A number of members and assemblies in the CRC have asked, in the wake of Synod 2024’s decisions about gravamen, whether “full agreement” with the confessions allows any space at all for officebearers who are wrestling with particular doctrines. In some minds, the decisions of Synod 2024 have set an impossibly high bar for church leadership, one which leaves no room for even ordinary human musings about matters of faith.
To assist councils, officebearers, and stated clerks in navigating these kinds of questions, the Office of General Secretary has put together this guideline document.
(A translation of the document in Spanish is attached below. A Korean version is forthcoming.)
Comments
I’m posting here hoping to follow this discussion. It seems that recent synods have fairly consistently disagreed with these ‘interpretive’ or ‘advising’ documents from the Office of the General Secretary (i.e. see the initial versions of the FAQs after Synod 2022 and Synod 2023, and decisions of recent synods). If our local community stands on this advice, is there a way to know that it will be a solid place to remain standing in a year or two?
This Guidance on the Meaning of “Affirming the Confessions” states that “it is not possible for a CRC officebearer to serve with a permanent disagreement or settled conviction contrary to a doctrine contained in the confessions or a confessional interpretation.”
The major sticking point in this discussion is the phrase “or a confessional interpretation.” One cannot deny that there are many officebearers who can affirm without reservation that the confessions themselves faithfully reflect the teachings of Scripture, but have difficulty with various confessional interpretations. However, under the new rulings of Synod, these officebearers are not longer allowed to serve.
What happened at the recent Synods is that interpretation of the confessions has effectively been given the same weight of authority as the confessions themselves. However, Church Order contradicts this move when it states that “a signatory [of the Covenant] is bound only to those doctrines that are confessed, and is not bound to the references, allusions, and remarks that are incidental to the formulation of these doctrines, nor to the theological deductions that some may draw from the doctrines set forth in the confessions.” (Supplement Article 5, A, 3.)
It is curious to me that a recent post on the Abide Project website also attempted to clarify the meaning of the word “affirm” in the section of Church Order concerning the Covenant for Officebearers.
Douglas, I don't think there is really the space between a "doctrine" and a "confessional interpretation" that you seem to be implying that there is. Basically, anyone could in theory try to deny any doctrine contained in the confessions, and claim it is not binding if they wished. Of course, the arbiter of such a claim in the CRC is our Synod, who is the one body that can solve such a debate, by making their "confessional interpretation," which settles the matter of what is or isn't a doctrine/what we all must believe/confess/teach.
Thank you for responding to my comment. When you say that you don’t think there is any space between”doctrine” and “confessional interpretation,” this implies to me that the interpretations determined by Synod have equal weight of authority with the Confessions and with Scripture. This to me is a vulnerable position to be in. Throughout the playing out of this current issue, what has disturbed me most is that all sides of the issue seem to be unaware of how much their own cultural values are at play in shaping and influencing their interpretations. So some will say: as a church we need to “both passionately believe and [be] passionate promoters of the teachings of the CRCNA.” While others say we need to “both passionately believe and [be] passionate promoters of the teachings of Jesus Christ."
What I find so amazing about the life and teachings of Jesus was how he repeatedly cut through the cultural values of his day and was able to deal with the spiritual realities in any situation or context where he found himself. This is what I try to hold on to in all the ongoing struggles to be faithful.
Douglas, if you object to "doctrine" and "confessional interpretation" being lumped together, I wonder how you would propose the two should function separately within a denomination? We can say "Scripture says....." but then a Jehovah's Witness may say "Scripture says....." Now we may have two competing and contradictory claims, and so, as individuals, we could theoretically take either side. At that point, there is no "pure" external "doctrine" that one could appeal to, which would be universally binding. But, as a denomination, we do not just throw our hands up every time there are competing claims of what God's Word says, or on some other matter. Instead, in the CRCNA, Synod is the body that has been given the authority to deliberate and weigh such claims, and settle disputes for us when needed. Synod can say, 1. That the matter is not really important and that any belief or thinking goes. 2. That it is substantive, but that there can be disagreements on a matter. Or 3. That in the CRC, reading God's Word from our confessional understanding, there is only one correct answer to a particular, substantive matter, and make that understanding universally binding within our denomination (ex. Kinism in 2019).
