A Status Confessionis Issue
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 7:10AM 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 may disagree with some elements of the Belhar, 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 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.
Reader Comments (29)
Kevin:
I'm wondering about the practical implications of all this? If homosexuality is a status confessionis issue, then how is that exercised? Does it mean leaving the RCA? Creating a group within the RCA? Taking calls to churches where the status confessionis needs to be preached? Writing letters? Making phone calls? What?
If homosexuality is a status confessionis issue, then has to mean something. I'm honestly wondering what you think that might mean--practically speaking.
Blessings,
David Vandervelde
Kevin,
The strength of your response is notable. I'm curious, do you feel the same way about divorce for any reason other than infidelity and remarriage that follows? This too is an issue that the Bible speaks very clearly about and one that Jesus clearly defined as sin (Matthew 19). The passage implies that someone who remarries after divorce that is not clearly a result of adultry is caught in a perpetual state of sin. Are you going to start speaking as passionately about this, which I suspect is a reality in nearly every congregation in our denomination? If not, I wonder why.
Eric Johnson
Amen, brother Kevin! It is good to know there are still a few in the RCA willing to passionately speak the Truth!
I am gay woman who had been a member of an RCA church for 15 years before being made to feel quite uncomfortable by an interim pastor there. And so I, and my family, have left. Yet I still read with interest your constant debate about homosexuality, which interestingly, seems about all you folks want to talk about.
First, I think that if you are going to quote old testament law for the basis of your argument, than you also need to address those among you who eat pork and shellfish, and touch footballs, etc. To quote the gospels, which I thought was the “new covenant”, all that you come up with is Matthew 19, which I just read, and see it as quite a clear statement about divorce. Something the last commenter (Johnson) quite legitimately wonders about. Why are you not equally concerned about all your divorced pastors and elders and deacons. (Probably why 75% of people who have left churches say they have left because of the hypocrisy)
Secondly, I take offence at your references to same-sex relationships as sexual immorality or unnatural desire. But I am sure I will not change your heart or mind about this.
Nonetheless, Biblical scholars who certainly have studied the Bible more than I, and most likely more than you, have differing opinions about this issue. And I doubt it will never be, or could be, answered definitively by mortal man. So, to me, it boils down to this. One side is right, and the other side is wrong. If I am wrong, than I will stand before God on Judgement Day and be told that by loving with all my heart in a committed, monogamous relationship, I still lived my life in sin. And I guess I will have to accept that and take the consequences. If you are wrong, you will have to stand before God and be told that you incorrectly interpreted God’s word and by doing so you excluded many of God’s children who yearned to be included at the table as God made them. If I am wrong, I will have hurt no one but myself. I will have no regrets about my life. If you are wrong, how many people will you have hurt? Will you have any regrets about that?
I just recently read the gospels, trying to discern for myself what Jesus said about how to live my life. And all I read is that the most important thing, the absolute bottom line, is love. So I would say to you that no matter how great your sermons may be and how wonderful your doctrines of grace, if you are a homophobe, you have not understood the gospel. (My opinion)
And so stangely, I agree with you. I do not think that this is a resolvable issue or one in which a consensus can be reached. The church should just split rather than go around and around on it. (Although then I guess you would have to address that pesky divorce issue.)
And lastly, one question. Would you have me repent from my sinning life style by leaving my partner of 20 years, and the two children we are raising together?
To Jan W.
You ask - "Would you have me repent from my sinning life style by leaving my partner of 20 years..."
Yes. The Bible is clear that your soul is at stake.
Dear Jan
A question for you. What do you think of Christopher Yuan and Joe Dallas and other ex-gays? Do you understand that by their testimonies they fulfill Jesus' command to Nicodemus that "you must be born again?"
Jan, All things are possible with God - i know of three women such as yourself who have been born again; two now in wedlock of one man and one woman; one whose wedding i attended six years ago and yes, still married.
Prayers, in Love <><
Actually Mick...the Greek is more correctly translated "born from above." But that is to nit picky right?
