‘Toward CRC Canada’ doesn’t speak for all Canadians

At the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) Synod last month, the denomination decisively rejected a proposal aimed at splitting the bi-national denomination along the Canada-U.S. border. The primary group supporting this proposal is Toward Christian Reformed Church Canada (TCRCC). Since 2023, the group has been advocating for Canadian churches to have a greater degree of separation from their American counterparts, specifically through the creation of a distinct Canadian CRC. While I understand the group’s concerns, I believe that Synod made the right decision.

It’s true, as they argue, that Canadian culture is extremely different from American culture, which can make bi-national operations complicated. The CRCNA has, however, already taken major steps to solve the issues raised by our cultural differences, specifically in changes to the Structure and Leadership Taskforce (SALT) and the Canadian Ministry Board (CMB) implemented in 2022. If the CRCNA’s structure and operations are the crux of the issue, wouldn’t it be better to wait for these changes to be palpable before hurrying to separate?

Politics and ministry

Ultimately, from what I can tell, the main source of TCRCC’s contention isn’t with the CRCNA’s structure and operations, it’s with the CRCNA’s politics and theology. While TCRCC offers few specific examples of operational shortcomings (kiboshed programs, failed church plants, funding cuts, etc.), it has plenty of specific political and theological push factors to cite as reasons to separate.

First and foremost is Synod 2024’s decision to enforce compliance with the CRC’s stance on marriage and unchastity among its leaders and the subsequent wave of disaffiliating churches and leaders. As per TCRCC’s FAQ page, one of its key goals is to prevent and reverse these disaffiliations by creating “ecclesiastical space to make decisions that fit for the Canadian context.” As far as I can tell, what they mean is that their Canadian CRC would step back from an official theological stance on the matter (or at least not enforce a stance) to allow leaders to continue disagreeing while remaining in the denomination.

This political and theological focus is also reflected in TCRCC’s assertions that the CRCNA isn’t outspoken enough about certain social issues, as depicted in this March 8, 2025 Facebook post by their director of engagement, Peter Bulthuis:

“A call to repentance by the leadership of the CRCNA of the injustice the American people are experiencing, the WORLD is experiencing, is absolutely imperative. A condemnation of the Russification of American foreign policy is absolutely imperative. A condemnation of the anti-clean environment policy trend (‘drill, baby, drill’) is absolutely imperative.”

While structural and operational issues could feasibly be solved by splitting the CRCNA into American and Canadian CRCs, our political and theological issues don’t fall along the Canada/U.S. border – they cut through the middle of every church. Divorcing ourselves from our American counterparts won’t change that.

Where does the division end?

At a time when we already have plenty of division and animosity to go around, I’m bothered by the push to burn our bridges with our American brothers and sisters, especially when Canada-U.S. tensions aren’t the cause of the cracks in our denomination in the first place. If we split the denomination on national lines, I fear a Canadian CRC would inevitably fracture again along the political/theological lines that motivated our independence in the first place. While our binational family can be a petty and dysfunctional mess (much like any family), there’s still much good in it that I believe is worth preserving.