Tn the August issue of THE OUTLOOK the editor, Rev. John Vander Ploeg, addressed three questions to the members of the Synod of 1973, the editors of The Banner and De Wachter, and members of the synodical study committee on homosexuality. These questions are significant and basic to the pastoral statements adopted by Synod.
Such responsible and careful discussion may help communicate to the Church what the Synod did and did not say. Decisions of synod, particularly decisions of pastoral advice, have little or no value unless they become a part of the thinking and life of the church.
The three questions posed by the editor were:
1. “Where is the evidence for the basic assumption that homosexuality is ‘constitutional’ rather than something acquired and cultivated?”
2. “On what ground may the Christian Reformed Church officially absolve the homosexual from responsibility for his condition?”
3. “On what ground could the study committee responsibly advise, and Synod then responsibly pronounce, that the homosexual must also be made eligible for the office of minister, elder, and deacon in the church?”
The first statement of pastoral advice made by Synod was: “Homosexuality (male and female) is a condition of disordered sexuality which reflects the brokenness of our sinful world and (or which the homosexual may [italics added] himself bear only minimal responsibility.”
The report to Synod on homosexuality (although not the pastoral statements adopted by Synod), does use the word “constitutional,” perhaps unfortunately, for it has given rise to misunderstanding. The report did not mean to imply that homosexuality is, as far as can now be determined, a condition with which a person is born and about which he can do nothing. Some few medical studies suggest that there may be a genetic and thus innate factor which makes it more likely that some children grow up to be homosexuals than others. However, such studies arc inconclusive and the weight of medical evidence is on the side of environmental factors. The reports says quite explicitly (Acts of Synod, 1973, p. 613) that most medical research agrees that it is mainly a learned condition but usually learned at a very early age. For example, a child may be encouraged by those about him to identify himself sexually with those of the opposite sex. A four-year old girl may begin to think of herself as boyish and masculine, partly as a result of the way persons in her family treat her. There may well be some choice involved on her part for she accepts the messages that others are giving her about who she is. However, at such an early age she does not understand what are the possible consequences of such sexual identification with boys rather than girls.
Sexuality and sexual identity are a significant part of the human personality, as Genesis 1:27. But a child is not born knowing that she is male or female. She learns this from the way others speak to her, dress her, and react to her. This begins at the time pink ribbons are tied to the bassinet. Such information of the personality becomes ingrained, even though it is learned, and therefore “constitutional” in the first sense that Webster defines it: belonging to the structure of body or mind; as a constitutional infirmity.
The report is quite in agreement with Dr. Charles Young, quoted in the August editorial of THE OUTLOOK, “I am persuaded that homosexuality is a learned condition . . . .”
Therefore, the committee was careful to say: “Whether a person becomes homosexual because of some innate condition or because of his early environment and his response to this environment, or because of a combination o( these, the fact is he is not responsible insofar for his resulting condition” [italics added]. And Synod was careful to say in the statements of pastoral advice adopted: “Homosexuality (male and female) is a condition of disordered sexuality which reflects the brokenness of our sinful world and for which the homosexual may [italics added] himself hear only a minimal responsibility.” Neither the report nor Synod absolved all homosexuals from any responsibility for their condition.
Although the responsibility in some instances may be minimal, in other instances it may be considerably greater. The report says on the same page, again in agreement with Dr. Young: “there are those with mixed homosexual-heterosexual drives who may have encouraged their homosexuality by willful choice and insofar bear responsibility for their condition.”
Why then the stress on the responsibility of the individual for explicit homosexual practice (homosexualism) rather than the responsibility for his or her condition? There are several reasons. First and foremost, this is where Scripture lays the stress. It may accurately be said that the Scriptures never speak of the condition any more than they speak of anemia or alcoholism. The Scripture does speak explicitly about homosexual practice (statement No.2, Acts, p. 632) and “condemns it as incompatible with obedience to the will of God . . . .”