If we say a matter is so, based on "Scripture," to some extent, we are saying that any other Christian denomination that disagrees is probably in great error (ex. Unitarian versus Trinitarian). If we say it is based on the "confessions," we are saying that other Christians might understand a matter another way, but with our pattern of approaching God's Word, this is the practice we hold ourselves to (ex. believer vs. covenantal baptism). If we say something is based on "church order," we are saying that there is a process and a way of being that we have mutually agreed to, and one can not just break covenant or that social contract as they see fit (ex. a church can't just ordain a person as a Minister of the Word, independent of the process and requirements we have agreed upon in the CRC). These are some of the natural and necessary levels of authority that people need to submit to, if we are to work together effectively/be one body.
I'm also commenting to follow this discussion. As someone who observed the last 3 synods closely, I would affirm that the discussions and decisions absolutely intended to mean 'full agreement' and left no room for anything less. When a delegate stands on the floor of synod and supports an overture because it will 'finally get the rot out', it is indicative of both the directive and the motive behind it. And it seems that synod, by its declarations that are now binding and unquestionable, has given no room for questions or further interpretation. So this post makes me wonder what's really going on in the CRC. Is this a reaction to the realization that this affects every church and every member who has questions and wants to act with integrity? (and doesn't want to sign on to the new hard line fundamental approach?) Maybe it's getting difficult to get elders, deacons, and classis/synod delegates?
Diane, I also have watched the last three Synods closely (even serving as a delegate in 2023), but I have no recollection of any delegate standing on the floor at Synod, and saying "finally get the rot out," as you have stated. As all of the deliberations are available on the CRCNA YouTube channel, can you please point me to the session and time stamp where such a claim was made???
If I may, I’d like to respond to your question.
Since I had a family member that was a delegate at Synod 2024, I watched almost every moment. And while I do have a memory of someone using the language of ‘rot’ to describe those who disagree on the HSR, you might not be able to find it. What I know for a fact is that during breaks, when the delegates were talking amongst themselves, there were MANY conversations where people used words like ‘rot’ to describe their fellow Christians. At one point, I logged in early and started watching the live stream. I happened to have the closed captioning on and even though delegates were not ‘on camera,’ the microphones were picking up their conversations…and is was NOT good. It made me so uncomfortable, I commented something along the lines, “Someone should tell the delegates the stream has begun, and the microphones are picking up their conversations.” And then to be a bit snarky I added, “They should be more careful; because anything they say can and will be used against them in the Court of Compliance.” In response, they abruptly ended the comments section.
What’s also true is that after I ‘overheard’ what people REALLY think, I drove up to G.R. to see and experience these things for myself. As I walked around the meeting, most people didn’t know who I was, so they could speak freely as I sat there and did a little recon. And they DID speak freely. This really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone when on the CRC Clergy Facebook group, in response to someone saying, “My heart breaks” when it comes to how countless people who dedicated their lives to the CRCNA are being kicked out, another person said “MY heart rejoices!” Or in a recent response to lamenting how several CTS Professors and Staff are being forced out, a person comments, “The students will be Blessed for it!”
Is using the language of ‘rot’ really so surprising?
Back in 2019, I was a Delegate to Synod which approved several recommendations to try and help prevent Abuse of Power in the CRCNA including: Recommendation 10 – Creating a culture to prevent abuse of power. “That synod affirm the following as core values for the culture within the CRC: – mutual respect for every person as created by God and equally responsible to respond to God’s call to use their gifts for God’s mission in the world, including the ongoing work of building God’s church. – an understanding of servant leadership that emphasizes mutual submission as a corrective to the hierarchical tendencies within our culture. – mutual accountability through checks and balances built into governing structures. That synod affirm the importance of care in the use of language within church assemblies, with attention to the impact of language that harms the ability of others to fully exercise their gifts and calling.” (Acts of Synod 2019, Pgs. 608-610)
Before the vote was taken, there was a short break where I found those who had written and just presented these excellent recommendations. I shared how it struck me how inconsistent it would be to adopt these recommendations, and yet still allow Synodical and Classical Meetings to includes a protest that directly ‘impacts and harms’ half the world’s population ‘from fully exercising their gifts and callings.’ They admitted I was correct in my assessment and mentioned how this discrepancy was indeed removed from final version so it could have wider acceptance.
