Near-Sighted Pilots

I want to begin this post by saying that I don’t want to write it. I have been working on other, more enjoyable writing projects. However, when the official publication of the Christian Reformed Church decides to publish an article like “Where Have They Gone?” (February 21,2014), a muddled push for rethinking the denomination’s response to homosexuality, I felt the need to offer a response.

I use the word ‘muddled’ in describing this article because it never identifies its real target with any sort of clarity. It speaks about the church’s position on homosexuality in paragraph four, but then in paragraph five the author takes aim at the response of pastors and the congregational response in paragraph eight. Which is it? Based on the concluding remarks about welcoming back same-sex couples I will assume that the denominational position is being challenged, and not just congregational responses.

Further, the author doesn’t provide any significant exegetical support for his conclusion (the treatment of John 10:10, regardless of the conclusion, is simply poor reasoning and dismal hermeneutics) and provides a smattering of underdeveloped arguments. Readers, regardless of the positions they take, should join together in hoping that The Banner elevates its publication standards.

In response to “Where Have They Gone”, I’d like to isolate the premises of one of its arguments: the argument based on feelings of exclusion. I’ll evaluate each premise and offer some concluding remarks.

Premise 1:  The church’s current position on homosexuality has resulted in many gay men and women leaving the church and rejecting God because they have felt excluded [from paragraph six].

I would not disagree over this paragraph. I’m sure anecdotal evidence could be gathered in support of it. Rather than disagree, I’d like to express grief that this is so. I think all Christians should be grieved anytime anyone—gay, straight, transgender, black, white, old and married, young and single—walks away from the church and from God. Sometimes, probably far too often, the conduct of the church towards those who experience same-sex attraction—beyond its doctrinal position—has exacerbated feelings of isolation and confusion. This too is to be grieved and repented of. A sincere apology, however, does not mean one has to concede their principled position.

Premise 2:  A position that causes anyone to feel excluded is wrong and should be changed [implied from paragraph eleven].

If I knew the author of the article, I’d want to clarify whether they thought this supplied premise was a fair one. I’ve supplied it based on paragraphs five, six, and eleven, where the author expresses his or her frustration specifically over the feelings of rejection that have been felt and concludes that it is time to “welcome back its gay sons and daughters, along with their spouses and children”. The article would have been stronger if the author had been clearer about what exactly is problematic about the church’s position on homosexuality—is it that it provokes feelings of rejection in those who experience same sex attraction? The article seems to suggest two reasons for the rethinking the denominational stance on homosexuality: emotional distress caused and cultural shifts.

If the argument is that the position should be changed because the church’s position causes emotional distress, then I think we can work from premise 2. Premise two has some obvious problems. No one can possibly hold to it consistently (premise 2 makes me feel excluded and therefore it is wrong and should be changed! It’s self-defeating). Nor should anyone want to hold it! Suppose an airline company has a policy that only people with 20/20 vision are able to pilot their planes; unfortunately, this makes a near-sighted, jittery applicant feel left out. Does that mean that the airline’s policy is wrong and should be changed? Of course not! And if it ever did mean the airline should change its policy let me know—I’ll return to Scotland by boat!

But, someone might object, applying to fly a plane is hardly the same as wanting to feel included in a voluntary association like a church. What if we narrow the premise?

Mod. premise 2:  Any association that holds a position that causes feelings of exclusion should change their position.

But again, there are problems with this premise. Suppose that John wants to join his local association of Democrats. Rather oddly though, John is for smaller government, less taxes, and fewer restrictions on firearms—positions that immediately clash with the values of the Democratic Party. John expresses his disagreement to the local leaders. Should they recognize they’ve upset someone and change their policies? Will they? No, because presumably they have good reasons for holding the positions that they do. They should explain their reasons to John, but they’re under no moral obligation to change their policies.

Premise 2 is untenable.

Conclusion: The church’s current position on homosexuality, as it makes some people feel excluded, is wrong and should be changed.

Premise 2 appears self-defeating, and would make the world an impossibly unpredictable place to live in (with policies shifting as moods swung… I can’t imagine what that would do to any number of hormonal high school student clubs!). Therefore, the conclusion is not obtained.

