Re-sign or resign?
I can no longer in good conscience sign a document I wrote.
As a delegate to the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) Synod last June, I experienced first-hand many of the difficult implications of Synod 2024’s decisions currently consuming the agendas of local church councils and regional classes. I find that I cannot now, in good conscience, re-sign the Covenant for Officebearers, as Synod 2024 has instructed all classes to require annually for delegates to those assemblies.
From 2008 to 2012, I served on the synodical study committee which produced the document that became the current Covenant for Officebearers (CFO). I was the reporter for the committee and, as such, the primary author of the document. The decisions of Synod 2024 have twisted the intent and purpose of the CFO to serve a narrow ideological agenda, with a process of theological enforcement that is only selectively applied.
For the record, let me be clear. I do not necessarily disagree with Synod’s interpretation of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108, that certain behaviours are assumed to fall under the definition of unchastity, particularly in the Catechism’s historical context, though I may disagree about what should be included on that list. I do not disagree that the writers and early readers of the Catechism would have assumed that homosexual behaviour fell under the heading of those behaviours proscribed by the seventh commandment. I do not, however, affirm Synod 2022’s elevation of its interpretation to confessional status without following the usual process of requiring confessional changes to be affirmed by a subsequent Synod, nor do I think that a difference of understanding and interpretation on the matter should, in any case, be reason for discipline and/or forced disaffiliation.
A deeply flawed process
Now Synod 2024 has decided to require delegates to classis meetings as well as representatives on several denominational boards and the Council of Delegates to re-sign the CFO (or a roughly equivalent document) on an annual basis. Advocates for this decision gave several reasons for its adoption which are problematic.
First, it was stated that re-signing, “was necessary to re-establish trust.” It is not clear what I have done to break trust or suggest that I am not in agreement with the doctrines contained in the confessions. I have made no public statement questioning a doctrine in the confessions, nor engaged in any action that would indicate I have such difficulties or settled convictions contrary to the confessions. I have not erred theologically or ethically. Rather, I have questioned a deeply flawed process.
If it could be demonstrated what I have done or said or written that requires a re-establishing of trust, or that indicates I have a settled disagreement with the doctrines contained in the confessions, thus necessitating re-signing, I would be open to a conversation. Absent specific demonstrations that I have either disagreed with the doctrines contained in the confessions or broken the trust I pledged when I initially signed the CFO, there is no need to “re-establish trust.” Trust has not been broken to begin with, therefore, I see no need to re-sign a document that I have already signed, particularly when the CFO is now being misused in a way it was never intended. This misuse of the CFO and the requirement to re-sign is a move to exercise power and exert control.
The HSR is not the issue
Furthermore, at Synod 2022 it was stated that, in the expanded interpretation of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108, nothing had changed. The expanded interpretation was only specifying what had always been implied. If nothing has changed, then why would re-signing be required? The new requirement seems to suggest that something, perhaps something significant, has indeed changed. If anyone has broken trust, it would seem to be those who have disregarded Church Order and manipulated the Rules for Synodical Procedure to circumvent the usual expectations for how to approve and implement changes to the confessions. My difficulty with re-signing the CFO is not about any disagreement with the confessions, per se, and it is certainly not about any juvenile defiance of Synod. It is about identifying an abuse of power. The Human Sexuality Report is not the issue. The issue is the way the decision about re-signing was made and how it will likely be implemented.
Second, in its decision, Synod 2024 articulated that in signing the CFO that one subscribed “without reservation to all the doctrines contained in the confessions” and to “what Synod has declared to have confessional status” (emphasis mine). The last phrase is deeply problematic. This amounts to a blank cheque for the uncritical inclusion of any decision that a future Synod may make regarding any matter. It is unclear what is included in this open-ended acceptance of synodical decisions. If we take the declaration in question to its logical conclusion, the CRCNA is no longer a “confessional” denomination, as some have so triumphantly claimed, but rather has become a “synodical” denomination. The current issue is the expanded interpretation of Q&A 108, but what is next? For instance, could one be required to subscribe “without reservation” to a six, 24-hour day account of creation or to hold a complementarian view of women serving in ecclesiastical office, if a future Synod decided that these were “confessional” matters? If one takes seriously the meaning of the phrase in question, it is difficult to see how one could not be required to do so, and thus be compelled to accept any decision of a future synod “without reservation.”
A narrow road
Third, I am concerned about what appears to be the arbitrary and selective application of the enforced “confessional” conformity and the dangerous trajectory that this ethos of boundary policing and doctrinal enforcement sets the denomination on. A differing understanding of Q&A 108 may be the current issue vexing the CRC, but what will the next issue be and how many congregations and pastors of the CRC will be forced to “repent and come into alignment” or disaffiliate in the name of doctrinal purity? Once we begin to travel down this road, it becomes an increasingly narrow and dangerous road. That is not a road I am willing to go down.
How did we get the Covenant for Officebearers?
In 2003, Fleetwood CRC in Surrey, B.C., asked Synod 2004 to study revising the Form of Subscription (FOS), which many churches were no longer using given how many individuals had trouble signing it. Previous to that, the FOS had not been significantly changed since the Synod of Dort in 1618. Synod 2004 requested that the Board of Trustees (BOT) look into the matter and report back. So the general secretary’s office surveyed the denomination concerning current use of the FOS. In 2005, the BOT made the recommendation that a revised FOS be presented to Synod 2007 for possible adoption.
In response to Synod 2005, the BOT appointed a study committee which reported to Synod 2008. The advisory committee of Synod 2008 commended the work of the study committee, but also noted some concerns. Concluding that further work was necessary, Synod 2008 appointed a reconstituted study committee. In addition to presenting a revised Form of Subscription to synod, the 2008 committee engaged the denomination broadly in a process of discussion, particularly in emerging and ethnic minority contexts, with the goal of encouraging robust engagement with the Confessions.
The committee strove to create a revision that would be clear, compelling and transportable across cultural and linguistic barriers. The revision was also clear in identifying the relationship of Scripture, creeds, confessions and other statements of Reformed conviction (i.e., The Contemporary Testimony).
Members of the committee attended various events and visited every classis in the denomination for times of guided discussion and reflection. The proposed documents the committee produced were also translated into Korean and Spanish. The study committee presented progress reports to Synods 2009-2011. The resulting document, adopted by Synod 2012, became the current Covenant for Officebearers (CFO).
–Rev. Michael Borgert
Excellent article, right on the money.
Since Classis is not a continuing body, I believe Synod should have required Classes to have delegates signify their agreement with the CfO at every Classis meeting. That is what is done at Synod, and what should be done at Classis as well. Also, in keeping with the language of the church order, the requirement should have been to have delegates “signify their agreement” with the CfO. Whether that is done by signing or standing etc. should be up to the Classis.