The "salvation issue" issue

Are matters of sexual ethics salvation issues?

Synod 2024 had an important discussion about whether or not unchastity in general and same sex sexual activity specifically is a salvation issue.

This discussion was prompted by Overture 29 from Classis Iakota, which asked Synod to “declare that Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108, along with all cases of unrepentant sin, addresses a salvation issue.”

My first reaction upon reading this last year was shock. It’s not enough that to declare it a confessional matter; now we’re saying it’s putting your salvation at risk, too!

This post is a summary of how the term “salvation issue” has been used in the CRC in the past three years as it relates to unchastity, culminating in the discussion at Synod 2024 of this overture, along with some concluding thoughts about its usage in broader American evangelicalism and implications for the way forward.

To start, let’s rewind the clock three years back to 2022, which is 30 years ago in CRC years.

Synod 2022: “salvation issue” in the HSR

The Human Sexuality Report, which came before Synod 2022, concluded that the act of same sex sex constituted a salvation issue, that is, those who engage in these activities might not be saved:

“As a committee, we conclude, therefore, that the church’s teaching on premarital sex, extramarital sex, adultery, polyamory, pornography, and homosexual sex already has confessional status. As such, there is no need for a new declaration. We also conclude that this status is warranted because these sins threaten a person’s salvation. The Scriptures call the church to warn people to flee sexual immorality for the sake of their souls and to encourage them with God’s presence and power to equip them for holy living. A church that fails to call people to repentance and offer them the hope of God’s loving deliverance is acting like a false church.”

In response, Classis Chicago South asked Synod 2022 to reject the HSR on the grounds that it mistakenly argues that “sexual ethics are a matter of salvation, and by failing to address the issues of sexual abuse and harassment” (2022 Agenda for Synod, Overture 36).

Synod 2022’s response to this overture was “That synod recommend the HSR to the churches as providing a useful summary of biblical teaching regarding human sexuality.” In recommending the HSR in response to Chicago South’s overture, Synod essentially affirmed what the HSR said about whether or not sexual ethics threaten a person’s salvation: it does.

Synod 2023: “salvation issue” in the in loco committee report

The in loco committee report

The question of whether same sex sex constituted a salvation issue came up again in response to the in loco committee formed by Synod 2022 to report at Synod 2023 to report on the matter of Neland Avenue CRC ordaining a deacon who was in a same sex relationship. Neland’s response to the committee included the following:

“But we do agree on paying attention to the call of the Holy Spirit and the fact that this issue is not a salvation matter that should shatter churches or denominations.”

And:

“I’m still at Neland because I don’t think this issue, though very important, is a salvation issue. I know too many wise and godly people who come down on the affirming side of same-sex marriage. That includes many around this circle. That includes my own spouse. We hold differing views yet feel that we can be in a covenant of marriage.”

In other words, Neland was telling Synod that they felt comfortable wrestling with this issue and stepping into this territory because they did not feel it was a salvation.

(2023 Agenda for Synod, p. 329)

Overture 37 from Alger Park CRC

Also before Synod 2023 was Overture 37 from the Council of Alger Park CRC, which asked Synod 2023 to reverse Synod 2022’s declaration that the definition of the word “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 includes same sex activity and to rethink the HSR’s statement that sexual ethics constitute salvation issues:

“In Romans 15, Paul instructs the early church concerning differences of interpretation and practice to refrain from passing judgment, constructing stumbling blocks, and destroying the work of God. He encourages the church to make every effort that leads to peace and mutual edification. He calls on those early believers to “accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God” (Rom. 15:7). The elevation of our disagreements about human sexuality to that which threatens a person’s salvation runs counter to Paul’s admonition.”

(2023 Agenda for Synod, p. 480)

Synod 2023 did not accede to this overture.

Synod 2024: Better Together and the Classis Iakota overture

Going into Synod 2024, the previous two Synods had:

1. Declared that the definition of “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism 108 included matters of sexual ethics and specific same sex activity;

2. Declared twice—first in not acceding to Chicago South’s overture to Synod 2022, and second in not acceding to Alger Park’s overture to Synod 2023—that matters of sexual ethics are salvation issues.

