Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:54:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Darrell128@aol.com Subject: NR 97102: Sem President to CRC: All CRC Ministers "Obliged to Support" Synodical Stance on Homosexuality October 8, 1997 * Contents: NR #1997-102: Seminary President to CRC: All Christian Reformed Ministers "Obliged to Support" Synodical Stance on Homosexuality Are members and leaders in the Christian Reformed Church "obliged to support" the official synodical report on homosexuality? That question highlighted a theme issue of the Calvin Seminary Forum, a publication sent by the CRC's official ministerial training institution to all church councils in the 286,000-member denomination, as well as to significant contributors to the seminary. "The problem is that some voices in the church are speaking and acting like the 1973 position on homosexuality is optional," wrote seminary president Dr. James A. DeJong. "People are free to disagree with it, some claim, because we are not bound by synodical decisions. So, some disagree openly -- in personal conversations, on the internet, in articles in church papers, perhaps even in classrooms or from the pulpit. We should tolerate, even welcome these voices, it is said. These dissenters have a right to their opinions and to express them. By giving them a platform in the church the church tests its positions, learns, and moves forward. Even church leaders, office bearers, have claimed this right for themselves and for others." "Does the church really take seriously what it says? Where it stands?" asked DeJong. "Will the church do anything to or about those who express disagreement with its basic positions?" NR 1997-102: For Immediate Release Seminary President to CRC: All Christian Reformed Members "Obliged to Support" Synodical Stance on Homosexuality * DeJong: "The purpose of this article is to tackle head-on the argument for the toleration of conflicting positions on... sexual activity between persons of the same gender.... On the issue of homosexuality, therefore, no basis exists for claiming that leaders are free to dissent publicly with the church's position. There is every basis for expecting them to be fully supportive of it." by Darrell Todd Maurina, Press Officer United Reformed News Service GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (October 7, 1997) URNS -- Are members and leaders in the Christian Reformed Church "obliged to support" the official synodical report on homosexuality? That question highlighted a theme issue of the Calvin Seminary Forum, a publication sent by the CRC's official ministerial training institution to all church councils in the 286,000-member denomination, as well as to significant contributors to the seminary. "The problem is that some voices in the church are speaking and acting like the 1973 position on homosexuality is optional," wrote seminary president Dr. James A. DeJong. "People are free to disagree with it, some claim, because we are not bound by synodical decisions. So, some disagree openly -- in personal conversations, on the internet, in articles in church papers, perhaps even in classrooms or from the pulpit. We should tolerate, even welcome these voices, it is said. These dissenters have a right to their opinions and to express them. By giving them a platform in the church the church tests its positions, learns, and moves forward. Even church leaders, office bearers, have claimed this right for themselves and for others." While granting that this approach to issues may be legitimate in a pluralistic secular society, DeJong argued that "it confuses people when the church deals with such dissent in a vacillating or indifferent manner." "Does the church really take seriously what it says? Where it stands?" asked DeJong. "Will the church do anything to or about those who express disagreement with its basic positions?" According to DeJong, he intends "to tackle head on the argument for the toleration of conflicting positions on homosexualism (sexual activity between persons of the same gender)." In his article, DeJong noted that at the time of their ordination, Christian Reformed ministers, elders, and deacons sign the form of subscription and promise "to teach, defend, and propagate this understanding of the faith" on matters addressed by the denomination's doctrinal standards. With regard to synodical positions, DeJong noted that the church order considers synodical decisions to be "settled and binding" unless proved contrary to the church order or Scripture. DeJong also noted that the church order has a process for submitting a "gravamen" to revise the doctrinal standards, as well as providing for overtures and appeals to change specific decisions of synods or other church assemblies. "All these mechanisms provide for orderly, thorough consideration by the church, thus for change that best protects and reflects the peace and harmony of the church," wrote DeJong. "Until such considered change is approved, the church is bound by its existing doctrine and polity." According to DeJong, "the notion that our church order or synodical decisions are merely advisory" arises from a number of sources, including "the acid of today's rampant individualism, which eats away the unity and mutual accountability of the body of Christ," as well as "perversity, pride, stubbornness, arrogance, or other spiritual weaknesses that remain too much a part of us." However, DeJong said that another reason why people believe synodical decisions on homosexuality or other issues are merely advisory "may be a mistaken, uncritical application of the church's approach to the women's ordination issue to the question of homosexualism." DeJong noted that synod had debated the issue of women's ordination for over a quarter century and had repeatedly referred contradictory reports on the subject to the church for study. "Our synods have responded to the issue of homosexuality in a radically different (and much more typical) manner," wrote DeJong. "The synod of 1973, based on a