Regional Synod of Canada - Reformed Church in America

Pioneer Christian Monthly

Date - May/95

Contributor - John Moerman

Title - Responding to the Homosexual Issue in the RCA

Topic - Homosexuality

The following are observations with regard to the call by the 1994 General Synod for Reformed Church members and congregations to reflect on this issue. The current report can be obtained by asking your pastor. A copy was sent to each congregation.

In order to understand the current debate on homosexuality in the Reformed Church we must first look at our history with this subject.

1978 and 1979 Statements on Homosexuality

On p. 230 of the 1978 Report we 0 read this: "Passages which make explicit references to the homosexual are few in number, both in Old Testament and New Testament."

We do not think so. Remember Gen. 19:4-11; Lev. 18:22, 20:13; Deut. 23:1718; Judges 19:16-26; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12, 22:46; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 7:910; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; Jude 7. Are they few in number? The number of Ten Commandments are few in number, yet stand just the same. Even one word about sodomy from the mouth of God is all we need.

These references though are weakened by an "interpretation" of what others think these passage are saying. e.g. in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah's sin, why weaken the case against sodomy by stating the following: 'However, the text stresses the reprehensible nature of the violation (i.e. 'the sacred law of hospitality) as strongly as the violation of (sodomy itself)"? (CYSM 1978, p. 230) We believe this is incorrect. There was no need to give consideration to the liberal's objection of the traditional interpretation of this passage. We find much of the same explaining away of the sin of homosexuality in most of the other references. Yet, the reaffirmed 1978 & 1979 Statements are the best we have, weak and compromising as they are.

We can't help but conclude that the present Commission on Theology (CT) would just as soon set the older statements aside. It has become obvious from the 1993 and 1994 Reports, which were unacceptable to the delegates, that the CT wants to soft peddle the whole sodomy issue, shifting blame elsewhere.

Look at p. 233 (1978) "The Reformed tradition has never been content to make theological judgments based on isolated biblical texts." Yet this is what the CT does in the 1994 Paper, Re: "The Use of Scripture in Making Moral Decisions" (pp. 359-369).

And again, p. 233 (1978) "... Scripture's repeated endorsement of heterosexuality as the Creator's express intent is far more significant for our understanding than the few negative pronouncements concerning homosexuality." (Gen. 1:27, 2:18 ff., 3:16-17; Prov. 5:18; Matt. 19:4-5; 1 Cor. 7:4; Ephes. 5:22-33; etc.) If this is so, what have we been waiting for? Then, why has the CT not chosen this route, when the repeated opportunity was there? Then, why do some now keep on talking as if God could just as well have intended with the creation of Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve?

More questions requiring answers Why have none of the Reports on the Homosexual issue mentioned that the AIDS plague in North America and Europe almost exclusively began among gay men? And also that this HIV curse continues to be as high as 75% among practising homosexuals! In Europe it is higher yet: 85%. Even in the face of this alone, the evangelical community within the RCA would be very negligent if it would not have spoken up the way it did. The politically correct word "homophobia" has nothing to do with this. In the church's mainline circle this word has become a smokescreen behind which to hide the real subject which the Bible calls sodomy.

More questions. When will the CT unequivocally state that the sodomy life-style is a perversion and sin, a missing of the mark of God's creation of the male-female relationship; and thereby a transgression of God's law? Are we asking too much to have them do so in the 1995 presentation to the General Synod? The CT speaks frequently about sins committed by "homophobic" members of the RCA against the homosexual community, but finds it impossible to speak in the same vein about the homosexuals' transgression against God's law. Why is this? Are they trying to press this sin issue to make the evangelical community feel guilty and be sorry for having taken a firm Biblical stand on the issue?

Must we now draw the conclusion that it has become politically incorrect when we say what the Bible says? Our Canadian churches well remember what took place at the 1991 General Synod, when the former Secretary General of our RCA succeeded in placing a new business item on the Agenda of the General Synod's Workbook. President John E. Hiemstra ruled it out of order, but was overruled by a small majority of Synod delegates. The "new business" was about a Church HeraliTs article in the 1991 May issue Re: "Migrating UCC churches swell RCA ranks in Canada". (GSM p. 46)

What followed amounted to an ecclesiastical witch-hunt of Canadian Classes and Administration to determine whether the proper procedures were followed in accepting these "refugees", who were looking for a new home. Their denomination had forced through their church courts a recommendation permitting the ordination of practising homosexuals. So much demythologizing of Scriptures had taken place over the years they faced not only a re-writing of the Bible history, but also a re-writing of the Word of God itself.

