Nov
05
2009
A Status Confessionis Issue
Over at my Reformed Church in America blog things have once again been abuzz over homosexuality. After much talk about the need for more dialogue and appeals that this issue should not divide us, I felt compelled to post a response. Here it is.
*****
The phrase status confessionis if often bandied about in the RCA. It’s Latin for “confessional status.” Although it came out of specific Lutheran doctrinal debates in the 16th century, the term carries a broader connotation. It means that a particular doctrine is essential to who we are as a church. If something is status confessionis it means this is a make or break issue. It means that the church will not tolerate others views on this matter. It means that this is not an indifferent matter or one on which we can agree to disagree. It means that if we are to be faithful in confessing the gospel we must confess this.
Homosexuality is a status confessionis issue. If we tolerate the doctrine that says homosexual behavior is a gift from God, we have tolerated too much. We must confess, always with love and graciousness, that homosexual behavior is a sin and we must not allow our churches, our ministers, our schools, or our professors to say otherwise.
The quick reply to this last paragraph will be, “Hold on just a minute. Why are we singling out one sin and making it a litmus test for our denomination? This is an important issue, but not as weighty as the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the resurrection. Those are the kinds of issues that are status confessionis, not acts that some people claim are sinful.” This line of reasoning sounds plausible, but it’s not exactly true. In adopting the Belhar Confession (which we will almost certainly do by June), the RCA is saying that the specific sin of racism is a status confessionis issue. I disagree with some elements of the Belhar (and have spoken in opposition to its adoption), but I certainly agree with its strong rejection of racism. In the 1980s, the RCA broke off ecumenical relations with the Dutch church in South Africa because of apartheid, effectively communicating “No matter how great your sermons may be and how wonderful your doctrines of grace, if you are a racist, you have not understood the gospel.” The same is true of homosexuality. No matter how many other things we may hold in common, if you affirm homosexual behavior, you have not understood the gospel. This is one issue on which we must not compromise. We cannot agree to disagree. We cannot hold hands together in mission.
Those last few sentences may sound too strong. A bit over the top. Maybe we should allow for different interpretations on this issue, you think to yourself. Maybe we are making too big a deal out of this. Maybe this isn’t a make or break status confessionis kind of issue. But consider:
• Homosexual behavior is repeatedly and clearly forbidden in Scripture. The order of creation informs us that God’s plan for sexuality is one woman and one man (Genesis 2). This order is reaffirmed by Jesus (Matthew 19) and Paul (Ephesians 5). The Old Testament law forbade homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18, 20). Paul reiterates this prohibition by using the same Greek construction in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. Paul condemns same sex behavior (among many other sins) in Romans 1. Jude in his epistle links sexual immorality and the “unnatural desire” present in Sodom and Gomorrah.
• Our confessions speak against the sin of homosexuality. “We are temples of the Holy Spirit, body and soul, and God wants both to be kept clean and Holy,” Heidelberg Catechism Answer 109 states. “That is why [God] forbids everything which incites unchastity, whether it be actions, looks, talk, thoughts or desires.” 1 Cor. 6:18-20, where homosexual behavior is listed as a sin, is cited as a Scripture proof. Likewise, Q/A 87 quotes from 1 Cor. 6 to the effect that no unrepentant sinner is going to inherit the kingdom of God. Unrepentant sin is no light thing. Moreover, Belgic Confession Article 29 says in connection with the marks of the true church, “As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or the left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.” Christians are not expected to be perfect. But as the Spirit works in us, we will be marked by fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, including sexual sin and ethical righteousness.
• If 1 Corinthians 6 is true, unrepentant homosexuals (along with unrepentant thieves, drunkards, idolaters, adulterers, revilers, swindlers, and those who are unrepentantly greedy) will not inherit the kingdom of God. Heaven and hell literally hang in the balance. Of course, homosexuality isn’t the only sin out there. But no one else that I know of in our denomination is advocating idolatry, drunkenness, or stealing. Yet, many are advocating homosexuality. It is not an overstatement to say that such advocacy is in danger of leading people to hell. This isn’t because homosexuals are worse sinners than all the rest, but because unless we turn from our sin and fight against it in faith–with victories and defeats to be sure–we will face God’s wrath. By tolerating the doctrine which affirms homosexual behavior, we are tolerating a doctrine which leads people farther from God, not closer. This is not the mission Jesus gave us when he told us to teach the nations all that he has commanded.
