The Formula of Agreement Has to Go
Friday, August 28, 2009 at 2:46PM For over ten years now the RCA, through the historic and misguided Formula of Agreement, has been in "full communion" with the ELCA, the PC(USA), and the UCC. There have been enough unbiblical goings-on in any of these denominations to sound the alarm, but the recent action by the ELCA is the latest and possibly the most egregious. Meeting last week in Minneapolis, the Lutherans voted to allow non-celibate homosexual clergy and the blessing of same-sex relationships in the church. The RCA, through the Formula of Agreement, is in "full communion" with the ELCA. Should we be?
According to the Agreement, the term "full communion" is understood to specifically mean that the four churches, among other things, "recognize each other as churches in which the gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered according to the Word of God." No doubt, some of you reading this blog think homosexuality is good, or permissible, or something less than sinful. But most of us in the RCA think same-sex behavior, along with plenty of other sins, is prohibited in the Bible. Where does this leave us in relationship to the ELCA (and the other two denominations for that matter)?
What do we do when a denomination perverts the grace of our God into sensuality (Jude 4)--and not just a few renegade churches here and there, but the whole denomination in its official decision making capacity? Is the gospel rightly preached in the ELCA when their "gospel" officially affirms sinful behavior that the Bible says will keep one out of the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-10)? For those of us who hold to the Church's millennia long teaching on sexuality, how can we continue to recognize as a true church a body that does not "engage in the pure preaching of the gospel", does not "subject itself to the yoke of Christ" and allows into the offices of the church those who are not "fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness" (Belgic Confession Article 29)? Homosexuality is, as J.I. Packer has argued, a heretical issue because it denies a central tenet of the gospel--repentance.
The RCA broke ties with the white church in South Africa over apartheid. It's time the RCA profers a similar forumla of disagreement and breaks from full communion with erring, not to mention dying, denomations like the ELCA. The gospel is once again at stake.
Reader Comments (30)
Kevin: I agree with your argument. However, rather than toss out the Formula of Agreement because a denomination is erring, it might be wiser to use the Agreement as a means to convey our disappointment with the decision being taken by the Lutheran Council. First of all, a letter from our General Synod asking for clarification from this Lutheran body confirming your interpretation would help set the record straight.This would also suggest to them that other Christian fellowships like ours are concerned with what is happening in like-minded denominations. If it is true as you say it is then a strongly worded letter of admonition and correction might help our brothers and sisters in the Luthern Church to see that their decisions affect the whole body of Christ. Now is not the time to opt out of the Formula of Agreement but rather use the Formula for what it was intended, a channel of communication by which we have access to one another and to encourage each other to be faithful to the commands of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Otherwise, I am happy to see the zeal you show for the Church to present the Gospel from a biblical viewpoint especially when it comes to human sexuality. Blessings,
KD
Kevin,
I am left wondering what other sins should exclude people from joining the clergy? If it is sinful to steal do we defrock a pastor who cheated on his income tax. If it is wrong to covet, do we kick out someone who has lusted? If as this scripture says the drunkard will also be banned from the kingdom of God, do we ban all alcoholics?
You also fail to address the rest of the chapter as it pertains to disputes. I have read the whole scripture, prayed deeply upon it and have felt the spirit's guidance. If we disagree about certain things then let us meet to discuss with love and brotherhood. But please do not assume that you alone speak for Christ.
Kevin: So quick to condemn the ELCA and others. So quick to forget Christ's prayers for unity ("that they may all be one")... and so quick to forget the liturgy of the Reformed Church...
From the Meaning of the Sacrament: "Since by his death, resurrection, and ascension Christ has obtained for us the life-giving Spirit WHO UNITES US ALL IN ONE BODY, so are we to receive this Supper in true love, MINDFUL OF THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS."
From the Communion Prayer: "And as this grain has been gathered from many fields into one loaf, and these grapes from many hills into one cup, grant, O Lord, that your WHOLE CHURCH may soon be gathered from the ends of the earth into your kingdom."
From the Intercessions: "O Savior God, look upon your Church in its struggle upon the earth. Have mercy on its weakness, bring to an end its unhappy divisions, and scatter its fears...."
You wrote a book extolling the value of the institutional church, but there seems to be a "disconnect" here. When the church calls a person to ministry, do we not believe it is Christ calling him or her to ministry? Of course we do. Might you at least consider the possibility that the vote in the ELCA was influenced by the transformational power of the Spirit? Might the Spirit ever move the church in a direction contrary to your own interpretation of the biblical witness?