Secondly, the statements adopted by Synod were pastoral advice to the churches and to Christians. How must the church in the name of Christ address the person who, for whatever reasons and with whatever measure of personal responsibility, now finds himself with such a structured personality that he is sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, either primarily or exclusively? Synod has advised the churches, Say to them: do not give assent to your sexual urges and engage in homosexual practice (Statement No.3). If you do sin this way. know the grace of God’s forgiveness and the power of his renewal (Statement No.4). We offer you the support, encouragement, and fellowship of the church in your struggle with temptation (Statement No. 5). Seek all the means available to you as may change your condition and we assure you of our love and support in such endeavor (Statement No.6). It may be. as has been the experience of many Christians who have engaged in therapy to alter this malformation of their sexual drive, that you cannot be healed and must accept the permanent limitation of this disordered condition. If so, we say to you in the name of Christ, no less than to any other Christian, we love you and accept you as one of God’s children and we call you to the life of discipleship so that you use the gifts God has given you in the cause of his kingdom (Statements 6 and 7).
Also, and importantly, you must not confuse temptation and sin. Because you find yourself sexually attracted to persons of the same sex as yourself, you must not think of yourself as condemned or perverse, despairing of the grace of Christ for you. You and we do not always control how and by what we are tempted. Our Lord, too, had to wrestle with and agonize over powerful temptations to disobey His Father—but he did not sin in being tempted.
You must know that being strongly attracted sexually to another person is not per se sinful even when the satisfaction of that sexual attraction with that person would be sinful. Sin comes, as James tells liS (James 1:12-15) when desire conceives, when we say yes to that attraction in the deed or in the fantasy of our mind, even by keeping it an open option with which we mentally play around. The statement of Jesus that whoever “looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matt. 5:27), must be understood in the light of the rest of the Scripture and not interpreted in such a way that temptation itself becomes sinful, for that would question the sinlessness of our Lord “who in every respect has been tempted as we are” (Heb. 4:15).
You must not think that temptation arising out of your sexual drive condemns you and then despair of the only thing that can help you to live Christianly—the grace of God in Christ. Nor does such temptation prevent you from serving in the offices of the church when qualified by the gifts of the Spirit, for He will not let you be tempted beyond what you are able to bear (Statement No. 7).
REPLY TO DR. HUGEN
JOHN VANDER PLOEG
The 1973 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church made a pronouncement on homosexuality about which there has been and, I believe, continues to be no small measure of deep concern. In the August issue of THE OUTLOOK I editorialized about this matter and posed three questions to those who favored that decision by Synod.
In making a reply to that editorial Dr. Melvin D. Hugen, professor of pastoral counseling at Calvin Seminary and also a member of the committee that drew up the report for Synod on homosexuality, in his article that precedes my reply, correctly repeats the three questions I asked so that they are now before the reader. About his reply to my questions I wish to make the following observations.
Let me begin by expressing genuine appreciation that Dr. Hugen has been willing to take it upon himself to give a reply. The questions were addressed specifically to the editors of both The Banner and De Wachter (both of whom had looked with favor on Synod’s decision), to the members of the Study Committee, and to the delegates at the 1973 CRC Synod who voted in favor of the decision on homosexuals. I stated in the August editorial:
“Please be assured that the questions here posed are being asked in good faith and with genuine concern, and also that we shall try to be open-minded with respect to any answers that may be forthcoming in the pages of THE OUTLOOK or elsewhere.”
To the best of my knowledge Dr. Hugen is the only one who has seen fit to reply except for one minister-delegate to Synod, who told me in the presence of several others at a meeting that he had voted in favor of the decision and that my questions were not worthy of an answer.
Dr. Hugen, it may be added, speaks only for himself because, as he informed me, the Study Committee of which he was a member is no longer in existence. Other members of the committee were Rev. Ralph Heynen (chairman), Rev. Clarence Boomsma (secretary), Dr. Robert Baker, Hudson Nyenhuis and Dr. Henry Stob. In my judgment, these men owe it not just to me but to the Christian Reformed Church to reply to the questions addressed to them or else to tell us why these questions do not deserve such recognition consideration. Instructions were given to see to it that all members of the committee as well as the editors of our two church papers would receive a copy of the August issue of THE OUTLOOK and it is difficult to believe therefore that the editorial with its questions did not come to their attention. Any further replies from them, even at this late date, will still be welcome.
In distinction from the high-handed rebuff from the minister who said that my questions were not worthy of an answer, the following comments of Dr. Hugen are appreciated: “These questions are significant and basic to the pastoral statements adopted by Synod. Such responsible and careful discussion may help communicate to the church what the Synod did and did not say. Decisions of Synod, particularly decisions of pastoral advice, have little or no value unless they become a part of the thinking and life of the church.” So, thank you Dr. Hugen for not choosing simply to ignore my questions, but rather addressing yourself to them in that spirit.
