“Jesus called [his disciples] over and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and their big people rule over them, but not so among you. If anyone among you wants to be great, let them be your servant, and if anyone wants to be first, let them be your slave, just as the son of man came not be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for multitudes.’” Matthew 20:25-28
“No church shall in any way lord it over another church, and no office-bearer shall lord it over another office-bearer.” The Church Order of the Christian Reformed Church, Article 85
“I’m more Christian Reformed than Al Plantinga.” Patrick Anthony, delegate to Synod 2024 from Classis Central California
Synod 2024 has completed its work, and it was all about lording it over others. Those persuaded that they are right about most everything but especially in matters of sex completed the work they began in 2022 and seized firm hold of the denomination. Ripped it away, as it were, from many who have long been loyal to it and reshaped it in ways that we could scarcely have imagined only a few years ago. Call this new denomination Abide. RIP CRC.
The centerpiece of this synod’s work were the recommendations of Advisory Committee 8. On the key recommendations, the committee split into a majority and minority, but the differences were slight, and the majority prevailed. One of the most discouraging aspects of this synod was that there was little in the way of organized opposition—no minority reports that pushed back on the overall direction of the synod. Voices from the floor opposing the headlong rush to judgement were muted, wistful. One of the delegates spoke of his involvement in the CRC in the past tense. The atmosphere was efficient, expeditious, let’s get this done and go home. RIP CRC.
The recommendations of Advisory Committee 8 were directed to open and affirming churches, churches that welcome members from the LGBTQ community. The recommendations require these churches to “repent,” remove statements “opposed to the teaching of the CRCNA regarding chastity,” and promise not to ordain to church office anyone in a same-sex marriage, not to teach contrary to the CRC position on sexuality, not recognize same-sex marriages, and not to allow their officers (and members?) to serve in any organization advocating a position contrary to the official position of the CRC on sexuality. These recommendations passed in their entirety with crushing majorities.
At the conclusion of Synod 2024, any church not in compliance with these requirements is immediately barred from sending delegates to classis, synod, the Council of Delegates, or any other CRC board. This suspension continues for a year—two if the church “is participating in the process” and their classis approves—after which if the church fails to comply the classis is instructed to remove the council and place the church under the authority of a neighboring council.
These synodical actions are unprecedented. There has been a long, slow debate in the CRC about whether a synod or a classis has the authority to depose a council. Mostly the answer has been yes but only under the direst of circumstances. I was once a part of such an action for a church that was in the process of being taken out of the denomination, basically stolen, by a pastor and his family against the will of the congregation. Even then, we wondered if we had the authority to proceed. Now the synod has moved to depose the councils of multiple churches because they are welcoming the wrong kind of people into membership and into church office—twenty-eight churches according to the reporter for Advisory Committee 8. Twenty-eight churches that must knuckle under to the synod, leave the denomination, or be taken over by hostile action. RIP CRC.
And who will decide whether a church meets the requirements of the synod or not? In my admittedly limited time watching the synodical proceedings I saw no discussion of that detail. Who will function as the ecclesiastical police? Perhaps that is what the synod had in mind when it instructed the Office of the General Secretary to “help classes and churches navigate the process towards repentance and restoration . . . or towards disaffiliation.” See them gently out the door.
Clearly, the synod, for all the pious language about unity, intends to disaffiliate these congregations. The power of the Abide crowd will only grow with the dismissal of dissenting churches. They will not repeat the mistake of the people who left several decades ago to form the United Reformed Church. They are not leaving; they intend to drive out anyone who opposes them. Lording it over, as it were. We fewer people in opposition, the lording gets easier.
The actions proposed by Advisory Committee 8 and adopted by synod interlock with two other sets of actions in what apparently has been a plan to take over the denomination. One of these, notably early to the floor of synod, indicating that it was worked out before synod began, were actions taken to restrict the use of the gravamen (and parallel provisions for Calvin faculty) for those not persuaded that Synod 2022 was right in ruling that it’s interpretation of Question and Answer 108 of the Heidelberg Catechism was confessional.
