Thanks for the post Dan, and for attending. It's always good to know, from first hand observation, strategies employed by movements that want to change institutions and culture.
Nothing you report is too surprising to me, but hearing a report from someone who was privy to the conversation is helpful.
Leviticus 18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Leviticus 20:13 =If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Romans 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Certainly, Scripture's language about homosexual sex could be said to be very strong in the negative. See above. One would think that if that strength of characterization were to be overcome (e.g., like the prohibition against eating unclean animals), there would be some strength of language in the other direction. But I am unaware of any, or even weak language in the other direction.
And the language of these passages seems to be quite clear in condemning all gay sex -- at least there is never an exception made. If then one were to make a case for the goodness of gay sex IF there was monogamy and "commitment" (whatever that exactly means), wouldn't there be at least one passage suggesting that? Even weakly?
Scripture has quite a number of references to the goodness of heterosexual sex in the context of marriage, even when it condemns heterosexual sex outside marriage. Where's the parallel? Even one instance of it?
It's not like homosexual relationships didn't exist in both OT or NT times. Homosexual relationships weren't invented in the 20th or 21st centuries. So if the world entertained homosexual relationships in OT and NT days -- presumably including committed ones, we have no reason to conclude otherwise -- why would biblical writers NEVER comment positively on monogamous, committed homosexual relationships?
For what it's worth Dan Zylstra, while I suspect Dan W wouldn't argue with your nuance as to his post, it never crossed my mind that Dan W was suggesting A1B wanted "the CRC to normalize and celebrate" anything but "committed or monogamous" gay (etc) relationships. I've certainly never had that impression of A1B.
Thanks for taking the time to respond Dan. As you might expect, I've not been persuaded that gay sex is allowed by scripture, even if "monogamous and committed," but I appreciate the discussion none the less, and especially your commitment that the CRC come to its conclusions on these questions based on scripture as opposed to "personal story" (not that personal story should play zero role in our consideration of the questions).
Your "possible arguments" are similar to those I've read (in books included in A1B's list of recommendeds). I tend to conclude as I have for two dominant reasons:
First, the scriptural references clearly condemn gay sex and provide reasons for the condemnation including the reasons given. Your "possible arguments" dismissing the condemnation also favor the legitimizing of bestiality (the next verse in my reference). Plus I note that the sex during menstruation verse does not characterize that as specifically "bad" for a specific reason, as the verses on gay sex and bestiality do.
Second, I have found no (zero) affirming biblical references related to gay sex, despite the fact that gay sex is a very ancient phenomena, perhaps as ancient as heterosexual sex.
My greatest concern with A1B is their insistence that the CRC must change as they have. Christ's church is not defined merely as the CRC. A1B folk have lots of churches they could join, including some already of their persuasion on these questions. It seems to me that an effort of this sort, from inside an institutional church, is unbiblically decisive and unproductive as to the task of the CRC as an institutional church. A1B efforts smack of a political campaign and their tactics (which I think Dan W reports accurately having seen these tactics first hand myself) are similar to politic tactics.
I'm not saying that Christians should never "be political." They should, but there is "a time and a place" for being political, but the A1B effort within the CRC is, respectfully, neither.
So what if it turns out the AB1 is right? That, e.g., we someday find in the that scripture's translations have been seriously faulty on this question specifically. Then I think, the CRC, and CRCers, will eventually be convinced. But for now, it is mere story, the personal desire on the part of some, that scripture says other than it does, that drives this effort, and I think Dan W reports well on that.
Daniel: I do appreciate your struggle, even if I guess I don't empathize with it (in terms of what scripture says).
But here are a couple of my thoughts about yours.
You seem to suggest that unless a "who is Jesus Christ?" question is invoked by a hermetical/theology difference, there may not be cause to an institutional church to prohibit, or perhapsdivide. I specifically say "institutional" because the discussion is quite different if the question is about the organic ("holy catholic") church.
If what you suggest (as I understand it) is correct, then I'm not sure that the concept of "church discipline" (which is always an institutional church question, not an organic church question) isn't completely lost, at least as to the "life" (as opposed to "faith") issues.