For some in the denomination, this was not enough.

Enter Classis Iakota.

Classis Iakota submits an overture to Synod 2024

In response to the language from (1) Alger Park CRC’s 2023 overture; (2) Neland’s response to the in loco committee; and (3) Better Together’s definition of salvation issues, Classis Iakota submitted an overture to Synod 2024 asking Synod to declare, in fact, that Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 does speak about a salvation issue.

Iakota's logic went as follows:

1. BECAUSE Synod 2022 declared that the definition of the word “unchastity” includes matters of sexual ethics, and Synod 2023 affirmed this decision, and

2. BECAUSE Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 87 states that “no unchaste person… will inherit the kingdom of God,”

3. THEN: those who engage in same sex sex or other matters of sexual ethics as they are defined by the Human Sexuality Report are, in fact, risking their salvation,

4. AND: If you are an officebearer in the CRC, then you agree to “heartily believe” and “promote and defend their doctrines faithfully, conforming our preaching, teaching, writing, serving, and living to them,” which means you should not teach that unchastity and sexual ethics are not salvation issues.

The overture asked Synod 2024 to do four things:

1. Declare that unchastity and sexual ethics are salvation issues.

2. Declare that denying that sexual ethics and unchastity are salvation issues would go against the teachings of the confessions.

3. Declare that those who teach that matters of sexual ethics are not salvation issues are worthy of special discipline, which means the officebearer would be suspended from office.

4. Instruct classes, councils, and officebearers to teach that matters of sexual ethics constitute a salvation issue.

Better Together states that sexual ethics do not constitute salvation issues

In response, Better Together argued that sexual sins were not salvation issues:

“While matters of human sexuality are important, consequential, and necessary to engage in gospel ministries, human sexuality ought not be elevated to a matter of eternal life and death. If beliefs about human sexuality are not a salvation deal-breaker, they need not be a fellowship deal-breaker.”

The reason for this, went the thinking, is that if salvation depends on repentance, then unrepentance has the power to stop regeneration. This runs contrary to the traditional Reformed understanding of how we are saved:

“And an understanding of salvation that is conditional on repentance, where unrepentance has the causal power to prohibit the Holy Spirit from his regenerating work, is a salvation grounded in the human will, not the divine will. Such an understanding of salvation has never been a Reformed understanding of salvation.”

Furthermore:

“God doesn’t withhold his forgiveness and salvation until we get repentance right (or our idea of salvation issues right). The whole of our confessional theology reminds us that God’s actions and the disposition of his heart are ultimately more consequential to salvation issues than our own actions and heart disposition.”

In short, salvation depends on God, not on human will or desires, and not even on human repentance.

Advisory Committee 1 deals with Iakota’s overture

Classis Iakota’s overture was assigned to Advisory Committee 1 to make a recommendation for Synod to vote on. However, the committee could not come to full agreement. When this happens, the rules of synodical procedure state that the committee must present multiple reports: a majority report and a minority report. According to the rules, the majority report comes to the floor first; then the minority report. Then, the body discusses the majority report. If the body wants to discuss the minority report, a motion must be made to table the majority report and take up the minority report. This motion was made, but there were not enough votes to table.

So Synod discussed the majority report.

The majority report made two recommendations:

1. First, the majority report recommended that synod declare any unrepentant sin, including the sin of unchastity, to be a salvation issue. In this way, they took the first thing Classis Iakota overtured Synod to do—declare unchastity and sexual ethics to be salvation issues—and broadened it to include all unrepentant sin, thus collapsing all sin together. It doesn’t matter what the sin is. If it’s unrepented, then it endangers someone’s salvation.

2. Second, the majority report also recommended against merely teaching that unchastity and sexual ethics are not salvation issues.

In the course of the debate, eleven people spoke to the motion.

• Of the eleven, one delegate, Kurt Monroe, pastor of First CRC in Sioux Center, Iowa—the church who wrote the original overture to Classis Iakota which was then sent to synod—spoke in favor of the motion.

