A Consistent Call To Confess: How The Church’s Teaching On Human Sexuality Is Already Confessional

by on October 22, 2024 | Comment

Since the 1970’s, the church governance of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) has recognized different categories of adherence and authority for what is said, believed, and confessed. An important study committee report in 1975 clarified that Scripture is the highest authority, followed by the confessions, and then synodical decisions. Synodical decisions that are doctrinal and ethical in nature “serve the purpose of further expressing the church’s understanding of Scripture and the confessions.”1

When the CRC produced a “Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality” report (HSR) to synod in 2022, one of the most discussed recommendations of the report was recommendation D.2 That recommendation said that the church’s teaching on matters of sexuality already had confessional status. Opponents argued that the CRC’s former decisions on sexuality were always in the category of “pastoral advice,” which provided them the space to either accept or reject the teaching. They also believed that filing a gravamen with a local council afforded them a process of “formal conscience-driven exemptions to our same-sex marriage position.”3 This idea was even supported by the denomination’s Church Polity professor.4 The problem was that many local churches in the denomination did not enforce the plain reading of the Covenant for Officebearers and the Church Order.5 They claimed that recent synods changed the requirements for officebearers and “elevated” the required adherence from pastoral advice to that of confessional status.

Yet the evidence shows that since even before 1973 until today, the CRC has viewed her stance on marriage and human sexuality as the biblical position. This means that it already holds an authoritative place in both the biblical and confessional categories and is therefore settled and binding.

Scripture and the Confessions

The Church Order of the CRC begins with these words: “The Christian Reformed Church, confessing its complete subjection to the Word of God and the Reformed creeds as a true interpretation of this Word. . .”6 This is an amazing gift and testimony that our pioneers in the faith viewed the Scriptures as the highest authority for the church! To say that the Reformed creeds are “a true interpretation of this Word” means that the church believes that our confessions are thoroughly biblical.

Article 5 of the Belgic Confession (BC) furthers our understanding of Scripture’s authority by saying that Scripture is “for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.” We believe the teaching of God’s Word “not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God” (BC 5). When officebearers of the CRC are ordained into office, they sign the Covenant for Officebearers: “Acknowledging the authority of God’s Word, we submit to it in all matters of life and faith.”7 Officebearers also vow: “We heartily believe and will promote and defend their [the confessions’] doctrines faithfully, conforming our preaching, teaching, writing, serving, and living to them.”8 The CRC has always recognized that while the Word of God is the highest authority, the Reformed creeds and confessions “fully agree with the Word of God.”9

The CRC’s Definition of Marriage

In 1980, synod received a study committee report on divorce and remarriage.10 The mandate of the study committee was twofold: to “reexamine and set forth the biblical teachings on divorce and remarriage” and “to formulate pastoral guidelines. . .”11 The report matched this twofold mandate. Section I of the report was titled, “Biblical Teaching Regarding Marriage.”12 In Section I, marriage was defined as this: “Marriage is an institution created by God. It is a covenantal relationship established by the mutual vows of a man and a woman to be husband and wife to each other and to live together as such.”13 How did synod deal with Section I of the report? It passed a recommendation that said, “That synod accept Sections I and II of this report as being basically in accord with the biblical teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage.”14 Synod also passed a motion that stated: “That synod adopt Section III, ‘Guidelines for the Ministry of the Church’ and refer the same to pastors, consistories, and the church for guidance in handling the important matters of marriage, divorce, and remarriage.”15 In the grounds, synod made clear that even these guidelines “reflect the demonstrable teaching of Scripture” and that “pastors and consistories . . . must apply the teaching of Scripture to the specific situations and concrete cases of marital difficulty.”16 With this distinction, synod recognized that the definition of marriage fell into the biblical category, while also putting forth pastoral guidelines.

Four Study Committees

Further evidence that the CRC has consistently believed that her decisions on human sexuality were indeed biblical and binding are found in four study committees. The first study committee that was appointed to study homosexuality began in 1970, at the request of the Council of the CRC in Canada. Synod commissioned this study not only to study the problem of homosexuality, but also “to delineate the church’s position on this matter.”17 This report became the foundation-laying understanding of the church’s teaching on homosexuality. After three years of study, Synod 1973 not only recommended the report to the churches, it also passed the following statement: “Homosexualism—as explicit homosexual practice—must be condemned as incompatible with obedience to the will of God as revealed in Holy Scripture.”18 While the statement was technically a “statement of pastoral advice,” the authors of the 1973 report stated clearly that their conclusions regarding chastity were “the biblical position on homosexual practice,” and “that no exception to this position is scripturally defensible.”19