Anyone can make an argument of biblical justification for: viewing pornography, stealing from someone else, polyamory, bestiality, drug abuse, greed, hatred, and many, many other real world, real life behaviors that an "orthodox" perspective would understand to be a "life" problem, just as, e.g., Paul saw and pointed out "life" problems as he dealt with the various churches.
If the CRC becomes the "all one body" that A1B wants, it would not only introduces a new doctrine, not to mention a new hermeneutic, it would also introduce new truths and new teachings to real world CRC congregations and their congregants (real people) about many real world, real life questions. Questions like: what should we teach our children about what a family is?, what mothers are?, what fathers are?, the purposes of sex?, what constraints should we set for dating, for sexual behavior?, is marriage a prerequisite for "living together"?, and much more.
If A1B succeeds, why would not the next generation of A1Bers be one that wants to get rid of A1B's current "monogamous" and "committed" requirements for sexual relationships? Surely, biblical arguments can be made to eliminate those requirements, not? Certainly, people can tell stories of how they suffer because they long to love more than one spouse (etc etc).
If we should be "All One Body," why in the world would Councils not tolerate any form of gender identification, bestiality, polyamory, family definition, and the list goes on. For that matter, if "All One Body" is the goal, why should drunkenness not be be tolerated (wine makes glad the heart don't you know), or meth abuse, or laziness. And if those things are tolerated, why should they not also be taught as "valid options." We aim to be a "liberal society" after all -- don't we?
Adam: You may be correct that CRCers have not sufficiently come alongside those who are gay, or for that matter those who are hetero but single and not of their choosing.
Or you may be incorrect.
It probably depends on which CRCers you are talking about -- because there are lots of them.
But isn't the question you raise a different one than the question at issue here, not to mention one about which there is near unanimity of answer among CRCers. Ok, you think CRCers should more practice what they preach and they should. It's likely that some do, some don't.
But again, that's a different question, isn't it?
There are many kinds of people that CRCers should come alongside of, aren't there, included those who have, by CRC standards gone astray from what Scripture provides for our lives -- in any numbers of wsys?
Isn't the question here whether the institutional CRC should bless the actual going astray? And what the CRC should tell CRC parents to teach their children about a number of questions?
Laura: You say that celibacy is "too much a burden" for LGBT. Two questions.
What about "B" (which I assume is bi-sexual)? What burden is imposed on them by a church that would constrain it's members to marry in heterosexual monogamy or remain delegate?
Second, what do you say to those, and some very much do, that monogamy is too much a constraint (burden) for them? That God made them in such a way that they will only be "fulfilled" by, e.g., open marriage or some variety of polyamory? Why, if you would, would you have the church deny these church members to deny themselves (they have prayed and wrestled too) of ways Of living that they have concluded is right for them?
Thanks for the answers Laura. Let me push back on them a bit.
If the "bi" of bisexual has any meaning, even if less than a 50-50 meaning so to speak, you still claim as your reason that bisexuals should be required to marry heterosexually because they should not have the burden of telling a same sex person which whom they have "fallen in love" that they can reciprocate but have to find a heterosexual person to fall in love with instead. So how is that burden greater than that of a heterosexual person who "falls in love" with someone of the opposite sex but who isn't "eligible," (whether because that person is biologically related, or already married, or hasn't reciprocated in "falling in love," etc). In fact, lots of hetereosexual people "fall in love" but can't act on it (some wanting to marry all their lives but never being able). Assuming the injustice of relative burden is meaningful, I'm not understanding how that injustice is at all unique for bi-sexual people as opposed to some heterosexual people.
As to the "monogamy question," while you may not know of people saying they knew at ages 5, 8 or 10, there may well exist (high schools are full of "two-timers," evidencing those inclinations at early ages), but even if not, there are adult people who declare they have a irresistible desire to marry -- or just have sexually imtimate lives -- with more than one spouse (or partner). And I've seen "Christian married couples" who describe themselves as "needing" an open marriage (not polyamorous but in many respects the same). Isn't is burdensome to all of these people for the church to deny them the polyamorous or open relationship they say they want and need?
