Dreaming of a Canadian Synod
New group calls for the end of Christian Reformed Church binationalism.
In this interview, John Vanderstoep spoke on behalf of a new initiative advocating for more – and perhaps full – independence for the Canadian side of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC). This is a debate that regularly gets addressed in Christian Courier (CC)’s pages. Operating autonomously from any denomination, CC is, without taking sides, the right place for this conversation. Our aim is to support healthy dialogue and enrich expressions of Reformed faith in Canada.
CC: Tell me the origin story of the group.
John Vanderstoep: Our tentative name is Towards a CRC Canada. We are a grassroots organization trying to answer the question ‘Should the CRC in Canada be our own denomination and what kind?’
How many people are involved?
There’s a working group of about 15 that meets regularly online. We just sent a letter to [the CRC’s] Canadian Ministries Board signed by 60 people – pastors, lay leaders, former senior staff, both genders, across the country, in every classis, all ages. And we’re just getting started.
You’ve said that the driving factors for this initiative are Canada’s unique culture, theology and ministries. Can you elaborate?
The last one flows out of the first two. Culture shapes not the basis of our theology but the way we do our theology. In Canada, the Christian landscape is not as dominated by American evangelicalism as it is in the U.S. There’s still a lot of ecumenical cooperation between churches locally.
I was a pastor in the U.S. for 11 years, so I have some experience with the way that Christian nationalism gets mixed up with religion there. I remember after 9/11 the way that everybody needed a flag in the sanctuary. Veterans talked about bombing U-boats “for Jesus,” which you’d never hear in a Canadian context.
We’ve got unique Canadian ministries like our participation in World Renew and Diaconal Ministries Canada. In the U.S. deacons take the collection, they’re not the ones leading justice initiatives. In the U.S. the Indigenous were a mission field, and in Canada we’re doing a lot of learning. So many ministry differences that flow out of our postures that are shaped by our culture and theology. And our campus ministries – we have a different mindset in terms of what it means to be present on campus, as opposed to what used to be called Campus Crusade in the U.S.
What do you think would be lost if our binational denomination split in two?
Managed well, none of the good things we do together – like World Renew, denominational ministries and Calvin Seminary – none of that should be lost. If we continue on the path we’re on now, we’re not going to be able to keep those things together. It’s not a choice between pre-2016 and this chaos. It’s ‘What does our future chaos look like and where are we building? And are we going to build something together or just watch it all deteriorate?’ World Renew, Abuse Prevention – we should continue to do those things. The pledge system instead of ministry shares allows us to rally around a positive vision.
The truth is that we are going to lose something. We’re losing something right now. This is in some ways a salvage effort. The church is in trouble, and how do we save the great things that God has entrusted us with and let them function healthily for future generations?
You say that ‘it’s time to talk.’ That doesn’t happen evenly or organically across Canada, so how is that going to work?
We’ve written a letter asking the Canadian Ministries Board to lead the conversation about becoming a Canadian CRC. Even as we do that, we’re continuing to develop this grassroots movement.
People are wondering: ‘Are we even allowed to have this conversation? Will I be accused of sedition?’
There’s a theory about groups that the most important leader is ‘the second dancer’ – the person who comes in and starts mimicking the person who was dancing alone. We’re trying to be second dancer. Let’s develop some courage so people see God might be in this and that our denomination has something worth saving. We can’t do nothing.
Are you hoping for the denominational stamp of approval?
We need to do both. We will go to our Classes, but we also want the Canadian Ministries Board to say ‘we’re having this conversation.’ Both/ And.
Is everyone in the group LGBTQ affirming?
No. That’s a great question, because one objection to our group is ‘this is just another way around the HSR’ (Human Sexuality Report). This is not about ‘solving’ the HSR, because it’s still a new pastoral challenge that the church has. We have a lot of people who say ‘I’m theologically conservative and pastorally affirming. So what do I do?’ That’s not something to build on; that’s the beginning of a conversation. So yes, there are affirming people in the group; there are non-affirming people in the group. There’s both. We want both. As Canadians that’s a creative tension out of which something can be built.
I’ve written more articles on ‘Canadian ministry context’ than I can remember offhand. What’s different now?
I’ll answer that with two quotes. Ray Elgersma said, “I’ve been a proponent of bi-nationalism all my life, but bi-nationalism has run its course.” To the same point, Andy deRuyter said “the signs are there.” Key people in leadership recognize that this is not an act of rebellion. Because of our love for the church, we’re trying to do something that’s healthy for it.
Where do you see hope? Is there anything else you’d like to add?
Two things: Those who oppose what we’re doing say ‘we shouldn’t have a divorce,’ but [Pastor] Rita Klein-Geltink says ‘this isn’t a divorce; it’s a child leaving the home.’ It’s scary but it’s also hopeful. It doesn’t mean you’re no longer in a relationship with mom and dad; it just changes.