The bottom line of this sad affair of the 1991 Synod action was that the welcome of these refugee congregations was harming the RCA's ecumenical relationship with the United Church of Canada (1991 GSM. pp. 191-193). This Synod action effectively stopped a number of other United Church congregations from joining us. This mainline church action scared them away from further exploring the possibility of uniting with the Reformed Church in Canada. Such was the price of "maintaining good ecumenical relations with other Mainline Ecumenical bodies". The sodomy issue for these people who have come to us, has now come full circle. For these congregations, sadly, it is back to where they started.

It is very clear that the CT, and other committees such as Christian Unity and Christian Action, repeatedly look over their shoulders to make sure other Mainline Church Administrations will approve what the RCA is deciding about various issues. It appears that the Bible has to "fit the bill" of mainline church theology. It also makes us think about the proverbial "frog in the kettle." Do we notice that the water is warming up? Or have we already been so conditioned to the change that warming up no longer bothers us? We must be on guard in our denomination too, watching for a rewriting of the Word of God to make the sodomy issue acceptable.

The Apostle Paul states that godly sorrow for sin leads to salvation and a new life, whereas the sorrow of the world - merely feeling bad about sin's consequences - leaves a person unchanged and leads to death (2 Cor. 7: 10). How about applying this to the sodomy question in our denomination?

Is the CT aware of the Gay Agenda in our nations? Their way to greater acceptance and more power is first of all through the political system. However, it does not end there. Their way to greater acceptance and more power embraces all systems and institutions. This is why we are confronted with the blatancy and brazenness that characterizes many homosexual activists during marches and conferences. It has reached such a state that homosexuals have forced companies to hold rehabilitation and sensitivity classes for people who work there and object to the gay lifestyle.

The CT seems to have no idea, or is unwilling to accept and recognize, (which is worse) that there is a Gay Agenda! The four points to achieve the Gay Agenda have been outlined in one homosexual publication. These points are:

1. Portray gays as victims being discriminated against.

2. Give the protectors (the politically correct media, politicians, companies, arts community, writers, churches, etc.) a just cause to work with.

a) Hold up the concept of homo-phobia and anti-discrimination.

b) Speak and write about the vilification by those opposed to homosexuality, and those whose words can be interpreted as such.

3. Endeavour to have gays appointed to high profile positions in administrations, media, teaching positions, churches, etc.

4. Work for the prevalence of gay characters on T.V. to promote public acceptance of these goals.

It ought to be clear to our whole denomination that the gay community will never waver in promoting their main goal. One of our members of Parliament, the Hon. Roseanne Skoke, stated it well in the House of Commons. She said: "the sole purpose, the sole agenda, behind the homosexuals in our country is with respect to redefinition of the family" (Hansard, Sept. 17, 1994). We must remember that the Honourable member is not the only one who has said this. Therefore, it should be abundantly clear to all of us that the visible church can also fall prey to the Gay Agenda.

The RCA and the homosexual issue that will not go away.

Reading the General Synod Minutes (GSM) of the various years, trying to understand what transpired, is very helpful. We see delegates engaged in a "tug of war". We want to emphasize though, that it was, and is, not "a battle against flesh and blood" the delegates were engaged in at these General Synod meetings. It is greater and further reaching. The battle is part of the cosmic struggle "against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

The Church Herald looked at it this way: "after four and a half hours of frank and deeply divided debate in committee and on the floor, there was no indication the RCA could do what no other mainline denomination has been able to do: find some common ground on one of the most contentious issue facing the North American church today - the issue of the church's response to homosexuality" (July/Aug.'94).

Further light is shed on the subject when one reads reports of those who attended these meetings. Especially our Pioneer! And to a lesser extent, our denominational magazine, the Church Herald. The above quote from the Church Herald is taken from the editorial entitled, "Maybe a miracle happened." We believe it is too early to say so.