I realize you, and perhaps A1B, may just want to talk about some things and not others, but those CRCers who believe scripture speaks rather clearly about prohibiting gay marriage also think it critically important what justification is used by gay marriage advocates. If the, or a, key pro-gay marriage argument is "burden," then we believe there can be no constraint at all on human sexual behavior. To add another example/category, people who have a bestiality fettish (and there are lots of those too even if they might rarely "come out of the closet") are also clearly burdened by cultural/religious constraints against their inclination. The list could go on.
How would you or A1B respond to these concerns? They aren't slippery slope concerns but rather concerns that the gate is swung completely open if the, or a, key argument is about unjust burden.
Indeed, as you say, Fred, "This reality is yet to be tested in many spheres and perhaps the TWU case was the first of many. " I suspect that is a concern of many. It would be my concern, both for Canada (which is now there) and the US (which isn't there yet).
I suspect that this same CA Sup Ct majority (even if less than 7-2) would approve denial of TWU's accreditation even if TWU removed its behaviorial constraint as to sex outside heterosexual marriage, if TWU still taught in such a manner that disapproved of sex outside of heterosexual marriage. In other words, I don't think the Canadian Sup Ct has a majority of justices, given these opinions on this case, that would allow TWU to define for itself what an "education from a Christian perspective" should claim as to homosexual practice (or bi-sexual or even heterosexual for that matter). And I think it is just a matter of time before such cases are brought and such rulings made.
I think you and I have discussed this well actually, even if our conclusions are quite different as to what relative governmental priorities best serve the citizens and residents of Canada or any other sovereign nations. Thank you for that discussion.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thanks for the post Dan, and for attending. It's always good to know, from first hand observation, strategies employed by movements that want to change institutions and culture.
Nothing you report is too surprising to me, but hearing a report from someone who was privy to the conversation is helpful.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Dan: I'm curious. What do you do, e.g., with:
Leviticus 18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13 =If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Romans 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Certainly, Scripture's language about homosexual sex could be said to be very strong in the negative. See above. One would think that if that strength of characterization were to be overcome (e.g., like the prohibition against eating unclean animals), there would be some strength of language in the other direction. But I am unaware of any, or even weak language in the other direction.
And the language of these passages seems to be quite clear in condemning all gay sex -- at least there is never an exception made. If then one were to make a case for the goodness of gay sex IF there was monogamy and "commitment" (whatever that exactly means), wouldn't there be at least one passage suggesting that? Even weakly?
Scripture has quite a number of references to the goodness of heterosexual sex in the context of marriage, even when it condemns heterosexual sex outside marriage. Where's the parallel? Even one instance of it?
It's not like homosexual relationships didn't exist in both OT or NT times. Homosexual relationships weren't invented in the 20th or 21st centuries. So if the world entertained homosexual relationships in OT and NT days -- presumably including committed ones, we have no reason to conclude otherwise -- why would biblical writers NEVER comment positively on monogamous, committed homosexual relationships?
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
For what it's worth Dan Zylstra, while I suspect Dan W wouldn't argue with your nuance as to his post, it never crossed my mind that Dan W was suggesting A1B wanted "the CRC to normalize and celebrate" anything but "committed or monogamous" gay (etc) relationships. I've certainly never had that impression of A1B.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Don: I'm not getting it. What's the inflammatory language?
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thanks for taking the time to respond Dan. As you might expect, I've not been persuaded that gay sex is allowed by scripture, even if "monogamous and committed," but I appreciate the discussion none the less, and especially your commitment that the CRC come to its conclusions on these questions based on scripture as opposed to "personal story" (not that personal story should play zero role in our consideration of the questions).