I’ve written about this before, so I will not dally on the details. In 2022, in response to a report on human sexuality, synod declared that sex between partners of the same gender is morally and biblically wrong regardless. This was nothing new. Since 1973, the denomination has taken the position that same sex attraction is not sinful—you can think it—but same sex is sin—you can’t do it.
But Synod 2022 pushed beyond condemnation of same sex relationships. They declared that their ruling against homosexual sex has confessional status. Confessional status means that anyone holding office in the church is required to subscribe to this synodical declaration against gay sex.
Subscription takes place in the CRC by signing a document called the “Covenant for Officebearers.” One must sign the Covenant, so goes a directive in the Supplement to the Church Order, “without reservation,” declaring that the “doctrines” expressed in the confessions of the church “fully agree with the Word of God.” Now, claimed Synod 2022, those confessions include the declaration homosexual sex is condemned by God.
This some holding office in the CRC could not bring themselves to do so. Not without reservations. Not with the claim that the synodical ruling fully agrees with the Word of God. And so, directed to do so by the Office of the General Secretary and from the floor of synod, they availed themselves of a church order option: the gravamen. A gravamen is a statement, written or not, that one has grave (the etymological origin of “gravamen”) doubts about something taught in the confessions.
Initially the move to make the synodical condemnation of homosexual sex confessional looked like a bit of synodical overreach—an attempt to stifle debate. I took it as such. But in retrospect it looks like a strategy, a trap into which those who hold contrary opinions about same-sex marriage, have fallen. The playbook, known from other right wing takeovers, is to introduce a wedge issue, hold up this wedge issue as a matter of denominational integrity, and then use the wedge issue to drive out from the denomination anyone who differs from those who are trying to gain control. In this case, the strategy has succeeded spectacularly.
Whether planned or not—I try not to be cynical about this—the strategy includes the gravamen. By declaring their doubts—which is what a gravamen does—these office holders in effect outed themselves. And then, perversely, the synod pulled the rug out from under them.
Since 1976, gravamina (plural of gravamen) in the CRC have come in two flavors: the confessional-difficulty gravamen and the confessional-revision gravamen. The first is private and usually informal, a simple notification to your church council that you have some doubts about something or other in the confessions. The second is public and formal. It requires mounting an argument for why the church should change one or more of the confessions. The first is common; the second is rare and never works. At Synods 2022 through 2024, it was only the first that was in play, the confessional-difficulty gravamen.
Synod 2024 played the game of now you see it and now you don’t. Never mind the gravamen terminology—language developed only in 1976 in response to a challenge to the church by a retired professor—the church has long allowed office holders, especially elders and deacons in local congregations, to express their unease with this or that in the confessions. A person comes, say, from a Baptist background to a CRC church. After being part of the church for a while, they are tapped to serve on council. But when the tap comes, the person says to the council, I still struggle some with the idea of infant baptism. I can support the position of the church, but you should know that it is not my position. If that’s okay, I’ll serve. Presented with that sort of “gravamen,” councils have often said, no problem. We would like you to join us.
But no more. To go back to the formal language, the confessional-difficulty gravamen has been redefined by Synod 2024. It’s no longer a virtual asterisk by one’s signature on the Covenant for Officebearers saying that I, the signer, will support the official positions of the denomination as best I can but on this matter—say, the Synod 2022 declaration about the unchastity of homosexual sex—I have reservations. Synod 2024 said that no such virtual asterisks are allowed. A confessional-difficulty gravamen is not, they said, an expression of reservations but a request for instruction so that one can fully embrace the confessions. Oh, and don’t take forever at it, they added. You have at most three years to get your opinions in line with that of the synod or you should leave office.
To these two sets of rulings—the first against dissenting churches and a second against dissenting officebearers, Synod 2024 on its last day added a third: this time against churches and individuals who submitted communications to synod saying that they were members of the CRC “in protest” against the actions of Synod 2022 and 2023. With regard to these, the synod’s action was swift and direct: it declared that by submitting their protests to the synod they had placed themselves under discipline. It did not specify how that discipline was to be carried out.