clear and careful study, took a definite and unambiguous position. That position is so solidly held that recent synods have refused to reopen and to review it." "On the issue of homosexuality, therefore, no basis exists for claiming that leaders are free to dissent publicly with the church's position," wrote DeJong. "There is every basis for expecting them to be fully supportive of it." In other articles in the theme issue of the Calvin Seminary Forum, professor of pastoral care Dr. Melvin Hugen presented a case for the possibility of changing homosexual orientation and professor of philosophical theology Dr. John Cooper argued that no theological or exegetical basis exists for changing the CRC's stance that homosexual practice is unacceptable. Why the Special Issue? In a subsequent interview, DeJong said the special theme issue of the Forum was necessary because of the confusion that had been raised in the church about whether people are free to dissent from the Christian Reformed synodical position on homosexuality. "There appears to be a lot of misunderstanding even among leaders in the church as to the binding character of synodical decisions; I simply wanted to point that out," said DeJong. "It doesn't serve the unity and peace of the church for everyone to go out and do or say what's right in their own eyes." What should Christian Reformed members do who disagree with the CRC position on homosexual activity? "They should send in an overture making the biblical case for their position as opposed to the unbiblical case of the present synodical position," said DeJong. That overture should be sufficient, according to DeJong, without further public advocacy or writing of articles disagreeing with the synodical stance. "My feeling about that is it doesn't serve the peace and the unity in the church, which in the article I try to establish as a clear biblical apostolic requirement, for people to start agitating publicly about this," said DeJong. "If they feel deeply about this they should follow the prescribed ecclesiastic al methods." DeJong declined to identify any specific church members or articles which had violated the synodical stance on homosexuality, but emphasized that disagreement with synodical positions could not come without consequences. According to the church order, individual members of the CRC may be suspended from participation in the sacraments or expelled from the church by means of excommunication; ministers, elders, and deacons may be suspended from office or deposed from office, following which they are treated as individual members and can become subject to suspension or excommunication. DeJong declined to specify what ecclesiastical sanctions should be applied. "I think the church has got to face that and the church has to decide what to do with such people," said DeJong. Response to DeJong's Article President DeJong's article didn't go down well with homosexual officebearers in the CRC or officebearers who disagree with the 1973 synodical position that "homosexualism -- as explicit homosexual practice -- must be condemned as incompatible with obedience to the will of God as revealed in Holy Scripture." The article did have an effect on those officebearers: no openly gay CRC ministers, elders, or deacons were willing to publicly state their private objections to DeJong's article. Other gay members of the CRC were less hesitant to express their objections. "I think that the message this sends out is the church isn't even willing to talk about the issue, which I think people have suspected for a long time, but this tends to put the nail in the coffin," said gay CRC member Brad Bergman. "This kind of document, the Forum that came out, does not even encourage discussion, does not encourage people to think on this issue, and that's kind of sad." "It seems like something the Catholic Church would do to stop any kind of discussion on an issue; they basically say this is the way the church believes and you have to believe this way and that's the end of the discussion," said Bergman, urging the CRC to continually re-evaluate its worldview. "When the church takes the position of, 'no, we aren't going to look at this because this is the way the Bible says,' it effectively closes discussion and can make the church look like they're running scared because they might have something to lose if they opened the discussion up." According to Bergman, the article may bring disunity rather than the unity DeJong sought. "Unity doesn't mean everyone agrees the same way, I think it means we can agree to disagree and to discuss the issue and not be afraid of people losing their jobs or being ostracized in the church because they dare to question a specific position," said Bergman. "Martin Luther did that how many hundreds of years ago when he posted his theses on the door of the Catholic Church. That's the tradition we come out of: challenging the authority if for no other reason than to simply be able to say, yes, the authority's right." Bergman questioned why DeJong didn't want open discussion on whether the 1973 synodical position was right or wrong. "I really don't think they have anything to lose by looking at it; if they have the spiritual and biblical and proper interpretation of the Bible in regards to homosexuality, looking at it again will not change that," said Bergman. "If, however, they may be off base on one or two points or if maybe there is something in the pastoral guidelines that is not effective, we will only benefit by getting greater clarity as far as what the church can do." "I just think trying to stifle any kind of conversation like this isn't healthy to the growth of the church," said Bergman. Gay members of the Christian Reformed Church and their supporters weren't the only people objecting to DeJong's position on the authority of synodical decisions. "President DeJong's article is not helpful," said Pastor George Vander Weit, stated clerk of Classis Lake Erie and author of the original 1990 overture that led to changing the Christian Reformed