So, if you go back and watch the video today, you will see how after we voted to approve those Abuse of Power recommendations, there was a time of repentance where people were encouraged to come forward and lament those times power had been abused. The video ends with a lunch break. Those who were there know, (that what has since been removed from the official video) is that I quickly put my name in the queue to speak. Given permission, I proceeded to explain how sick to my stomach I was given how while we may have just agreed to those recommendations, we still allowed activities that clearly meet the criteria for abuses of power we just pledged to try and prevent.
Once I had finished and they finally dismissed for lunch, I had a long line of people confront me asking, “Are you saying I am committing an abuse of power?” My response was simply, “I’m saying that you can’t affirm those recommendations, and still justify ‘language that harms the ability of others to fully exercise their gifts and calling.”’ Obviously, those conversations did not go well and because my comments made the Denomination look really bad, that portion of the proceedings has since been deleted. (I double checked a few weeks ago and still couldn't find it.)
So, IF someone did use the language of ‘rot’ during discussions at Synod 2024 or the previous two Synods, as we move from a ‘low trust’ environment, to a ‘no trust’ environment, it wouldn’t surprise me if it has since been edited out…just like my comments were in the past.
Thank you for this post. The anger that exists in North America right now, fuelled and influenced greatly by the tense political climate has seeped into the church.
This speaks to my concern about the state of the CRC spending so much time fleshing one area where the seventh commandment can be violated. The confessions do state clearly several other violations. And that is just the seventh commandment.
When it comes to the commandment of murder, our Lord sets a very high bar as to what is considered murder. And certainly the politically charged language that has seeped into the church is a clear violation of the commandment that tells us not to murder.
So what to do with those who are unrepentant of their muderous words?
Do they lose the privilege of membership? The Lord’s Supper? Holding Office?
Do those congregations who support this behaviour get put under discipline?
What have we become as a denomination? My heart aches.
Hi Lloyd - it was during the 2024 Synod, and if I get time this weekend I will try to listen to the recordings and see if I can find it. I don't remember which session it was, so it could take awhile. I know it was spoken - I was there. I sat through every minute of the discussion and deliberation, and like Ben Bowater, I also heard many side conversations and lunch line comments, etc. I'll do my best to find it for you.
I spent several (many) hours watching the YouTube sessions because I had clearly written this quote in my notes and prayer journal from synod 2024. I would not have made it up so I know that I heard it. I checked with my good friends at CRC Communications and they said they didn't cut any comments from the 2024 discussion on the floor. And then finally, watching the Wednesday morning session on discipline, it came back to me that this was something that was said by a delegate to another delegate as I followed them down the stairs at the Calvin Chapel to use the bathroom. If you watch that session, there were many times when the group paused for the officers to huddle, and there were many 'side conversations' by delegates that took place in front of my seat in the front row of the gallery that were also interesting - but I am quite sure the 'we need to vote for this overture to finally get the rot out' words were spoken on the stairs heading downstairs during one of those pauses. I apologize for assuming from my notes that it was spoken from the floor during deliberation. Actually, after listening to a lot of the discussion again, I have to say that most of it was respectful and done with a spirit of Christian love for each other. There were few moments when it didn't seem so. There was a comment on Monday evening that homosexuality is 'rotten', but that isn't the quote I referred to earlier. I do think there is plenty of confusion about what abuse of power consists of and especially what spiritual abuse is, and that many of these abuses happen not only during discussions on the floor but on the 'side' (lunch lines, small group huddles, bathroom, dorms, etc). I think future synod delegates could use more training in this regard - and I would suggest they read a book like "Othered, Finding Belonging with the God Who Pursues the Hurt, Harmed & Marginalized" by Jenai Auman on the topic of spiritual abuse. I know that I learned a lot from reading that book.
Thanks for your diligent review of Synod Diane, and for sharing what you now remembered. I ended up watching all of Synod 2024 in bed on pain meds, so it seemed possible that it was a comment I had just missed, but I really thought if that had been the case, that I likely would have seen it repeated and amplified other places as well.