Kevin:
Thanks for your thoughts Yes, the true gospel is at stake here. Sadly responders again have already placed "unity", and "conversation" as their aims rather than obedience to God's commands. As to the thought of sending a letter to the Lutheran body, that seems like too little too late. If our denomination leaders had concerns, they would have sent a letter prior or during deliberations. Perhaps they did. The Lutheran body could also have consulted us prior to their decision.
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
by Matt Slick
There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Various verses are cited (out of context) and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are explained away. The world wants to change God's words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires. Nevertheless, the truth stands: The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.
As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same as you would for any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him the same dignity as anyone else with whom you come in contact. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a socially-acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.
http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/what-does-bible-say-about-homosexuality
Posted by a sinner, in humility, striving to obey God's word for the Glory of Christ and his church.
A few quick responses:
Using the Formula of Agreement as a channel for communicating our disapproval is a good reminder. That certainly could be one step and is worth doing, though realistically the ELCA is not going to reconvene next year because the RCA asks them to reconsider. We could ask for clarification, but they have a paper that explains their reasoning (specious in my opinion) quite well. In general, I am all for conversation and communication, but with the homosexuality dialogue becomes a substitute for decision making.
As far as unity, the call of the church, and listening to the Spirit, these simply are not convincing arguments if homosexuality is explicitly forbidden in Scripture. If the ELCA said those selling children into sex slavery could be clergy, no one would be arguing about unity or listening to the Spirit. The question is whether homosexuality is wrong or not.
Finally, the question about "what other sins should exclude people from the clergy" is a common objection that proves little. When talking about homosexuality in this context, we are talking about unrepentant sin. If a pastor is unrepentant about his lust or greed then he should be disciplined. If the sin is particularly egregious or public he may need to be removed for a time even with immediate repentance. The reason homosexuality comes up in our denomination is not because it is the only sin that should be disciplined but because many people claim it is not a sin at all.
It's time the RCA profers a similar forumla of disagreement and breaks from full communion with erring, not to mention dying, denomations like the ELCA. ???
The ELCA has close to 5 million members, the RCA just barely over 260,000, and declining every year.
Yes, the ELCA is much bigger than the RCA (which is also declining every year). But to say the ELCA has close to 5 million baptized members does not tell the whole story. The ELCA was formed in 1988 by combining three Lutheran denominations (The American Lutheran Church, The Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, and The Lutheran Church in America). Since the merger, the ELCA has lost over 500,000 members and 685 congregations. From 1999 to 2007 the ELCA lost anywhere from 20,000 to 80,000 members per year. It's been widely documented that the mainline denominations, once ascendant in American life and culture, are fading away. For example, in raw numbers the mainline churches declined 21 percent (from 29 million to 22 million) from 1960 to 2000, while during the same time period overall church membership in the United States rose by 33 percent.
Kevin,
Amen, and Amen!
CR and ADP,
Please refer to verse 11 following 1Corinthians 6:9,10. Read "such were some of you" (Note were!), Christians are no longer "sexually immoral..idolaters..adulterers ...men who practice homosexuality...thieves...greedy...drunkards...revilers...swindlers". Paul recognized that Christians are - as Jesus said, "born again"! In vs 11, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."(ESV)
Homosexual attraction/orientation is a temptation, just as every other sin "common to man" (and woman). None being perfect we may fall to our sinful desire(s), and so we should quickly confess and repent to a right relationship with our Lord and Savior.
Blessings ><>
Dear Responders,
If each person believes what what one writes here, post it with confidence by including your full name and email.
Paul Van Maaren
frcpaul@verizon.net
Paul,
Thanks for the invite but i share e-mail address with my wife so i will pass on that.
My full name - Meredith J Nienhuis. But i also answer to Mick, or Mc, or honey, or brother, or dad, or grandpa. So you may call me by most anything as long as it's not late for the rapture! ;-)
Blessings ><>
To CR and ADP: The key distinction in Kevin's reasoning is not so much whether homosexual behavior deserves stricter scrutiny than, say, tax evasion, drunkenness, covetousness, etc. The difference is that the ELCA action declares that homosexual behavior is not sinful at all. I've not heard any serious claims that persistent drunkenness should be celebrated as a beautiful gift of God, or that willful tax evasion is the Lord's will for our life, etc. The ELCA action is a deliberate and carefully considered distortion of millenia of Biblical teaching. As such, this situation does seem analogous to the RCA's stance against the white South African church's embrace of apartheid.
To Lee De Young and others: If the RCA would have followed the logic of your arguement, it would have never cut off its relationship with the South African church. A few people had the courage to say that apartheid, which was strongly believed by many to have millenia of biblical support, was wrong. More than a few good people believe the church over the centuries has erred in its attitude towards those identified as homosexual. It wouldn't be the first time or the last time that the church has been wrong.
