Canard: a false or unfounded report or story; a groundless rumor or belief
There is a damaging canard floating around certain places within the CRC. It goes something like this: Synod 2024 showed a disregard for Church Order by making up an entirely new category called “limited suspension,” which is foreign to our polity. I won’t cite sources here, as my focus is not on the people or groups saying this but rather on what is being said.
What are we to make of this claim? Is it true that Synod was just making things up to suit their fancy? It is not difficult to grant that the phrase “limited suspension” is not in our Church Order. One will search in vain to find the phrase. But does that make it accurate to say that Synod “ran roughshod” (as is said in one place) over the Church Order by assigning limited suspension? Only if one makes the mistake of misunderstanding the role of nouns and adjectives.
In the phrase “limited suspension,” “suspension” is a noun and “limited” is an adjective. The adjective does not change the reality of the noun, it simply modifies or describes the noun. Take, for example, a “big truck” or a “white duck”. The words “big” and “white” in these examples do not change the presence of the truck or duck, they just tell us what kind of truck or duck we are dealing with.
The same is true for “limited suspension”. What Synod was enacting was a suspension, and the word “limited” only serves to modify or describe the type of suspension that was enacted. The fact that the suspension is described does not make it any less a suspension – it’s just a suspension of a certain type and extent. I'll use another example to demonstrate what I mean. In high school, I was suspended for two days as a disciplinary measure. My suspension was a “2-day suspension.” It certainly was a suspension, which was within the authority of the superintendent to assign to me. But it could have been a month-long suspension as well. The superintendent had to use his judgment about the nature and severity of the suspension.
Likewise with Synod. Under Articles 82 and 83 the Church Order stipulates suspension for officebearers who violate the Covenant for Officebearers or seriously deviate from sound doctrine or godly conduct.
Article 82 All officebearers, in addition to being subject to general discipline, are subject to special discipline, which consists of suspension and deposition from office.
Article 83 Special discipline shall be applied to officebearers if they violate the Covenant for Officebearers, are guilty of neglect or abuse of office, or in any way seriously deviate from sound doctrine and godly conduct.
What the Church Order does not attempt to stipulate is the nature or extent of this suspension. Do we suppose that all suspensions are or should be identical? If so, we do not demonstrate pastoral wisdom. In the wisdom and grace of Synod, the decision was made to apply a suspension that was not complete or full, but rather was modified as limited. This is not a violation of or disregard for Church Order, but a measured application of the language of church order.
What is particularly ironic is that typically I’ve seen the “Synod violated Church Order” canard mixed with sentiment that Synod was heavy-handed. In fact, the opposite is true. Synod could have applied the plain terms of the Church Order to the maximum extent of their potential effect, namely, immediate full suspension followed by deposition from office. Instead, Synod demonstrated pastoral wisdom, showed restraint and grace, and enacted a limited form of suspension while calling for restoration of those very same officebearers. It is not true that to limit or modify a suspension makes it an illegitimate suspension. This was not Synod making things up, but rather taking the language of the Church Order seriously while applying it carefully.
We are living through a time of some disturbance in our life together in the CRC. We ought to move through this time while speaking truthfully about what is happening and what has been enacted.
Comments
We know that the decisions of Synod 2024 may generate a lot of discussion and we would like to remind everyone of our community guidelines. Thank you for your respectful contributions to this important discussion!
Thumbs up.
I am in my 46th year serving as a pastor in the CRCNA, have lived through turbulent times but to read our present moment described as
“…we are living through a time of some disturbance in our life together…” is more than baffling. It is beyond comprehension. I weep for where we are. I don’t know if “weeping” is verb, a noun or a word to be looked up in a dictionary to understand a time as this. I do know this: now is the most broken place I have experienced in our church family.
Jim Poelman
Hi Jim. To be sure my characterization is understated, but it is not meant to minimize the "disturbance" we are experiencing. I was instead hoping to avoid sensationalizing our current moment by describing our moment in sober and simple terms. I hope that the use of that one word does not distract you so much that you miss the content. Perhaps you are already in agreement that the work of Synod 2024 has been improperly impugned.
