Today the General Synod of the Christian Reformed Churches adopted decisions taken regarding the 15 revision requests submitted against the Church's ruling on homosexuality and homosexual relations made at the 2013 General Synod. The 2016/2017 General Synod decided not to proceed with revision of the Church's ruling. We leave below the 2013 ruling to follow again first:
- the general synod recognises that in the Christian Reformed Churches in the past, in general, too little specific attention has been given to pastoral speaking and action on homosexuality and homosexual relationships;
- church members with a homosexual orientation have the same position within the church of Christ as other members of the church. Their orientation does not detract from this. They are full and equal members of the congregation, share in the mutual care and are engaged with their own gifts to build up the whole;
- sexual intercourse between people of the same sex and relationships in which that intercourse takes shape are not in accordance with the Word of God and must therefore be called sin. Here the church in its pastoral responsibility has to take the path of church admonition in accordance with Scripture, confession and church order;
- the handling of this biblical speech with regard to homosexuality and homosexual relationships in preaching, catechesis and pastoral care should be done in the mind of Christ.
We are keen to bring the statement itself back into the limelight. This is because it reflects our compassion for our homosexual sisters and brothers. The synod, like the church councils that requested revisions, did not wish to have in mind anything other than the honour of the Lord, the holiness of His church and the spiritual wellbeing of the sisters and brothers concerned. Meanwhile, it is inevitable that the handling of revision requests produced a more factual report: after all, church councils engaged in argumentative discussions with the synod. The outcome of the handling can be found in a comprehensive committee report, which will be made available tomorrow via the website of the Christian Reformed Churches (www.cgk.nl).
What has been argued in the revision requests and the synod's response to them essentially boils down to this:
1. The interpretation of the relevant Bible texts, in particular Leviticus 18 and 20 and Romans 1. Does the vision document offer a correct explanation of these texts and can it be said with certainty that it is the only correct explanation? (exegetical objection)
The alternative exegeses of the Scripture passages mentioned, as given in the revision requests, failed to convince the Synod. In light of our 'partial knowledge', no exegesis can be said with absolute certainty to be the only correct one. The synod considers the explanation given in the 2013 vision document to do most justice to these Scripture words, in the context of the whole of positive Biblical speech on marriage and sexuality. However, this explanation could have been elaborated more broadly in parts.
2. In applying biblical data to today's situation, has cultural distance been adequately taken into account? Does the Bible speak against the background of a familiarity with homosexual relationships in love and fidelity, and what does it mean if not? (hermeneutical objection)
On this point, the synod judged that the 2013 vision report is certainly mindful of the cultural distance between Paul's time and ours, although some wordings may give the impression that this distance has not been sufficiently taken into account. The synod also judged that the vision report makes it sufficiently clear how the biblical words still speak authoritatively today.
3. Can gay relationships in the church of Christ in their uniqueness have an exceptional position in light of God's accommodation of sinful people in a broken world? (allusion 1 and 2)
All the revision requests bind gay relationships to the 'love and fidelity' norm. Apart from the fact that the revision requests do not clearly define 'love and fidelity', these relationships cannot have an exceptional position within the congregation, according to the synod. An appeal here to the love of Christ ignores the fact, that this love respects the commandment that gives sexuality a place within the safe covenant framework of marriage. The accommodation of God, in the sense of His patience, is not a permanent toleration of a sinful situation in the Bible. God's patience is the moving with which He wants to move His children towards heartfelt submission to His commandments. The love of Christ will motivate the congregation, living in a broken world, to assist homosexual sisters and brothers in bearing their cross after the Lord Jesus, especially when they have not received the 'gift of abstinence'. Love will live within the congregation the realisation that the struggle for holiness is both hard and good for all believers.
4. Does the synod not step into the pastoral responsibility of the local council of churches, especially with the reference in the ecclesiastical ruling to discipline? (pastoral objection)
The issue of homosexuality and homosexual relationships was placed on the synod's table from the churches themselves. In doing so, they recognised that developing a vision on this issue was beyond the capacity of the local congregation. Questions had arisen in the pastorate. Had the synod not drawn lines to pastoral responsibility, it might justifiably have been accused of discussing the matter too remotely. The synod ruled that in the light of the 2007 mandate, the 2013 church statement rightly speaks of church admonition. The 2016 synod affirmed the principle that the exercise of discipline in concrete pastoral situations rests entirely with the local church council. Vision report and pastoral handbook of 2013 provide a space here, which may still be insufficiently seen by some church councils that requested revision on this point.
5. Did the synod make a doctrinal statement with its ecclesiastical ruling? (denominational, ecclesiastical and ecclesiastical objection).
By a doctrinal statement, the synod wants to mean a dogma, a further definition of truth, an extension of the confession, by which church, faith and personal salvation stand or fall. In making a doctrinal statement, the church has the preconceived intention of carrying a statement of such weight into the church. In this case, it is a ruling on a case in church and ministry practice. In terms of authority and binding, it has no more and no less weight than other synod decisions.
The committee report accepted by the synod addresses many other issues. One example is a possible biological determination of homosexuality and the consequences this would have for pastoral care. Consultation with some experts in the field has shown that the scientific evidence for such a specificity is as yet shaky. And that a possibly stronger biological determinacy than previously assumed does not make an appeal to the (in rebirth renewed) will impossible.
Based on all this, the synod decided to reject the revision requests and not to revise the church ruling. Synod decided to set up a task force, which will publish the contents of the revision requests and the commission report in an accessible brochure. This task force is also tasked with engaging with the church councils that requested revision, to explain the decision and to seek common ground in carrying it forward. The task force will also be able to stimulate and guide the conversation on homosexuality at the classic level. In a separate decision, classes have been strongly urged to "deal with each other in trust, wisdom and patience, where it comes to incorporating and complying with the Church's ruling in local pastoral policy, especially with regard to Church admonition". The task force, in cooperation with deputaten eenheid, will also explore opportunities for more joint reflection on homosexuality with other churches of Reformed confession.
