Empty council rooms

Spring is nomination season, that time of year when church councils thank retiring members and count empty seats to see how many new officebearers are needed. This spring, however, it might be harder than usual to find members ready to take on a leadership role at church – at least if Christian Courier’s survey results are any indication. That’s because decisions made at Synod 2024 are having an impact not only on the future of the denomination as a whole but on local churches. Relatively quickly, council rooms are going to lose anyone who will not sign the Covenant for Officebearers (CFO) annually. What does this mean for local Christian Reformed Church (CRC) councils in the future? Who will be serving, and who has been pushed out the door?

“Office bearers in the CRCNA are now required to align within synodical rulings on confessionally defined unchastity, which exclude persons in same-sex relationships from full participation.” That was the introduction to Question 8 on CC’s survey. “Based on this change,” we asked, “would you sign the Covenant for Officebearers on a yearly basis?” Sixty-two percent of our 1,199 respondents said ‘No,’ 28 percent said ‘Yes,’ and 10 percent said, ‘Not sure.’ I went through 691 comments tacked on to this question and analyzed them for patterns within those answers. While a solid majority among those in support of signing the CFO stated their support of the denomination (71 comments), more than double that (162 comments) among those who will not sign expressed frustration at Synod’s “overreach” and “forced conformity.” Even those who say they agree with the Human Sexuality Report are not keen on how the CFO has been repurposed. Below the surface, a spirit of rebellion seems to be quietly simmering among Canadian members of the Christian Reformed Church. And a handful of people were openly subversive: “My gifts are needed on church council,” one person who chose ‘yes’ said, “and I am prepared to lie on a form in order to ensure our local church has leadership.”

‘We cannot sign’

Out of our 1,199 participants, 745 said they will not sign the CFO going forward – a number that should concern current Council Chairs. I sorted 458 comments from this group into five categories. The largest proportion, as mentioned, were those who took issue with Synod’s process. “This decision lacks integrity in how it came to pass,” one person wrote, while another said, “Synod is not the final arbiter of how God leads his people.” It’s “not Christian Reformed to leave no room for doubt,” a few declared. Just over 100 comments said they could not sign the CFO as it conflicts with their affirming stance or because “God calls us to love everyone equally.” Two smaller groups, roughly 80 comments each, said that they refuse to sign because unchastity should not have been made confessional and because to do so would go against their conscience. Lastly, five percent objected to how “focusing on homosexuality creates a hierarchy of sins. Why tie salvation to one ‘sin’?” One person was blunt: “Synod’s decision makes me want to vomit,” while another admitted, “I would not become an office bearer because I don’t have the energy to deal with this.” The most memorable objection to Synod’s annual signing requirement was the man who said, “I only signed my marriage license once. I’m still committed to my wife. Why do I need to do more for the church?”

‘We will still sign’

Three hundred and forty survey respondents (28 percent) indicated that ‘Yes,’ they will still sign the CFO, for three main reasons. The largest group here was clear that they support decisions made by the CRCNA and value the Reformed confessions (71 comments). “I have zero issue with any of our creeds and confessions,” one person wrote, while another said, “as a member of the CRC, I follow its principles.” The second group (59 comments) said they support Synod’s decisions “because homosexuality is a sin, plain and simple” and specified that the CRC’s position is “biblical” and “God’s will.” “This has always been the case for the majority of Christians and in Christian history,” one person pointed out. Lastly, the denomination must not capitulate to what “Canadian society finds acceptable” or permit “theological drift;” the CFO is necessary, according to this group, because Canadian culture is getting it wrong.

On the fence

Ten percent – 114 people – said they weren’t sure whether or not they’d sign the Covenant in the future. “I am theologically conservative and pastorally affirming,” one person wrote. That tension is not new, according to this comment: “All of us have at one time or another questioned or doubted some positions.”

Small rebellion

To address that concern, the CRCNA sent out a document called “Guidance on the Meaning of ‘Affirming the Confessions’” to all churches this winter. “Synod 2024 did not aim to close off every question that might naturally arise in the life of faith,” it says. “Wondering” is valid but not “permanent disagreement or settled conviction contrary to a doctrine contained in the confessions or a confessional interpretation.”

While some people might appreciate that nuance, it’s not enough for the survey respondents who picked ‘Yes’ and made it clear that they are signing under duress: “In order to care for the community I serve, I sign as a lie,” one person wrote. “We are quietly affirming,” said another. Metaphors like “hold my nose” and “cross my fingers” communicate more of the tension here.
Mixed in with those small rebellions are people taking a stronger stand, on both sides. “I will submit to Synod for the sake of my church,” one ‘Yes’ comment said, while a ‘No’ respondent called “the weaponization of confessions a red line” they will not cross: “I refuse to be bullied.”

One thing is clear: anyone taking on the role of Chair in a Christian Reformed Church council next year will need buckets of patience and extraordinary skills of diplomacy, before the first meeting even begins.