There was more of this sort of thing at Synod 2024—a new requirement that office holders in the church annually sign the Covenant for Officebearers, a declaration that one’s opinion about same sex relationships is a “salvation issue,” some condescending language to Calvin saying that “Synod leads,” and more—but nothing that quite captured the change effected by Synod 2024 as did an exchange between two delegates about of all things, the prominent philosopher Alvin Plantinga.
Ryan Schreiber, delegate from Classis Grand Rapids East, first mentioned Plantinga, not initially as one of the most prominent Christian philosophers of his generation, but as his Sunday School teacher. He wondered whether the Christian Reformed Church was still the church of Alvin Plantinga.
It was not long before another delegate, Patrick Anthony of Classis Central California, responded. Saying that he had not grown up in the CRC, he said that what made one Christian Reformed was strict adherence to the confessions. He added as a point of emphasis, “I’m more Christian Reformed than Alvin Plantinga.”
The difference between these two illustrates the differences between the CRC of the past and the CRC post-Synod 2024. It’s not that Al Plantinga grew up in the CRC or that he was part of a well-connected CRC family. These are not what make one CRC. But there is something distinctively CRC about Plantinga’s capacious faith, steeped in Reformed tradition but willing to take that tradition in new directions.
Faith seeking understanding, as Anselm of Canterbury put it. Plantinga, along with others, took that old dictum to new levels. Beginning with his faith in Jesus, he sought understanding. And he brought that understanding not only to other philosophers but to the culture, claiming that faith in Jesus in a serious sense makes sense, makes better sense than the alternatives. In arguing this, Al Plantinga and others brought Calvin to prominence.
In contrast Anthony’s definition of what it means to be CRC is based on an orthodoxy test: here, sign off on this, and you are in. That is not faith, not in any biblical sense. It’s like claiming that passing the written driver’s test is the same as driving. Where in that is the love of the Lord, the love of the church—not just the CRC but the great tradition of the church—the love of theology, and the love of the people of God? Where in that is the excitement of theological exploration? Where in that the impulse that led CRC people to develop World Renew? Where in that is Calvin University?
It’s the last that is the great remaining question. Churches, church leaders, thoughtful people with long loyalty to the CRC will leave, are leaving the CRC. RIP CRC. But what of Calvin, already knocked about by the events of the last year, damaged by poor management in the past, and facing a daunting future as a small Christian college? Will Calvin survive as Calvin? For those questions I have no ready answers. For now I’m sad it has come to this. RIP CRC.
Clay
76 responses to “RIP CRC”
I’m sad too, Pastor Clay. Thanks for this analysis.
Thanks, Stacia. Thinking about you and Calvin.
I am so sorry to read this. Your description of the new treatment of gravamen reminds me of Mao’s infamous “Let One Hundred Flowers Bloom, Let One Hundred Thoughts Contend” campaign, in which China’s intellectuals were encouraged to submit respectful criticism of the government and make recommendations on how the country’s communist system could be improved without fear of political repercussion. We all know what happened to those individuals after they did so. Encouraging dissent with the promise of continued good standing and then pulling away that promise is a terrible betrayal.
After reading this, I too wonder what all of this means for Calvin University. I was fortunate to have attended in the 1980s, when the administration stood up for the academic freedom of professors who taught science as science and criticized donors’ business practices. There is good scholarship being done there now on the evangelical culture of patriarchy and Christian Nationalism. Will the cancel mob come after those faculty as well?
This is a recent book by Todd Ream and Jerry Pattengale which addresses some of these issues in a book titled The Anxious Middle: Planning for the future of the Christian College.
https://www.baylorpress.com/9781481318501/the-anxious-middle.
Just one of many accolades follows:
The Anxious Middle is the one new book you must read if you are connected to Christian higher education in any way. Ream and Pattengale make a bold and correct claim that the future of Christian higher education lies in understanding the ‘why’ it should exist. And that ‘why’ is the discipleship of the student into a firm belief that God is the creator of all things and therefore God is at the center of all things. Once you know the ‘why,’ presidents, university leaders, faculty, and board members will be able to shape and give oversight to all the other important and necessary functions of the university. The Anxious Middle supports its thesis with an engrossing discussion of Bonhoffer’s life and writings. Throughout the book the practical functions of a university are woven into historical context and vice versa. If you are a newcomer or a seasoned professional to Christian higher education, this book will equip to imagine a future by knowing the past.
