Viewpoint

An Open Letter to a Dear Friend Who Struggles with Same Sex Orientation

Dear Friend,

You gave me a Church Herald article and asked me what I thought about it. I know where Rev. B. is coming from when he wrote this article. He wants people with same sex desires to feel compassion from Christians rather than rejection by them and the church. (I admit that we in the church have acted like you are not there.)

You told me that you have been hurt by some sexual predator. You were very young, and now you feel a real dislike for the opposite sex. At times you also loath yourself and wish you had normal desires.

Rev. B. is not helping when he says that Romans 1:26, 27 is ambiguous about same sex practice. That passage is very clear as I see it, and I believe that God has it there purposely. God does not need a spin meister to make to make his teaching more palatable.

But even if the diagnosis was ambiguous, you and I have God’s laws written on our hearts. I would feel guilty if I acted outside of my marriage, and you would feel guilty if you acted out of a same sex orientation. (I emphasize that the temptation or the "bent" is not sin; only the acting out is sin.)

We must be consistent. Heterosexuals are tempted and homosexuals are tempted. When the pastor "rails against" (Rev. B.’s words) sexual sins, he should refer to both kinds of temptation. Then gay people aren’t ignored or singled out. One sin is not worse than another. In fact there is a list of sins in Romans 1:29-32 that all of us are involved in from time to time. (I wonder if Rev. B. would say that this list is ambiguous!)

After you read Romans 1, move on to Romans 6, 7, and 8. There is so much help there: To be controlled by the flesh is death, to be controlled by the Spirit is life and peace. (Romans 8:6)

Do you think a womanizer has peace? Do you think a person acting out on same sex orientation has peace? I don’t think they do if they are Christians.

"If you live according to your sinful nature you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." (Romans 8:13) The Bible speaks of our bodies and how we can be in control of them. "Do not offer the parts of your bodies to sin, as instruments of wickedness, rather, offer yourself to God as one who is brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as an instrument of righteousness." (Romans 6:13)

I realize that asking you to live a celibate life is asking something similar to what the Roman Catholic church asks of nuns and priests. It is a lifelong struggle, perhaps, but there are rewards! Look at Romans 6:22 and see what the rewards are. It’s worth it, I assure you.

Hope this is helpful.

Love,

June Van Farowe

A Letter to the RCA Commission on Christian Unity on the First Anniversary of the Formula of Agreement

Dear Friends:

We were worshiping in one of the three other churches with which the RCA is now in full communion. We had just prayed the Lord’s Prayer. But the pastor and the order of worship referred to it as "the prayer of Jesus." We had never heard it called that before!

While perusing the bulletin, a light dawned: one of the announcements was addressed to "those people who designate themselves as Unitarian members of the congregation…" We were worshiping in a United Church of Christ—among Unitarians! Such could pray the Lord’s prayer, but they couldn’t call it that. The novel designation was one of many "politically correct" circumlocutions required for joint Trinitarian-Unitarian worship.

You and we both know Unitarianism denies the deity of Christ, as well as the Trinitarian creeds. Thus, it not only conflicts with the constitution of our Reformed Church, it disavows the central fact and doctrine of Christianity itself.

We consulted a prominent contemporary religious authority. Dr. Donald Bloesch is a member of the UCC. He is a corresponding editor for Christianity Today. Since 1957, he has taught at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary. When completed, his Christian Foundations (InterVarsity Press) may be the most significant evangelical theology of the decade. We asked him about Unitarianism and the UCC. He gave us permission to quote him: "I detect a movement within the UCC away from orthodoxy into heterodoxy, and this is most evident in the erosion of the historic doctrine of the Trinity."

Thus informed, we correspond with the Commission on Christian Unity, seeking your perspective on this confessional matter. You did not reply to any one of our three letters. Until evidence to the contrary comes in, we will continue to believe Dr. Bloesch; our experience with UCC worship authenticates his remark. If you grant the accuracy of his observation, then may we know whether you were aware of these circumstances at the time you led us to ratify the Formula of Agreement—explicitly re-affirming full communion with the UCC? If you were, were you obliged to have apprised the church before it voted? If you were not, are you now obliged to initiate a review of the entire matter?

You tell us RCA/UCC full communion antedates the Formula and rests on "our common Reformed heritage," on "Reformed polity," and on our "implicit understanding of pulpit and table fellowship." We believe a foundation of this nature requires periodic review and formal re-affirmation in our judicatories.

Indeed, the two churches share a glorious Reformed heritage. But is the UCC true to that heritage today? Should the RCA perpetuate full communion with any who, in effect, repudiate critical parts of that heritage? Are the heirs "guarding the good deposit that was entrusted to us?" (2 Timothy 1:14)

A California earthquake forced part of a church building off its foundation. Surprisingly, the inspectors found the building intact, but of course in need of immediate re-construction. As it was, the integrity of the entire structure was in jeopardy because part of it was off its foundation.

The theological tremors of the past century caused major shifts in the UCC. As a denomination it no longer rests wholly on its Reformed foundation. To those joined with it in full communion, its influence is potentially hazardous. The UCC’s accommodation to Unitarianism and Gay-lesbianism permits us to draw no other conclusion. We come to this realization in sorrow and in prayer, for both the UCC and the RCA.

We will appreciate the Commission’s reply to the matter we raise here.

Paul F. DeVries