Permit me now to reply to Dr. Hugen’s response to the questions of the editorial in the order that they appeared.
1. Question number one in the editorial was stated as follows: “Where is the evidence for the basic assumption that homosexuality is ‘constitutional’ rather than something acquired or cultivated? No evidence from Scripture is given for this basic assumption in the report. Fact of the matter is, the study committee states, ‘Paul does not make the kind of distinction we have made earlier between homosexualism’” (Agenda 1973, p. 485).
Observations about Dr. Hugen’s reply:
a. First, Dr. Hugen is obviously not too pleased now with the committee’s use of the term “constitutional.” He states that the term was used “perhaps unfortunately, for it has given rise to misunderstanding.” He goes on to say: “The report did not mean to imply that homosexuality is, as far as can now be determined, a condition with which a person is born and about which he can do nothing.” He calls attention also to the fact that the term “constitutional” is not found in the pasetoral statements adopted by Synod even though it is in the Study committee’s report.
Reply:
(1) The question is whether the report actually does speak of homosexuality as something innate or only as learned or acquired condition. Dr. Hugen obviously wishes to stress the latter as the intent of the report. But that the innate element is not excluded seems evident from the following:
(a) The report states about non-practicing homosexuals: “They are homosexuals, that is, they are constitutionally (by either biological or psychological conditions or both ) predisposed to homosexuality, but do not engage in homosexualism” (1973 Acts, p. 613).
(b) Again the report: “The general opinion tends to play down genetic factors, but that it may have an inherited basis cannot be completely eliminated” (p.613).
(c) Once more from the report: “We have learned from the sciences [italics added] that homosexuality often is a condition which is rooted deeply in biological and psychological aberrations that create a disorder for which the individual call be held only partly responsible, if at all” (po 623).
(2) Dr. Hugen quotes Webster’s dictionary, evidently with the intent to have it prove that “constitutional” refers to something learned rather something innate. But my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1973 edition) gives the following as the first meaning of constitutional: “relating to, inherent in, or affecting the constitution or body or mind.” That would seem to make the term refer either to something innate or acquired.
b. Dr. Hugen states: “The report says quite explicitly (Acts of Synod 1973, p. 613) that most medical research agrees that it [homosexuality] is mainly a learned condition but usually learned at a very early age.” But notice that Dr. Hugen does not say that this is the position that the committee advocates in its report even though his statement here could easily leave that impression.
The fact is that the report introduces such terms as “constitutional,” “biological,” and “innate” and thus gives warrant for the conclusion that the committee would have us believe that homosexuality may well be something more than just an acquired or learned condition.
Note once again the following statement from the report: “Whether a person becomes homosexual because of some innate condition [italics added] or because of his early environment, or because of a combination of these, the fact is he is not responsible insofar for his resulting homosexuality” (Acts 1973, p. 613).
A reconsideration of the report in the light of what Dr. Hugen has written leads me to recognize and acknowledge that in speaking of homosexuality as “constitutional” the committee meant to say that they regard it as something acquired through environmental factors as well as or perhaps even more then, something innate. But, from my reading of the report, it nevertheless seems impossible to exclude the latter from what they say. In view of this, in my judgment, the first question asking for evidence (preferably from Scripture) that homosexuality is “constitutional” still goes begging for an answer.
2. Question number two in my editorial was the following: “On what ground may the CRC officially absolve the homosexual from irresponsibility for his condition?” The editorial went on to say:
“Is that what Synod did? To be precise, Synod adopted the following as its first statement of pastoral advice for the churches: ‘Homosexuality (male and female) is a condition of disordered sexuality which reflects the brokenness of our sinful world and for which the homosexual may himself bear only a minimal responsibility” (italics added).
Observations about Dr. Hugen’s reply:
a. I do have difficulty with Dr. Hugen’s reasoning when he writes:
“The report is quite in agreement with Dr. Charles Young, quoted in the August editorial of THE OUTLOOK, ‘I am persuaded that homosexuality is a learned condition . . . .’”
But then he goes on immediately to add: “Therefore, the committee was careful to say ‘Whether a person becomes homosexual because of some innate condition or because of his early environment and his response to this environment, or because of a combination of these, the fact is he is not responsible insofar for his resulting condition’” [italics added].