Your "possible arguments" are similar to those I've read (in books included in A1B's list of recommendeds). I tend to conclude as I have for two dominant reasons:
First, the scriptural references clearly condemn gay sex and provide reasons for the condemnation including the reasons given. Your "possible arguments" dismissing the condemnation also favor the legitimizing of bestiality (the next verse in my reference). Plus I note that the sex during menstruation verse does not characterize that as specifically "bad" for a specific reason, as the verses on gay sex and bestiality do.
Second, I have found no (zero) affirming biblical references related to gay sex, despite the fact that gay sex is a very ancient phenomena, perhaps as ancient as heterosexual sex.
My greatest concern with A1B is their insistence that the CRC must change as they have. Christ's church is not defined merely as the CRC. A1B folk have lots of churches they could join, including some already of their persuasion on these questions. It seems to me that an effort of this sort, from inside an institutional church, is unbiblically decisive and unproductive as to the task of the CRC as an institutional church. A1B efforts smack of a political campaign and their tactics (which I think Dan W reports accurately having seen these tactics first hand myself) are similar to politic tactics.
I'm not saying that Christians should never "be political." They should, but there is "a time and a place" for being political, but the A1B effort within the CRC is, respectfully, neither.
So what if it turns out the AB1 is right? That, e.g., we someday find in the that scripture's translations have been seriously faulty on this question specifically. Then I think, the CRC, and CRCers, will eventually be convinced. But for now, it is mere story, the personal desire on the part of some, that scripture says other than it does, that drives this effort, and I think Dan W reports well on that.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Daniel: I do appreciate your struggle, even if I guess I don't empathize with it (in terms of what scripture says).
But here are a couple of my thoughts about yours.
You seem to suggest that unless a "who is Jesus Christ?" question is invoked by a hermetical/theology difference, there may not be cause to an institutional church to prohibit, or perhapsdivide. I specifically say "institutional" because the discussion is quite different if the question is about the organic ("holy catholic") church.
If what you suggest (as I understand it) is correct, then I'm not sure that the concept of "church discipline" (which is always an institutional church question, not an organic church question) isn't completely lost, at least as to the "life" (as opposed to "faith") issues.
Anyone can make an argument of biblical justification for: viewing pornography, stealing from someone else, polyamory, bestiality, drug abuse, greed, hatred, and many, many other real world, real life behaviors that an "orthodox" perspective would understand to be a "life" problem, just as, e.g., Paul saw and pointed out "life" problems as he dealt with the various churches.
If the CRC becomes the "all one body" that A1B wants, it would not only introduces a new doctrine, not to mention a new hermeneutic, it would also introduce new truths and new teachings to real world CRC congregations and their congregants (real people) about many real world, real life questions. Questions like: what should we teach our children about what a family is?, what mothers are?, what fathers are?, the purposes of sex?, what constraints should we set for dating, for sexual behavior?, is marriage a prerequisite for "living together"?, and much more.
If A1B succeeds, why would not the next generation of A1Bers be one that wants to get rid of A1B's current "monogamous" and "committed" requirements for sexual relationships? Surely, biblical arguments can be made to eliminate those requirements, not? Certainly, people can tell stories of how they suffer because they long to love more than one spouse (etc etc).
If we should be "All One Body," why in the world would Councils not tolerate any form of gender identification, bestiality, polyamory, family definition, and the list goes on. For that matter, if "All One Body" is the goal, why should drunkenness not be be tolerated (wine makes glad the heart don't you know), or meth abuse, or laziness. And if those things are tolerated, why should they not also be taught as "valid options." We aim to be a "liberal society" after all -- don't we?
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Adam: You may be correct that CRCers have not sufficiently come alongside those who are gay, or for that matter those who are hetero but single and not of their choosing.
Or you may be incorrect.
It probably depends on which CRCers you are talking about -- because there are lots of them.
But isn't the question you raise a different one than the question at issue here, not to mention one about which there is near unanimity of answer among CRCers. Ok, you think CRCers should more practice what they preach and they should. It's likely that some do, some don't.
But again, that's a different question, isn't it?
There are many kinds of people that CRCers should come alongside of, aren't there, included those who have, by CRC standards gone astray from what Scripture provides for our lives -- in any numbers of wsys?