Anonymous Friend
Are you implying the phrase could be too nit picky wrong?
Blessings ;-)
Anonymous - I don't think the Gospel is at all clear on this matter. In fact, while Jesus discussed many things that keep us from God, never once did He mention homosexuality. Further, I would reply that if you think I could just walk away from my family, you have obviously never experienced the kind of love I have for them. And I feel sorry for you on that.
Mick N - I can't knowledgeably answer your question as I have never heard of the "ex-gays" you reference. All I can say if that I think every one should live an authentic life. And I am very happy for anyone who has found the depth of love that I have, gay, ex-gay or straight.
Judy, "In fact, while Jesus discussed many things that keep us from God, never once did He mention homosexuality." Jesus and the Gospel don't speak to pedophilia or insestual relationships built on love and authenticity, what should we do with that?
My question is for Jan W not Judy.
Here's my $0.02
As long as we "agree to disagree" on this issue, we'll never get around to actually loving each other. While Kevin's post might seem harsh, it actually opens up a door for love and compassion. If we believe that sexuality expressed outside of God's will of one man and one woman for life is a sin (and I believe it is) then we can begin to treat broken people (sinners) with grace, mercy, dignity and love.
I believe that viewing pornography is a sin, a sin that many men in my church struggle with. It would not be loving for me to tell them that they are following their God's designed nature. I would stand condemned if I allowed this to continue. So in love I exhort and rebuke, teach and pray and hope that they will be transformed by the gospel. If they repent, we celebrate. Until they do, they are kept from serving as elders, deacons, and other leadership positions.
The issue of divorce has been brought up in other posts and, for me, falls into this category. If a divorced person is repentant, broken and willing to be transformed by the Gospel, then they might be fit to serve in leadership. If they treat their divorce lightly and are inclined to seek divorce in their current marriage, then I would challenge them, love them and keep them out of leadership. Its more complex than a short blog comment can get into, but for me, a divorcee needs to be a repentant sinner ... just like anyone else.
The same is true for sex before marriage, sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex, greed, gluttony, gossip, covetousness, anger, etc. (and, to be honest, in my ministry I've had to exercise more discipline for heterosexual sex and inter-church gossip than for anything else. We just happen to be talking about homosexuality in our denomination right now.)
Once we agree that homosexuality is a sin, on level with any other sin, then we can treat l/g/b/t people like we treat everyone else ... like sinners who need to repent, be transformed by the Gospel and who can begin bearing the fruit of the Gospel in their new lives.
So, oddly, the most loving thing we can do is to call sin "sin" and then preach the Gospel.
Anonymous Friend
My apologies for not giving you a serious answer on the phrase "born again". Do you think the Greek has dual meaning? Nicodemus would probably not have questioned Jesus' command if he had heard "born from above" (of the Spirit). Instead Nicodemus addressed the possibility of a second time "entering his mother's womb". But then Jesus' response does seem somewhat incredulous that Nicodemus as "the teacher of Israel" did not understand that one must be "born from above"/"born again".
And we should question how/why some RCA "teachers of the law" will not accept nor acknowledge that there are "born again" "ex-gays".
Blessings ><>
Dear Kevin
Amen.
Is it true that the melody for the MSU fight song is "Stand up, stand up for Jesus"?
Blessings ><>
Mick - I've never heard of people opposing ex-gays. Most that I've heard have celebrated that as Gospel-Transformation. E-mail me if you want to talk about this further (not that I'm anyone other than a listening ear) ... I've seen you mention this a few times now.
tim@cgschurch.com
Dear one man, one women folk, how do explain Jacob, David, Solomon and other who were married multiple women?
A
A couple quick points ... first regarding:
If the Bible is the inspired word of God, then yes, Jesus (who is God) has spoken quite clearly on the subject, as amply shown in Kevin DeYoung's original post.
If, on the other hand, you don't hold that the whole Bible is the inspired word of God, then there are bigger fish to fry here than simply the issue of homosexuality.
And regarding:
These men sinned and their families were dysfunctional messes as a result (bitterness, conspiracy, rape, murder, etc). I think that accurately sums it up.
