A Third Way or A Better Way
By Andy Sytsma
A group of Christian Reformed Church (CRCNA) pastors and leaders from across the USA recently launched Better Together: A Third Way, a movement they hope will prevent disagreements over same sex marriage (SSM) from causing division. The Third Way claims that the divisiveness of our secular culture has overtaken the CRC through Synod 2022’s confessional status decision. They appeal to the CRC: “Instead of the broad way that leads to division and schism, we believe Jesus calls us to the hard and narrow way as we seek unity and prioritize mission even amidst tension.” Because SSM is not a matter of salvation, they argue, traditional and affirming sides can remain united and agree to disagree as in the CRC approach to women in office.
What should we think of this? Is this Third Way viable? Are those who uphold the Biblical and orthodox teaching of marriage giving in to the polarizing trends of culture? Are SSM and women in office similar issues, and should the CRC accept both sides of the SSM discussion as good, holding them in loving tension? Won’t this allow the CRC to stay on mission with Jesus? Does a Third Way honor the Great Commandment, Great Commission, and Jesus' Prayer for Unity?
The Third Way advocates a generous, humble and reconciling posture, which is commendable. Indeed, the CRC has always stressed pastoral care with people struggling with their sexuality. The HSR echoed this, calling for a humble attitude in approaching the matter. Also, we are all called to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3). Synod 2022 and the current In Loco Committee assigned to admonish Neland Ave CRC and Classis Grand Rapids East both took this posture. That said, there is a big difference between our posture and our position (credit to Preston Sprinkle for making this distinction). Indeed, sometimes we are called to hold to a position even if it causes division (e.g. Luke 12:49-54; Revelation 2:6,16). My overall concern with A Third Way is that in the name of posture they would seek to change the historic scriptural position. But if scriptural teaching hasn’t changed, what grounds does the CRC have to change its position? To answer the questions above… No. A Third Way is neither fair, helpful, nor true, and therefore is not a viable way forward.
First: These comments are not fair.
Their website opens with some questions: “If you’re sick of picking sides… If all the division doesn’t seem to line up with the way of Jesus… If you’re exhausted by all the arguments…” These questions imply that those who hold to a Biblical view of marriage and sexual ethics are giving in to polarizing trends in culture. It may appear so, but that is not the case. This is not a political debate, nor is it an argument over secondary issues like women in office. Both Republicans and Democrats, those who promote and those who disagree with women in office, voted to approve the Human Sexuality Report (HSR). Granted, people can sometimes be alienating in how they come across or argue their cause. That said, it is unfair to characterize defending a Biblical position about marriage and sexuality as divisive and polarizing. The way of Jesus calls for integrity. We must align ourselves with God’s truth.
No one wants to see the church divided again. The women in office issue created a deep divide with long lasting effects. We all long for peace, and we are all tired from the tension around us, but it shouldn’t lead us to compromise Biblical orthodoxy. I addressed this last year in an article called, “Blind Spots.” Nor should those who stand up for truth be accused of polarization. When Synod 2019 unanimously declared Kinism a heresy and resolved to discipline its proponents, no one claimed that this was polarizing. Synod recognized the need for a clear stance. If speaking the truth about the sin of Kinism wasn't considered polarizing, then it is unfair to characterize the CRC’s stance on SSM as polarizing. The CRC is simply saying what it has always said, holding to scripture, and heeding Jesus' call to reject sin while loving people.
Second: The recommendations from the Third Way group are not helpful.
There are two reasons. First, it wrongly equates the matter of SSM with women in office, but they are two different kinds of controversies. Women in office has two different views, both supported by scripture. The CRC’s official statement recognizes this, honors both positions and says this is an issue of wisdom to be discerned in the local context. Thus, even with differing convictions, the CRC can agree to disagree about this because Biblical arguments can be made for both sides while holding to the authority of scripture. Also, the CRC has noted that Women in Office is not a confessional issue, a matter of salvation or a moral issue that would lead to sin. It is a wisdom issue. (pg 25) SSM is a different matter.
SSM fails to be Biblically permissible on two levels. First, homosexual sex is never permitted in the Bible. It is always labeled sin, a truth which has been recognized by the global church until recent times. Second, marriage is never permitted between two men or two women. There is no other Biblical design for marriage except between a man and a woman. For a Third Way to work, both things would have to be biblically defensible; they are not. So, to accept SSM in the CRC, one would have to advocate for sin and disobey scripture. Thus, although A Third Way claims a neutral position between two opposing sides, by not dealing with sin and not submitting to scripture, A Third Way advocates for ignoring sin and jettisoning the authority of scripture.