A second study committee came to fruition in the 1990’s as the winds of culture continued to affect the church. First, Synod 1994 decided to reaffirm the 1973 stance that the practice of homosexuality is a sin and requires repentance.20 Classis Grand Rapids East had been studying the issue and made an ambiguous statement that did not support the CRC’s position.21 Under pressure from Calvin Theological Seminary, faculty whose credentials were held by churches in the classis, Grand Rapids East reaffirmed the 1973 position, once again demonstrating how foundational the 1973 position was.22 Then Synod 1996 appointed a new study committee to study homosexuality “in a manner consistent with the decision of 1973.”23 In their deliberations there was a great deal of discussion about who was to be appointed to the committee. After some concerns were raised about a potential member of the committee, both the officers of synod and the CRC’s General Secretary Rev. David Engelhard assured synod that those serving on the committee would adhere to the 1973 position.24 Later that year, a member of the committee was removed by the Board of Trustees because his views contradicted the 1973 report.25 The mandate and decisions about those serving on the committee contradicts the claim of many today who say that Synod 2016’s decision to require members of the study committee to adhere to the CRC’s position was unprecedented.

In receiving the report, Synod 1999 said that the intent of the study committee was “to affirm Synod 1973’s understanding of the teachings of Scripture about homosexuality and to help the church pastorally apply its recommendations.”26 Notice once again the distinction between the 1973 foundational teaching of Scripture and pastoral application. Synod also cleaned up some unclear language in the 1999 report. They passed a recommendation replacing the phrase “Scripture seems to forbid such sexual intimacy with persons of the same sex” with the phrase, “Scripture forbids such sexual intimacy with persons of the same sex.”27 After further study and feedback from the churches, the final report was received in 2002 with no change to the church’s position.

Meanwhile, when a church in Classis Toronto stated their intent to ordain to office those participating in same-sex activity, Synod 2004 instructed Classis Toronto to urge the church to “act in accordance with the guidelines of the reports on homosexuality in 1973 and 2002.”28 Classis Toronto considered the actions of this church to be a “breaking of the denominational covenant.”29 Later, the church reported that they would conform with the denomination’s position.30

In 2011 Classis Grand Rapids East believed it was time for an update to our position and asked synod for a new study committee on the issue of homosexuality. Synod did not accede to this overture, stating in the grounds that “the 1973 report thoroughly studied the issue from a biblical and theological perspective, and the 2002 report addressed the pastoral issues well. These reports are still relevant today.”31

A third study committee was mandated by Synod 2013, stating that the reports on homosexuality “from 1973 and 2002 have served the denomination very well by laying out the biblical principles and foundations clearly.”32 Same-sex marriage became legal in the U.S. in 2015. Synod 2016 received both a majority and minority report as information, but “recommended to the churches the pastoral guidance of the minority report in conversation and in keeping with the synodical decisions of 1973, 1999, and 2002.”33 That minority report made clear that ministers could not solemnize same-sex marriages. Synod also added a supplement to Church Order article 69-c, stating that those pages of the minority report “represents one example of how synod has determined that a marriage is considered to be in conflict with the Word of God.”34

The fourth and most recent study committee was appointed in 2016. Synod set very specific parameters that the committee would be made up of individuals “who adhere to the CRC’s biblical view on marriage and same-sex relationships.”35 When synod did not meet due to Covid-19, the Council of Delegates (COD), acting as interim of Synod, sent a letter to Neland Avenue CRC of Grand Rapids. The letter expressed grief over Neland’s decision to “break covenant with the CRC” in ordaining a deacon in a same-sex marriage. Then in June of 2021 the COD sent a letter to Synod 2022 reaffirming that grave concern.36 Synod was finally able to meet in 2022 to discuss the Human Sexuality Report (HSR). The full title of this report was the “Report of the Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality.37 Synod recommended the report to the churches as providing “a useful summary of biblical teaching regarding human sexuality” and said that the report is “consistent with Scripture.”38 Synod decided to “affirm that ‘unchastity’ in Heidelberg Catechism Q. & A. 108 encompasses . . . [among other listed sins], homosexual sex . . . In so doing, synod declares this affirmation ‘an interpretation of [a] confession’ (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603). Therefore, this interpretation has confessional status.”39

Synod 2023 received at least thirty overtures to reverse, delay, or allow for local discernment about the 2022 decision to affirm the confessional status that homosexual sex is a sin.40 Synod did not accede to any of them, noting at one point in the grounds that “Synod 2022 settled the questions of the theological position and moved the denomination toward following the pastoral-care guidelines of the report of the Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality.”41 Synod 2024 received three overtures to reverse the previous decisions about confessional status. The officers of synod ruled that since the overtures failed to provide sufficient and new grounds for reversing previous decisions of synod they would be received as communications only.42 Synod also made clear that a gravamen was never meant to be an exception to the confessions.43 The decisions of these most recent synods have kept us on this same confessional course.44

Conclusions

This brief study of synodical decisions, especially when it comes to homosexuality, demonstrates that the CRC’s 1973 and 1980 foundational beliefs are received by the church as confessional and believed to be biblical. It is important to note that synod did not make any changes to the confession. It certainly did not elevate the stance on homosexuality from the category of pastoral advice to that of confession. To “affirm” a teaching makes explicit what the church has always confessed and practiced to be biblically true. A comparable situation would be that of the canon of scripture. The church did not determine which books were in the canon but simply received and recognized that it had already accepted the sixty-six books of the Bible as the inspired Word of God (BC 5). In the same way, the church’s teaching on human sexuality has been received by the church as long as it has had the written Word of God.