~Shirley Hoogstra, President, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities
Sad indeed. I am disheartened, at best. But so grateful for your willingness, Clay, to help me sort my thoughts out regarding this major upheaval in my world. In the words of a now deceased life-long CRC friend, “In the scheme of things, it’s just not that important.” I’m going to try to assume that perspective.
Thanks.
Thanks Clay
We have been at a funeral for a few years now for the CRC that birthed generations of deep thinkers and championed cultural engagement. Where do the orphans go from here?
I’m not sure where next. I hope we have a healthy conversation about what is best from here.
P.s. saw that “playbook” coming when they decided gravamen weren’t gonna be enough— we may as well be baptist because now they’re headed for our women leaders
Unfortunately, I think this may well be true.
Maybe a potential reunite with the United Reformed?
Thanks for the honestly painful analysis of what occurred. I think you are spot on.
Nowhere in history were a group of people who worked so hard to ‘purge’ those who disagree considered ‘heroes.’ What we saw was Church-Sanctioned Abuse or Power cloaked with the veil of righteousness. Those of us in the middle find ourselves sickened by the literal joy some found in the suffering of other Brothers & Sisters in Christ. To take delight (on camera) in forcing people to leave a fellowship some have invested their entire lives (and generations), is antithetical to the command to ‘Love your Neighbor as yourself.’ Yet because they feel, ‘God is on MY side,’ they can excuse anything.
In their quest to purify the Church, they have forgotten that THEY are not the ones who are called to bring judgment against God’s people. In Amos 9, it is God who says, “I’m still giving the orders around here. I’m throwing Israel into a sieve among all the nations and shaking them good, shaking out all the sin, all the sinners. No real grain will be lost, but all the sinners will be sifted out and thrown away, the people who say, ‘Nothing bad will ever happen in our lifetime. It won’t even come close.’
While those in power may think the Denomination will finally start growing again, and that ‘nothing bad will happen,’ I predict these actions will only expedite its demise because soon, there will be no one left to sift.
If the Abide group wants to come after me next, I’ll be the guy with the “I WILL NOT COMPLY” shirt on. RIP CRC
Thanks, Ben.
Most excellent. You’ve captured and conveyed it well.
Thanks.
So very, very sad. Thank you for your very wise words.
Thanks, Eileen.
You blow me away Clay! Thanks for so many wise and well articulated reports and perspectives during this process that the CRC was placed on life support and then had it’s plug pulled by the events of the past 3 synods. You express the character of the reformed faith and theological questioning that I fell in love with at Calvin and that led me to spend a career there. We who leave the CRC will find great new life serving our Lord elsewhere. I am not nearly so confident in what will happen with my Calvin.
Thanks.
Your last sentence – that haunts me too.
I left a comment here, but apparently must have forgotten to click the button as it is not showing up. I will try to recreate it…
This is sad to read. A lot of good people are getting hurt. The actions taken regarding the confessional-difficulty gravamen remind me of Mao’s “Let One Hundred Flowers Bloom, Let One Hundred Thoughts Contend” campaign in 1956, whereby the country’s intellectuals were invited to submit respectful criticism and feedback of government policies and offer recommendations for change, with a promise of no political repercussions. We sadly know how things turned out in China for the the individuals who participated. Promising protection to dissent and then withdrawing that protection to punish one for one’s candidness is quite a betrayal.
I, too, wonder “What will become of Calvin University?” I was fortunate to have attended in the 1980s, when the administration defended faculty against those who would try to censor (and censure) the teaching of science as science and criticism of a prominent company’s business practices. Currently there is scholarship being done at the university on Christian Nationalism and on patriarchy in evangelical culture. I hope the synodical “mob” does not try to “cancel” this work or those undertaking it, and that Calvin can continue to be an environment for honest and rigorous inquiry.
True that, Peter.
Thank you, Clay, for your leadership. RIP indeed.