To be clear: the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) does not exclude men and women who experience same-sex attraction (at least they shouldn’t!). They and I are extended the same invitation to find grace in the cross of Christ, to participate in the life of the church, and share in ministries of the church in the world. The CRC does say, in keeping with Scripture, that homosexual practice is off-limits, just as it says women who are not my wife are off-limits to me. Gay and straight alike are called to forgo or deny certain desires when we are joined to Christ through faith. Difficult though it may be, the Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness. It is exactly in this dying to our own desires and being raised to new life and obedience in Christ that we come to experience life and life abundant. 

For those who are looking for a helpful resource dealing with a Christian perspective on same-sex attraction, I’d recommend Sam Allberry’s little book, “Is God Anti-Gay?” Allberry is a pastor who experiences same-sex attraction. In his writing he is both compassionate and thoughtful. If you’d like to read a review or two first, you can do so here and here.

Calvin Chimes Op-Ed Fails to Convince That Christians Should Support Same-Sex Marriage

Several months ago the Chimes, Calvin College’s student run newspaper, ran a pair of opinion pieces debating whether Christians should support legislation that would legalize same-sex unions. Two students co-wrote the article arguing the affirmative position, “Christians should support the legalization of gay marriage.” 

I intend to show that the arguments in the Chimes piece encouraging Christian support for same-sex union legislation to be unconvincing for the following reasons:

1. They commit the fallacy of division. 
2. They wrongly assume the existence of a neutral position. 
3. Their conclusion (Christians should support same-sex marriage legislation) does not follow from their argument (I should not expect all of my beliefs to be encompassed by the law). 
4. They set up a false dilemma by assuming that either Christians can spend time opposing legalized same-sex unions or they can address other issues that the authors deem more pressing. 
5. They do not understand the hermeneutical process of their opponents or they have chosen to represent it uncharitably. Either instance undermines the credibility of their arguments.

I will address each of these points.

1] The authors commit the fallacy of division. 

In the second paragraph the authors make the following argument: 

P1:   In a pluralistic society one ought not expect everyone to have the same views on issue x as you do.

For the purposes of exposing the logic of the article’s argument I have constructed it in general terms. In the Chimes article issue x is whether homosexuals should legally be allowed to marry. 

P2:   We do live in a pluralistic society.

This premise is obvious. We live in a country that has citizens of many different races, religions, and political affiliations.    

C1:   The conclusion that logically follows from this argument is that one ought not expect everyone to have the same views on issue x as you do.

When applied to the case at hand, the conclusion is that one ought not expect everyone to have the same view that same-sex unions should not be legalized. Even those who object to the legalization of same-sex unions will recognize the truth of this premise. The authors then write, “Nor should we expect the legal law to encompass all of the Christian moral law.” This slightly modifies the first point:  

P3:   If you live in a pluralistic society where not everyone has the same views on an issue as you do, then you should not expect the legal law to encompass all your beliefs.

We’ve already conceded the antecedent in P2, that we do live in a pluralistic society. P2 coupled with P3 produces C2. 

C2:   That you should not expect the legal system to encompass all your beliefs.

At least that is what would follow from the stated premises but here is where things get murky.

The fact that I should not expect the legal system to encompass all my beliefs in no way precludes me from believing that it should hold to some of my beliefs. And, if I can rightly expect it should hold to some of my beliefs then that does not disqualify me from expecting or arguing that it should share my belief on the particular issue of legalized same-sex unions.

Now arguments can be made about whether this particular belief about same-sex unions is the right belief to have (these arguments would likely consider social and economic arguments, but I would hope it would also consider the moral arguments that are far too often omitted by those on the left), but the point is that the fact we live in a pluralistic society in no way entails that Christians should not lobby against same-sex unions. The authors say that there are instances when Christians should expect their voice to be heard and heeded in the face of popular opinion but that the matter of legalized same-sex unions is not one of those occasions. What are their grounds for saying that a Christian shouldn’t expect legislation that matches their beliefs on same-sex unions but should expect and lobby for it on any other issue? No basis for discriminating between issues is given. So far as the written evidence suggests it’s purely the whim and fancy of the writers.

2] The authors wrongfully assume the existence of a neutral position.

If Christians who oppose same-sex unions on biblical grounds are banished from the sphere of public debate on this issue (or at least condescendingly told to sit this one out until they surrender any conviction they have and bend their knee to the ridiculous god of popular opinion) who is permitted to debate matters of public policy? And why? There is no morally neutral legislation. Someone will be making a moral judgment when they sign off on legislation. The major question if Christians are not allowed to participate in the public discourse then is who will be? It seems that a healthy and free society will encourage all parties to the table—regardless of the popularity of their position—recognizing that no one speaks from the position of neutrality. Each position can then be decided based on its merits. My concern is that Christians who rightfully oppose same-sex unions on biblical grounds are being barred from the debate on the basis of criteria that are inconsistently applied and unhealthy to strong and free public discourse.

