Doug Vande Griend

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? 

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.

Don: I'm not getting it.  What's the inflammatory language?

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?

Thanks for the link to Dr. Cooper's paper.  Was excellent (as I expected it might be). :-)

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?