• The other ten speakers spoke against the motion, and the reporter responded to six of them, to the apparent frustration of the body: in one case, a delegate asked the chair, Derek Buikema, to clarify that it was the reporter’s responsibility to “to defend the report, not insert himself into the argument.”

My summary of the debate is below, or you can watch the whole thing here:

There were eight main objections to the majority report’s recommendations:

1. The term “salvation issue” is a term not used anywhere in the confessions. It might be misunderstood as calling out much more than it intends.

2. Calling unchastity and sexual ethics a salvation issue is redundant, because Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 87 already states that “no unchaste person… will inherit the kingdom of God.” If Synod calls out unchastity as a salvation issue but refrains from calling out the other sins listed in Q&A 87 (“idolater, adulterer, thief, covetous person, drunkard, slanderer, robber, or the like”), then Synod risks saying more than the confessions say.

3. The report correctly states that all sin is a salvation issue, so there’s no reason to call out unchastity.

4. When Q&A 87 says that people who commit these sins will not “inherit the kingdom of God,” it is making a statement about sanctification, not justification. If it were making a statement about justification, as the majority report seems to do, then it would contradict Belgic Confession articles 27, 28, and 29.

5. Salvation is not contingent on repentance, contra the report’s statement that “any and all unrepented sin” is a salvation issue. Instead, salvation relies on God’s grace alone; thus the recommendations are neither Reformed nor biblical.

6. The majority report’s recommendations are in conflict with the doctrine of unconditional election—that the operation of salvation is divine work. These recommendations in the majority report imply that salvation is a human work.

7. The report misunderstands the nature of repentance, which is not what produces salvation, but is the fruit of salvation.

8. If repentance produces salvation in any way, then everyone runs the risk of dying with unrepentant—even unknowingly committed—sin. This puts everyone in danger of hell, which seems not to be the intent or reality of the Gospel.

Then Mary Vandenberg spoke.

She is professor of systematic theology at Calvin Theological Seminary and was the theological advisor to the committee, though it seems the majority report didn’t take much of her advice. In her comments, she spoke to some of the objections raised by the delegates, and clarified some of her own objections to the majority report. Here are her three main points:

1. Using the term a “salvation issue” is imprecise, because salvation is an umbrella term. It covers justification, sanctification, regeneration, redemption, and so on. All of these terms—and many others—fit under the term “salvation.” To call something a “salvation issue” makes sense only if you’re talking about everything surrounding what it means to be saved. In this way, all sin is, indeed, a salvation issue.

2. Salvation does not require repentance. It’s very likely we all die having committed unrepented and even unknown sins. We become aware of our sin through the conviction of the Holy Spirit. This is the process of sanctification: the daily dying to ourselves and to our desires and rising with Christ. Thus, the possibility of dying with unrepentant or unknown sin should not worry us, because salvation—and specifically justification—ensures that we are covered with his blood and welcomed into his arms.

3. We don’t know who’s in and who’s out. Both our confessions and the Bible make clear that we are judged. But both are also emphatic that for those in Christ, there is nothing to fear. We are judged and found guilty, but Jesus takes the punishment. And who does he take the punishment for? The Reformed tradition insists that we cannot know. We can have assurance about our own salvation, but we should not judge whether others should be assured of their salvation in the same way. And while we can observe the fruit of others’ salvation, perhaps in the form of repentance, our judgment of others still remains subjective, incomplete, imprecise, and ultimately inconsequential. Christ is the ultimate arbiter.

For these reasons—the eight objections to the majority report and Mary Vandenberg’s three comments that clarified and complemented them—the majority report was defeated by a vote of 100 to 79.

Synod then took up the minority report, which recommended only one thing: “That synod not accede to Overture 29.”

Synod approved the minority report without discussion, by a vote of 103 to 59.

Whatever the CRC’s position on whether unchastity and sexual ethics constitute a salvation issue was the same as before: yes, they are salvation issues, but so is all sin. Matters of sexual ethics don’t need to be called out in any special way.

