should not declare that this is already a "confessional issue" as the study committee proposes.  That's simply not speaking truth.

May God bless our delegates in preparation and, hopefully, Spirit-filled deliberation in June (if we're out of the woods of Covid-19).

Blessings, everyone!  And thanks again.

Jeff,

No, I don't believe that was the point in 1975.  The point was that whatever authority synod claims on a particular issue, the wording of the decision should speak for itself.  So it's not as if something has to be in any one of the specific categories mentioned and as if it can only be in one.  I think Synod 1975 was just "exemplifying" options that synods have in making sometimes difficult decisions.

In asserting that all decisions in 1973 were framed as "pastoral advice" synod deliberately avoided "principial stance" or "confessional status," call it what you will.  But because we disagree on what that essentially means and because we seem to be drifting in a congregationalist approach again, Synod 2020 should probably discuss the issues now in terms of the "interpretation of the Heidelberg Catechism" to clarify its relevance for the day.  Any such interpretation, of course, then becomes part of the confessional binding for all who sign the Covenant for Officebearers.

I do not know where that will lead, but I have what is typical of those in their mid-seventies: some anxiety about losing each other.

Justin,

I have addressed this question on pages 119, 120 and 294, 295 of Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary.  Perhaps someone in your church has one or you can order it from Faith Alive Resources.  Hope it helps.

Sorry.  That first sentence should say CRC Church Order COMMENTARY.  Newly writing a Church Order is not really my style!  Only a synod could do that.

I think your argument that "not being binding" does not equal "the CRC isn't saying anything" is a valid one.  The article is making the point that local congregations and members of the CRCNA are not bound by a decision of the WCRC and may freely disagree with it.  Only when the CRC synod ratifies that decision must they respect it and feel bound by it.  But of course you're correct in saying that people will draw their conclusions from the fact that we are members of that ecumenical organization.  Our voting representatives to gatherings of the WCRC will have the opportunity to deliberate, persuade, argue and ultimately vote on an issue and even have the opportunity to register a negative vote or submit a protest.  In that case members and journalists would be well advised to refrain from attributing to the CRCNA what the WCRC has decided despite the CRCNA's objections.  As for the adoption of Accra by the WARC, I am not totally aware of how that process went.  I'll e-mail Peter Borgdorff and ask him to weigh in, particularly when it comes to your first and second questions.  As a member of the EIRC, he would be in a much better position to respond than I am.

The reason why I have thus far chosen not to answer is that your example is not clear.  There's a huge difference between a release from ministry at a certain place and a deposition.  If Art. 14 is used, for example, the minister needs to rethink his or her calling in its entirety, but if Art. 17 is used, the minister just becomes eligible for a new call and is not rethinking the internal call at all at this point.  In both instances, the Church Order makes provision in Art. 14 for a return to ministry after a "hiatus."  If your example would be clearer, John, perhaps more people could respond.

Dear John,

It is truly difficult to communicate with each other to the benefit of all who visit this website when assertions are made that are simply not true.

I will give you but two examples.  In number 1. of your September 2008 material you forwarded you make the assertion that the Church Order of the CRCNA uses the terminology: "vacant church."  It may be that you read this in synodical decisions, perhaps even one or two recorded in the Supplement to Church Order articles, but I can assure you with certainty that the Church Order itself uses no such terminology.  In number 3. you say that the Church Order requires meetings of classis four times a year.  In point of fact, it is three times a year (Article 40b).

So, no, the Spirit does not allow me to understand your comments here even if it was intended for the benefit of the CRC.  I do not question your motives.  But you are not speaking the truth.

I would also like you to cool your terms.  Superlatives like things being "absurd" and "heaping precept upon precept" are not helpful.  To accuse prior synods of "pretentiousness" in adopting articles of the Church Order such as they are also goes far beyond what is required to make your argument.  I don't believe young people in our denomination are helped by such rhetoric.

Please do not refer to me as being in a "procedural box."  I do not recognize myself to be there.  Are you quite sure that you are the one that is seeing the "larger picture"?  Is that not possibly also a bit on the pretentious side, to use your words?

Let's speak the truth to one another in love, not use hyperbole to make sure we win our arguments.

The CRC isn't saying anything about things declared to be true by the WCRC.  Article 50c of its Church Order is quite clear on that point when it says that "decisions of ecumenical bodies shall be binding upon the Christian Reformed Church only when they have been ratified by its synod."  Synod relies on its Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee to keep up with what is happening within the broader WCRC circles and what is officially decided by that communion and report that to the synod of the CRC.  According to the Ecumenical Charter adopted by the CRC synod, this committee plays a leading role in seeing to it that the WCRC is fully apprised of official decisions made by the CRC and in carrying on those things that are important to "exercising Christian fellowship with other denominations" and "promoting the unity of the church of Jesus Christ" (Article 50a).

I have no idea what the cost of our participation in the WCRC might be.  That's a question for administrators at the denominational building.

In general, I do think that we should not play out our mission in complete isolation from other Christian churches and, more particularly, other Reformed churches throughout the world.

I hear you loud and clear, Dutchoven.  And I might even agree if it were limited to creeds, confessions, and amendments thereof.  If the overture had done that, perhaps it would have been acceded to.  Instead, the overture asked for all the "matters" referred to in Article 47: "adoption of creeds" but also "Church Order" and "principles and elements of worship."  I don't know why the overture included these as well, but I'm convinced that's what led synod not to accede to the request.

At the same time, I still like our current system better because instead of ratifying changes at our classis meetings all by ourselves, we give classes lots of opportunity to "weigh in" and have their delegates come to synod so that classes remain accountable to one another in a deliberative setting when trying to make final decisions on major matters.

Yes, Randy, Synod 2012 reinserted the sentence into Article 59-b as originally proposed.  See Acts of Synod 2012, page 771.