Christian nationalism and synod

“Christian nationalism conflicts with the reformed understanding of government.” 

This statement, and others like it, were under discussion at the Christian Reformed Church of North America (CRCNA) Synod as delegates from across Canada and the U.S. gathered from June 12-18, at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. On June 15, delegates voted 93 in favour and 84 against, with one abstention, to create a study committee on Christian nationalism that will report to Synod 2028.

The formation of a study committee was sparked by an overture – a formal appeal calling for specific action – received by synod from concerned churches in Classis Grand Rapids East. 

“Surveys show that 32 percent of all Americans, including 54 percent of those who attend religious services weekly or more, adhere to or sympathize with Christian nationalism,” states Overture 25. Most concerning is that “a number of officebearers within the CRCNA have publicly self-identified as Christian nationalists.”   

Alarmed by this turn of events, the overture writers sought to “affirm the traditional reformed understanding of church and state.” The overture does not name individuals, but focuses on calling the church to vigilance against the influence of Christian nationalism more broadly. 

Defining Christian nationalism

Christian nationalism is hard to pin down. As delegates on the floor of synod pointed out, there are a lot of variations and nuances. Nonetheless, scholars generally agree that it includes belief in: the United States as a Christian nation, traditional gender roles, male leadership, life-long heterosexual marriage, rejection of same-sex relationships, a dismissal of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), intolerance of immigration and racial minorities and a revering of Free-Market Capitalism.

Has Christian nationalism infiltrated the CRCNA? If so, in what way?

Kristin Kobes Du Mez, professor of history at Calvin University, argues in her book Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation, that a large swath of right-wing cultural evangelicalism has invaded mainline Christianity, with strong links to Christian nationalism. 

So powerful has this sweep of evangelical Christianity become, Du Mez writes, that many pastors have felt powerless against this popular tide, complete with its own system of authority and “compelling ideology and coherent worldview.” She further states that “large swaths of the Christian Reformed Church, long opposed to American Christianity, have now become functionally evangelical in terms of affinity and belief.” 

Du Mez does not discuss the Canadian context in her book. But The Globe and Mail writer Nathan VanderKlippe does. In a recent column, VanderKlippe writes that Christian nationalism has come north of the border via three Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, led by the American Pastor Doug Wilson, who has a Canadian mother. Wilson supports Alberta separation.

So does Canadian Pastor Nathan Zekveld, who studied under Wilson. Zekveld wants to “declare Christianity to be the official religion of this new [separatist] nation.” Further, if such a theocracy were realized, according to a CBC interview with Crawford Gribben, a professor at Queen’s University Belfast, it would restrict same-sex marriage, put men in charge and keep women at home with the children. Here we see similarities between the American and Canadian versions of Christian nationalism.

Signs of infiltration

Last month, in a column for CC, I explained some of the signs of Christian nationalism’s influence in the CRCNA, including the dominance of male leadership. Women have taken up leadership positions in the broader culture but unfortunately, they advanced much less in the CRCNA. They are absent or limited in many classis meetings and their representation at synod appears to be waning. Only 18 of the 183 delegates this year were women. 

In the last decades, the CRCNA wrestled with same-sex marriage. Like the issue of women as officebearers, it too was a weighty matter, with much discussion and debate. But this time, synod did not delegate the matter to local churches. It rejected same-sex marriage outright, made this a confessional matter, ended all further discussion, and offered only pastoral advice to LGBTQ+ members.

This is an authoritarian approach to church governance. Scriptural truth was asserted by synodical pronouncement, rather than distilled from ongoing and continuous communal dialogue.

Forced alignment

A report received by Synod 2026 on procedures to discipline officebearers stated: “discipline must include the larger church assemblies in order to get past the individualism that runs rampant in our society.” The report suggests that in “response to error” and “inconsistent application of discipline,” a major assembly has the authority to discipline a minor assembly, even depose its council members when “non-compliance” and the “welfare of a congregation is at stake.” Synod had not yet finished deliberations on this report at presstime, but if this report passes, that will be a sign that forced alignment in the CRCNA is increasing.

As the CRCNA seeks faithfulness to the reformed confessions “as interpreted by Synod, without reservation,” new terms and definitions have been developed to describe the levels of doubt that officebearers are allowed to have and how they should communicate their theological concerns to other council members. The CRCNA permits officebearers to have “doubt” and even “serious doubt,” but not “persistent serious doubt” or a “settled conviction” over theological points found in the denomination’s confessions.

Overture 9, also discussed at Synod 2026, explained some of the confusion over these new boundaries.

“Various churches throughout the denomination have received different interpretations on whether they are in alignment with what synod has decided on these matters,” reads the overture, also sent by Classis Grand Rapids East. “Councils need a consistent message that is stated in the Church Order Supplement itself and not dependent on additional denominational explanations in person or in writing.” 

These distinctions are confusing to some leaders, including members considering becoming officebearers, current officebearers, Calvin University faculty and trustees, and even some teachers in denominationally aligned Christian Schools. People in these roles may find themselves in a quandary and are fearful of losing positions or employment.

Minimizing the prophetic voice

Another sign of Christian nationalism’s influence on the CRCNA is the denomination’s apparent shift away from justice ministries, such as those that welcome immigrants, support DEI initiatives, pursue Indigenous justice and express concern over capitalism’s widening economic disparities worldwide.

A letter highlighting this shift circulated in March 2025. Initiated by Bev and John Bandstra, it received 759 signatories. The letter criticized three denominational leaders over their earlier “tepid” February 2025 “Pastoral Letter Regarding U.S./Canada Relationship.” Lacking, they wrote, was a prophetic voice, a CRCNA “speaking truth to power.” The Bandstras could only conclude that the denominational leaders feared a “backlash from MAGA supporters within the U.S. CRC.”

Further, Synod 2025 changed the mandate of The Banner, the denominational magazine. It should no longer include “diverse positions within the church” but instead promote “the official positions of the CRCNA and within the confines of its confessional covenant commitments.”

There may be no clear linkages between Christian nationalism and the CRCNA. Yet there are hints, some sufficiently strong. No church can escape the influence of a larger culture and the division it sows. 

Read more Christian nationalism content here.