How can a truly evangelical church find "common ground" when it faces sin the Bible speaks of as "detestable" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13; Deut. 23:18) and in the New Testament, in terms of 'sinful desires, sexual impurity, degrading of their bodies, inflamed with lust for one another, indecent acts, perversion'; and, as 'not to inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived: Neither the ... nor ... homosexual offenders will inherit the kingdom of God" (Rom. 1:24-28; 1 Cor. 6: 9-11)?

Nowhere are we directed or admonished in Scripture to find "common ground" here. The Bible is not the problem. Rather, it is the RCA's mainline church obsession, that has been plaguing our denomination. It will be to our shame and own hurt when we set aside what is to be learned from biblical history. It is said that those who do, "are doomed to repeat it." Let us not be so foolish to close our eyes to this truth. How often do we read in Scripture, "If you do ... I will ... But if you go ... I will bring upon you..." It is either "Turn or Burn". God wants us to turn (Ezek. 18:30-32).

Halting between two opinions and serving two masters

The CT was not impressed with various Synods reaffirming the RCNs stand on homosexuality (1978, 1979, and again in 1990.) They wanted a new study on the subject. It is obvious from the 1994 introduction to their Report that this "reaffirming" irked them to no end. Thus they speak of "the unusual sequence of events", and 'Usually studies are made, and then resolutions adopted." They further ask, "why in this case was the sequence reversed?"

More and more, we are facing a number of irreconcilable differences in the RCA. And each year these irreconcilable differences face us anew on the floor of General Synod, - where neither the liberal nor the evangelical side has a clear majority. This way we are being paralysed in the proclamation and spreading of the Gospel. And so, we keep on being "a household divided against itself." All because we have been "Halting between two opinions" and trying to 'serve two masters". We must take Jesus' words to heart. If we don't, His word spoke in Matt. 12:25-28 will become a reality in the RCA.

The 1994 Statement on "The Use of Scripture in Making Mortal Decisions" has now been distributed to all RCA congregations for study. Our General Secretary states in his Sept. 1994

cover letter that it "received serious considerations" on the floor of General Synod. Other delegates believe it should have received much more consideration. Congregations studying this Report would be wise to keep in mind that if this Paper should be adopted, unchanged, it will make the RCA ready for both a faster and further sliding down on the slippery slope of compromising with the things of mainline-ism. Mainline church theologians and administrators fail to embrace the absoluteness of the Scriptures. Simply put; somehow the Bible has to fit the mode of our modem culture. This is our problem with the sodomy issue, too.

The Church Herald hailed this year's compromise on the issue of homosexuality as ending "on a high note: (the singing of) the doxology." It is not for us to question the integrity of the singing of the doxology. And we can also understand the momentary relief of the delegates with the reaching of the compromise. However looking at it from the perspective of the battle being fought about this sin, the greater question is, "How did God feel about the singing of the doxology in the light of all this?"

Going back to the battle itself, to the evangelical community within the RCA, the greater miracle was that the Report of the CT and its Task Force had not been accepted! Instead, a compromising substitute motion carried the day. This is what it says: - Few in the RCA have creatively and lovingly spoken with persons with a homosexual orientation about the truths of Scripture and the hope of the gospel.

- Many have participated in or tolerated forms of speech and behaviour which humiliate or degrade such persons.

- Many of the churches within the RCA have not provided an environment where persons have felt acceptance and freedom to struggle with hard issues involving sexual orientation.

- Many RCA members have shown no interest in listening to their heartfelt cries as they struggle for self-acceptance and dignity.

- For all these wrongs this General Synod expresses its humble and heartfelt repentance, and its desire to reflect the love of Christ to homosexual persons.

- In all that this General Synod does, it seeks to obey the whole of the Scripture, demonstrating in its own life the same obedience it asks from others.

- It calls itself and the whole church to a greater faithfulness to Christ in relationships with persons of homosexual orientation.

- To this end, the General Synod calls the church to a process of repentance, prayer, learning, and growth in ministry. This process will be guided by the basic Biblical theological framework presented in the previous statements of the GS in 1978, 1979, and 1990.

- and further, to instruct the CT to develop the following resources with the assistance from Congregational Services and other resource persons within the RCA:

1. A study guide for use in the RCA congregations, which will assist Christians in reading and understanding the 1978 and 1979 statements of General Synod on the church and homosexuality. The study guide will include updating of these reports only with respect of the factional material.