The report, says Dr. Hugen, agrees with Dr. Young “that homosexuality is a learned condition . . .” If this is the case, how does one arrive at the conclusion that the homosexual is therefore insofar not responsible for his condition? Are we not responsible for any condition we have learned, whether it be homosexuality, drug addiction, alcoholism, or kleptomania?
b. But suppose it to be true for a moment, that the homosexual’s condition is something innate, that he is born that way, would this not absolve him of responsibility? But if we concede that, what then becomes of the responsibility of all the rest of us for the original sin (guilt and pollution) in which we have all been conceived and born?
Before accepting any such assumption with respect to the homosexual, let’s first stop to count the cost. The heterosexual, because he too has been conceived and born in sin, also has a sinful nature that inclines him to immorality, adultery, and fornication. But even though he is born that way, is he himself not fully responsible for that condition? The sinful urges and tendencies with which we are born are moral in character and are not to be confused with congenital ailments (for example, a congenital heart defect) that are physical in character.
c. I am puzzled also by Dr. Hugen’s reasoning that he seeks to base on James 1:12–15. He writes:
“Also, and importantly, you must not confuse temptation and sin. Because you find yourself sexually attracted to persons of the same sex as yourself, you must not think of yourself as condemned or perverse, despairing of the grace of Christ for you . . . You must know that being strongly attracted sexually to another person is not per se sinful even when the satisfaction of that sexual attraction with that person would be sinful. Sin comes, as James tells us Jas. 1:12–15) when desire conceives, when we say yes to that attraction in the deed or in the fantasy of our mind, even by keeping it an open option with which we mentally play around.”
Obviously this means that the homosexual “desire” can be present but that it remains sinless as long as it does not come to expression in an outward act and is not kept as “an open option with which we mentally play around.” But the homosexual desire, like every other sinful desire, is sinful at its very inception, regardless of how much or how little rein one may give to it, To suppose that the homosexual desire can be present in any sense without its being sinful is to fail to trace this sin to its very roots in the sinful human heart.
d. Equally puzzling or baffling is Dr. Hugen’s statement about the temptations of our Lord. He writes:
“The statement of Jesus that whoever ‘looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart’ (Matt. 5:27) must be understood in the light of the rest of the Scripture and not interpreted in such a way that temptation itself becomes sinful, for that would question the sinlessness of our Lord ‘who in every respect has been tempted as we are’” (Heb. 4:15).
Just what light the rest of Scripture sheds on Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:27 in relation to the subject now under discussion Dr, Hugen does not say. But, when Dr. Hugen places the homosexual being tempted in his sinful state on the same line with Jesus( the second or last Adam) being tempted in His sinless state, we must demur. Our Lord, who became like unto us in all things, sin excepted, even in His temptations had an immunity to sin that neither homosexuals nor any of the rcst of us can claim. Dr. Hugen’s analogy is simply not relevant here.
For a discussion of the temptations of our Lord, so difficult to comprehend, the reader may consult with profit the section on this by the late Professor Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology, page 338.
I can only conclude that also the question about the church absolving the homosexual of responsibility, to the extent that it does this, still goes begging for an answer.
3. Question number three in my editorial reads as follows: “On what ground could the study committee responsibly advise, and Synod then responsibly pronounce that the homosexual must also be made eligible for the office of minister, elder, and deacon in the church?”
The editorial went on to say: “Did Synod really say that? Here it is: ‘By the same token, churches should recognize that their homosexual members are fellow servants of Christ who are to be given opportunity to render within the offices [italics added] and structures of the congregation the same service that is expected from heterosexuals.’”
In his response to this, Dr. Hugen does no more than simply restate the decision Synod took with respect to it. Obviously then, this question also still goes begging for its answer. There seems reason to believe then that the CRC Synod of 1973 made a pronouncement on a by no means insignificant matter, something very much in the news also of church life today, without having satisfactory and adequate grounds for what it took upon itself to say.
We can hope and pray that a future CRC Synod will be led to reconsider and also renounce or else drastically alter the decision taken by the Synod of 1973. To be sure, there must be sympathy, love, understanding, and the assurance of pardon for the homosexual who sincerely repents and looks to Christ for his deliverance. But, in a day such as ours, when practicing homosexuals are boldly and brazenly identifying themselves and also demanding social acceptance, the call to repentance must also be written large and made very prominent in any pronouncement made by the CRC or any other body that calls itself a church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Such responsible and careful discussion may help communicate to the Church what the Synod did and did not say. Decisions of synod, particularly decisions of pastoral advice, have little or no value unless they become a part of the thinking and life of the church.