I had the privilege of serving on the synodical study committee (2008-2012) which drafted the document that became the current Covenant for Officebearers. I was the reporter for the committee and, as such, the primary author of the document. In all of the committee’s lengthy and intense discussions over four years during the process of crafting the document and of presenting it to the classes of the CRCNA and sharing annual progress reports with Synod, the idea of it becoming a doctrinal enforcement tool, as it is now being used, was never raised. The decisions of Synod 2024 have twisted the intent and purpose of the Covenant for Officebearers to serve a narrow ideological agenda, with a process of doctrinal enforcement that is only selectively applied.
For the record, let me be clear. I do not necessarily disagree that certain behaviours are assumed to fall under the definition of unchastity, particularly in the Catechism’s historical context, though I may disagree about which behaviours should be included on that list. I do not disagree that the writers and earlier readers of the Heidelberg 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 that interpretation to confessional status without following the usual process of requiring a change to the confessions 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 of congregations and officebearers.
Now, Synod 2024 has decided to require delegates to classis and synod meetings as well as representatives on several denominational boards and the Council of Delegates to re-sign the Covenant for Officebearers (or a roughly equivalent document indicating confessional agreement) 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.” Try as I might, I cannot see 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 I could be shown, specifically, what it is that I have done or said or written that requires a re-establishing of trust, or that indicates a settled disagreement I have 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 Covenant for Officebearers, there is no need to “re-establish trust”. Trust has not been broken to begin with, therefore, trust does not need to be re-established. I see no need to re-sign a document that I have already signed more than once. This is particularly so now, when the Covenant for Officebearers is being misused in a way it was never intended. This misuse of the Covenant for Officebearers and the requirement to re-sign is all about power and control.
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 simply specifying what had always been implied. If that is true, I am left to wonder, if nothing has changed then why would delegates to classis be required to re-sign? The new requirement to re-sign 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 Covenant for Officebearers is not about any disagreement with the doctrines contained in confessions and it is certainly not about any juvenile defiance of an instruction of Synod. 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 Covenant for Officebearers, that one subscribed, “without reservation to all the doctrines contained in the confessions and what Synod declares to have confessional status” (emphasis mine). The last phrase is one I find deeply troubling. 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. For instance, could I be required to subscribe “without reservation” to a six, 24-hour day account of creation or to a complementarian view of women serving in ecclesiastical office, if a future Synod decided that these were “confessional” matters? 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 a “synodical” denomination.
Third, I am concerned about 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 us today, 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 increasingly narrow. That is not a road I am willing to go down.
Thank you Michael for the fantastic way you laid everything out. I really appreciate it.
In addition to what you have said, another consequence of these clear misuses and abuses of power is that those who forced these decisions upon the greater Denomination have emboldened other abuses.
Those who desire to treat fellow Christians (that may disagree on certain issues) with open hostility, can now hide behind their piety without any concern for accountability or recourse.
Somehow they believe that God will bless the CRCNA if they just get rid of all ‘the rot.’ (When you have CRCNA Pastors that are members of a ‘secret’ Facebook Group for which one of their goals is to eliminate women’s ordination, you know they are NOT done.)
During Synod 2024, my heart broke during the discussion on the 1F Majority Report ‘declaring’ the clarified understanding of ‘unchastity,’ is a salvation issue.
Thankfully, this report was rejected.
And yet based on the vote and the things that were said, it’s clear that some believe you can do and say whatever you want with impunity when you feel someone is going to hell.
Thanks, Ben, for pointing out that women's ordination is also under attack. After the last 3 synods, I have had many conversations with CRC people and pastors who say, "When they come for the women, I'm out." My response is always, "they are coming for them now. What are you doing about it?"
See below
In error, I posted the same comment twice. I could not find a way to delete the second post other than to remove it and explain why I'm writing these words. :-)
Synod’s intentions with regard to the phrase“without reservation” did not appear to include any nuance or space the way they were spoken and explained in June 2024 for reasons that other writers have referenced.
In keeping with that, the guidance we have provided to our congregation has been based on what we heard and experienced at Synod. We delivered this guidance in good faith, trying to be consistent with Synod. Are we to come back to the congregation now and try to explain to them the significance of an “historical-critical” approach? That doesn’t seem reasonable. At least not in my mission-centered congregation.
What was said, was said. What was done, was done. Lots of people seemed pretty happy about it and maybe even a little smug about having saved the denomination. And now it’s up to us in the congregations to undo the damage of the language that was used, and explain what a “legitimate” confessional concerns is.
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.