It may be tempting to downplay sin or ignore scripture to avoid the hard work of working out the implications of the church’s stance on SSM. However, Professor John Cooper cautions against letting feelings change our position. “But appeals to compassion and the leading of the Spirit are misguided if they run contrary to Scripture. All of us must be open to correction by the Word, whatever our position. Those opposed to same-sex activity can be tempted by homophobia, conservatism, or fear of moral relativism not to consider any new interpretation. Those in favor can be equally prejudiced, sure that Christian love requires non-judgmental inclusion and determined to square same-sex activity with Scripture by any hermeneutics necessary. Unbiblical factors pressure both sides to seek their preferred outcomes. But if we are truly led by the Spirit, we want to hear and obey God’s Word.” (pg 6)
Another reason A Third Way is not helpful is what it says about staying on mission. The Third Way pits the defense of biblical sexuality against mission. Are the two in conflict? Has the CRC steered away from the mission of Christ by calling churches to honor scriptural teaching? No. The CRC has not changed what it believes or its call to ministry. There has been a consistent call to have a Christ-like posture – i.e. to bring the restoring love of Jesus to all people, including those struggling sexually. Yes, there is room to improve. The HSR called for repentance in this regard, but changing its posture and changing its position are two different things. Those who advocate for A Third Way with an agree-to-disagree approach conflate the two. Both sides want to love and extend pastoral care, but we must not do so at the expense of sacrificing the Biblical position.
Moreover, A Third Way is not helpful because it would in fact be detrimental to our mission. If we compromise our ethics, disobey scripture, and promote sin, how can that be the mission of Jesus? All those things would in fact run counter to his mission. If Jesus came to save us from sin, encouraging people to live in sin flies in the face of Jesus' gift of salvation. Jesus warns us about losing our saltiness (Luke 14:34) and warns that he will take away our lampstand if we do not repent (Revelation 2:5). If Jesus himself warns us, how can this be the way of Jesus?
At Synod 2022, Professor Jeff Weima warned delegates about the seriousness of repeated, unconfessed sin. Paul said, "Nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (I Cor. 6:9-10). The Heidelberg Catechism repeats this idea, “Q. Can those be saved who do not turn to God from their ungrateful and unrepentant ways? A. By no means…” (HC LD 32, Q&A 87). Paul is not saying we need to be without sin. In the very next verse he says, “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified…” (I Cor. 6:11). God calls us to humbly repent. Tim Keller said it well: “Any sin can be forgiven with repentance. But without repentance, no sin can.” To be clear, the issue isn’t one specific sin, but a persistent refusal to turn from sin.
I do sympathize with the weariness we all feel over this issue. I was a delegate to Synod 2022. I spent many hours and expended a lot of emotional energy wrestling with this issue. And I know this isn’t just an issue. It’s about people, people we know and care about. Right now, I am in a cohort studying this topic. We are reading through Preston Sprinkle’s book People to be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue. The book is challenging, regardless of one’s position. I love Preston’s challenge, “Keep our position. Change our posture.” I hear in these words the encouragement to continue to love, but not change our position, even if we are weary.
Third: What A Third Way says about the Great Commandment, Great Commission and Jesus' Prayer for Unity is not true.
In fact, none of these are compatible with SSM.
The Great Commandment is a summary of the law. In the Ten Commandments, adultery is forbidden. Synod 2022 was clear that this included all forms of unchastity (HC Q&A 108), including homosexual sex. To interpret the Ten Commandments otherwise as a general "love" commandment is not Biblical or Christ-like. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. We are not antinomian (against the law). If Jesus died for our sins because we broke his law, why would we want to promote the very sin for which he died? If we do this, we are not loving. Jesus said if we love him, we will keep his commandments (John 14:15). The Third Way may seem “loving” in a general way. The love of Christ is empowering and freeing, not permissive.
Next, the Great Commission consists of two parts: baptizing people into the name of the triune God and teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded. The Third Way wants us to be rooted in baptism. But if we take our baptism seriously, we will join Jesus in dying to ourselves and striving to obey everything he commanded us, not just some of what he taught but all of it. To advocate for unity while promoting disobedience is not in the Spirit of the Great Commission. You can’t pit evangelism against discipleship. Justification flows to sanctification. This way of thinking also fails to call people to repentance because now sin is not defined as sin. Fuzzy grace without repentance is cheap grace. This is not Jesus’ Great Commission.
Finally, Jesus' Prayer for Unity is part of his longer John 17 prayer. It is a beautiful and powerful prayer. But in that same prayer he prayed that the Father would sanctify us by his truth. Jesus also prayed that the Father would not take us out of the world, but that the Father would protect us from the evil one. He also said we are not of the world. So, to cherry-pick his call for unity and ignore his prayer for sanctifying truth and holy living is not in keeping with Jesus' prayer. It is more in keeping with what our culture says - i.e. be tolerant, be permissive, and get along at all costs. Should we be kind to everyone? Should we be empathetic, patient with each other, making “every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3) Yes. That said, to promote unity while promoting sin or disobeying scripture undermines the cross. It is not then “the unity of the Spirit,” but as we see in the Tower of Babel, unity for the sake of unity, or unity around confusion or good feelings, which is idolatry. So, while this “unity” might keep some churches in the CRC, it would in fact exclude others and cause far more division.