As always, thanks, Bryan.
Thanks for providing a succinct summary of the most recent decisions.
I am born and raised CRC, graduated from Calvin in the late 70’s when it was still a college.
Sad indeed since the recent decisions went against the guidelines and understandings Synod gave in the 1970’s.
Thanks. Yes, the discussion the 70s went in quite a different direction.
Thanks Clay. The other important thing about Alvin Plantinga is that his gravamen was conveniently left out of the advisory committee reports. It is left out because it proves that there is clear evidence of perpetual confessional difficulty gravamen prior to the HSR. Perhaps only scrupulous people like Alvin would read through the church order to find them. I am guessing he knew that his Free Will Defense likely conflicted with the Canons, and so he needed to file a gravamen with South Bend CRC (now Church of the Savior). His brother Neal maybe was a conversation partner in this.
There is not a good way to prove these were used widely because by nature they are confidential between council and officer.
Yes, I believe that those who love and lead Calvin University are now without excuse. I can’t help anymore.
(I am also scrupulous. Al was an irregular adult Sunday school teacher in South Bend during my time there 2009-2014.)
Thanks, Ryan. I had a conversation with Patrick Anthony several months ago. I raised Nick Wolterstorff along with Al. His response was much the same.
Clay, I regularly read your articles and appreciate your thoughts and perspectives. They are often thought provoking. This one was your best. If I had been the executive director at this Synod I might well have resigned after the final gavel.
Hi Jerry, I just spent a year at Walnut Creek, your old stomping grounds.
Jerry,
I’m in grief for so many of my CRC friends, including you. When we worked together with the CRC and RCA, we never could have imagined what has happened in both of our denominations.
….I think you would have resigned before the final gavel!
Jerry didn’t your church just leave the RCA for same reason?
Jerry, didn’t your church just leave the RCA for the ARC for the same reason?
Crickets.. @Jerry
Thanks Clay. Sad that dogma separates people from each other and from the Ground of all Being. But maybe this is the inevitable result of a propositional, confessional, intellectual faith in which correct belief in a substitutionary Atoner and correct worship of Him are valued more than loving god above all and our neighbor as ourselves. Ironic and sad that those who insist on one way to be with Christ behave like those He lamented in His day.
“Though the fig tree does not blossom, and no fruit on the vines;
though the produce of the olive fails, and the fields yield no food;
though the flock is cut off from the fold, and there is no herd in the stalls,
YET I WILL REJOICE IN THE Lord;
I will exult in the God of my salvation.
Habakkuk 3:17-18
Thank you, Clay; as an elder under limited suspension (not clear what that means), I appreciate your insights, especially this one on Synod 2024. Keep writing we need your wisdom
Rudy Eikelboom, Elder and Council Chair, Waterloo CRC Ontario
Thank you so much for this well written and informative article. I am grieving in the actions of the Church that I was a part of for the majority of my life. Several years ago our family made the difficult decision to leave the CRC and this was one main reason. We have found a beautiful and welcoming community in the PC-USA but still feel very connected to the CRC. My husband and I are graduates of Calvin and we’re about to send our oldest off to his first year at Calvin. We love the Calvin community and are so grateful for all of the faculty that challenged us to form our own worldview. We have been so excited for our son to experience that community as well but the actions of Synod 2024 definitely give me pause when I think of sending my child there. I’m praying for Calvin as they navigate this.
Having so many of the same feelings about my oldest heading to Calvin. Praying that those who have begun a good work at Calvin will be allowed to continue, will want to continue, and will be able to keep Calvin a place of thought and worldview formation. Praying for all my friends on faculty that you will be able to be bold and brave in your love of students and your love of forming a faith that is truly reformed.
I am so so sad. “like claiming that passing the written driver’s test is the same as driving” says it so well.
Growing up Catholic, I was in a class of teen girls who were asked to write, secretly, yes or no to the question ” I agree with my church”. I thought I was the only rebel, but most of us answered no, to which the seminarian giving the class responded, “Think about it. You are the church. Not the buildings, not the priests and bishops… You are the church. So let’s answer the question again. Do you agree with the church, given the that you, with all your God given skills and questions and doubts, are the church.” We answered yes.
