In June of 2022, the synod of the Christian Reformed Church will consider the report and recommendations of the Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality, or the Human Sexuality Report (HSR). The full report is here (the recommendations are found on page 148), and the Executive Summary is here. Most classes, several congregations, and a few individuals have written overtures or communications to synod. These can be found in the 2022 Agenda for Synod and its supplement.
Below are my brief thoughts on the report, the recommendations, the overtures and communications, and the state of the denomination in general.
Part 1: The Bible
Thesis 1: People underestimate the degree to which background cultural assumptions, political ideology, commitment to prior beliefs, in-group/out-group signaling, and unconscious bias affect reading, understanding, interpreting, and applying the Bible.
Thesis 2: Those on the right are trying to be faithful to Scripture and historic Christian orthodoxy, but their hermeneutic is influenced, in part, by their disgust at the idea of two men or two women having sex together.
Thesis 3: Those on the left are also trying to be faithful to Scripture and historic Christian orthodoxy, but their hermeneutic is influenced, in part, by commitment to ideals of equity and inclusion.
Thesis 4: The difference between the right and the left is not in degrees of commitment to Scripture, but in degrees of Scripture’s clarity on these matters: the right thinks Scripture is very clear, but the left thinks Scripture is only somewhat clear.
Thesis 5: On the other hand, the left needs to understand that it’s perfectly reasonable for the right to read Romans 1:26-27…
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 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.
…and interpret this as Paul prohibiting same-sex sex. Though this is not how the left interprets this text, or any of the seven texts in the Bible about homosexuality, there are rational and obvious reasons why the right would disagree.
But: if you are on the right, it’s important you also understand that—however crazy, impossible, and unorthodox it may seem—there are traditions of interpretation that read this text in a very different way. Your LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters would appreciate it if you would give them the benefit of the doubt.
Thesis 6: People on the right are trying to read the Bible faithfully and do what it says. People on the left are trying to read the Bible faithfully and do what it says. With a few exceptions at the extremes, neither side is intending to act, think, believe, or behave in ways that are contrary to what the Bible says.
Really.
Thesis 7: Those who are characterizing the other side as not acting in accordance with Scripture need to stop it.
Thesis 8: The texts on homosexuality in the Bible need to be interpreted in a way that is internally coherent and consistent.
For example, part of the reason it’s hard for me to take Leviticus 18:22 seriously (“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable”) is because it appears in the same list as a prohibition against approaching “a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period”—but I don’t see Synod taking up that issue any time soon.
The point, of course, is not that Leviticus 18:22 does or does not prohibit same-sex sex. The point is that we need to interpret and apply Leviticus 18:22’s prohibition against same-sex sex in the same way we would interpret and apply Leviticus 18:19’s prohibition against sexual relations during a woman’s period. A few verses later, we learn that violators of both prohibitions should be “cut off,” and a few chapters later, we are told that violators must be “put to death.” If, when I interact with same-sex couples, or couples who have various forms of sexual congress during a woman’s menstruation, my first instinct is to kill them, then—and I cannot emphasize this strongly enough—it is very likely my interpretation is incorrect.
Holding a high view of Scripture makes space for the possibility that the text of the Bible is a conversation between God and the people of God. If Scripture feels straightforward to interpret and easy to apply, then it is possible you do not have a high view of Scripture.
Part 2: Pastoral Challenges
Thesis 9: The fewer encounters people have with those who are same-sex attracted, the more likely they are to frame their thinking about homosexuality (and interpret Scripture) in terms of issues and abstractions, which gives space for a concrete idea of disgust to dominate.
Thesis 10: However, the more encounters people have with those who are same-sex attracted, the more likely they are to frame their thinking about homosexuality (and their interpretation of Scripture) in terms of people and relationships, which gives less space for a concrete idea of disgust to dominate.
Thesis 11: On average, those on the right have had fewer encounters with people who are same-sex attracted than those on the left.
Part 3: Whether the CRC Splits (and How)
Thesis 12: Conquest’s Second Law states that “any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.” The CRC is no exception.
Thesis 13: When the right leaves, they are more likely to do so in institutional ways.
Example: First CRC of Ripon is more likely to leave the denomination in opposition to the left, but Neland Avenue CRC hasn’t left the denomination in opposition to the right.
Thesis 14: When the left leaves, they are more likely to do so in individual ways.
Example: After Marchiene Rienstra, the first woman who received her M.Div. from Calvin Seminary, was denied candidacy by synod in 1979, she—not The Church of the Servant CRC, which appealed to synod on her behalf—left the denomination.
