A note from the editors: This concludes our serial on human sexuality and the decisions of Synod. The Political Dialogue & Action Club (PDAC) and Chimes would like to sincerely thank the professors who took the time to provide us with such valuable and varied perspectives on a deeply significant issue to this university. While contentious, the value of having these dialogues is of immeasurable importance, and no matter where you fall, we highly encourage you to be open and understanding in your dialogue with others in our campus community. If you are seeking further information on the topic, we encourage you to attend Pastor Mary’s talk on Calvin and the CRC on April 29, 2025.

The topic of human sexuality, like most things human, is complicated. When it comes to expressions and practices of human sexuality, well, things quickly move from complicated to contentious. How best to navigate discussions around contentious topics and beliefs? Here is how I think about it.

We Christians have lots of beliefs on a variety of matters. You can think of your beliefs as falling on a series of concentric circles. In the smallest circle in the center of the series are those beliefs that are essential to orthodox Christianity. These would include beliefs such as that there is one God who exists in three persons; that Jesus was fully human and fully God; that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins; that we believe in the resurrection of the body and the life of the world to come; and so on. Such beliefs make up the substance of the ecumenical confessions of the Christian Church. Depart from one and you situate yourself outside of orthodox Christianity.

Of course, we have many other beliefs; beliefs about creation — whether God created in seven literal days or over the course of billions of years; whether infants should be baptized or only believing adults; whether the bread and wine become for us in the Eucharist the body and blood of Jesus or whether Communion is simply a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice; whether we human persons are immaterial souls or wholly physical beings; whether or not women should be ordained as pastors or whether such an office is restricted to men; etc. None of these beliefs are trivial. But to my reckoning, beliefs concerning them fall outside of that inner, center circle and land somewhere on one of the outer, peripheral circles. In other words, none is essential to Christian orthodoxy. Christians of good character can disagree, and disagree passionately about all of these matters and all still be orthodox Christians.

Now, consider the issue of human sexuality. It is not a trivial matter. Even so, I regard particular beliefs concerning human sexuality to fall not in the center of that series of concentric circles, but somewhere on one of the outer peripheral circles. And while I hold a particular view, and am prepared to defend it, I recognize that many devout Christians, indeed many devout Reformed Christians, sincere and honest truth-seekers, hold views that are opposed to mine. And in the context of an academic institution like Calvin, I accept that I am going to be confronted with people who hold beliefs that I think are false concerning human sexuality and who engage in practices that I may judge “sinful.”

I believe that the most productive way to navigate discussions, debates, conversations, and dialogue where there is passionate disagreement on matters of fundamental human concern, such as the matter of human sexuality, is by practicing the virtues of tolerance and epistemic humility.

When confronted with disagreement on matters of fundamental human concern, there are two possible paths open to us. One is to be intolerant of offending beliefs or practices. It is to take steps to see that the offending belief or practice ceases. Another is to tolerate the offending belief or practice. It is, in effect, to say to oneself “while I think the belief in question is false or the practice morally wrong, I will endure it; I will bear it, and take no steps to see that it ceases.” And what might lead one to adopt this second path is the conviction that the holder of the offending belief, the practitioner of the offending practice, is an image bearer of God, an icon of God, and an honest and sincere truth-seeker themselves, and that I, such as I am, am a finite, frail human being who, despite my best efforts, may nevertheless be the one with blind spots, the one who may in fact be mistaken on this matter.

Notice, such an attitude does not preclude me from trying to persuade those with whom I disagree. But what it does is to incline me toward attentive listening and to being open to being persuaded. So, I am of the deep conviction that the most productive path forward when discussing contentious issues is the one paved with tolerance and humility.

Many years ago, before I arrived at Calvin, there was a vigorous and spirited debate on campus and in the Christian Reformed Church concerning the compatibility of evolution and the picture of creation presented in the opening chapters of the book of Genesis. It was the mid 1980s, I believe. A particular physics and astronomy professor here at Calvin was arguing that evolution and Divine creation are indeed compatible. If the question is who created the natural world and human beings, the answer was and is God. If the question is how? The answer this particular professor suggested was through naturalistic, evolutionary processes.

That such a view — evolutionary creation — was being taught at what was then Calvin College created a firestorm of controversy. Full page ads were taken out in the Grand Rapids Press denouncing the professor as a heretic. This, it was argued, was because the professor did not interpret the opening chapters of the book of Genesis literally. The Christian Reformed Church launched a four-year investigation into the matter and determined that evolutionary creation does not violate Christian Reformed Church doctrine. To my knowledge, everyone in Calvin’s current chemistry, biology, and physics departments accepts an evolutionary account of creation.

In the late 00s, another controversy erupted on campus over whether Adam and Eve were historical beings or literary theological figures. This controversy centered on the work of two theology professors on campus. Referring to a statement on Calvin’s website at the time, an article that is still up at mlive.com had this to say, “…the college did not approve or endorse the ideas stated by the professors,” but “it does endorse the importance of asking questions and prayerfully and humbly seeking answers.”

That neither of these issues — the issue of evolution and the issue of a historical Adam and Eve — was elevated to the status of confessional belief, but the issue of human sexuality is being so elevated, raises the question, why? What is the relevant dissimilarity between the issue of human sexuality and the issues of a historical Adam and Eve and evolution, such that the former issue is being elevated to confessional status but the latter issues never were?

It is very difficult for me not to think that one relevant dissimilarity lay in the cultural and political climate characteristic of the times in which discussion of these issues are and were carried out. Our current cultural climate is, sadly, characterized by sometimes vicious intolerance, burning anger, us-versus-them thinking, and hyperpolarization. It is hard for me to shake the feeling that attitudes and dispositions which characterize the larger cultural and political climate in which we live have seeped into the Christian Reformed Church and colored its discussion of human sexuality.

Whatever the reason or reasons for why the issues of evolution and a historical Adam and Eve were never elevated to confessional status but a particular belief with respect to human sexuality is, I suppose my position is this. Even if one agrees with the view on human sexuality adopted by Synod, I find elevating that view to confessional status and requiring it of all faculty deeply problematic. I would much prefer that the university adopt the position espoused by the college at the time of the debate over the historical Adam and Eve: “…the college did not approve or endorse the ideas stated by the professors,” but “it does endorse the importance of asking questions and prayerfully and humbly seeking answers.” 

Such a position, I believe, would be much more characteristic of an academic institution of higher learning in the Reformed tradition than to elevate a particular view of human sexuality to the same status as belief in the resurrection of the body, belief in the incarnation of God in Jesus, belief in the triune nature of God, or any of the other beliefs essential to orthodox confessional Christianity.