My question now is, are”we” the CRC church? Do I still belong?
🙂
Will our local congregation and/or council dare comment on or discuss Synod 2024?? I’ll be surprised if we do.
Crc went the way of the culture so sad. So have the Methodists, Episcopalians. Saw that coming for sometime. Thank you for the post Clay. Rip crc
So our denomination expects to be complicit in the abuse and dis-avowment of LGBTQ+ to maintain our “membership in good standing” badge. Mind boggling.
Thank you Clay. Your opening words said, “call this new denomination, Abide.” I always thought that a better name would be “Not Abide”
This is simply so sad. We could have done it differently, but we didn’t. Or we couldn’t. Or we wouldn’t and even now we won’t. If divorce from each other is imminent, can we do so amicably in the historical realization the passing of time will soften the passions of this moment? Surely issues surrounding our sexuality are seminal, but reforming Christians have frequently separated when each of us was certain our own view of truth was correct and that of other brothers and sisters was not. Divisions are woven into our denominational DNA. We could achieve this breakup with kindness toward each other as we part. Or not.
Hank Post
(this comment is also being submitted to LBGT and Allies of the CRC. webpage).
Clay,
Well said and truly sad to see an external organization (Abide) infiltrate and take-over a once reasonably healthy denomination.
As a retiring board member from Calvin University I am not as concerned about the direction of the University as I am about the direction of the remainder of the CRC. Calvin encourages all to think deeply, act justly,
and live wholeheartedly as Christ’s agents of renewal in the world. In my five years I have seen this mission lived out in many ways – especially as we have faced various challenges.
All – please continue to pray for both Calvin University and the CRC. We are broken people living in a fallen world. May God bless us as we move forward through these trying times finding ways to love one another and live as Christ.
Thanks Clay,
Your article provides an excellent summary. At times I still scratch my head and wonder how we got here.
😢
After devoting my whole life to the CRC, if I understand this correctly, I will now be put under discipline. ??
So be it.
That will not stop me from washing the feet of the LGBTQ members (former & current). There are many. I stood up when they were baptized. I cared for them in the church nursery. I taught them in Sunday School. I was their Gems councillor. I was their teen group leader. I welcomed them in my home & fed them. One is my own child who has a servants heart.
How many will now be under discipline?
How sad it is that our denomination will use its time & resources to remove people rather than welcome them.
I wonder how I could get a list of sanctioned / suspended churches? I would like to attend one.
What exactly is the Biblical view.
Romans 1 maybe? Or all the references to a man and a woman? Or God’s own husband imagery? What?
Just curious. Are you getting any responses that question your opinion and agree with Synod?
Thanks, Clay. I miss the era of kind, dignified, intelligent pastoral leadership in the CRC. I didn’t see much of that last week. Thanks, though, to Ryan Schreiber, Michael Borgert and Peter Jonker for their consistent, exemplary witness.
Dennis, you are too kind, but I am honoured to be mentioned in the same breath as Ryan Schreiber and Peter Jonker. Thank you, and thanks to Clay for this article.
I want to thank you for this posting, and to thank Sherman Street (formerly CR) Church for their “service of lament” on Thursday. I had the privilege of attending, and was invited to a “Canadian Bible Study” afterwords. For me it was a funeral that I needed to bring closure. I would encourage others in areas where there is a concentration of CRC churches to hold such “funeral” services to mourn our loss. RIP, CRC. I love you.
Did Shakespeare once say something about “who guards the guards?”? As the leaders of Synod take more an more control of the crC, much like Trump has taken control of a once-proud Republican party, the rules become stricter and stricter along with the punishments that follow. My wife and I stepped away from the CRC many years ago … about the time I graduated from a state college and learned, not only, how to think for myself, but also to understand there is a much larger world out there than the walls that seem to aim to make us loathe, not love, our “neighbor.” I will continue to hug and pray for my LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters much the same way Jesus told us to love one another. The CRC is trying to tell us who we love while slowly pushing J-E-S-U-S out of the picture. I choose to follow Him, not them.
