Implications of Synod 2022
A couple weeks ago, the churches within the CRCNA sent delegates to Synod. One of the key conversations revolved around the Human Sexuality Report (HSR). This report is the result of the committee established to lay out a biblical foundation for sexuality. The main sections of the report are on gender identity, homosexuality, porn, and it includes some reflections on singleness, premarital sex/cohabitation (as if these are one and the same), polyamory, and divorce. At first glance, this may seem groundbreaking, but the reality is the committee was doomed from the start because members had to affirm the 1973 Synod decision. This decision made a distinction between homosexuality (also called same sex attraction in the CRCNA) and homosexualism (what they call homosexual sex). Relegating attraction as not sinful, but action as sinful. The language used throughout the HSR report is defamatory, and quite honestly derogatory, towards the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. The report clings to words that are rarely, if ever, used within the cultural milieu. In short, the report reaffirms that queer individuals must not engage in sexual activity with persons of the same gender and they reaffirm the distinction between being gay and having gay sex. They also reaffirm that the use of porn is wrong, and that there is a strict gender binary (with some “caveats” about cultural gender norms). The full report can be found here.
While the report was ready in 2021, Synod 2022 decided to adopt the majority of the HSR Majority Report. For the sake of brevity we will only focus on three of the recommendations as they bear the most weight. For the full majority report see here. Recommendations 1, 2 and 5 are:
1. That synod recommend the HSR to the churches as providing a useful summary of biblical teaching regarding human sexuality.
2. That synod affirm that “unchastity” in the Heidelberg Catechism Q. and A. 108 encompasses adultery, premarital sex, extra-marital sex, polyamory, pornography and homosexual sex, all of which violate the Seventh Commandment. In so doing, synod declares this affirmation “an interpretation of [a] confession” (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603). Therefore, this interpretation has confessional status.
5. That synod declare that Church Order 69-c is to be interpreted in the light of the biblical evidence laid out in this report.
So what do these recommendations mean and what are the implications of them in the everyday functioning of the church? The first recommendation is quite clear. It is stating that the HSR provides a useful summary of what the Bible says regarding human sexuality and gender identity. The problem here lies in the make up and ultimate unspoken goal of the HSR committee. Since the committee members were required to agree with the 1973 decision stating that homosexual sex is wrong, they were doomed from the start to be highly biased and they do not thoughtfully and critically engage queer theologians or theologies. The language used around sex and gender is also not in line with modern day psychology or theory. This was pointed out by several delegates at Synod 2022 who were swiftly dismissed. The HSR can’t be discussed in its entirety here, but needless to say there are parts of it that are useful to the Church, but there are severe limitations to it. It is not an exhaustive conversation in regards to human sexuality. It predominantly only seeks sources that already confirm the biases of the committee. The report is rooted in historic traditions that, at parts, are out of step with modern day reality. The report needed to engage the many amazing queer theologians, those within and outside of the CRCNA. This report is not exhaustive and prematurely ends a conversation.
The second recommendation is where things become more important. Synod 2022 has no defined what the word unchastity means which is includes the actual reality for queer people. They have now explicitly stated a theology that condemns the 2SLGBTQIA+ community and this will have severe consequences. The suicide rate amongst queer persons is already higher compared to non-queer persons, and the stats regarding queer youth homelessness also indicate that one of the root causes is not being welcomed in their home. The recommendation states that since unchastity is defined this way, that it inherently has confessional status. That means that since it has confessional status, office bearers (pastors, elders, deacons) need to agree with this in order to hold church office and if they disagree they are subject to removal from that office. It also means that individual churches can be brought under church discipline by other churches in their classes. The 1973 report had some leeway in how churches provided pastoral care for their 2SLGBTQIA+ members, but the HSR and these recommendations do not provide any leeway.
Article 5 of the CRCNA’s Church Order states that all office bearers need to sign the Covenant for Officebearers which is found in Supplement, Article 5 of the Church Order. This covenant states that those becoming officebearers affirm the three confessions of the CRCNA—the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort. This means that since unchastity is now explicitly defined to include the gender binary of male and female (as per taking on the HSR) and queer sex, those who hold office must agree with this statement and if they do not, they are subject to removal from office and discipline.
The last recommendation regarding Church Order 69-c is in regards to pastors performing marriages. Church Order 69-c states that CRCNA ministers shall not perform marriages that would be in conflict with the Word of God. Since the term unchastity is defined, and the list mentioned now, according to the CRCNA, breaks the 7th commandment ministers may not, in any circumstances perform or solemnize queer marriages—making queer couples unwelcome in the CRCNA. It is important to note that ministers also can’t solemnize marriages where adultery has occurred, where pornography is used, or polyamorous marriages. It is almost comical (in a very sad way) that while pornography and adultery are listed, these two will most likely not be talked about when implementing church discipline in regards to the HSR report. What isn’t clear is whether or not CRCNA pastors and officebearers are allowed to attend queer weddings at all to show support for the couple. Overall, the CRCNA needs to define what this means for the life of the Church moving forward. It appears that there was little thought about the implications of passing these recommendations, and this will cause division, and sow uncertainty.
Since these recommendations have passed that means that queer persons, people who identify as 2SLGBTQIA+ and believe that they are wholly and dearly loved by God, and are welcomed by God to the table are actually no longer welcomed to fully participate in the life of CRCNA churches. It means that me and my partner are no longer welcomed to attend the church that my family grew up in, and where my parents still go. It means that my future marriage will not be recognized or respected. It means that family and friends who also affirm queer relationships are also not welcome in CRCNA churches. Walls of exclusion have been erected because of man’s arrogance in thinking that their interpretation of Scripture is equivalent to the actual Word of God. It means those who struggle with porn, or those who commit adultery are also excluded from the table. It means that churches whose councils are split on this issue will lose half their councils (or should according to Church Order). It means that affirming congregations will have to have difficult conversations about leaving the denomination.
It is disheartening that the institution that God ordained to bring life and peace and inclusion, has decided to bring exclusion and death to its members. As one Synod 2022 delegate said, there will be blood on the hands of the CRCNA and her churches because of these recommendations.