3] The authors’ conclusion does not follow from their actual argument.

C2 (I should not expect the legal system to reflect all my beliefs) does not lead to the authors’ conclusion, “It is our opinion that Christians should support the legalization of gay marriage within our country.” There is a massive difference between not expecting my position against same-sex unions to be shared by the legal system (this being the logical conclusion of the previous arguments) and endorsing same-sex unions (what the article’s title suggests Christians should do). In the end, the authors say that Christians should support same-sex union legislation but none of their argumentation support this conclusion. Their arguments only support that I should not expect all of my beliefs to be codified in the law of the land.

4] The authors set up a false dilemma: either Christians oppose same-sex unions or they devote their time to other causes deemed more worthy (i.e. drone strikes, violence against women).

In the article’s third paragraph, the authors state that they believe it is “a waste of time” for Christians advocating for the law to reflect in some fashion their belief that same-sex unions are morally wrong. Instead, they should spend their time trying to stop drone strikes and violence against women. As someone who opposes the legalization of same-sex marriage, I also believe that drone strikes and violence against are moral issues that clearly need to be addressed. Yet the way the authors set up their argument implies I can either spend my time opposing legalized same-sex unions or I can protest drone strikes. There is no demonstrable reason that I cannot oppose both in a meaningful and public manner. I have great confidence in the ability of myself—and other Christians who oppose same-sex unions—to hold and be able to act upon more than one belief at a time. It’s quite a useful skill actually.

5] The authors do not understand the hermeneutical process of their opponents or they have chosen to represent it uncharitably. Either instance undermines the credibility of their arguments.

Space and time considerations preclude me from expanding more upon this point. In the fourth paragraph the authors write, “…biblical literalism — a fixation on what one particular verse says or does not say — is insufficient to provide an account of marriage and sexuality. What we need is a theological imagination that draws from the entire biblical narrative and the tradition in creative ways that overcome our current impasses on gender and sexuality."

A digression: what is “theological imagination” (for some reason this slapstick term to be used in a sudden school class gone wrong, “Okay kids. Everyone close eyes and use your theological imagination to picture penal substitution”)? And who says that impasses are a bad thing? Some impasses are necessary for the preservation of the biblical faith. Biblical Christianity is at an impasse with Islam and the other religions of the world. I certainly don’t think we should use our “theological imaginations” to overcome that impasse! 

The point is that opponents of legalized same-sex marriage—and, more broadly, who believe homosexual behavior to be sinful—do not merely fixate on what one verse says. Careful interpreters of Scripture, regardless of the issue being considered, will listen openly to what a verse or passage has to say. Opponents of legalized same-sex marriage have listened to a plethora of biblical passages across the biblical narrative and have come to their conclusions. Christians who oppose legalized same-sex unions are informed by passages in the Old Testament and New Testament, grounding marriage both in God’s giving Eve to Adam and following the biblical narrative through to Christ and his Church. Opponents of same-sex marriage don’t simply flip to Leviticus 18:22, paint their placards, and march on the White House. If the article was meant to be a helpful contribution it should have addressed their disputants in their strength not by attacking straw men.

There are more problems with the article but by this point I hope to have sufficiently demonstrated some of the more glaring errors that undermine the conclusion arrived at by its writers. I have not attempted to argue against the wisdom of legalizing same-sex marriage (though I do believe there are strong reasons for doing so). This response was intended to demonstrate that the Chimes article does not successfully demonstrate that Christians should support same-sex marriage nor does the article provide convincing reasons why Christians should not oppose legalized same-sex unions.

Is It Arrogant to Say Homosexuality Is Morally Wrong?

The New York Times has an interesting editorial by Frank Bruni that is worthy of comment. In “Reading God’s Mind”, Bruni challenges Christians who maintain that homosexuality is, in accordance with biblical teaching, certainly sinful.  