• For 99% of church history, Christians have said unequivocally that homosexual behavior is immoral. No one had to write a confession about it, because it was an implied status confessionis. No church would have tolerated a difference of opinion, let alone practice, on this issue.
• The overwhelming majority of our brothers and sisters in the two-thirds world understand that homosexuality is a sin. Further, they understand, as African leaders in the Anglican church could testify, that this is not an agree to disagree kind of issue. We can love those who disagree. But we do not hold hands in mission and dialogue ad nauseum. We call homosexual advocates to repent much like we call perpetrators of racism to repent.
• If we tolerate homosexual behavior and advocacy in our denomination, we undercut the efforts of men and women in our congregations who struggle–in faith and repentance–to overcome same gender attraction. Affirming homosexuality denies the grace of God to change sinners and our most entrenched and confusing desires (1 Cor. 6:11).
As I’ve tried to point out over and over again, the position that says, “let’s stay in dialogue; let’s not make such a big deal about this; let’s move on from this distraction; we have bigger fish to fry” is asking someone like me to give up everything on this issue. You are asking me to act like this is not a big deal. You are asking me to affirm that this is a small ethical issue that does not strike at the core of anything. Agree to disagree sounds like a humble third rail, but it is a subtle way of telling conservatives that homosexuality is not a status confessionis issue and we are wrong to think that it is.
There’s a reason these blogs [the RCA blogs] heat up with the debate over homosexuality. The reason is twofold. One, we can’t seem to agree on this important issue. The history of the church is full of instances of raging controversy. Some of them have proved to be silly. Some of them have proved to be essential. In this post I have tried to argue why this debate is not silly, but eternally serious. Two, the RCA refuses to speak and act consistently on this issue. As long as the RCA continues to push dialogue, as long as the RCA tolerates groups like Room for All which work contrary to the stated beliefs of the General Synod, and as long as the RCA holds hands with denominations like the UCC and the ELCA this controversy will continue. It is the never ending dialogue and equivocation of the RCA that prolongs this controversy. The two sides–passionately for the legimitization of homosexual behavior and passionately against–are mutually exclusive in this debate. And to argue that they are not is, de facto, to side with one camp over the other.
24 Comments
Kevin, well said and well argued. As you may know we’ve had a bit of trouble at Calvin over the issue of homosexuality. It has yet to spill over into the CRC for the time being. Acceptance or rejection of homosexuality is a gospel issue since, as you put it, if someone claiming to be a Christian and still practices sin he/she is no Christian at all. Such applied to homosexuality. If we are to teach and preach the gospel, we must bring the Law into the consciences of sinners in order for them to see the glory of the cross.
Amen!! Well said!! This is a vital issue that we as Christians must adhere to and support. God help us to remain true to truth and to the one who is Truth.
Great post Kevin. The term “dialogue” really means that their position on homosexuality is neutral. I think God’s Word should always have preference over dialogue.
Kevin, I strongly affirm your stated thoughts and convictions. My denomination has yet to face this issue, but it is coming.
I couldn’t agree more strongly with your accurate statement that while “no denomination is advocating idolatry, drunkenness, or stealing,” yet many are in fact advocating the legitimacy of homosexual behavior.
Why can’t more evangelicals see this? Why don’t they recognize, especially those younger generations of teens and early 20s, that this activity sets apart this particular group of sinners and their sin as something that must be uniquely and vocally opposed (always in love and humility, of course)? How timing are Paul’s words to the Corinthian church in Chapter 5, particularly vv.9-11, where God speaking through his apostle clearly forbids associating in a brotherly fashion with “anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral,” etc.
Thanks again for posts which help many of us to reason through, once again, our stated convictions. God help us to articulate them faithfully and to his glory.
Thanks for sharing your response on this important issue. It helps a lot people inside the Church to reaffirm our biblical values. God bless.
This is timely and so important. Thanks for sharing. I was thinking of writing about this soon, I mau just quote and even link you when I do. Thanks.
It’s difficult to hold back the waters when you are already standing in the river. RCA is looking to join hands again with their past wife, the CRC. The latter was booted out of NAPARC back in ‘97 for the same kind of dithering happening in the RCA.
Once this spirit takes over, it’s time to move out.