The three questions posed by the editor were:
1. “Where is the evidence for the basic assumption that homosexuality is ‘constitutional’ rather than something acquired and cultivated?”
2. “On what ground may the Christian Reformed Church officially absolve the homosexual from responsibility for his condition?”
3. “On what ground could the study committee responsibly advise, and Synod then responsibly pronounce, that the homosexual must also be made eligible for the office of minister, elder, and deacon in the church?”
The first statement of pastoral advice made by Synod was: “Homosexuality (male and female) is a condition of disordered sexuality which reflects the brokenness of our sinful world and (or which the homosexual may [italics added] himself bear only minimal responsibility.”
The report to Synod on homosexuality (although not the pastoral statements adopted by Synod), does use the word “constitutional,” perhaps unfortunately, for it has given rise to misunderstanding. The report did not mean to imply that homosexuality is, as far as can now be determined, a condition with which a person is born and about which he can do nothing. Some few medical studies suggest that there may be a genetic and thus innate factor which makes it more likely that some children grow up to be homosexuals than others. However, such studies arc inconclusive and the weight of medical evidence is on the side of environmental factors. The reports says quite explicitly (Acts of Synod, 1973, p. 613) that most medical research agrees that it is mainly a learned condition but usually learned at a very early age. For example, a child may be encouraged by those about him to identify himself sexually with those of the opposite sex. A four-year old girl may begin to think of herself as boyish and masculine, partly as a result of the way persons in her family treat her. There may well be some choice involved on her part for she accepts the messages that others are giving her about who she is. However, at such an early age she does not understand what are the possible consequences of such sexual identification with boys rather than girls.
Sexuality and sexual identity are a significant part of the human personality, as Genesis 1:27. But a child is not born knowing that she is male or female. She learns this from the way others speak to her, dress her, and react to her. This begins at the time pink ribbons are tied to the bassinet. Such information of the personality becomes ingrained, even though it is learned, and therefore “constitutional” in the first sense that Webster defines it: belonging to the structure of body or mind; as a constitutional infirmity.
The report is quite in agreement with Dr. Charles Young, quoted in the August editorial of THE OUTLOOK, “I am persuaded that homosexuality is a learned condition . . . .”
Therefore, the committee was careful to say: “Whether a person becomes homosexual because of some innate condition or because of his early environment and his response to this environment, or because of a combination o( these, the fact is he is not responsible insofar for his resulting condition” [italics added]. And Synod was careful to say in the statements of pastoral advice adopted: “Homosexuality (male and female) is a condition of disordered sexuality which reflects the brokenness of our sinful world and for which the homosexual may [italics added] himself hear only a minimal responsibility.” Neither the report nor Synod absolved all homosexuals from any responsibility for their condition.
Although the responsibility in some instances may be minimal, in other instances it may be considerably greater. The report says on the same page, again in agreement with Dr. Young: “there are those with mixed homosexual-heterosexual drives who may have encouraged their homosexuality by willful choice and insofar bear responsibility for their condition.”
Why then the stress on the responsibility of the individual for explicit homosexual practice (homosexualism) rather than the responsibility for his or her condition? There are several reasons. First and foremost, this is where Scripture lays the stress. It may accurately be said that the Scriptures never speak of the condition any more than they speak of anemia or alcoholism. The Scripture does speak explicitly about homosexual practice (statement No.2, Acts, p. 632) and “condemns it as incompatible with obedience to the will of God . . . .”
Secondly, the statements adopted by Synod were pastoral advice to the churches and to Christians. How must the church in the name of Christ address the person who, for whatever reasons and with whatever measure of personal responsibility, now finds himself with such a structured personality that he is sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, either primarily or exclusively? Synod has advised the churches, Say to them: do not give assent to your sexual urges and engage in homosexual practice (Statement No.3). If you do sin this way. know the grace of God’s forgiveness and the power of his renewal (Statement No.4). We offer you the support, encouragement, and fellowship of the church in your struggle with temptation (Statement No. 5). Seek all the means available to you as may change your condition and we assure you of our love and support in such endeavor (Statement No.6). It may be. as has been the experience of many Christians who have engaged in therapy to alter this malformation of their sexual drive, that you cannot be healed and must accept the permanent limitation of this disordered condition. If so, we say to you in the name of Christ, no less than to any other Christian, we love you and accept you as one of God’s children and we call you to the life of discipleship so that you use the gifts God has given you in the cause of his kingdom (Statements 6 and 7).