The article is built around the story of a middle-age gay man (Jeff) whose Southern Baptist parents chose not to attend his same-sex wedding ceremony because they believed him to be in a sinful relationship. Both Jeff and his parents made choices that the other party found difficult to accept—Jeff engaging in a same-sex relationship and his parents’ refusing to attend the ceremony. Yet, in Bruni’s mind, there is a difference of posture when it comes to the decision that each party made. In his article Bruni describes Jeff as humble, “He doesn’t claim… to have definitive answers. He hasn’t determined beyond any doubt that his life and love are in concert with God’s wishes, because he thinks it arrogant to insist, as the zealots who condemn gay people do, that God’s will is so easily known. And in light of that, he thinks it wrong for anyone to try and consign gays to the shame that so many of them have endured.” Jeff’s parents, however, make the claim that it Jeff’s homosexual relationship is sinful, an act of defiance against God’s will for human beings.

Isn’t that arrogant?

How can any human being claim to know for certain what God’s will is? How could any parent claim to know God’s will so confidently, especially when it causes so much pain within their family?

Christians would respond that we can know that things are right or wrong based upon the teaching of the Bible, God’s authoritative self-disclosure—both in terms of his being, his plan of redemption, and his instructions for lives of holiness and obedience. This answer shouldn’t be a surprise to Bruni or Jeff. Orthodox Christians have claimed nothing different for two millennia.

“Reading God’s Mind” contains two arguments that attempt to disarm Christians of this appeal. The first argument is one of principles for biblical interpretation. It can be parsed out as follows:

P¹ : If the Bible is to be taken literally, then all of Scripture must be taken literally. 

P² : However, not all of Bible is to be taken literally.

C¹ : Therefore, the Bible is not to be taken literally. 

Then, specific to the issue of homosexuality, the following can be added:

P³ : If the Bible is not to be taken literally, then the passages prohibiting homosexuality are not to be taken literally.

C²: Since the Bible is not to be taken literally (based upon C¹), then the passages prohibiting homosexuality are not to be taking literally (and by implication, they are not morally binding). 

There are a number of problems with this argument. First off, Bruni’s first premise is one that is overly simplified and does not in fact represent what a thoughtful Christian would say. The entire Bible is not to be taken literally (nb: this does not deny that the whole Bible is true). The Bible is a large book containing a variety of literary genre. It contains legal codes, narrative material, proverbs, and poetry. This is significant because poetry is not something that is read literally. It contains figurative language, metaphors, and similes.

Psalm 18:4–5 is one such instance where a literal interpretation would be a dreadful display of hermeneutics, “The cords of death encompassed me; the torrents of destruction assailed me; the cords of Sheol [the grave] entangled me; the snares of death confronted me.” This passage isn’t saying that rope-like cords literally came up from the grave and wrapped themselves around the writer. Bruni ignores the multiplicity of genres in the Bible—a fact that is significant in arguments (such as his) of interpretation. 

Bruni’s argument would be more relevant if he questioned the normativity of the Bible, instead of its literal nature. Normativity refers to teaching or content that asserts a standard of practice or morality that is as equally binding today as it was in the biblical era. However, even this shift from literal to normative, although more accurately framing the issue in question, proves itself problematic. Christians do not argue—either functionally or formally—that the whole Bible is normative. This can be demonstrated by pointing to the Passover feast that is prescribed in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, the Passover feast is no longer a ceremony that the Christian community observes because, the Church teaches, Jesus Christ fulfilled the Passover law by serving as the true lamb that atones for Sin. This is a basic understanding of redemptive history. So while at one point the Passover feast was a binding command from God, within God’s historical plan of redemption that practice is no longer binding today because it is specifically fulfilled in the life and death of Jesus Christ. Even if the first premise is adjusted from literal to normative, Bruni’s argument still (a) puts words into the mouths of Christians that do not really belong there and (b) applies a standard of interpretation (if any part is to be normative, then all must be normative) that is pure ludicrousness. 

One further critique might be made of this New York Times op-ed piece. Bruni assumes that Jeff’s position is the intellectually modest, neutral position. Bruni applauds Jeff for not claiming that he knows what God’s position is on homosexuality. Yet, the fact remains that Jeff has made a choice to engage in a same-sex relationship and as a result he has decided that either (a) God approves, or at least permits, same-sex relationships or (b) that even if God isn’t okay with it, he’ll deal with those consequences later. If he makes his choice to enter into a same-sex relationship based on (a), then he is no different than his parents in asserting what God thinks. If he makes his decision based on (b), that isn’t humility—it’s hubris! (Could you imagine if you said something similar about your parents when you were younger, “Mom and Dad might not like this, but I’m not going to think about that now. I’ll deal with them later.”) Bruni attempts to place Jeff on moral high ground by suggesting that Jeff is more humble and modest in his position. One ought not concede this ground.   

