Homosexuality, The Dutch Reformed Church, and Religious Liberty

By Pastor Mark Christopher

(The following was written for the congregation of Everglen Baptist Church to inform them about the recent court ruling regarding the Dutch Reformed Church's vacillations on homosexuality and same-sex marriage and the consequence of imperiled religious liberty for all Christians.)

In October 2015, as I prepared to write the conclusion for a dissertation on homosexuality and biblical interpretation, the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) General Synod made a landmark ruling regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Essentially, the DRC agreed that individual ministers (dominees) could now solemnize same-sex marriages based on conscience. Beyond this, the General Synod concluded that non-celibate gays and lesbians could now be ordained as dominees. Given its pertinence, this ruling served as the backdrop for my eight-page conclusion, as it perfectly illustrated all that I had argued for the prior 230 pages.

But in 2016, due to extreme backlash from the DRC membership, the DRC reversed its 2015 ruling regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Unhappy with this reversal, the small, but very vocal, LGBT minority in the DRC took the DRC to court. This set up the recent ruling (March 8, 2019) in the North Gauteng High Court, which favored the DRC LGBT contingent.

The High Court ruled on two fronts: First, the court ruled that the DRC’s 2016 reversal of the 2015 General Synod decision failed to follow the church’s own rules of procedure and is, therefore, invalid. If the High Court’s ruling had only addressed the DRC’s procedural irregularities, there would be no cause for concern from outside the DRC. Secondly, and more importantly, the court ruled that the DRC is guilty of discriminating against homosexuals based on sexual orientation and has, therefore, violated section 9(3) of the Constitution. With this new judicial precedent, the rest of Christendom in South Africa is now in jeopardy of losing precious religious liberties, with sexual orientation now trumping the right to religious freedom. In Orwellian fashion, all rights are equal, but some rights are now more equal than others.

Given that my legal expertise on this very concerning matter is vastly limited, I would like to make a few random biblical and personal observations that will hopefully help some to think through this new development more clearly while giving us all something to seriously pray about: 

1. It was a fool’s errand for the DRC to think they could ever appease both sides of the homosexual issue. This is a very black and white biblical issue with no ambiguity. There is no third-way position one can take. It is an either-or issue, not both-and. As a wise man once said, “If you try to walk down both sides of the street and the same time, you will get hit from both sides.” Once the LGBT camel gets its head in the ecclesiastical tent, the occupants had better be looking for the nearest emergency exit. The DRC has learned the hard way that the LGBT camel now owns their tent. 

2. The DRC’s LGBT demise was a long time in the making. They did not arrive at their current trajectory overnight. On the contrary, their accommodation of all thing’s LGBT began the day their seminaries, like Tukkies and Stellenbosch, abandoned biblical authority and scriptural sufficiency. All of which promoted a more subjective and culturally driven method of biblical interpretation. In short, the DRC has long since exchanged the creed of the Reformation Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) for the worldly creed of Sola cultura. Hence, for the DRC, culture is now supreme, not God’s word. As Jeremiah warned, “… he who has my word, let him speak it faithfully …” (Jer. 23:28). Churches and denominations that sellout to the LGBT agenda first abandon biblical authority and scriptural sufficiency long before they arrive at the LGBT destination. The DRC is no exception.

3. The word of God is unambiguous on the matter of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It is God, in His word, who defines gender, marriage, and human sexuality, not man or man-made institutions. It is simply man’s duty to recognize what is, not arbitrarily redefine and revise what God ordained. God’s creation ordinance details three non-negotiables required for marriage and human sexuality: gender distinction, the numerical requirement of only two people, and life-long monogamy wrapped in a covenantal commitment between God and the two marriage partners. God has never amended or appended this divine recipe, even in light of the fall (Gen. 1;27; 2:23-24; Matt. 19:4-6; 1 Cor. 6:18; Eph. 5:22-32). Any deviation or distortion of God’s boundaries whether it be fornication, adultery, incest, bestiality, or homosexuality is a sin that needs to be repented of (Lev. 18:6-30; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Heb. 13:4). 

4. The assumption of “sexual orientation” figured prominently in the High Court’s decision. Sexual orientation has become a catchphrase that is commonly used but seldom defined. Sexual orientation is as philosophical as it is subjective in its meaning, because it is rooted in fallen human emotions, passions, and desires, not empirical science. For an expanded treatment of this aspect of the LGBT debate please go the Everglen Baptist's website (Here) and look under seminars for my seven-part series on homosexuality and the church, which has two sessions on the slippery definition of “sexual orientation” and its relation to the biblical category of lust.  

5. The Bible, not secular society, serves as the determiner of who qualifies for church leadership (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-11). Church leadership is a privilege, not a human right. As such, it is a divine privilege that can be easily forfeited through any number of disqualifying sins and unbiblical attitudes, of which homosexuality is only one. 

6. Any church or denomination that embraces the LGBT platform, as the DRC has, is apostate and not worthy of the name church. Why? Because as stated in the first observation, long before a church or denomination arrives at the LGBT destination, they first had to abandon biblical authority and scriptural sufficiency while adopting a new hermeneutic (method of interpretation). This results in a truncated gospel, redefined gender, a distortion of marriage, and perverted sexuality that unintentionally promotes the sexual revolution. In this, the DRC has unwittingly exchanged a theology of sex for sexualized theology. The centrality of Christ is thus eclipsed by man-centered concerns instead of a Christ-centered emphasis. 

In accordance with the above, all true believers still in the DRC need to put 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 into practice by separating from this apostate denomination (as difficult as this may be) and find a biblical church that boldly and unashamedly preaches the whole council of God’s word without compromise or apology. Or, they should breakaway and start a biblical branch of the DRC. They should also know that the LGBT train does not find its terminus at homosexuality, for it keeps moving onto the next deviancy — transgenderism and all points beyond. 

7. Finally, in all of this we must remember that homosexuals are not the enemy, they are the mission field! Their biggest problem is not their homosexuality, but that they are headed for a Christ-less eternity (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Therefore, we are called upon reach out to them with the unadulterated gospel in an equal measure of truth and grace like our Lord (John 1:14). In so doing, we are to inform them that Jesus is a much better Savior than they are a sinner!

In conclusion, we must not kid ourselves into thinking the High Court’s ruling is innocuous. Quite the contrary, the militants within the LGBT are now emboldened and will seek to test this new judicial precedent on other churches and denominations. So, we must pray that this ruling will be appealed and eventually overturned while asking God to prepare us for intensified persecution. As well, we need to pray that God might use us to reach those who are enslaved to homosexuality with the sin-liberating gospel of Jesus Christ. If someone struggling with the sin of homosexuality should walk through the doors of Everglen Baptist, let us see it as an opportunity to advance gospel truth and gospel behavior like our Lord before us, who came seek and save that which is lost! 

Note: As a postscript, it was announced yesterday that the DRC will not appeal the High Court's decision. This, though, does not prevent outside parties of interest from seeking an appeal. Let us pray that an appeal is filed!