I am an RCA pastor and teacher, watching what’s going on in the CRC with sadness and prayer for all of you. Thank you for this helpful, insightful essay.
Clay, thanks for your thoughtful anaylsis. We are no longer members of the CRC, but it still hits close to home. Very sad.
Laurie Harkema
Clay, thanks for your thoughtful analysis. We are no longer members of the CRC, but this still hits close to home. Very sad.
Laurie Harkema
I think it is time to LIVE the gravamen, not to submit the gravamen. Live your life in a broken world.
As a former member, I am appalled. Not only did they attack gay people, but they have decided to attack those who would support them. This is why young people are leaving the church in droves. Dark ages thinking is not appropriate in a modern church. Stick to old thinking and you will die.
Canada CRC MUST split from the American CRC, which dominates and is stuck in the 1800s.
A somewhat overlooked part of this (with much news being about a specific group of congregations leaving the CRC) that is frustrating to me is that the moderate congregations outside of the various CRC “bubbles” that have not, for various reason, taken an all-in stance as either fully-affirming nor fully-non-affirming will suffer, potentially a lot. These churches (like the one I go to) know that they have people from all sides of this issue, and at mine we still make efforts to function as one body because that is more important to us. But will we still get to do that moving forward?
Not to downplay the difficulty of the decision being made by churches that will leave the CRC, but unless you live in Grand Rapids or a few other specific places, you don’t have that “out” as an option. I do not. I’m faced with either leaving for who-knows-where (at the cost of hurting relationships it has taken a decade to build and pulling my kids away from good friends they’ve grown up with), or staying but always feeling like I’m looking over my shoulder, bracing for the next issue to arise from an even more empowered group that doesn’t want me around (meaning the denomination, not the congregation). Should people like me just stick around but stay away from getting involved in things like council, committees, or whatever else synod deems us to be unfit for so as to not bring unwanted attention and disciplinary actions on my congregation? What joy is there in being a part of that? Will the denomination as a whole keep trying to make it harder to stay in that sort of situation? Do we stay and keep making a fuss and force them to take notice of the practical result of their decisions? (And would they care?)
Andrew, those who are making the decisions at the synodical level intend to allow no middle ground. Indeed, as you say, many congregations and many people within those congregations have sought for years to live with differences and do so with grace and joy, but under the new regime in the CRC, this will not be permitted. Thus, the effort to get people to declare themselves on the issues by requiring repeated signings of the Covenant for Officebearers as if it is a kind of loyalty oath. I think this–this cutting out of middle ground–is perhaps the most damaging aspect of the recent synodical decisions. It will, as you say, destroy otherwise strong congregations.
Andrew,
I already knew that the decisions made at Synod 2022, Synod 2023 and Synod 2024, were very likely going to put fully-affirming churches in such a bind that they would essentially be left with no other real option but to leave the CRC in order to preserve/protect the spiritual and psychological well-being of their members.
But the fact that these decisions are also adversely impacting moderate churches – churches that live and are committed to living in the middle… I’m so distraught.
Because I alluded to this in my communication – that if strongly traditional churches continue pushing for strict confessionalism to become the law of the land in the CRC at the classical and synodical level; and future Synods continue voting in favor of acceding to advisory committee report recommendations that serve to further this end – even moderate churches ( heck, even “traditional but mixed” churches) might find themselves unable to remain in the CRC.
But then again, maybe that what’s they want? Maybe they want the CRC to only be made up of churches that are strongly traditional. I really hope that’s not the case – since black and white thinking tends to run rampant in churches/denominations where the middle is missing- but I can’t help but wonder. Afterall, since Synod 2023, there have been overtures rebuking Calvin University for allowing room for respectful disagreement among its faculty provided that they dutifully work/live within the bounds of the creeds and confessions of the CRC. Calvin University is a beautiful example of a vibrant middle ground community – a community that is diverse yet unified in mission, and its dedication to being governed, shaped, and informed by the creeds and Reformed confessions. If they feel this way about Calvin University – that it’s not “confessional enough” for them to trust it … they probably feel this way about moderate churches too.