Also, and importantly, you must not confuse temptation and sin. Because you find yourself sexually attracted to persons of the same sex as yourself, you must not think of yourself as condemned or perverse, despairing of the grace of Christ for you. You and we do not always control how and by what we are tempted. Our Lord, too, had to wrestle with and agonize over powerful temptations to disobey His Father—but he did not sin in being tempted.
You must know that being strongly attracted sexually to another person is not per se sinful even when the satisfaction of that sexual attraction with that person would be sinful. Sin comes, as James tells liS (James 1:12-15) when desire conceives, when we say yes to that attraction in the deed or in the fantasy of our mind, even by keeping it an open option with which we mentally play around. The statement of Jesus that whoever “looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matt. 5:27), must be understood in the light of the rest of the Scripture and not interpreted in such a way that temptation itself becomes sinful, for that would question the sinlessness of our Lord “who in every respect has been tempted as we are” (Heb. 4:15).
You must not think that temptation arising out of your sexual drive condemns you and then despair of the only thing that can help you to live Christianly—the grace of God in Christ. Nor does such temptation prevent you from serving in the offices of the church when qualified by the gifts of the Spirit, for He will not let you be tempted beyond what you are able to bear (Statement No. 7).
REPLY TO DR. HUGEN
JOHN VANDER PLOEG
The 1973 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church made a pronouncement on homosexuality about which there has been and, I believe, continues to be no small measure of deep concern. In the August issue of THE OUTLOOK I editorialized about this matter and posed three questions to those who favored that decision by Synod.
In making a reply to that editorial Dr. Melvin D. Hugen, professor of pastoral counseling at Calvin Seminary and also a member of the committee that drew up the report for Synod on homosexuality, in his article that precedes my reply, correctly repeats the three questions I asked so that they are now before the reader. About his reply to my questions I wish to make the following observations.
Let me begin by expressing genuine appreciation that Dr. Hugen has been willing to take it upon himself to give a reply. The questions were addressed specifically to the editors of both The Banner and De Wachter (both of whom had looked with favor on Synod’s decision), to the members of the Study Committee, and to the delegates at the 1973 CRC Synod who voted in favor of the decision on homosexuals. I stated in the August editorial:
“Please be assured that the questions here posed are being asked in good faith and with genuine concern, and also that we shall try to be open-minded with respect to any answers that may be forthcoming in the pages of THE OUTLOOK or elsewhere.”
To the best of my knowledge Dr. Hugen is the only one who has seen fit to reply except for one minister-delegate to Synod, who told me in the presence of several others at a meeting that he had voted in favor of the decision and that my questions were not worthy of an answer.
Dr. Hugen, it may be added, speaks only for himself because, as he informed me, the Study Committee of which he was a member is no longer in existence. Other members of the committee were Rev. Ralph Heynen (chairman), Rev. Clarence Boomsma (secretary), Dr. Robert Baker, Hudson Nyenhuis and Dr. Henry Stob. In my judgment, these men owe it not just to me but to the Christian Reformed Church to reply to the questions addressed to them or else to tell us why these questions do not deserve such recognition consideration. Instructions were given to see to it that all members of the committee as well as the editors of our two church papers would receive a copy of the August issue of THE OUTLOOK and it is difficult to believe therefore that the editorial with its questions did not come to their attention. Any further replies from them, even at this late date, will still be welcome.
In distinction from the high-handed rebuff from the minister who said that my questions were not worthy of an answer, the following comments of Dr. Hugen are appreciated: “These questions are significant and basic to the pastoral statements adopted by Synod. Such responsible and careful discussion may help communicate to the church what the Synod did and did not say. Decisions of Synod, particularly decisions of pastoral advice, have little or no value unless they become a part of the thinking and life of the church.” So, thank you Dr. Hugen for not choosing simply to ignore my questions, but rather addressing yourself to them in that spirit.
