A Canadian ‘time-out’
After Synod, it’s time for the Christian Reformed Church in Canada to pause and reflect.
In team sports, it’s common for the coach to call a time-out when the game has gotten off track. At the pitching mound or hockey bench, a time-out is a brief opportunity to get back to fundamentals. After the way that the Christian Reformed Church’s (CRC) Synod handled the Human Sexuality Report (HSR), I wonder if it’s time for a Canadian church ‘time-out.’
Why ‘Canadian,’ specifically? Almost all past Christian Courier articles on binationality have focused on the power struggles between CRC leaders in Grand Rapids and CRC leaders in Burlington. There are many fine Canadian leaders who bear scars from these power struggles (as well as some American leaders); even so, whatever power struggles remain have subsided into the normal kinds of challenges that all institutions face. For the most part, they are being handled maturely and wisely, with solid systemic support. Binationality remains a significant challenge, but not for the reasons highlighted in the past, and these past reasons are no longer grounds for future decision-making.
Of greater concern for a binational denomination is how Synod 2024 showcased American cultural values. In addition to being led by a four-person executive that was entirely white American male (though one was born and raised in Canada), Synod was permeated with American cultural values more than ever before. Here’s what that looked like: Synod practiced binary thinking without polarity management, framing complex issues in such a way that they allow only two extreme options. Synod claimed certainty: giving itself permission to take complex, messy human realities and declare the “biblical truth” with utter certainty. Synod perceived listening to those who disagree as a waste of time placing very high value on speed of reaching closure. Synod exercised ecclesiastical power in a way that allows the end to justify the means. It made it acceptable to demonize brothers and sisters who hold differing views. Lastly, Synod bundled human sexuality matters within what’s considered an “anti-woke agenda” that includes social justice, immigration and gender. These are not random shifts; they’re all hallmarks of current cultural values in the United States.
I realize that these points are stereotypical, and that the Canadian CRC struggles with its own Canadian cultural values (in other words, syncretism exists on both sides of the border). I also realize that this point really needs its own full-length article. But, in my view, values shaped by the current American cultural climate played a sufficiently significant role at Synod to warrant some post-Synod Canadian reflection. (I trust you have noticed that I have NOT questioned the Human Sexuality Report; I have only questioned the decisions of Synod.)
The idolatry of positionism
A ‘time-out’ might also be appropriate because Synod’s decisions are an indication of a denomination far from the top of its game. Let me outline three things that illustrate this.
First, the HSR conversation has been reduced to two words: confessional status. One of the main purposes of the HSR was always to provide pastoral guidance for congregations as they practice the love command, walking with the LGBTQ+ community and its family members and social networks. The HSR laments the fact that ever since 1973 the CRCNA has failed to cultivate robust practices for embodying such love (see HSR section XIII).
Synod 2024 has perpetuated this failure by working only with the traditional position, thereby allowing the idolatry of positionism to dominate its actions. Positionism is the conviction that once we have articulated the “one true biblical position” on a particular matter, we have completed the requirements of discipleship concerning that matter. Then the church’s calling is to ascertain that its members adhere to this position and are disenfranchised if they do not.
Both those who agree and those who disagree with the position of the HSR are called to avoid this idolatry of positionism. Synod did not avoid it, and that is a significant failure.
‘In’ or ‘out’
Secondly, responses to confessional status were reduced to two options: ‘in’ or ‘out.’ The trenches of everyday life, however, are not that black and white. It is possible, for example, to embrace a traditional posture that is very different from the traditional position described above. A traditional posture accepts the HSR but is also committed to embodying strong pastoral practices. It is shaped by neighbour-love. One conservative pastor said to me, “I am intentionally discipling our congregation to practice hospitality to the LGBTQ+ community, and it’s my prayer that after five years we will have five same-sex couples worshiping with us.” I have seen other congregations take this route as well. These examples illustrate that a congregation can accept the position of the HSR without succumbing to the idolatry of positionism.