Some have challenged this consistently held position taken by the CRCNA. Those who deny that this is so are obligated to follow the instructions that are found in the supplement to Church Order Article 5: “No one is free to decide for oneself or for the church what is and what is not a doctrine confessed in the standards. If such a question should arise, the decision of the assemblies of the church shall be sought and acquiesced in.”45 Our assemblies have faithfully answered that question that these certainly are doctrines which we have always confessed.

Editor’s Note: A version of this essay was originally published by the Abide Project and is republished here with the permission of the author.

Notes

  1. Agenda for Synod 1975, p. 601. Emphasis original.
  2. CRC, “Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality.” For recommendation D, see “XVII: Recommendations,” section D, on p. 149.
  3. Ryan Struyk, “It’s Time for the CRC Synod to Tell the Truth,” Reformed Journal, June 13, 2024.
  4. Kathy Smith, “What Do Confessing Members, Officebearers Do When They No Longer Agree With the Confessions?” Banner, September 26, 2022.
  5. CRC, “Covenant for Officebearers in the Christian Reformed Church (2012).”
  6. CRC, “Church Order and Its Supplements: 2023,” 11.
  7. CRC, “Covenant for Officebearers.”
  8. CRC, “Covenant for Officebearers.”
  9. CRC, “Covenant for Officebearers.”
  10. “Report 29: Marriage Guidelines (Art. 45),” in Acts of Synod 1980, p. 468.
  11. Acts of Synod 1980, p. 40–41.
  12. Acts of Synod 1980, p. 468.
  13. Acts of Synod 1980, p. 473.
  14. Acts of Synod 1980, p. 485. Emphasis added.
  15. Acts of Synod 1980, p. 485. Emphasis added.
  16. Acts of Synod 1980, p. 41. Emphasis added.
  17. Acts of Synod 1970, p. 121. Emphasis added.
  18. Acts of Synod 1973, p. 52. Emphasis added.
  19. Acts of Synod 1973, p. 631.
  20. Acts of Synod 1994, p. 448.
  21. “NR #1995-101: Text of Classis Grand Rapids East Study Committee Report on Ministry with Persons who are Homosexual,” Christian.net.
  22. “NR #1995-113: Calvin Seminary Professors Urge Classis Grand Rapids East to Affirm CRC Synod’s Ruling that Homosexual Practice is Sin,” Christian.net; Christian Renewal, February 12, 1996, 6.
  23. Acts of Synod 1996, p. 572.
  24. “NR #1996-081: Tempers Flare as Christian Reformed Synod Appoints Committee to Restudy Homosexuality,” Christian.net.
  25. “NR #1996-124: Christian Reformed Board of Trustees Removes Homosexuality Study Committee Member for Pro-Gay Views,” Christian.net.
  26. Acts of Synod 1999, p. 602. Emphasis added.
  27. Acts 1999, p. 602. Emphasis added.
  28. Acts of Synod 2004, p. 632
  29. Agenda for Synod 2006, p. 459
  30. Acts of Synod 2006, p. 653.
  31. Acts of Synod 2011, p. 828.
  32. Acts of Synod 2013, p. 616. Emphasis added.
  33. Agenda for Synod 2016, pp. 436–43, Acts of Synod 2016, p. 917.
  34. Acts of Synod 2016, p. 918. Emphasis added.
  35. Acts of Synod 2016, p. 926. Emphasis added.
  36. Gayla R. Postma, “Neland Avenue: Council Defers Action, Sends Communication to Synod 2022,” Banner, June 16, 2021.
  37. Agenda for Synod 2022, p. 313. Emphasis added.
  38. Acts of Synod 2022, p. 919.
  39. Acts of Synod 2022, p. 921–22.
  40. See Agenda for Synod 2023, p. 404–521, Overtures 16–48.
  41. Acts of Synod 2023, p. 1022.
  42. Acts of Synod 2024, p. 797.
  43. Acts of Synod 2024, p. 871.
  44. See Josh Christoffels, “Is The CRC Recovering A Reformed Identity?” Heidelblog, July 5, 2024.
  45. CRC, Church Order and Its Supplements, p. 15.

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • Josh Christoffels
    Author Image

    Rev. Josh Christoffels is an alumnus of Westminster Seminary California (2014). He has taught English to university students in China, served as a pastor in Chandler, MN, and currently serves as the pastor of the Hammond Christian Reformed Church in Hammond, IN.

    More by Josh Christoffels ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.