Thesis 15: Splitting a denomination is not easy. The bylaws of many CRCs state that when a congregation votes to leave the denomination, those who opt to stay get the property, so the 2% of your congregation who wants to stay in the CRC ✨✨✨ gEtS tO kEeP tHe BuIlDiNg AnD aLl ChuRcH aSsEtTs ✨✨✨
Thesis 16: For the right, this conversation tends to be symbolic: representative of leftward drift; evidence of orthodoxy in decline; the first step down a slippery slope; and so on. For the left, this conversation tends to be intensely pastoral and personal: genuine questions about counseling LGBTQ+ members; confusion over permissibility of attending or officiating same-sex weddings of family and church members; and so on. (I don’t think I’m being biased: I have yet to encounter an argument from the right rooted in a pastoral challenge or situation. But I am possibly wrong, naïve, or blind to instances that don’t fit my biases.)
Part 4: Status Confessionis
Thesis 17: Whatever the confessions say about human sexuality needs to be taken as seriously as what the confessions say about other issues.
Or: we need to respond to the confession’s mandates—either explicit or implied—on sexuality with equal seriousness as we would, say, its requirement to support the death penalty (HC Q&A 105: “Prevention of murder is also why government is armed with the sword”) or its requirement that we take care of immigrants (HC Q&A 107: “to protect them from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies”), as Overture 25 from Classis Hackensack suggests.
Or: we can’t Status Confessionis one thing without Status Confessionis-ing a bunch of other things, too.
Thesis 18: The relationship between synodical mandates and actual behavior is symbiotic. Overture 25 from Classis Grand Rapids East makes a good point: “Changes in church practice often precede the synodical decisions that sanction it. There is frequently a more dynamic, reciprocal relationship between synodical decisions and local practice.” The overture notes that many congregations stopped having evening services before Synod discussed it and many churches welcomed children to the Lord’s Table before Synod allowed it.
Part 5: Process and polity
Thesis 19: The left thinks the conversation is happening on the x-axis, when the right knows it’s actually happening on the y-axis:
Thesis 20: The right has done an outstanding job of explaining their position. “Orthodox” is brilliant branding. “Affirming,” however, begs the question: affirming of what?
(Marketing 101: your branding should never pose a question, because the customer will fill it in with their own answer, and it often won’t be to your liking.)
Thesis 21: The left has done itself no favors by appealing for a local option, reminiscent of Synod’s decision in 1995 regarding women holding church office. For example, Overture 55 from Classis Grand Rapids East recommends that synod “adopt in principle a ‘local discernment’ approach to differences over LGBTQ+ matters and ordination; namely, to declare that with respect to differences of biblical interpretation regarding LGBTQ+ matters and same-sex marriage, every classis shall respect the prerogative of its constituent churches to call and ordain office-bearers according to their own biblical convictions.”
Even if there might be two equally valid positions on the matters discussed in the HSR (and I’m not suggesting there are), I don’t think anyone wants to use Synod 1995 and its aftermath as a template for handling the HSR.
Thesis 22: The HSR’s position on transgenderism is not only not right, it’s not even wrong.
Thesis 23: The synodical decisions of previous generations on general revelation, worldly amusements, and divorce look as silly and irrelevant to current generations as the HSR will look to future generations.
(I’m not saying the previous generation’s decisions are silly/irrelevant, I’m only saying the HSR will be perceived as having a similar degree of silliness/irrelevance, whatever that might be.)
Thesis 24: Synod’s decision to hold closed-door discussions on the HSR could be an attempt to allow more space for the Holy Spirit to work, more opportunity for candor and honesty, and more space for reasoned discussion.
Or: it could be an act of cowardice.
Or: though I’m giving Synod the benefit of the doubt, I fear it could be using the former as a smokescreen for the latter.
Thesis 25: Barney Frank’s quote about secular government might as well apply to church government, too: “Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.” That’s synod. The politicking, rules of order, contentious discussions, advisory committee meetings, and so on are not a waste of time, but they are a form of worship in the original sense of the word liturgy: “the work of the people.”
Disclosures
- These views do not represent those of my church, my classis, my employer, my family, my neighbors, my pastors, or literally anyone else, or even my past and future self. I have changed my mind frequently, and Future Kent will sharply disagree with Present Kent on many of these points.
- A few of these views I hold very strongly (like thesis 1), and others I hold very loosely (like thesis 23). I.e. the probability that I will change my mind about thesis 1 within five years is very low, while the probability that I will change my mind about thesis 23 is very high. I thought about noting such epistemic probabilities for each thesis, but it added too much clutter.
- I’ve skimmed the report, the overtures, the communications, and everything else related to the HSR in the Agenda, but I have not had time to read all of it carefully. At least one of the above theses is probably wrong simply because I’ve misunderstood something in the HSR or one of the overtures.
- My thinking on these issues has been mostly shaped by Nicholas Wolterstorff, Clayton Libolt, John Hare, Louis Smedes, Mary Hulst, Dave Beelen, and Jeffrey Weima, along with LGBTQ+ friends from whom I’ve learned a great deal over the years.