Another reality of the trenches is that there are those who are undecided and wrestling. I have spoken with many parents, grandparents and other friends and relatives of LGBTQ+ persons who love Jesus, love the Scriptures, love their family member or friend and love the CRC, and they do not know how to integrate these four loves. They recognize that during the past 2,000 years, biblical interpretation concerning slavery, nationalism, loans, issues of race and gender and more have gone through major shifts. They recognize that the great love chapter of I Cor. 13 includes a declaration of mystery (“Now we know in part.…Now we see only a reflection as in a mirror” [vv. 9, 12]). They wonder if and how this long history of re-interpretations affects human sexuality and they find it difficult that such wondering is summarily dismissed.
Will implementing Synod 2024’s decisions ultimately help or harm Canadian congregations?
Reducing the options to ‘in’ or ‘out’ also excludes the possibility of pastoral accommodation. This approach recognizes that there are times when the Bible allows sin because such allowance furthers the spread of the gospel. The clearest example is slavery: owning another human being as a slave is a deep and grievous sin, and yet the New Testament allows slavery to continue, even calling upon believers to be “good” slave owners and “good” slaves. Why does Scripture accommodate this sin? Probably because almost 55 percent of the members of the Roman Empire were slaves, and for a young church to crusade for the abolition of slavery would have led to ecclesiastical suicide. Those who subscribe to pastoral accommodation concerning the HSR would say that the spread of the gospel allows us to accommodate committed same-sex relationships.
Concerning these three, Synod silently accepted the traditional posture (it received a brief mention), allowed the undecided wrestlers a limited time span to work through their confusion and arrive at certainty, and had no room for pastoral accommodation.
Empty council rooms
A third sign that things are off kilter is how denominational uniformity has been prioritized over congregational health. Many thousands of CRC members do not fit neatly into the categories delineated by Synod. These folks and their councils now face this dilemma: do we declare that everyone who does not fit is ineligible to serve in church office, or do we encourage them to violate their consciences and sign the covenant for office bearers anyway?
Providing leadership in local congregations is a strong and robust tradition in the CRCNA. We are a very gifted denomination with mature local leadership that is the envy of many other denominations. What will be the consequence of excluding thousands of such leaders from holding office? And what exactly would a robustly biblical definition of “denominational uniformity” look like? (Reading through the entire New Testament may provide some helpful clues.)
Canada-wide pause
The HSR has dominated denominational discourse for four years now, and the implementation of Synod’s decisions will continue for several more years. Meanwhile pastors and other church leaders I speak with identify other issues as more significant for their daily work, such as our post-Covid recovery, teen and young adult faith formation, climate change, welcoming refugees and other newcomers, and discipleship in an aging denomination. You, dear reader, can name more areas of discipleship and witness. What is the Lord calling us to focus on? Are major callings of the church falling through the enormous cracks created by our obsession with human sexuality?
Are major callings of the church falling through the enormous cracks created by our obsession with human sexuality?
All of the above observations and reflections drive to two questions: will the implementation of Synod 2024’s decisions ultimately harm Canadian congregations and classes more than help them, and thus undermine and quench the Lord’s leading within the Canadian CRC?
Might we benefit from a “time-out” to discern properly the shape of a response to that question?
If yes, how might a Canadian “time-out” work? Wiser folks than me will have better responses to this question, but I’ll hazard a couple thoughts:
Might the Canadian Corporation of the CRCNA debrief Synod 2024 internally and give advice to its classes and congregations?
Might Canadian classes allot time to reflect on synodical issues – perhaps including some issues raised here – and discern if recommending a Canada-wide pause is appropriate?
Might a Canadian classis call for a Canada-wide mini-synod to be held?
If the CRCNA binational synod has indeed come to be dominated by American cultural values, is it time to prepare a Canadian supplement to the Church Order? Or to work out some sort of “sovereignty-association” agreement (as Quebec has in Canada) that builds capacity for Canadian uniquenesses while celebrating and continuing a great deal of robust binational ministry?