No doubt I weep with you over any division in the church. I appreciate your perspective - thanks for sharing it.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I'm thinking the use of the word "canard" is a bit of a tell. I'm curious about your expertise and experience that formed your opinions about church order and the events of Synod that would cause you to make these characterizations. I am grateful for the ways in which we can dialog about different perspectives within the body of believers. I think it's important to separate out the differences between sharing perspectives and sharing truth.
Hi Sherry. If by tell you mean that I've tipped my hand that I disagree with those who are improperly characterizing the work of Synod 2024 you are absolutely correct. The "tell' was a feature, not a bug for me. I believe I have properly used the term and explained why it is applicable. If you find something untruthful in what I have written, I should hear about it, if you'd be so kind.
The church order does in fact provide for suspensions. Synod 2024 enacted suspensions. Those are not characterizations, opinions, or simply my perspective - they are indisputable facts.
Are there other truths that you'd like to bring to bear on the discussion? I'm glad to hear your perspective and any other facts that you'd like to bring forward. Thanks for engaging.
I'm still curious about how you acquired your expertise in church order. I have no desire to debate church order, but I do believe it was never intended to be used as a baseball bat. I was at Synod this year. Unless you were in the gallery, I don't think you were there. (I enjoyed meeting the men from your Classis. We shared chocolate.) You know that phrase, "you had to be there!" Church order was not used to frame structure for ministry or to encourage loving the Lord God with heart,mind, soul, and strength - or loving our neighbors as ourselves. It was used as a "gotcha!" Two memorable things said on the floor of Synod, "those living in unrepentant sin will go to hell” and “I love discrimination!” Sounds a bit heavy-handed to me. 100 years from now our future selves will see how this has all panned out. I think we'll all be a bit surprised.
Hi Sherry. Thanks for continuing the conversation. I don't believe that I have offered myself as an expert in church order, nor do I believe that disqualifies me from reading, comprehending, and commenting on the Church Order in the life of the church. Not being present at synod this year also does not disqualify me from watching and reading of the work of synod (YouTube, Acts of Synod2024), comprehending that work, and also commenting on it.
I wonder if you'd be interested in interacting with the actual content of my post. You almost seem to want to change the topic to my qualifications (or lack thereof) and your own general characterizations of Synod 2024. Those are interesting enough topics, I guess, but they completely miss the point of what I wrote. Is there something in my analysis that you find factually incorrect, and if so, would you be willing to explain where/how you believe I have misrepresented? Thanks again for the ongoing conversation - I always value interaction.
But what you are not telling us is that the Church Order holds that councils or consistories have the power to suspend or depose officebearers. Historically classes and synods have never taken the initiative to do this. They have done this only upon appeal. Which is why it is very strange that a synod made up of delegates who have never even met a certain person and never wrestled with him or her in a pastoral and loving way would go ahead and suspend that person anyway after just two or three hours of deliberation on the issue.
Dr. DeMoor, are you implying that the admonition and correction of officebearers covered by Articles 82-84 is the exclusive prerogative of local councils? If correction can only be initiated within a local church, what is the function of broader assemblies? Where does our Church Order grant this power locally and restrict it broadly? For discipline of members, yes, but for special discipline, are not officebearers accountable to one another? Is that not the whole point of classis and synod?
To say something has never happened is always dangerous. About 25 years ago and during the women in office controversy, I was a church visitor that dealt with a church Council which had inappropriately tried to manipulate the whole church out of the CRC. The Classis intervened on its own and suspended the whole Council. That Council called the Church Visitors and Classis high handed and a few other names. But the Classis' action were necessary, avoided long term negative feelings within that community and brought a great deal of peace. Furthermore, the whole issue has been delegated to the broader assembly (i.e., Synod) for some time. So the question of discipline was properly dealt with by Synod and its implementation was put on the local level (Council and Classis) with the hopes of restoration.