Thanks, Clay, for your careful analysis of several developments in our Synod. I have been silent thus far. But, I’m wondering if anyone has articulated how we have allowed 150? of our officeholders to offer an interpretation of one word in our confession and then, without consulting other confessing denominations, to declare their interpretation to have “confessional” status? But they hesitate to include this interpretation in printings of the Catechism? After our emotions settle, this might be the substance for a confession-revision gravamen?
Bryce, overture after overture has pointed out that the Synod 2022 decision on the confessionality of their interpretation of HC 108 was improperly decided, but subsequent synods (2023 and 2024) have ignored all those arguments.
So much for Semper Reformada I guess
Yes, Paul, I did see the “salvation” and local membership issues. And you are right, Synod 2024 did pull back on these. Apparently, there are limits, even in the Abide denomination. But really? A majority of a synod advisory committee claimed that “all unrepentant sin, including all sin addressed by Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 87 and Q&A 108, is a salvation issue.” They had in mind “unchastity” in the Synod 2022 definition of the same. And they added (their second point) that “it is a serious deviation from Scripture and the teachings of the confessions of the Christian Reformed Church to teach that Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 87 is not a salvation issue, including the sins addressed in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 87 and Q&A 108.” So a majority of a synodical advisory committee (made up of delegates, with staff and Calvin Seminary faculty advisors) believe that people in a same sex marriage are not going to heaven? And that in the order of things, one’s opinion about an interpretation of HC 87 and 108 is “a serious deviation from scripture,” as if the HC is paramount and scripture the commentary? And we are supposed to credit synod for stepping back from this cliff of unReformed thinking? And in stepping back, adopt a statement which is only marginally better? I don’t think synod redeemed itself in either of these.
This is what happens when some model the church after their Lord and Savior, Donald Trump.
So, what is the new CRCNA working definition of Grace?
This I think is the very best of reflections from the Peripatetic Pastor. Like the current state of the CRC, it is both sad and pensive in character. I’m not a member of the CRC, but have attended now for over 25 years, first in East Lansing where first Clay was Pastor, and now in Northern Michigan. For me, sadly, it follows the push to a more conservative view that has moved through Christian denominations in the USA. (As I write, the PBS Newshour is discussing the drop in Church attendance and Christian identification in recent decades.) For the CRC now, the door to the church is narrower now, a door which I believe should be as wide as possible. It is one thing to come to conclusions based on a fair read of the Bible, it is another to use selective text and to make inferences based on the Bible to support a point of view – this is exactly what the CRC appears to have done in this instance. Suffice to say that I cannot say they are clearly wrong, but they are not clearly right, and that is a rabbit hole to be avoided.
I spent enough years of my earlier life in the PRC to recognize the pattern : clearly define who is in and who is out to keep church “purity”. I came to the CRC to escape this, and here I am 35 years later in the same place. I’m so sad.
Clay, as I read your analysis and the comments of the mourners, I wonder if this summer’s action at Synod is the inevitable result for a denomination founded on the principle of doctrinal purity.
Then I reflect that throughout its history, from the Apostolic era on, the church has been concerned with orthodoxy, with who’s “in.” Sometimes one side leaves, sometimes one side gets excommunicated. It’s always political, though, isn’t it.
But the alternative also seems problemmatic. When I hear my daughter talk about the problems Fountain Street Church has finding a pastor to guide the members in their “individual faith journeys,” that approach also seems unsatisfactory. The only churches that seem to be thriving these years are the cult-like churches that feed into the needs of the “authoritarian followers.”*
Growing up in the middle of the previous centurey, we sang two songs. “One door and only one, and yet it’s sides are two … I’m on the inside, on which side are you?” And, “Jesus loves the little children … red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight.”
Several comments mentioned congregations that have clung together despite members’ differences. But I wonder if those situations are just temporary stasis rather than true equilibrium.
*John Dean, Conservatives without Conscience
After they come for the women, who will be next? The scientists? We survived one attempted purification back in the late 70’s and 80’s when Calvin profs had the audacity to publicly suggest that the Earth and the Universe are old. I fear we won’t survive the next one.