Richard,
Do you mean to say that with God all things are Not possible? The Lord speaks clearly that "you must be born again." There are thousands set free from a homosexual lifestyle thru Jesus Christ - go to Exodus International. And please reread 1Corinthians 6:9-11, tho tempted in many ways Christians are no longer captive of a sinful lifestyle; no longer "sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men (nor women) who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers."
Blessings <><
Did anyone happen to notice the news stories that at the very time that the ELCA was considering this position, a tornado rather suddenly came upon the meeting place area and prompltly toppled the steeple of the host ELCA church building? This tornado came from a storm that no weather forecast anticipated being capable of producing severe weather. I don't know if every weather calamity can be blamed on God's judgment, but I did find this story, if not divine, at least ironic.
Since alcoholics have been named in a few posts, let me join the discussion. There is a ton of misunderstaning and debate regarding sin, alcoholism, alcohol abuse, and the exegesis of some of the texts that have been sited. Attitudes regarding the presence of alcoholics in the church can be very negative. From personal experience self pity is dangerous as the alcoholic moans about 'mean' people in the church vs. those who show insight and tact. It could even be said that the more 'sympathic types' are the biggest threat to the life of a practicing alcoholic. As a recovering person I have been joyfully encouaged in my pastoral role. I fully expect that if I returned to drinking that the privilege of being active in pastoral ministry would be removed. This would be the pastoral, wise, and loving thing to do. It is not God's will for me to drink, and it really is as simple as that.
Inj response to the very first reader comment at the top, which suggests that we use the Formula of Agreement to address the ELCA, rather than cut off communion, all I can say is that we've been there and done that, to no avail. It was precisely to address the erring United Church of Christ that the Classis of Passaic Valley, at the end of the 1990's, overtured the General Synod to confront the UCC concerning their unscriptural practice regarding practicing homosexuals. A two or three dialogue was set up in response to that overture, and all that was accomplished was that the two denominations are in full communion in 2009, have agreed to disagree agreeably on the issue of homosexual practice, and the witness of the Reformed Church in America is compromised by an ungodly association with a severely erring denomination .
Dear Ned: Thanks for your input. Dialogue is very important in coming to an understanding as to what we believe as Christians. Just because the dialogue between the RCA and the United Church has not produced the kind of results you would like to see does not means the talks were in vain. And don't worry about getting your hands a little dirty; the blood of Jesus will take care of that.
Just as long as the RCA (you and I and hopefully the rest of these bloggers) remain true to it's calling by God to be the Church reforming according to the Word of God there will be results and fruit that lasts to eternal life. The children of Israel wandering in the desert is a good example of a generation that failed to trust God and His Word and missed out what the next generation possessed. Keep loving God and His Word and your neighbour will be affected. Just don't stop loving him.
KD
Mick,
Of course I believe that with God all things are possible! Who I am and where I am today was unthinkable 30+ years ago. Just a couple of years ago I thought that I would never see the day when an African American would be elected President of the United States. And I never imagined that we would have a President who is a Chicago White Sox fan!! But, with God, all things are possible. I can't say that many of the comments on this blog fill me with hope that one day we'll look back and wonder why we thought we needed to send those we call homosexuals away to be de-homosexualized. What the Lutherans did was just another step toward that day. I believe that because with God all things are possible.
Richard,
I hear in your words a strong belief that God is all powerful and able to overcome any form of human oppression and sin- I agree. What I don’t know is where you find the foundation for this hope. What gives you such steadfast confidence that God has chosen to finally allow creation to choose it’s own sexual path (I assume scripture, but could you flush that out). Also, would you go beyond homosexual relationships and advocate for humans living as any gender (regardless of the one given at birth) OR are there some limitations on our sexuality?
A fellow servant,
Jeremy V
Jeremy,
Human beings must have a need to exclude and exclusion is a part of my/our faith story. A man is walking on the Jericho road and is beaten up. Religious leaders pass by him but an excluded one, a samaritan, stops to help. The excluded is the neighbor.
Jesus is explaining the meaning of his life, suffering and death while his disciples are....arguing amongst themselves who of them will be first, (an obvious act of exclusion which keeps them from missing what is really important at that moment). The early part of the book of Acts is about excluding the Gentiles. Paul addresses those who want to exclude Jews in his lettter to the Romans. The story of the exclusion of African American aka slaves is an awful story in American church history. The exclusion of women from leadership in the church for almost forever is another example.
.