position on women's ordination. "The article simplistically says that those who differ with synodical decisions operate with the notion 'that our church order or synodical positions are merely advisory.' Those who differ have far more respect for synodical decisions than that," said Vander Weit. "The article fails to note that, although the denomination has always required its leaders to follow a very specific procedure when disagreeing with the confessions, it has allowed much more room with synodical decisions," said Vander Weit. "It has never sought to silence public disagreement and has consistently allowed negative votes to be recorded when those decisions have been made; it has even invited discussion on various issues." Vander Weit -- who supports the 1973 synodical position on homosexuality -- cited other examples where the Christian Reformed Church had permitted members to disagree and openly argue against synodical positions. "For example, ten years ago the Banner asked me to review a book entitled 'Christianity and American Freemasonry;' along with that review, it published my objections to the denominational position against lodge membership," said Vander Weit. "Thirty years ago the issue of whether deacons should be delegated to classis and to synod was debated in the Banner. Numerous other examples could be given to illustrate that there has always been room for open discussion of synodical decisions." Vander Weit argued that the article's position on the authority of synodical decisions was historically inaccurate and that open discussion on the positions of the church is beneficial. "In an observation that disregards the mutual accountability of the body of Christ, the article, in its comparison of the synodical decisions on women-in-office and homosexuality, suggests that undebatable pronouncements from on high are to be preferred over invitations to the churches to participate in discussions," said Vander Weit. "There is a significant amount of ferment on a variety of issues in the church today, and the response of some is to exert power to silence discussion and/or dissension. The church is better served by articles, like the others in the Forum, that engage the discussion being carried on in both church and society." Regardless of the Forum article, Bergman said CRC members who disagreed with the synodical position on homosexuality were unlikely to be silenced. "Personally I don't think it's going to change much," said Bergman. "The people who think '73 needs to be revisited are still going to think '73 needs to be revisited." Cross-References to Related Articles: #1994-031: Christian Reformed Synod: Members May Not "Practice or Advocate Homosexualism"; Dr. David Engelhard Approved as CRC's Next General Secretary; Synod Rejects Proposal to End Funding Endorsement for Westminster Seminary #1994-037: Of Garages, Houses, and Women: Synod Keeps "Expounders" and Appoints Committee to Decide What "Expounding" Means; Synod Cites Legal Concerns in Modifying Abuse Committee Report; "Reaffirmation" of Past Decisions on Inerrancy, Creation, Homosexuality Declared Unnecessary by Synod #1994-048: Jim Lucas Hired as Chaplain of "As We Are" Gay Ministry; Ministerial Credentials Extended to Permit Call to Position; Classis Grand Rapids East of the Christian Reformed Denomination Expects Homosexuality Study Committee to Report to January Classis Meeting #1995-043: Committee Divides on Whether Gay Ministries Must Declare Homosexual Activity is Sin; Classis Grand Rapids East Refers Both Reports to Churches for Study #1995-100: Grand Rapids East Attempts Compromise on Question of How to Minister to Christian Reformed Gays #1995-101: Text of Classis Grand Rapids East Study Committee Report on Ministry with Persons who are Homosexual #1995-113: Calvin Seminary Professors Urge Classis Grand Rapids East to Affirm CRC Synod's Ruling that Homosexual Practice is Sin #1995-114: Text of Calvin Seminary Faculty Letter on Homosexuality #1996-010: Classis Grand Rapids East Follows Calvin Seminary Faculty Urgings; Reaffirms 1973 CRC Position on Homosexuality #1996-081: Tempers Flare as Christian Reformed Synod Appoints Committee to Restudy Homosexuality #1996-122: Calvin Theological Seminary Terminates Pro-Gay Professor #1997-030: Calvin College Chimes Runs Four-Page Homosexuality Insert; Gay Alumni Group Denied Ad Space in Alumni Magazine #1997-041: Kalamazoo Christian "Releases" 30-Year Veteran Teacher for Supporting "Homosexual Monogamous Relationships" #1997-095: Eastern Avenue CRC Declines to Call Lucas to Gay Ministry Due to Disagreement with Synodical Position on Gay Marriage #1997-101: Eastern Avenue CRC Withdraws Endorsement of Gay Minister's Ordination; Classis Tables Issue Until January Contact List: Brad Bergman PO Box 150134, Grand Rapids, MI 49515-0134 H: (616) 456-0125 * E-Mail: LstRmantic@aol.com Dr. John W. Cooper, Professor of Philosophical Theology, Calvin Theological Seminary 3233 Burton St. SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546-4387 O: (616) 957-6038 * H: (616) 454-6821 * FAX: (616) 957-8621 Dr. James A. De Jong, President, Calvin Theological Seminary 3233 Burton St. SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546-4387 O: (616) 957-6086 * H: (616) 957-6087 * FAX: (616) 957-8621 * E-Mail: DEJJ@Calvin.edu Dr. David Engelhard, General Secretary, Christian Reformed Church in North America 2850 Kalamazoo Ave. SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49560 O: (616) 246-0744 * H: (616) 243-2418 * FAX: (616) 246-0834 * E-Mail: engelhad@crcna.org Dr. Melvin D. Hugen, Professor of Pastoral Care, Calvin Theological Seminary 3233 Burton St. SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546-4387 O: (616) 957-6025 * H: (616) 942-0001 * FAX: (616) 957-8621 Pastor George Vander Weit, Stated Clerk, Classis Lake Erie 2901 Waterloo Dr., Troy, MI 48084 O: (810) 645-1990 * H: (810) 649-5388 * E-Mail: northhills@juno.com ---------------------------------------------------------- file: /pub/resources/text/reformed/archive97: nr97-102.txt .