Hello Henry. Thanks for joining the conversation. You are correct that I did not delve into that discussion, as it is beyond the bounds of what I was responding to. I was specifically responding to the allegation that Synod made up a category of discipline, which I contend is not true.
The question you raise is a different question, but it is interesting to consider and has also been a point of contention concerning Synod. I would note a couple things:
“There is a solemn obligation to act. Leadership comes with heavy responsibilities. It is possible, from time to time, to allow a member to express reservations about our confessions. On the other hand, when the ordained do this the result is intolerable confusion. The congregation has a right to expect that its leaders will carry out their responsibilities in tune with the beliefs and commitments of the denomination it belongs to.” (DeMoor, Henry. Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary. Faith Alive 2010. Pg. 421)
Your commentary goes on after Article 79:
And what did Paul do in the 1 Cor. passage that you reference in your commentary? For the good of the church and the glory of God he acted because the local church refused to. Synod was left with no choice but to act because local churches and classes refused to act and heed the admonition of their brothers and sisters in Christ who are duty bound to “meddle”, as you put it. The Church Order is not a tool to wield as a technical stop to brothers and sisters realizing the Bible’s call for accountability. God’s call to us supersedes all written code.
Taken together in the context of what has been occurring in the CRC the preceding helps to paint a picture of a synod that labored diligently within our Church Order and historic Reformed polity to deal with a situation unlike any in the history of our denomination. To fail to do so would have been a dereliction of duty resulting in “intolerable confusion.”
Thank you Henry. And sorry Eric, I really disagree with your perspective. I think this is where those of us who think Synod 2024 overstepped their bounds, have issue. The local council has original authority, that has been our history in the CRC. Part of the reason for that is exactly what Henry mentioned, because at the local level, we meet people and wrestle with people face to face. The actions of Synod were heavy handed and outside of the way that discipline takes place, or certainly has taken place historically in the CRC. The actions of Synod 2024 to suspend office bearers and councils was not a part of an appeal process but superceded the discipline process. To reject a protest out of hand (despite allowing the ongoing protest of Classis Minnkota against women serving at Synods) then immediately put office bearers and councils under discipline without following the church order process is not the way we have historically functioned nor does it follow the biblical model of discipline for restoration. This is not a canard.
The whole issue has been delegated to the broader assembly for some time. So Synod was not high handed to deal with what was put in its lap. The implementation of the discipline is/was to be addressed by the local Council (and Classis). So that is where the important face to face discussions should happen. The truth of the matter is that we have had the same confessional standard all along.
Hello Rick. Thanks for your contribution. I was responding to a particular criticism which has been expressed publicly in multiple places. You are addressing something different than I did. My assertion of "canard" is not aimed at what you are talking about.
Rather than respond directly here again to issues of the application of discipline by synod, I would point you to my response to Henry elsewhere in this thread.
I'm not sure whether you realize it or not, but the protest of Minnkota is authorized in explicit terms in Church Order. The Supplement for Article 45 reads in part: "Delegates who believe the seating of (or election of) women delegates (or synodical deputies) is in violation of the Word of God may record their protest on the appropriate credentials. Their names, along with protests, shall be recorded in the minutes of synod." This is, of course, a byproduct of the "dual position" that the CRC took on WICO. The protests that Synod 2024 dealt do not derive from any such dual position or explicit authorization, and as such the parallel that you seek is not there.
I am thankful for your engagement and glad to hear further thoughts that you might have.
I appreciate the correction. Thanks for pointing that out.
Eric, you hit the nail on the head about what Synod did. And you are 100% correct in your call to be honest and truthful in the midst of disagreements.
Hello Gerald. Thank you for your kind and encouraging words.
Let's Discuss
We love your comments! Thank you for helping us uphold the Community Guidelines to make this an encouraging and respectful community for everyone.