The beliefs and values of each side render the other side under severe condemnation. This is not simply theoretical. LGBTQ inclusion has led to splits in three major denominations already: The Anglican Church in North America formed Dec. 3, 2008, splitting from The Episcopal Church (U.S.A.). The North American Lutheran Church organized Aug. 27, 2010, after the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted in 2009 to allow gays and lesbians in same-sex relationships to be ordained. In May 2011, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) allowed those in same-sex partnerships to be ordained ministers. The following January, a new denomination organized, now called ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians.

[As I Was Saying is a forum for a variety of perspectives to foster faith-related conversations among our readers with the goal of mutual learning, even in disagreement. Apart from articles written by editorial staff, these perspectives do not necessarily reflect the views of The Banner.]

By now you have heard many arguments on LGBTQ matters. You have likely been present in some discussions and heated debates surrounding civil same-sex marriages as well as LGBTQ inclusion in church life. Society has made up its mind. The church is still responding.

This will not be another argument for LGBTQ rights (the “inclusive” position) or biblical marriage (the “traditional” position). The truth of the matter is that the two positions are fundamentally incompatible. The conversation needs to shift from trying to convince each other to a pragmatic discussion of where we go from here.

The Christian Reformed Church currently holds what is sometimes called the traditional position or biblical marriage. A group called All One Body is advocating for the CRC to adopt an inclusive position. A study committee is due to produce a comprehensive report on sexuality in 2021.

A fellow CRC minister once asked me why I would make such a big deal about this topic, because, no matter what, my congregation is not going to change their mind. Why can’t we just let local congregations decide and agree to disagree? The CRC took the agree-to-disagree route on ordaining women to the offices of minister and elder in the 1990s. After a long showdown over many synods, Synod 1995 decided there were two valid biblical positions on the topic and that we can agree to disagree.

But LGBTQ sexuality is not women in office. I’ve heard many people say the two issues are connected, but they are in different categories. The Free Methodist Church and Wesleyan Church have ordained women for 150 years, yet my minister friends in those denominations tell me they have no calls for changes in sexual boundaries. The same Calvin Seminary professor who wrote a book on the two valid biblical positions on women in office says same-sex relations are not alike. “The issues are very different,” said Professor John Cooper in Calvin Seminary’s Forum (Fall 2015). “One is about the church order, the other about the moral order.”

The inclusive position and the traditional position come from two very different theological systems. Listening to each position is like listening not to two different ball games but two different sports. The inspiration of Scripture has very different meanings. “Love” seems to have two different definitions. But one of the most critical differences seems to be the concept of identity in Christ.

One view says LGBTQ is a basic human identity to be embraced in Christ and celebrate the sexuality that God gave them. The other view says LGBTQ is a case of mistaken identity to be yielded in Christ and celebrate the new identity in Christ that God gave them.

One side says LGBTQ is an identity of the good created order that God has made. The other says LGBTQ is an identity of the fallen (dis)order, not the way it’s supposed to be. This difference on identity seems to be the most pivotal control belief. Whether you attribute LGBTQ to the good creation or sinful brokenness makes all the difference for scriptural interpretation and understanding of God’s will. From this starting point, each view is inherently offensive to the other that precludes harmonious fellowship.

For example, if it is the case that LGBTQ is a basic identity, while I as a pastor preach and counsel that LGBTQ people cannot act according to who they are in Christ, then I am not simply being insensitive. I am tying up heavy loads for the shoulders of others. I am shutting the kingdom of heaven in the faces of others. I am a Pharisee. I am one of those to whom the Bible says, “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” (Matthew 23:33)

Perhaps we are all Pharisees to some extent, acting contrary to our stated beliefs or adding unnecessary rules. But there is a difference between someone who is a humble Pharisee who wants to change and a confident Pharisee who stands on his or her own truth and claims it’s God’s.

On the other side, if it is the case that LGBTQ is mistaken identity to be surrendered in Christ, while I as a pastor preach and counsel those who identify as LGBTQ to embrace what they ought to surrender, then I am not simply mistaken. I am like the false teachers who “entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error” (2 Peter 2:18), for whom “the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved” (2 Peter 2:17).

Read More