I’ve followed the “Towards CRC Canada” project, and, though I find it is too much shaped by outdated Grand Rapids-Burlington wounds, the project probably has learnings to contribute to this conversation.
I don’t know what’s best. I am convinced that if the decisions of Synod 2024 are implemented without further reflection, we in Canada will face significant challenges for years to come and these challenges are not rooted in faithfulness to our Lord.
Stay tuned!
This fall, Christian Courier hopes to run an independent survey of Christian Reformed Church members in Canada to ask some of the same questions raised here. Results will be published in CC.
I much appreciate Syd Hielema’s wise counsel. I fully agree with most of it. However, I think we must call recent Christian Reformed Church Synods to task for deviating from the historical posture of the CRC vis-à-vis our traditional Confessions, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort. I would even call the current synodical position revolutionary against the historic reformed view of the Confessions. And we must do so in the clearest way possible. We have always said that the Confessions rank below the Scriptures as the final word on faith and life. And we have always acted as if they rank below the Scriptures. Synod’s decisions in the past three years have turned that relationship upside down. We must challenge that change.
By demanding unambiguous commitment to the letter of the Confessions, and their interpretation, especially regarding Heidelberg Catechism Q and A 108, Synod has ruled that there can be no biblical warrant for reconsidering the text or synodical interpretations of the confessions. The organization known as Abide has been leading the charge to restore confessional unanimity in the Christian Reformed Church. In March 2023, on behalf of Abide, Rev. Cedric Parsels wrote that they want Synod to enshrine in its decisions that “we actually believe what we say when we sign the Covenant for Officebearers, namely, that these doctrines ‘fully agree with the Word of God.’” (https://www.abideproject.org/p/part-vi-a-time-to-confess) Furthermore, he argues that when we sign the Covenant for Officebearers, or its predecessor, the Form of Subscription we enter an “oath-bound” relationship. At a minimum, that puts the confessions on par with the Scriptures. In practice, it means that in case of doubt about what the Scriptures actually mean, the Confessions rule.
In actual fact, in our long history we have never believed that. I would even argue that nobody in Abide even believes that. On at least a half dozen occasions, CRC Synods have changed the Confessions, by stating authoritatively that we don’t actually believe what the Confessions say. These changes are spread out between 1910 and 2006. Imagine that a member of Abide signed the Form of Subscription upon election to the office of elder in the year 2002. Now suppose that this person was an elder delegate to Synod 2004, or 2006, which most recently adopted and confirmed a change in the text of the Heidelberg Catechism. Surely, upon the current Synodical meaning of the Covenant for Officebearers, the one supported by Abide, that elder is in violation of his oath affirming that the earlier wording of the Confessions “fully agree with the Word of God”. The same is true of all the delegates at Synods 2004 and 2006. And of all the delegates to Synods 1910, 1938, 1958 and 1985. Perhaps all those delegates who are now deceased should be excommunicated – or more politely, “disaffiliated” – posthumously, while those still living need to be subject to church discipline immediately. But wait, most of the current Abide leadership and of the recent Synodical delegates were ordained after 2006, so their “oath-bound covenant” is to the Confessions as amended prior to that time. Do you see what nonsense this line of thinking leads to? In fact, nobody in Abide wants to return to the earlier formulations of our confessions. They just want the most recent version of the Confessions to be inviolate.
Clearly, the Covenant for Officebearers cannot possibly mean what Abide and recent Synods say it means. Sola Scriptura was a watchword for the Reformation generation, not sola confessionis. It must remain so for us today. I hope that the Canadian churches clearly state, contra Synod, that this is our belief. Failing that, I think Canadian churches that can’t in good conscience hold to the currently favoured synodical position should separate from the American CRC along the lines proposed by the Toward CRC Canada group.
Thank-you for this article.
You sum up a lot of thoughts really well.