For me, homosexuality is just another chapter in this story. There has been ample biblical support given to support all of these exclusions. (well, I guess not for who will be first in the kingdom!) I've chosen to not exclude.
Richard,
I'll grant you that Jesus, Paul and others "included" people who the powerful of the day rejected (although, I'd base it on the gospel), but what do you do when Jesus and Paul excluded people? Your logic seems to say that Jesus and Paul never excluded anyone, thus we must now follow a trajectory of inclusion. So, is there ever a time to exclude people? In addition, would you be willing to define a boundary, or do you think Scripture provides a boundary, on human sexuality (as asked in my first question) or are we free to make any decision (for example, if Steve wants to be Susan... is that OK)?
Jeremy
I'm beginning to feel a bit like Jesus (never thought I'd say that!) with your questions. "So, is there ever a time to exclude people?" I begin wondering if a trap is being set and it matters not what my answer might be.
"Would I be willing to define a boundry?" You seem more concerned about boundries than I am and certainly "the gospel". Is there a boundry, a fence that we can put around love? grace? mercy? generosity? peacemaking? forgiveness? The question I ask myself isn't, "Have I gone too far?" (Am I suppose to forgive 7x?) but rather "Have I gone far enough?"
The NT religious leaders were always asking about boundries. Jesus doesn't get into a boundry dispute with them. He points to the Kingdom/the reign of God and seems to do this more descriptively then prescriptively.
Richard,
No trap my friend...
I’m looking to see if you live in the boundaries set by Scripture or if you have removed all forms of the Word’s guidance. I’m not interested in creating boundaries for anyone, but as a servant of Christ I am called to uphold the boundaries HE has set in the Word. Also, it’s easy to throw out a statement like, “The NT religious leaders were always asking about boundaries. Jesus doesn't get into a boundary dispute with them.” and insinuate that I’m acting as a Pharisee. My aim is never formalism or religious observation; rather, I aim to (through the Holy Spirit) have people submit their lives to the reign and rule of Christ, as set out in Scripture for His glory and their joy. Homosexuality, the topic here, is clearly an issue addressed in the teaching of Scripture (thus, I’m not creating a boundary). In addition, the Kingdom of God spreads when people come under the reign and rule of Christ; this naturally implies that some boundaries are now in place (in direct opposition to their previous life not under the reign and rule of Christ).
My question about the freedom of human sexuality was a way to gauge the consistency of your worldview. It’s a rather honest and straightforward question seeking to see what limits you put on “grace” (because God, Moses, Abraham, the Prophets, Jesus, Paul, and others expressed a point of no return). Again, this is not an attempt to be quarrelsome; I seriously want to see the logical outworking of your understanding of grace, sin, redemption and forgiveness.
So, does grace abound (I’m not asking if it’s forgivable…I’m asking if she should repent or be allowed to remain as she wishes) when Jane becomes John?
A fellow servant,
Jeremy V
Friends,
We are clearly not on the same page nor of the same mind. Same-sex unions - and also abortion - directly oppose God's first command to those created in His image, male and female. Genesis 1:28a, "And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth'." Many, including our President, declare themselves as "devout" Christians but seemingly "know not the Scriptures" or (do i dare ask?) care not what the Scriptures say.
Blessings <><
I'd agree with Kevin on this one. It doesn't seem wise to be in full union with a group that is taking a major step way from a stance that the RCA has long affirmed, despite struggle, pain and frustration. This hasn't been an easy "no-brainer" for our denomination, but we've consistently decided that homosexual unions are sinful.
I don't have much to add archeologically, but let me share an experience...
At this past Synod I sat in on one of the Room for All sessions just to listen and learn. As I sat there at Hope College, my alma mater, I remembered my crass, gay-bashing days as a frat boy. I wasn't violent, but I was consistently course and vulgar. I look back on those days with self-loathing and remorse. I was sinning and I'm very glad that the Lord brought me to repentance.
I think we can all agree that my rude jokes and course language, especially at the expense of people of different sexual orientation, was a sin. If I hadn't changed, I should never be allowed to exercise leadership in Christ's church. Instead I should be under loving, biblical discipline.
I would vote to break ties with any group that allowed an openly gay-bashing homophobe continue in the ministry. Its a sin, its damaging to the community and it doesn't represent God's best as He redeems the world.
In the same way, we need to break ties with groups that allow unrepentant homosexuals to be in church leadership. As has been said before, this is inconsistent with the Gospel and with out long-established stance.
(A great resource is a book by Richard Lovelace written years ago when his denomination struggled with this issue: http://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-How-Should-Christians-Respond/dp/1579109519/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252007668&sr=8-7)
-Tim Schaaf
tim@cgschurch.com