2. A process of reflection for RCA congregations who are seeking to increase their sensitivity and awareness of the ways in which persons of homosexual orientation have wrongly suffered in our churches and in our society.

3. A collection of models for ministry to persons of homosexual orientation. This collection of models will serve to demonstrate ways of implementing ministry to persons of homosexual orientation which are in harmony with the RCA's stated theological positions; and further, to submit these resources to the 1995 GS for its approval prior to their distribution."

Politically correct wording but what is meant with it?

In terms of the compromise reached, the evangelic community within the RCA is looking for answers to the following questions:

1. What is meant with "Creatively and lovingly spoken with?

2. What is meant with "which humiliate and degrade such..."

3. What is meant with "have not provided an environment where (gays) have felt the acceptance and freedom to struggle with..."

4. What is meant with "have shown no interest in listening to ... ?"

5. What is meant with 'greater faithfulness to Christ in relationships with ... ?

Why the glaring absences?

Furthermore the evangelic community observes the glaring absence of the following:

1. Why is there no mention of a calling to repentance of the practicing homosexual?

2. Why is there no calling to repentance of our denomination's failure to have gone about ministry to homosexual in the same way Gospel prescribes for those involved in other sexual immorality and promiscuity? Why has the denomination made this to be a different category.

3. Why in the CT Report was there a glaring absence of Christ's power not only to forgive these sins, but also His ability and readiness to break the power and guilt of these sins? This is the "model of ministry" the New Testament holds before us. Personally, I have used this New Testament ministry of the power of the Holy Spirit in the lives of practicing homosexuals who sought deliverance. Some going back nearly 30 years!

4. Why has there been glaring absence in the CT Report of such New Testament "models of ministry", which many of our evangelical churches have been using for many years? These are the same churches that have consistently taken a strong stand against the gay agenda!

5. Also, why has there been a glaring absence of calling the RCA constituency's attention to the same "model of ministry" so effectively used in "The Presbyterian and Reformed Renewal Ministries International?" (I have sent one of the pamphlets of the Nov. 9-13 Conference to the Church Herald requesting them to inform our RCA membership. I was informed it was outside their policy to do so. Also, together with a letter, I sent a pamphlet to the Dr. David Timmer, chairman of the CT, and Dr. Steve Hoogerwerf, head of the Task Force. After four months I still have not received a reply. Another letter and pamphlet was sent to the RCA General Secretary, Dr. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson. He acknowledged my letter and expressed appreciation for also informing Timmer and Hoogerwerf. It is my fervent wish that all of the above have taken the time and interest to attend this important Conference on "The Path to Freedom"from homosexuality. Given their leadership in the RCA they have the obligation to do so.)

Awaiting next year's "Resources" with abated breath

When the CT ("with the assistance from Congregational Services and other resource persons within the RCA!') will present their materials to General Synod, we must be very aware that we are in the midst of a decisive spiritual warfare. The Task Force implies that the practice of homosexuality and diversity of opinion within the RCA "are all equal expressions of valid Christian faith and life." This simply is not true! Yet, we find the same line of though in the CT.'s Paper on 'The Use of Scripture in Making Moral Decisions."

Very significantly, let us remember that all Seminary professors (with the exception of one) and all college professors, who were present at the 1994 General Synod, were passionately in favour of the Report that was unacceptable. These people still hold what they expressed before. Moreover, they will continue to be among the resource people who will advise the denomination in terms of the new materials for approval 5, next year's Synod. The resource materials are:

1. Study guide Re: 1978 and 1979 Statements.

2. Process of reflection. This would be the place to have our questions answered, including those "What does it mean..." Also, here they should make use of all Congregational, Classical, and Synodical responses.

3. Models of Ministry to homosexuals. Here the CT should state what they failed thus far, viz. that those who take a strong stand against sodomy, are also the same people who offer them 'The Path to Freedom" (Conference Theme of the 'Presbyterian & Reformed Renewal Ministries International', held Nov. 9-13, 1994 in the Brighton Presbyterian Church, Rochester, New York).

This paper was presented as a position paper before the Classis of the Canadian Prairies.

Please click the "Back" button of your browser to return to previous page.