Permit me now to reply to Dr. Hugen’s response to the questions of the editorial in the order that they appeared.
1. Question number one in the editorial was stated as follows: “Where is the evidence for the basic assumption that homosexuality is ‘constitutional’ rather than something acquired or cultivated? No evidence from Scripture is given for this basic assumption in the report. Fact of the matter is, the study committee states, ‘Paul does not make the kind of distinction we have made earlier between homosexualism’” (Agenda 1973, p. 485).
Observations about Dr. Hugen’s reply:
a. First, Dr. Hugen is obviously not too pleased now with the committee’s use of the term “constitutional.” He states that the term was used “perhaps unfortunately, for it has given rise to misunderstanding.” He goes on to say: “The report did not mean to imply that homosexuality is, as far as can now be determined, a condition with which a person is born and about which he can do nothing.” He calls attention also to the fact that the term “constitutional” is not found in the pasetoral statements adopted by Synod even though it is in the Study committee’s report.
Reply:
(1) The question is whether the report actually does speak of homosexuality as something innate or only as learned or acquired condition. Dr. Hugen obviously wishes to stress the latter as the intent of the report. But that the innate element is not excluded seems evident from the following:
(a) The report states about non-practicing homosexuals: “They are homosexuals, that is, they are constitutionally (by either biological or psychological conditions or both ) predisposed to homosexuality, but do not engage in homosexualism” (1973 Acts, p. 613).
(b) Again the report: “The general opinion tends to play down genetic factors, but that it may have an inherited basis cannot be completely eliminated” (p.613).
(c) Once more from the report: “We have learned from the sciences [italics added] that homosexuality often is a condition which is rooted deeply in biological and psychological aberrations that create a disorder for which the individual call be held only partly responsible, if at all” (po 623).
(2) Dr. Hugen quotes Webster’s dictionary, evidently with the intent to have it prove that “constitutional” refers to something learned rather something innate. But my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1973 edition) gives the following as the first meaning of constitutional: “relating to, inherent in, or affecting the constitution or body or mind.” That would seem to make the term refer either to something innate or acquired.
b. Dr. Hugen states: “The report says quite explicitly (Acts of Synod 1973, p. 613) that most medical research agrees that it [homosexuality] is mainly a learned condition but usually learned at a very early age.” But notice that Dr. Hugen does not say that this is the position that the committee advocates in its report even though his statement here could easily leave that impression.
The fact is that the report introduces such terms as “constitutional,” “biological,” and “innate” and thus gives warrant for the conclusion that the committee would have us believe that homosexuality may well be something more than just an acquired or learned condition.
Note once again the following statement from the report: “Whether a person becomes homosexual because of some innate condition [italics added] or because of his early environment, or because of a combination of these, the fact is he is not responsible insofar for his resulting homosexuality” (Acts 1973, p. 613).
A reconsideration of the report in the light of what Dr. Hugen has written leads me to recognize and acknowledge that in speaking of homosexuality as “constitutional” the committee meant to say that they regard it as something acquired through environmental factors as well as or perhaps even more then, something innate. But, from my reading of the report, it nevertheless seems impossible to exclude the latter from what they say. In view of this, in my judgment, the first question asking for evidence (preferably from Scripture) that homosexuality is “constitutional” still goes begging for an answer.
2. Question number two in my editorial was the following: “On what ground may the CRC officially absolve the homosexual from irresponsibility for his condition?” The editorial went on to say:
“Is that what Synod did? To be precise, Synod adopted the following as its first statement of pastoral advice for the churches: ‘Homosexuality (male and female) is a condition of disordered sexuality which reflects the brokenness of our sinful world and for which the homosexual may himself bear only a minimal responsibility” (italics added).
Observations about Dr. Hugen’s reply:
a. I do have difficulty with Dr. Hugen’s reasoning when he writes:
“The report is quite in agreement with Dr. Charles Young, quoted in the August editorial of THE OUTLOOK, ‘I am persuaded that homosexuality is a learned condition . . . .’”
But then he goes on immediately to add: “Therefore, the committee was careful to say ‘Whether a person becomes homosexual because of some innate condition or because of his early environment and his response to this environment, or because of a combination of these, the fact is he is not responsible insofar for his resulting condition’” [italics added].