Responses to Synod 2024’s non-action

Most of the responses to Synod came from the right. I thought Abide had the most robust discussion about it, and panelists Kurt Monroe, Patrick Anthony, and Trevor Mouw back themselves into complicated theological terrain. You can watch it here:

The discussion clustered around three main themes:

Response #1: adiaphora

First, there was concern that, by not passing the majority report, Synod communicated that unchastity and sexual ethics might fall into the category of adiaphora. That is, unchastity falls into the category of permissible, non-prohibited activities with respect to salvation. Here’s how Classis Iakota defined the term in their overture: “a matter judged to be not essential to the faith: a ‘questionable’ or ‘disputable’ issue about which Christians can disagree.”

Response #2: Is salvation dependent on repentance?

Second, the panel raised several questions around the relationship between repentance and salvation: how do we know a person is saved? Despite Mary Vandenberg’s warning that we should not judge whether others should be assured of their salvation, the panel seemed to conclude that repentance might actually be a precondition for salvation.

But how could this be? This creates a conflict with unconditional election. To solve this, we should think of repentance as the fruit of salvation. Or, God enables repentance: the Holy Spirit produces it. God not only saves you, but he creates a desire in you, post hoc, to want to repent. With this definition of repentance, God still initiates all the work, but it still makes salvation dependent on repentance. Salvation and repentance go hand-in-hand. You can’t have one without other.

So that’s the relationship between repentance and salvation. But what about the relationship between belief and salvation? Is holding a false belief a salvation issue?

That’s where the panel went next.

Response #3: Is salvation dependent on correct beliefs?

On the one hand, no. Holding a false belief is not a salvation issue. In a particularly moving moment, Kurt Monroe reminded everyone of children who might not understand the Trinity. Their salvation is not at risk; they are part of the covenant. They belong.

But on the other hand, we can’t deny the Trinity, he said. Patrick Anthony elaborated, pointing out that the process of sanctification requires growing in wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. The more we know, the more we’re responsible to understand what we know. Holding incorrect beliefs isn’t enough to save, but holding incorrect beliefs does entail some kind of risk. As we become sanctified, we become more responsible for our own sloppy thinking.

What is the order of salvation?

Behind much of these discussions lies a conflict in the way we understand repentance. At risk of wading into theological territory that’s out of my depth, here are six assumptions behind Iakota’s overture that do not sit well with me.

1. First, the framework assumes a rather narrow understanding of sin focused on an individual: an individual’s conscious behavior, and specifically the kinds of behavior comprised mostly of ethical or moral matters. This is in contrast to a doctrine of sin that takes into account the fact that “all creation groans.”

2. Second, understanding repentance as only (or primarily) a gift of grace diminishes its meaning. Some (not all) of what makes repentance work is that the person doing the repenting means it and wills it.

3. Third, the repentance-is-only-a-fruit-of-salvation framework assumes that for me to be saved, God, before the creation of the world, determined at a future point in time that I would repent, which then retroactively caused God to desire to save me. God could do it, I suppose, and might be more likely to do it if his justice and wrath exceeds his mercy and grace. But God could also do the opposite if his mercy and grace exceeds his tendency toward justice and wrath. (I take the latter view.)

4. Fourth, it’s biblical to forgive without being asked to. A maximal version of this might be the mandate to love our enemies. The biblical narrative seems to point in the direction of God showing increasing mercy.

5. Fifth, there are untold modern examples of people initiating reconciliation through forgiveness without the other party asking for it or even accepting it. Nelson Mandela did it, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s framework made it possible for victims to forgive perpetrators even if perpetrators didn’t ask for it. Mennonites have a history of doing this. Corrie Ten Boom did it. The Emanuel AME Church community in Charleston, South Carolina forgave Dylan Roof for killing nine people at their church, despite the fact that he showed no remorse and said “I still feel like I had to do it” at his sentencing.

6. Sixth, if it’s possible for people like Nelson Mandela, Corrie Ten Boom, and the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston to do this, it seems even more possible for God to be able to do this, too. But more than God’s mere ability, his desire to do this seems more consistent with his nature and character than his desire not to do this. (Again: this assumes God’s tendency toward mercy and love rather than justice and wrath.)