A Few Words of Caution
First, A Third Way claims the CRC can maintain unity in the face of division. They state, “It is true that other denominations have divided over so many issues, including the issue (of) SSM. However, we believe that God has uniquely gifted the CRC and her members to navigate a way forward together.” But what makes proponents of A Third Way think the CRC will be the one exception to 7 other denominations that have tried and failed to promote a Third Way, the most recent being the RCA, our sister denomination? Either we are ignorant of recent ecumenical history or proud, thinking that we are different.
These examples show it is unrealistic to propose we in the CRC with differing views will all get along with A Third Way. Proponents of A Third Way may claim they are unjustly identified with being affirming. Some will claim they have a Biblical view of marriage and sexuality. This may be true. But they create space for the affirming view to thrive. True unity here is unrealistic.
Second, this proposal is tone-deaf to the majority of the Global Church and most of our non-Anglo pastors.(The Korean Council and The Consejo Latino) Many have told me that SSM is a line in the sand they can’t cross. So, when Synod 2022 decided what they did, there was a huge sigh of relief and great rejoicing. Other denominational leaders we work with overseas are saying similar things. The Church of England recently proposed a similar path to the Third Way. However, Global Anglicans, the Anglican Church of Uganda, and Anglican leaders from other countries strongly objected.
As someone who grew up overseas and has close relationships with non-Anglo pastors both here in North America and globally, this is of grave concern to me. If we pursue this Third Way, we will lose not just conservative Anglo CRCs but many non-Anglo CRCs. It will also put many of our global partnerships with Resonate Global Mission in jeopardy.¹
Finally, God calls teachers to a higher standard. We will also be held accountable for what we teach in the church (James 3:1). What A Third Way is proposing is very serious and is a matter that needs serious reconsideration. We need to remember that at the end of the day, we are to be more concerned with what Jesus thinks than what others think.
The Better Way
No one is saying unity is unimportant. No one is saying we shouldn't love people struggling with same sex attraction. But there is a way to do this Biblically and that is Christ-like. To uphold the Biblical view of marriage and sexuality is not to promote division or be unkind. And correcting people who don’t hold to what scripture teaches and admonishing people caught in sin is what the church is called to do (2 Tim 3:16-17; Gal 6:1). We are better together under the Lordship of Jesus. We do absolutely need each other as we submit together to the correction of His Word. Restoration and reconciliation is what we pray for. It is the goal of our discipline. This has also always been the desired result of Synod 2022 and their mandate to the In Loco Committee.
The way forward is not to dumb down sin, to ignore scripture, or resist discipline. It may seem appealing on the surface to work for A Third Way and not deal with these matters. But this isn’t where Jesus is calling us to go. Why would he say something that runs contrary to scripture? Why call us to condone sin, something he came to save us from? Why resist discipline?
“No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however,
it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those
who have been trained by it.” (Hebrews 12:11).
A Third Way may seem attractive on the surface since it appears tolerant and enables those who disagree to stay united. But there is a better way, as illustrated by the following stories.
Last summer I was a delegate to Synod. Two conversations stood out to me. The first happened on the floor of Synod when there was deliberation about whether to discipline Neland Ave CRC. One delegate spoke up. He said he was orthodox in his understanding of human sexuality and agreed with the decision to discipline Neland. Yet, he asked, “What can we learn from Neland?” Although he wasn’t condoning what Neland did in ordaining a deacon in a SSM, he was noting their compassion for people struggling sexually and staying curious about how we might do this better. It took courage for him to say that. He displayed a posture of “compassionate curiosity.”
The second was a one-on-one conversation I had with another delegate. He said he was on the affirming side and admitted he and I saw things differently. Yet, after hearing from Colin Watson about the future of the CRC being with our non-Anglo CRCs (e.g. the 38 Venezuelan Churches transferring into the CRC) and hearing that these churches are very orthodox on SSM, he said “I don’t want to get in the way of that.” The delegate then said, “I will submit to the judgment of the church.” Although he didn’t personally agree with what Synod 2022 said, he was sensing the importance of humbly submitting to the church’s decision and showing his desire to be aligned. It took courage for him to say that. He displayed a posture of “humble alignment.”
I really appreciated what these two delegates said last summer. Can we follow this way, having “compassionate curiosity” with those who are struggling sexually and “humble alignment” with what the CRC has said about marriage and sexuality? Can the CRC heed the challenge to “Keep our position. Change our posture?” This is the better way. This is the way of Jesus.
Footnotes
1 This interview with Rev. Jean-Bosco Nsabimana of the CRC in Burundi is one example of what we are hearing (https://www.abideproject.org/articles/words-from-burundi)