Jan,
You say "And all I read is that the most important thing, the absolute bottom line, is love."
If you really love someone, and want them to spend eternity with the Savior, then the greatest love you can show them is helping them to repent from their sin, ask for forgiveness, and receive the salvation that comes through Jesus Christ.
Jan:
An additional thought regarding "love"..........I try to love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength which means obedience to the inspired word of God. It seems like your interpretatiion of "love" is more a decision to love according to your preference of what love is.
We need to folllow scripture rather than personal preferences.
Denis,
David sinned...yes...but God never condemns his polygamy.....Solomon was the greatest king that Israel ever saw.....All 12 children of Jacob became the 12 tribes regardless of who they were born from...a wife or a slave.....to say that they were dysfunctional doesn't cut it.....
A
Jan,
Your salvation only comes from your act of repentance? I thought salvation was only the act of Christ?
A
Both David and Solomon explicitly broke God's law with regards to their polygamy, see Deuteronomy 17:14-20.
If you have another venue where we could discuss this in greater depth, I would gladly accept your invitation there. But for now, I think we've followed this particular rabbit trail as far as perhaps we should; we've strayed pretty far from the original topic and any additional discussion would only take us further.
Thanks.
I had originally commented on this post to agree that I believe that the issue of whether homosexuality is a sin or not, is not an issue that will be resolved by people constantly reiterating their never changing opinions.
I know a lot of people consider me a sinner and have no problem imposing their judgement on me. Some with emotional abuse. Some with physical abuse. Some with truly ignorant comparisons to pedophiles. Some suggesting that I should desert my family to save my soul. There are just as many experts and lay people, including myself, who do not believe that my sexuality is a sin. Who is right and who is wrong? This dilemma will not be solved by humans arguing on a blog. It will only be resolved in the hereafter.
That being said, I do wonder why all you religious folk spend so much of your time on a fruitless debate. And why homosexuality is the one sin you love to discuss. Ad nauseam. I’m sure Freud would have some theories about that. And not one blog post about the sin of divorce. Or how the RCA should abandon their associations with other churches that welcome divorced people into the leadership positions. Why is that?
Personally, I believe the judgement of my sexuality is God’s. And I believe Him to be a loving and merciful God. I trust that on my judgement day, that even if my sexuality is deemed a sin, that God will be able to peer into my heart, see only the love I have had for Him and my family and have mercy on my soul. So if you want to spend your life judging me and expounding on your personal interpretations of the Bible, go at it. His is the only judgement I care about.
Jan,
I think you are right concerning this blog........we have beaten this horse dead more than once....and nothing new ever comes of it. This is one of those issues that needs a face and as long as we are in a faceless space we will stick to academics and theological gymnastics. If people are really honest with themselves we will realize that we can make the Bible say whatever we want it to say, God only knows how the Pharisees did, the Church of the middle ages did (well throughout all of history for the most part), and how even today we do it.
If we take nothing else away from Reformed theology I think we should take this: That Salvation is a God issue, not up to us, and that whatever sin we do or don't commit ultimately it will be up Christ to forgive or confirm we were right.
What bothers me most about this debate on this blog, and even my participation in it ,isn't the issue of homosexuality but the sense that in the end we are playing a game in which the only goal is to win. Where as I think Christ calls us to be playful with each other, where no one "wins" but where all experience the joy of playing his game. Here is the heart of the Gospel as I understand it, the good news of Christ: Christ has already won the game....and he invites us to play in his Kingdom where the goal is the joy of his presence.
This will be my last blog comment/post of homosexuality for a very very long time. I want to continue this dialogue, but not here anymore, not in this space....this horse is dead here. If anyone wants to talk with me about this.......I'll be outside....playing.......
Justin
Dear Jan and Justin
You are right about the theological gymnastics - the RCA has exercised much on this issue for 35 years.
Perhaps the question most of us must ask, and maybe all answer, regarding gays and ex-gays, "Their baptism, is it of God or of man?"
Prayers, in Love <><