Also this: imagine Canadian delegates to Synod having lunch together. Small gatherings at a larger binational meeting that’s really making the decisions. That’s the old picture. Now imagine the first Canadian Synod in Winnipeg or Edmonton or Halifax or Ottawa, with delegates from across Canada having a conversation about what God’s doing in Canada and how do we participate ecumenically, theologically, with our ministries. That’s the new picture. That’s exciting.
It is deeply troubling when a lobby group can circumvent both reformed polity i.e., Church Order and in particular the local church council to approach the Canadian COD directly rather than following due process. Is there really an appetite for this venture at the local congregational or council level when most churches are struggling in terms of membership and financially.
“Culture (may) shape[s] the way we do our theology,” but isn’t this the role of scripture?
CRC members in Canada, this is a conversation worth having, including the questions of:
1. Is this “CRC Canada” idea helpful for and/or desired by CRCs in Canada?
2. If so, what is the best process for this to be done?
That all will take some open and honest dialogue and discernment.
If you want to be a part of these conversations, here are three ways to join the discussion:
1. Website: https://sites.google.com/meadcrc.com/toward-crc-canada
2. FaceBook: Search for “Toward CRC Canada”
3. Canada Kitchen Table Conversations THIS WEEK
– Monday, Nov 27 @ 9pm EST
– Wednesday, Nov 29 @ 4pm EST
– Saturday, Dec 2 @ Noon EST
(see links on the website above in #1)
I would encourage readers to fact check this piece. I’m an American, and I’ll be upfront that I don’t have an opinion on whether Canadian CRC churches should be their own denomination apart from the USA. I believe Canadian churches need to do what’s best for them, their ministries, and their communities.
However, many of Vanderstoep’s statements paint the USA and Canadian populations in broad brushstrokes that lack detail and, in many situations, are untrue.
For instance, Vanderstoep claims that Indigenous communities were a mission field in the USA while in Canada they are “doing a lot of learning.” The USA did engage in mission with Indigenous populations, but so did Canada. Even now, there are Resonate partner missionaries serving with Indigenous communities in Ontario. Vanderstoep’s comment also seems to claim that the USA is not doing any learning about native history, culture, etc. That is also not true. Many churches and individuals are committed to learning. And learning and mission do not need to be — and shouldn’t be — mutually exclusive.
Vanderstoep also mentions Campus Crusade in the USA. That’s a separate organization and not all campus ministries in the USA follow that model or that organization’s beliefs about ministry, especially not CRC campus ministries. Many USA and Canadian CRC campus ministries are part of a unified association and have very similar approaches to ministry even in their different contexts.
Finally, Vanderstoep mentions nationalism in Christianity in USA. He claims that after 9/11, there needed to be a flag in “every” sanctuary. Again, that is not true. And Vanderstoep also claims that behaviors like that would “never hear in a Canadian context.” No one can say for certain that churches would never behave like that because Canada never experienced a 9/11. I hope you never do.
I hope Christian Courier finds a more credible source in the future for interviews like this, fact checks pieces, or at least includes a disclaimer that you haven’t fact checked a piece. Opinions about Canada having their own synod aside, this piece is spreading misinformation.
This is an important discussion. In my experience (and the experience of prior Canadian Sr Leaders before me) the number of differences and the ways in which ministry is nuanced in Canada are not just episodic but common and spread throughout almost every area of desired Godly impact that the Cdn church wishes to have. It is why we were all hired with explicit mandates to ensure that the Canadian side of the denomination thinks Canadian, does Canadian ministry that goes beyond just Indigenous impact or political influence, and creates an overarching Canadian ministry plan that is legal, compliant, and fitting. The challenge that we have all experienced though is that despite all the good efforts, guiding papers written, money spent, and discussions had, boards ‘forget’ the mandate in the face of a US majority body that would choose a different path than the ones Canadian directors work toward. The examples are legion. It is time. It is time that Canadians live into the privilege that every other country in the world enjoys where the CRCNA does its missional work: ‘Raise up in-country leadership, plans, structures and oversight that is orchestrated within that very same country.” I have always said “it does not have to be messy. It can be done graciously, and we can remain healthy siblings together who receive from one another the best that each side has…even while being operationally effective in their national places.
What will ultimately make this work is two things. First, a strong Canadian chair and its board and second, a US side of the church that will listen graciously. This is not my opinion but long-standing legal counsel provided through the Cdn Centre of Christian Charities given over and over to the Canadian side of the church in the past several years.
I hope it happens this time because for too long the potential of enriched Canadian ministry has been lost while the fighting and hurt carry on.
What does Rev. Roorda mean when he talks about an “enriched Canadian Ministry” ?