In “Reading God’s Mind”, Frank Bruni makes two arguments. The first argument tries to lay the ground for dismissing a literal interpretation of biblical passages that speak to homosexuality’s sinfulness. This argument, as was demonstrated above, fails because it does not take into account basic interpretive principles that recognize genre and authorial intent (principles that one would consider whether they were reading Dumas or Deuteronomy). The second move Bruni makes is to imply that Jeff, the man featured in the article, is more humble than his Southern Baptist parents. This move assumes that as a married gay man, Jeff can still hold a position that is more humble than his parents’ position because he claims he isn’t certain he is right. The assumption of Jeff’s has also been deplumed. What Jeff says formally is not how Jeff acts functionally. 

In the end, Frank Bruni’s article represents a rather feeble move in the battle of public perception concerning the morality of homosexuality; however, despite Bruni’s weak argumentation, such arguments for the moral acceptance of homosexuality are worth noting and exposing as they increasingly reflect the assumptions of mainstream thinking both outside—and, dreadfully, inside—the Church.            

A (Rare) Protestant Defense of a Catholic Pope

On Monday, Pope Benedict XVI announced that he would be stepping down as pope on February 28. This, of course, caused quite the stir as papal resignations are few and far between. Many have, and many more will, comment on Pope Benedict—both in terms of his resignation and his legacy as pope. One of the early commentators in the Toronto Star was columnist Rosie DiManno. In terms of the pronounced verdicts on Pope Benedict XVI, DiManno’s opinion is in the critical camp. In her article “Pope Benedict XVI Pushed the Catholic Church Backward”, DiManno says that Pope Benedict XVI did a poor job as pope because, under his leadership, the Roman Catholic Church “regressed into a monk’s cellar of orthodoxy, bluntly conservative and reactionary” and “made [faith] too hard” for moderns. DiManno’s column is worth commenting because it exhibits a fundamental worldview difference that will make all the difference in assessing Pope Benedict XVI’s legacy. 

Image Source

DiManno gives several reasons for why Pope Benedict ought to have been given the ol’ heave-ho. The one of particular interest is that Benedict made the Roman Catholic church more theological conservative, “[reversing] every hint of theological liberalism.” To this effect, Benedict continued to “alienate women” (DiManno doesn’t give her reasons for this assertion) and continued to uphold the Roman Catholic Church’s ban on homosexuals in the priesthood. Another reason why Benedict ought to be scolded, according to DiManno, was his behavior on the religious playground. The Bishop of Rome didn’t exhibit a sufficiently ecumenical spirit when he made it possible for Episcopalian clergy to defect from their sinking ship and he didn’t act nice towards the other major monotheistic religions. 

Benedict’s leadership in these areas, according to DiManno, returned the church to the 19^th century and made it too difficult to be a Catholic. DiManno’s point is that Benedict failed to lead the Catholic Church in a manner that will make it successful and relevant in the 21^st century; rather, Benedict’s failed ecumenism, his treatment of women, and upholding the ban on homosexual clergy actually made the Catholic Church even more irrelevant. 

DiManno and Benedict represent opposite understandings of the theological enterprise. DiManno bemoans defeats of liberal theology during Benedict’s papacy. Theological liberalism is religion made by human beings that is about human beings and is for human beings. Theological liberalism is not about God—either what God has done or is doing, neither about who he is or what he commands—but is about the experience located within human beings (I can think of no better work to commend on the subject than J. Gresham Machen’s masterful book, Christianity and Liberalism). DiManno’s problem with Benedict’s papacy is fundamentally an issue of worldview. At the root of DiManno’s worldview, as indicated by her article, is a results-driven, people-centered understanding of Christianity. The Catholic Church ought to accommodate itself to persons who are well intentioned, regardless of what they might believe, so that they can be part of this larger community; besides, most people who claim to be Catholic are “at best cafeteria-tray practitioners, selecting only those tenets deemed digestible.” If no one, DiManno says, is going to sign off on all the doctrines that the Church teaches, why be as rigorous as Benedict was? 