Isn't the question here whether the institutional CRC should bless the actual going astray? And what the CRC should tell CRC parents to teach their children about a number of questions?
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thanks for the link to Dr. Cooper's paper. Was excellent (as I expected it might be). :-)
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Laura: You say that celibacy is "too much a burden" for LGBT. Two questions.
What about "B" (which I assume is bi-sexual)? What burden is imposed on them by a church that would constrain it's members to marry in heterosexual monogamy or remain delegate?
Second, what do you say to those, and some very much do, that monogamy is too much a constraint (burden) for them? That God made them in such a way that they will only be "fulfilled" by, e.g., open marriage or some variety of polyamory? Why, if you would, would you have the church deny these church members to deny themselves (they have prayed and wrestled too) of ways Of living that they have concluded is right for them?
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thanks for the answers Laura. Let me push back on them a bit.
If the "bi" of bisexual has any meaning, even if less than a 50-50 meaning so to speak, you still claim as your reason that bisexuals should be required to marry heterosexually because they should not have the burden of telling a same sex person which whom they have "fallen in love" that they can reciprocate but have to find a heterosexual person to fall in love with instead. So how is that burden greater than that of a heterosexual person who "falls in love" with someone of the opposite sex but who isn't "eligible," (whether because that person is biologically related, or already married, or hasn't reciprocated in "falling in love," etc). In fact, lots of hetereosexual people "fall in love" but can't act on it (some wanting to marry all their lives but never being able). Assuming the injustice of relative burden is meaningful, I'm not understanding how that injustice is at all unique for bi-sexual people as opposed to some heterosexual people.
As to the "monogamy question," while you may not know of people saying they knew at ages 5, 8 or 10, there may well exist (high schools are full of "two-timers," evidencing those inclinations at early ages), but even if not, there are adult people who declare they have a irresistible desire to marry -- or just have sexually imtimate lives -- with more than one spouse (or partner). And I've seen "Christian married couples" who describe themselves as "needing" an open marriage (not polyamorous but in many respects the same). Isn't is burdensome to all of these people for the church to deny them the polyamorous or open relationship they say they want and need?
I realize you, and perhaps A1B, may just want to talk about some things and not others, but those CRCers who believe scripture speaks rather clearly about prohibiting gay marriage also think it critically important what justification is used by gay marriage advocates. If the, or a, key pro-gay marriage argument is "burden," then we believe there can be no constraint at all on human sexual behavior. To add another example/category, people who have a bestiality fettish (and there are lots of those too even if they might rarely "come out of the closet") are also clearly burdened by cultural/religious constraints against their inclination. The list could go on.
How would you or A1B respond to these concerns? They aren't slippery slope concerns but rather concerns that the gate is swung completely open if the, or a, key argument is about unjust burden.
Posted in: What Are Some of the Most Undervalued Leadership Traits?
A disinclination, even distaste, for turning their position of leadership into a political pedestal.
Posted in: Trinity Western University and the Supreme Court of Canada
Indeed, as you say, Fred, "This reality is yet to be tested in many spheres and perhaps the TWU case was the first of many. " I suspect that is a concern of many. It would be my concern, both for Canada (which is now there) and the US (which isn't there yet).
I suspect that this same CA Sup Ct majority (even if less than 7-2) would approve denial of TWU's accreditation even if TWU removed its behaviorial constraint as to sex outside heterosexual marriage, if TWU still taught in such a manner that disapproved of sex outside of heterosexual marriage. In other words, I don't think the Canadian Sup Ct has a majority of justices, given these opinions on this case, that would allow TWU to define for itself what an "education from a Christian perspective" should claim as to homosexual practice (or bi-sexual or even heterosexual for that matter). And I think it is just a matter of time before such cases are brought and such rulings made.
I think you and I have discussed this well actually, even if our conclusions are quite different as to what relative governmental priorities best serve the citizens and residents of Canada or any other sovereign nations. Thank you for that discussion.