The report, says Dr. Hugen, agrees with Dr. Young “that homosexuality is a learned condition . . .” If this is the case, how does one arrive at the conclusion that the homosexual is therefore insofar not responsible for his condition? Are we not responsible for any condition we have learned, whether it be homosexuality, drug addiction, alcoholism, or kleptomania?
b. But suppose it to be true for a moment, that the homosexual’s condition is something innate, that he is born that way, would this not absolve him of responsibility? But if we concede that, what then becomes of the responsibility of all the rest of us for the original sin (guilt and pollution) in which we have all been conceived and born?
Before accepting any such assumption with respect to the homosexual, let’s first stop to count the cost. The heterosexual, because he too has been conceived and born in sin, also has a sinful nature that inclines him to immorality, adultery, and fornication. But even though he is born that way, is he himself not fully responsible for that condition? The sinful urges and tendencies with which we are born are moral in character and are not to be confused with congenital ailments (for example, a congenital heart defect) that are physical in character.
c. I am puzzled also by Dr. Hugen’s reasoning that he seeks to base on James 1:12–15. He writes:
“Also, and importantly, you must not confuse temptation and sin. Because you find yourself sexually attracted to persons of the same sex as yourself, you must not think of yourself as condemned or perverse, despairing of the grace of Christ for you . . . You must know that being strongly attracted sexually to another person is not per se sinful even when the satisfaction of that sexual attraction with that person would be sinful. Sin comes, as James tells us Jas. 1:12–15) when desire conceives, when we say yes to that attraction in the deed or in the fantasy of our mind, even by keeping it an open option with which we mentally play around.”
Obviously this means that the homosexual “desire” can be present but that it remains sinless as long as it does not come to expression in an outward act and is not kept as “an open option with which we mentally play around.” But the homosexual desire, like every other sinful desire, is sinful at its very inception, regardless of how much or how little rein one may give to it, To suppose that the homosexual desire can be present in any sense without its being sinful is to fail to trace this sin to its very roots in the sinful human heart.
d. Equally puzzling or baffling is Dr. Hugen’s statement about the temptations of our Lord. He writes:
“The statement of Jesus that whoever ‘looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart’ (Matt. 5:27) must be understood in the light of the rest of the Scripture and not interpreted in such a way that temptation itself becomes sinful, for that would question the sinlessness of our Lord ‘who in every respect has been tempted as we are’” (Heb. 4:15).
Just what light the rest of Scripture sheds on Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:27 in relation to the subject now under discussion Dr, Hugen does not say. But, when Dr. Hugen places the homosexual being tempted in his sinful state on the same line with Jesus( the second or last Adam) being tempted in His sinless state, we must demur. Our Lord, who became like unto us in all things, sin excepted, even in His temptations had an immunity to sin that neither homosexuals nor any of the rcst of us can claim. Dr. Hugen’s analogy is simply not relevant here.
For a discussion of the temptations of our Lord, so difficult to comprehend, the reader may consult with profit the section on this by the late Professor Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology, page 338.
I can only conclude that also the question about the church absolving the homosexual of responsibility, to the extent that it does this, still goes begging for an answer.
3. Question number three in my editorial reads as follows: “On what ground could the study committee responsibly advise, and Synod then responsibly pronounce that the homosexual must also be made eligible for the office of minister, elder, and deacon in the church?”
The editorial went on to say: “Did Synod really say that? Here it is: ‘By the same token, churches should recognize that their homosexual members are fellow servants of Christ who are to be given opportunity to render within the offices [italics added] and structures of the congregation the same service that is expected from heterosexuals.’”
In his response to this, Dr. Hugen does no more than simply restate the decision Synod took with respect to it. Obviously then, this question also still goes begging for its answer. There seems reason to believe then that the CRC Synod of 1973 made a pronouncement on a by no means insignificant matter, something very much in the news also of church life today, without having satisfactory and adequate grounds for what it took upon itself to say.
We can hope and pray that a future CRC Synod will be led to reconsider and also renounce or else drastically alter the decision taken by the Synod of 1973. To be sure, there must be sympathy, love, understanding, and the assurance of pardon for the homosexual who sincerely repents and looks to Christ for his deliverance. But, in a day such as ours, when practicing homosexuals are boldly and brazenly identifying themselves and also demanding social acceptance, the call to repentance must also be written large and made very prominent in any pronouncement made by the CRC or any other body that calls itself a church of the Lord Jesus Christ.