A ‘krisis’ in the CRC
I find it troubling that the church I was raised in is choosing to build walls instead of wells.
I was raised in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) in Canada. Its rich Reformed tradition fed my curiosity, encouraged debate and dialogue and allowed room for questions and doubt. I found it liberating, healing, inclusive and inviting, full of hope for those seeking meaning and purpose.
But it no longer feels that way to me. I am sensing a krisis.
I use that word deliberately. In its original Greek the word crisis (krisis) means to judge, decide or separate. Which cultural influences does the CRC face today that result in certain kinds of judging, deciding and separating? The erecting of walls instead of the building of wells?
Old and new walls
Exactly thirty years ago, Canadian Ruth Hofman was the first woman to be ordained in the CRC. It was liberating for many and broke down a restrictive wall. But even though women’s ordination is permitted, leadership in the CRC still tilts heavily toward one gender. Of the 188 delegates at last year’s synod, only 18 were women. This year, too, it will have only 18. Walls, however subtle, remain in place.
Recent synods judged that any same-sex relationship, long-term committed or not, was immoral and entrenched this decision in the denomination’s confessions. Despite pastoral efforts to the contrary, those in long-term committed gay relationships, and their supporters, felt alienated. A significant number of individuals and ministers left the denomination, including 17 congregations that have disaffiliated or are in the process of disaffiliating in Canada. The walls have been further fortified.
Synod 2024 instructed all classes to require officebearers to annually re-sign the Covenant for Officebearers. A new task force reporting to Synod 2026 proposes that officebearers who do not follow the decisions of major assemblies can be deposed, even when such action has not been initiated by local councils. Furthermore, entire councils risk disaffiliation when they do not follow denominational commitments. New walls erected due to new, powerful cultural influences?
Christian nationalism has emerged in the United States, with hints of it even in Canada. Characteristics are male leadership, long-term heterosexual relationships, an aversion to LGBTQ+ members and a rejection of diversity, equity and inclusion. Also prominent is the notion of truth, not as distilled from ongoing and continuous communal dialogue, but as asserted by authoritative declaration within the walls of power.
Building wells
Socrates said, “Sometimes walls are put up not to keep people out, but to see who cares enough to break them down.” Jesus is the ultimate wall breaker. He connected with the marginalized, vulnerable and powerless, offering them “living water” (Jn. 4).
The early church faced its own conflicts. Yet, as Acts 15 shows, it sought a way forward that preserved unity while removing unnecessary cultural barriers. The apostle Paul likewise worked to remove cultural obstacles that hindered the gospel, even as he called the church to “discern the spirits” (1 Cor. 12:10).
Diana Butler Bass, in her book Christianity After Religion, states, “Christianity did not begin with a confession. It began with an invitation into friendship, into creating a new community, into forming relationships based on love and service.” Best intentions notwithstanding, a church easily pivots because of cultural influences bent on building walls. As such, it must be constantly vigilant, discerning those that are of God and those that are not.
The CRC must discern whether its erected walls are separating out those who seek wells of “living water.” Those driven out may decide that new wells can be found elsewhere.
RE: “Christian nationalism has emerged in the United States, with hints of it even in Canada.” I think C.N. has more than ‘hints’ in Canada. In our area, Charlie Kirk is considered a martyr by some. Anti-indigenous expressions are expressed more subtly, sometimes, but ‘nationalism’ is reserved for settlers of a pale complexion. Indigenous nations are not considered to be nations.
(If this post is too stark, I don’t mind at all if you delete it. It is based on informal observations, not established surveys.)
So the progressives who worked hard to change the CRC’s initial direction weren’t at all influenced by the culture of the 1960s and 70s? This is the latest in a series of articles bemoaning recent changes in the denomination. Fair enough. CC has a right to express its editorial position, as do its various authors. What most of its authors do not have a right to do with any historical accuracy is to state that the CRC of today is unrecognizable from the church they grew up in. This is true only of those under 50. Before that it was a narrower denomination with a penchant for discipline for much less serious issues than today’s. I did not grow up CRC, but have studied its history and heard multiple complaints from oldtimers that the more liberalizing direction of the previous half century made the church they grew up in unrecognizable.
Thank you. Appreciated.
It would be helpful if the Mr Valk would define what he means by “Christian Nationalism”. It’s a loaded and divisive term and means many different things to different people. This is important because I don’t know how “long term heterosexual relationships” are an example of Christian Nationalism. There seems to be more innuendo than helpful critique or observation in this column, but perhaps I am missing something.
Good