You mention the agruement about why pick this sin above other sins but never answer it. There is other sins that are clearly and strongly condemned in the Gospel by Christ Himself. Especially in Matthew 25, people who will not feed ands clothe the poor, visit the sick, care for those in prison or give drink to the thirsty, why do we accept these people in our congregations and those you listed in the list of 1 Cor 6 also allowed to remain? Is greed and self-centeredness okay as long as you don’t throw it in your face?
Thanks for the concise, reasoned, statement. It’s important to reiterate that those holding homosexuality to be a sin are not the ones singling it out for special treatment – obviously, any group advocating thievery, for example, as an “alternative lifestyle” would meet with a similar response. It is the attempt to erase the prohibition against homosexuality from God’s law that singles it out from other sins. Just one more thought – often apologists begin by stating that people are born homosexual & don’t choose it as if this fact makes it acceptable. Those in the church who confess original sin, though, know that an impulse being in-born (whether it is or not is a debate for another time) does not make it morally right – we are all born in sin & inclined to all manner of evil… a tendency toward homosexuality being no different than those inclined by nature toward any other sin. That being said, we recognize that sexual drives are tremendously powerful and those who are battling for purity deserve our love and support… things which can be scarce in this particular case.
Kevin, How can you say, “If 1Corinthians 6 is true,….”?? This “If” says a lot about your belief in the truth written in the Holy Bible. It may have been an oversight, but I believe ALL is TRUTH in the Holy Bible. Considering homosexuality, although it is a sin, how can we deny sinners the right to worship in our churches? Isn’t that what churches are for and also for true believers to gather togethe? Churches are also for instruction in righteousness by God’s Word, which, of course, is what Jesus taught. We may not like a person’s lifestyle (often secret among those stated in 1Cornthians 6), but we should not deny them the right to learn God’s Word. Their conduct in church would be the right of the church to forbid or allow, as it would be for anyone else.
Shanda
There is a lot of confusion about this subject.
Christians have to be careful to not add to the foggy reasoning, because you could actually hurt people if you don’t gently help them work through the clear biblical teaching that goes against the spirit of this age.
I know that it hurts some people to be taught that gay marriage is not God’s will. But it hurts them more to not be taught about the true nature of sin and temptation.
Shanda,
It appears as though Kevin was making a conditional argument, where something is assumed to be true (here, 1 Cor 6) for the sake of argument. In this case, the apodosis (follow-up to his “if” statement) is assumed to be true since Scripture is assumed to be true. This doesn’t mean that Kevin thinks some of Scripture is untrue. Just the opposite. He assumes Scripture to be true for the sake of his argument, expressed in a conditional clause. Hope this clarifies.
Also, no one is denying homosexuals the right to worship in any church. Everyone should be welcome in any service of worship. I’ll assume Kevin isn’t saying anything different. He IS saying that homosexual activity is sinful, according to the Bible, and as such those who struggle with same-sex attraction and desire to be faithful Christians should fight those urges by the power of the Spirit.
So, homosexuals should be welcome in any worship service. But membership in the visible body of Christ entails a desire to repent of sin, and not a desire to continue sinning.
I would also add that, while homosexuals — practicing or not — should be welcome in any worship service (members or not), that doesn’t imply that the church condones their sin. We are all sinners and need the community of believers for accountability and, as with any sin, there must be a continuous balance between grace and truth. All sinners being welcome to worship would exemplify grace. Likewise, the spoken belief that all sin stands in direct opposition of the will of God and of his character, is truth.
Kevin, Thanks for your thoughtful and biblically faithful post. I know your stand has not been easy. Please know that our family is lifting you and your family up in prayer.
“We shall soon have to handle truth, not with kid gloves, but with gauntlets, – the gauntlets of holy courage and integrity. Go on, ye warriors of the cross, for the King is at the head of you.” Charles Spurgeon
I agree completely with Kevin’s comments on homosexuality. I read, however, the comments on his blog on the RCA website and couldn’t but agree with the observation that Matt 19 which implicitly condemns homosexuality explicitly condemns most, if not all divorce and remarriage. Yet evangelicals have a shameful record in recent years on this matter.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, however, the accusation of hypocrisy stings.