For evangelicals, “salvation issues” are just Minimum-Viable-Beliefs

In the postwar decades, evangelicalism took on a cross-denominational identity, where the theological particularities of any one denomination mattered less than the beliefs all evangelicals held in common. Delineating “salvation issues” from “non-salvation issues” wasn’t invented by evangelicals in the postwar era, but it did become a useful way of facilitating unity among evangelicals while still respecting what made each distinctive denominational tradition unique.

That’s why when most evangelicals talk about salvation issues, they’re usually not talking about how one is saved. They’re not having the discussion Synod had. Rather, in modern American evangelical discourse, they’re talking about core beliefs. A salvation issue is a basic belief you must hold in order to be saved. This belief might not necessarily be theological. It could also be about a moral issue, like abortion or same sex marriage or climate change or complementarianism. Whatever it is, you need to hold it to be saved. Thus, for American evangelicals, a salvation issue is a question of what you believe, not how you are saved. It’s an attempt to find the minimum required belief.

American evangelicals have been doing this for awhile. The Fundamentals, for example, were published in 1910, listing the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth, the atonement, the resurrection, and miracles as essential beliefs—salvation issues. In the mid-20th century, organizations like Campus Crusade, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Focus on the Family, Billy Graham’s Crusades, the Moral Majority, and others were effective because they were not tied to a single denomination. They appealed to all evangelicals. They were able to collaborate because they were able to the articulate beliefs they all held in common—the common denominator beliefs that enabled them to function despite a range of theological backgrounds.

Evangelicals are still doing this. Today, the National Association of Evangelicals lists only six beliefs as part of their statement of faith: about the Bible, the Trinity, the incarnation, the atonement, the present work of the Holy Spirit, the resurrection, and unity in Christ. The Evangelical Theological Society’s doctrinal basis simplifies this further. It states, in full, what members must believe: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.” That’s it—you only need to uphold biblical inerrancy and the Trinity.

The challenge with drawing a line between the minimum beliefs necessary for salvation and the secondary beliefs that are non-essential is that everyone draws the line differently. Who gets to decide where the line is drawn?

And that’s the main problem with the way American evangelicals talk about “salvation issues.” The term says more about the person defining it than about the definition itself.

The challenge for the CRC is that the identity of CRC people is more defined by American evangelicalism than by their CRC-ness. Synod (and Abide) can have a robust discussion about what the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism say about salvation, but CRC people—even at the most confessional of churches—are more likely to be catechized by Christian Radio, Facebook feeds, Fox News and CNN, and a range of other influences. They’re immersed, day-to-day, in a version of quasi-Christian discourse that defines “salvation issue” not as an umbrella term that speaks of all the ways Christ saves us, but as a kind of minimum-viable-belief version of Christianity defined as much by political and social issues as by theological questions.

This is why the problem is not that the term “salvation issue” is ambiguous, as Synod thought. (They’re not wrong!) The problem is that for most people the term “salvation issue” is very clear, and that it means the opposite of what Synod thinks it means. This is why calling unchastity a salvation issue does the opposite of what Synod thinks it does. Instead of opening an entryway into a robust theological discussion of all the ways in which God saves us, it closes a door.

Thanks for reading,

Kent

---

P. S. An event with Nicholas Wolterstorff and Kristin Kobes Du Mez

This arrived in my inbox today, so I thought I’d share:

A personal conversation with Nick Wolterstorff and Kristin Du Mez on the Reformed tradition and the broader North American church—where we’ve been, where we are now, and what the future holds.

Whether you are part of the CRC, RCA, or in transit, evangelical or exvangelical, or simply faith-curious and concerned about the state of American Christianity, come join us as we consider together how we might draw on the past to create something new.

This is a free event sponsored by ICS (The Institute for Christian Studies) and the Reformed Journal.

It’s on Saturday, May 3, from 7:00 – 9:00pm ET at Eastern Avenue CRC in Grand Rapids.

Sign up to attend in person or online.