By contrast, Pope Benedict saw theology as a subject that begins with God first. Theology, and the ministry of church leadership, is to seek to be obedient to the God who speaks through his Son and through his divinely inspired Scriptures, the Bible. This is why Benedict upheld his ban on women clergy and maintained the stance that homosexual behavior is wrong—not because he wanted to preserve the Church of a previous century, but because the unchanging, eternal God has spoken. Thisis why Benedict made it possible for Episcopal clergy to become Catholic andwhy some Episcopal clergy did! They were leaving an Episcopal church that had no sense that their doctrine must conform to the apostolic teaching of God’s divinely inspired and inerrant word. Pope Benedict is correct in believing the Church’s doctrine is not to be determined by what makes faith easier, more rigorous, or more popular, but by what God has spoken. This is something that DiManno clearly does not see. 

Also worth noting is what DiManno sees as integral to Catholic identity. She writes, “And I do understand, truly, that the Church can’t ever cave to a sweeping liberalism. There are absolutes it is unable to sacrifice—abortion, an all-male clergy—because then it wouldn’t be the Catholic Church; it would be nothing, it would lose its soul.” Do you understand, Rosie? Really? Truly? Catholics don’t fight against abortion because their identity is at risk. Catholics fight against abortion because abortion is the murder of a human being and they believe, quite rightly, and in accordance with biblical teaching, that God loathes such murderous activity. Catholic theology does not reserve the clerical office for men because they’d lose their identity otherwise. They argue for that position, and with good grounds, because Scripture provides warrant for it. I’m not Roman Catholic, but I know enough about Roman Catholic theology to know they don’t uphold certain beliefs out of fear they might devolve into some lost and confused adolescence without any identity to speak of!
 
There is no mention, nor hint of understanding, in DiManno’s article that Christianity is informed and motivated by divine revelation. Popes do not teach unpopular things because they’ve become a necessary part of their identity. The absence of divine revelation in her framework for understanding religion is again part of the fundamental worldview clash between a theologically liberal understanding of religion and historic Christianity. The recognition that God had spoken clearly in the Scriptures and through the person and work of Jesus Christ is essential to the Christian faith—both Catholic and Protestant—and so long as this is overlooked there will be very different rubrics for assessing the work of Church leaders. Theological liberals and those who think as Rosie DiManno does in her article will judge Pope Benedict’s papal administration by any number of things—his charisma, decisions that brought or didn’t bring Catholic teaching more in line with contemporary thought, etc. Christians, however, have a different criterion that they must judge their leaders by: how well have they guarded the good deposit of the gospel message about Jesus Christ, which was entrusted to them? And in the end, when Christian leaders face the Lord Jesus as judge, that will be all that matters.

Kevin DeYoung: The Reformed Church in America and Homosexuality

Kevin DeYoung is someone that you would do well to read. He is one of the sharpest, smartest, and most articulate voices in the Church today. He is a pastor and an author. Matt Chandler also said of him at April 2011's Gospel Coalition Conference in Chicago, "You are perhaps the smartest person in the world. I am too dumb to talk to you."

DeYoung is a pastor in the Reformed Church in America (RCA). The denomination that I belong to, the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), split from the RCA in 1857. Yet, in the words of the RCA's website, "The Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America can be considered as either close cousins or separated siblings, having once been one denomination (the Dutch Reformed Church)". Close ties remain between the CRC and RCA and, as such, what occurs in one denomination has consequence for the other (for instance, RCA's adoption of the Belhar Confession).  

Therefore, it is of great importance that members of the CRC pay close attention to how the RCA is addressing the issue of homosexuality. While the CRC struggles to find the voice of biblical faithfulness and courage, CRC members (and the Church of Jesus Christ as a whole) would be foolish to turn a blind-eye to the response that will come-- either by action or non-action-- in the RCA. 

I strongly encourage you to read the week-long series that Kevin DeYoung will be posting on his blog concerning the RCA and Homosexuality. 

Monday- A Series on the RCA and Homosexuality 
Tuesday – Homosexuality and the RCA: A Call for Action, Consistency, and Faithfulness (Part 1)
Wednesday – Homosexuality and the RCA: A Call for Action, Consistency, and Faithfulness (Part 2)
Thursday – An Overture Regarding Homosexuality and the RCA
Friday – Does the Heidelberg Catechism Have Anything to Say About Homosexuality?

Most importantly, be in prayer for the RCA and CRC. Pray that they may be given wisdom, love, and courage in its address of homosexuality.