I think that it is important to differentiate two things in this debate. The Church has an obligation to preach the truth. The truth is that homosexuality, hypocrisy, adultery, drunkenness, failing to feed and clothe the poor, failing to visit the sick, failing to visit for those in prison or not giving a drink to the thirsty is sinful conduct that we must put off of our lives. If we don’t agree on this we can’t continue the discussion to the next line of argument as to how we handle these sins in the Church. I agree that the Church has committed the sin of hypocrisy in dealing with a lot of these issues. However, the truth is that homosexual conduct is a sin and the Church cannot remain neutral.
Kevin, thank you for seeking to hold the line of biblical conviction on this issue. My family lineage came through the ELCA and though I’m not in that church anymore, my family (parents, grandparents) are and the recent decisions on homosexuality are very sad and an abomination the Christ. In talking with my family, the one main argument that I believe that has helped has been using the question: What does this say about the Cross of Christ? If condoning the sin of homosexuality and making it okay to do it occurs, those who condone it really are withholding the powerful forgiveness and transformation that is possible for people who are sinning in homosexuality. Withholding the power of the cross to those who desperately need it is seemingly even more horrible than the sin itself. Because I have seen people saved and transformed out of this lifestyle, I indeed join with you to advocate clearly that what Scripture says is wrong also is redeemable and the redemption can be amazingly satisfying…more so than the sin that lies about its own pleasures. May the powerful Gospel of Jesus Christ NOT be withheld from those who are so desperately needing it!
Kevin DeYoung: “Two, the RCA refuses to speak and act consistently on this issue. As long as the RCA continues to push dialogue, as long as the RCA tolerates groups like Room for All which work contrary to the stated beliefs of the General Synod, and as long as the RCA holds hands with denominations like the UCC and the ELCA this controversy will continue.”
Does one ever move from dialogue to discipline in the RCA?
And if it appears that biblical discipline is not going to be ever exercised on those who wish to minimize or eliminate same-sex sin as a status confessionis issue, then what’s the next step for a faithful undershepherd and his congregation in the RCA?
I would also add that abortion is another status confessionis issue. Being against abortion is the Biblical position.
Lots of comments and questions here, but let me answer TUAD’s. In 2005 the General Synod of the RCA voted to discipline Norm Kansfield for his role in officiating the “wedding” ceremony for his lesbian daughter (in Jonathon Edward’s old church of all places). Kansfield, former president at New Brunswick Theological Seminary, was deposed as a General Synod Professor of Theology and suspended as a Minister of Word and Sacrament. The tricky part with discipline in the RCA is that you are only accountable to your classis (presbytery). Kansfield, as a GS Professor of Theology (a fourth office in the RCA) was amendable to the whole denomination. This meant that anyone in the denomination could file a charge against him, as opposed to only those in your local classis.
Thanks Kevin. It’s nice to know that corporate discipline can and has occurred in the RCA. It’s necessary at times.
If I may, here are three thoughts to add to a discussion that often (as has been the case at the RCA blog) seems to devolve into a re-hashing of the same tired arguments without making much progress in creating change.
1) We must take care that in our stand on the Biblical truth that homosexuality is sin, we do not exclude (by decree or by our attitudes) homosexuals from attending our services (Rom. 10:14). This has already been stated in these comments, but it bears repeating.
2) A gay person’s greatest need is NOT to become straight. His greatest need is Jesus Christ. It is only through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit that any sinner has hope of denying our sinful nature. Homosexuals are no different in that regard.
3) As someone who has witnessed firsthand the extraordinarily powerful testimony of many former homosexuals who have been transformed by God’s grace, I have come to view homosexuality in light of John 9:3. By that I mean that I believe that God allows some to be tempted in this way so that through them the works of God might be displayed. These people are spiritually blind, like so many in the world, but when a gay person’s blindness is removed and the Spirit begins the renewing work, there can be no doubt that a miracle has occurred!
Homosexuals are, by and large, a vast, unreached people group. God calls Christians to love them, for they are what we were apart from grace. We must prepare ourselves for the specific cultural challenges of reaching homosexuals with the Gospel in the same way that foreign missionaries would prepare for the cultural challenges of taking the Gospel to an unreached people group over seas. We must welcome them into our church buildings without ambiguity in our teaching against sin. We must have a support structure in place to encourage and provide accountability for those struggling with homosexual temptation who fail to live up to the standard of perfection even after coming to a saving faith in Christ.
Thank you, as always, Kevin, for being a voice of reason and an advocate of Truth.
Shanda 20048, if we think we have “the right to worship” we are off track from the start.