We are all Gospel translations

North America is rapidly becoming politically polarized. It’s inevitable that these polarizing forces would manifest themselves in church debates – as they do in this year’s Overtures to the Christian Reformed Church’s annual synod. The church is now in danger of reflecting back to the world its own political idolatries. How can we live in Christian unity despite these cultural forces which compromise our witness?

The Overtures which voice concern about denominational agencies becoming enmeshed in socio-political questions are an example of how Abraham Kuyper’s distinction between the church as institution and organism is misunderstood and misapplied.

When Kuyper speaks of the institutional church, he means the gathered church – the church gathered for public worship under duly ordained office bearers. The institutional/gathered church is the local church at 10:30 Sunday morning.

When Kuyper speaks of the organic church, he means Christian people and organizations sent into the world during the week, living out their Christian witness and service beyond the church building. The organic/sent church is Christians translating the Gospel into specific principles and policies for every sphere of life (government, business, technology, arts, education, etc.).

The misunderstandings arise from the assumption that denominational agencies are the institutional church and should not concern themselves with specific policy proposals or dialogue with government officials. We misapply Kuyper’s distinction because today we use the same term (“institution”) for both the local congregation and the denomination and/or its agencies. But for Kuyper the institutional church is always the local congregation, not the denomination or its agencies.

Civic dialogue
We would be better off to call denominations the “corporate” or “administrative” church. This would clearly distinguish what Kuyper calls the “institutional” church (the local congregation) from the supportive role denominations and its agencies play in assisting local congregations, individual Christians and Christian organizations to fulfill their callings in the world. Seen in this way, denominational agencies are doing precisely what Kuyper thought the organic/sent church is mandated to do: contextualizing and applying the Gospel to specific socio-cultural contexts.

Some of this year’s Overtures also display a misunderstanding of the church’s role in modern constitutional democracies. In Canada and the U.S., political and social debate is achieved through participatory dialogue. Whether at the national, regional or municipal level, all people, organizations and institutions have a legal opportunity to participate in civic debate as we seek ways to live together in justice and peace. Denominational agencies assist us in entering these important debates. Otherwise, our public Christian voice is muted and we forfeit not only our opportunity but our social responsibility as Christians and citizens.

Some object to the idea of debate among a diversity of perspectives, especially within the church. But as we have transitioned into a post-Christian society, diversity exists everywhere; it is the new normal. Even the CRCNA today embraces an inherent multiformity of perspective. The question is how we will choose to live together.

We will only learn to live together when we recognize that we don’t have a right to only hear what we want to hear. We must embrace the process of compassionate dialogue. We must cultivate mutual respect and an open listening posture toward other voices. Our convictions must be seasoned by hospitality, patience and kindness.

The CRCNA is recognized for its commitment to dialogue amidst diversity. Our denominational agencies exist to equip us to be both better disciples as well as better citizens. Part of their gift to us and to the world is not that they always tell us what we want to hear. Instead, they model for us how to share the message and practical implications of the Gospel at strategic places in our societies.

It would be a shame if we enforced a monotone echo-chamber that no longer sparked faith-filled engagement with our dynamic societies. We ought not muzzle ourselves and allow other voices to monopolize important cultural debates. We will compromise our loyalty to Christ if we enforce a single political perspective within our church. We must dare to dialogue with each other and the world about Christ who judges every political and ideological idolatry.