A number of members and assemblies in the CRC have asked, in response to recent synodical decisions about gravamen, about the space allowed for officebearers who are wrestling with particular doctrines. In some minds, the “full agreement” required by synodical regulations has set an impossibly high bar for church leaders who desire to uphold their calling to lead with integrity, humility, and submission to the Word of God and to our Reformed confessions. Synods 2024 and 2025 addressed the level of affirmation required of officebearers with regard to CRCNA doctrinal standards. In both cases, synod noted that honoring the church’s confessional standards is not at odds with grace and patience.
The answer to the question about what it means to “affirm the doctrines in the confessions without reservation” requires some careful reflection on the meaning and purpose of our denominational covenants. Those purposes are expressed in a number of interrelated phrases from the Covenant for Officebearers and its supplemental material:
- From the Covenant itself: “We affirm three confessions…whose doctrines fully agree with the Word of God…,” “we promise to be formed and governed by them…” “should we believe that a teaching… is not the teaching of God’s Word, we will communicate our views to the church…”
- From the supplemental material: “affirms without reservation…” (A.1) “does not affirm that these doctrines are all stated in the best possible manner…” (A.2) “bound only to those doctrines that are confessed, and is not bound to the references, allusions,…” (A.3) “officebearers shall submit their difficulties…” (B.1)
Synod has not specified the relative weight to be given to those various phrases, so in many ways it falls to the local council (and classis, if there is need for further clarification) to discern how to balance the various aspects of confessional adherence in the local church.
It is clear, from the preamble and primary recommendation given by the advisory committee at Synod 2024, that synod’s main objective was to set a boundary at one end of the confessional subscription process (Acts of Synod 2024, p. 871). Thus, 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 (Acts of Synod 2024, p. 868-871). Officebearers with such disagreements or settled convictions must resolve them through the gravamina process (Church Order Art. 5-a, Supplement). Prospective officebearers must resolve them before serving. But Synod 2024 did not aim to close off every question that might naturally arise in the life of faith.
Synod has also attempted to make clear that a gravamen “is not merely a note of discomfort or curiosity” but rather a growing sense that “a teaching in the confessional documents is not the teaching of God’s Word” (Covenant for Officebearers; see Acts of Synod 2025, p. 670). The word “gravamen” indicates a weighty, serious matter: in the words of synod, “a persistent serious doubt or a settled conviction” (Supplement, Church Order Art. 5-a, A, 2). Local discernment has been and continues to be central to the process of discerning whether an officebearer simply has a question or wondering about a confessional teaching, or holds an objection or disagreement that requires a gravamen. While such a process is not spelled out in the current synodical regulations, it is implied in the responsibilities of a council to offer “counsel, examination, and judgment” (B.1). If a council has the authority to judge when a given officebearer has come into alignment after submitting to the gravamen process, it also has the authority to judge whether a given difficulty rises to the weight of requiring a gravamen. This understanding aligns with the preamble to Synod 2024’s decisions on gravamina which states, “‘Judgement’ of a confessional-difficulty gravamen occurs when the council determines whether the officebearer’s difficulty is within or outside of confessional subscription” (Acts of Synod 2024, p. 870; see also Acts of Synod 2025, p. 671).
The synodical regulations clearly explain that “without reservation” does not mean there is no room to express concerns about the implications of a doctrine, or about the way a particular doctrine has been stated or used by others in the church (B.2 and B.3). In practice, the CRC has adopted a “historical-critical” approach to the confessions, which recognizes that certain phrases can only be understood and applied today with an appreciation for their historical setting. Thus, for example, synod has in the past dismissed questions about the attribution of the authorship of Hebrews to Paul (Belgic Confession Art. 4) or ascribing to the Anabaptists the “error” of condemning infant baptism (Belgic Confession Art. 34). Because our confessions are “owned” by a large number of Reformed churches, the CRC has preferred not to change them but to recognize that they were “born in a certain climate of theological debate and can best be understood in light of that history.” In doing this, synod warned against an “too literalistic approach to the Confessions” (Acts of Synod 2002, p. 499; Acts of Synod 1959, p. 184).
Wrestling with questions of faith is a necessary and normal part of the Christian life (think of the psalms). Reading Church Order Art. 5 and its Supplements in light of the preambles and decisions of Synod 2024 and 2025 reaffirm this important reality. In the end, the process of subscription must reflect a balance between two sets of considerations - “affirming without reservation” and “being bound only to those doctrines confessed.” The boundary between those two phrases often requires discernment. This is why the gravamen process is designed to be pastoral (B.7). The process of “preaching, teaching, writing, serving, and living” in conformity with the confessions begins with the officebearer’s personal conscience, in conversation with those who know him or her best: the local council. This is not designed to offer “loopholes” for those who object to the CRC’s doctrinal foundations, but rather to create space for genuine conversation about the truths we confess together in the Christian life. This process requires trust and vulnerability both from those wrestling with the nuances of faith, as well as from those who prefer settled clarity. It also recognizes that affirming the confessions (and the Scriptures from which they come) wholeheartedly and without reservation is, at times, as much an act of faith as understanding. But when handled well, the process of subscription - affirming together the confessions we believe - provides room for the CRC to grow together in our common witness to the Lord and his work in our world.
Comments
Dear Office of the General Secretary (OGS),
Thank you for this updated guidance. The church where I am a member is currently in the midst of discerning potential disaffiliation. As part of that discernment process, church visitors from our classis came to visit yesterday. I asked to meet with them, and they were able and willing to accommodate that request. In preparation for that meeting, I sent a very real scenario about which I was seeking clarity.
The heart of the scenario is whether an officebearer can humbly submit to the CRCNA's confessional theology, even if they have a settled conviction contrary to a doctrine contained in the confessions.
Here's the scenario: imagine an elderly Christian who has served multiple terms already as an elder in our local CRCNA. He has a settled conviction that the Bible does not teach the doctrine of infant baptism. But in all his terms as elder, he has always humbly submitted that our local church holds to the doctrine that affirms infant baptism. He has never taught against it, and has never tried to push for a revision of this confessional conclusion. From my perspective, he has served for literally decades already as a faithful officebearer in our local church. He has never 'made an issue' of his difference. He has never tried to persuade others to align with him. Rather, we as a church felt that it was fine for him to hold office because he was willing to humbly submit to not teach against the church's teaching, even while holding a settled conviction that differed. It is true that he did not 'live in conformity' with the CRC's doctrine of infant baptism as he did not have his children baptized as infants (instead, for that decision, he followed his settled conviction).
I brought this scenario to the church visitors.
My impression (and my impression may be wrong) is that the church visitors tried to make room for humble submission, even using words like you use here ("affirm the confessions") with less emphasis on the "without reservation" phrase. My sense is that they felt such a decision is not sufficiently clarified in CRCNA's Church Order (various pastors/councils may have different 'takes' on such a question) -- and so the situation could be left up to the local church as to whether or not this person could sign the Covenant for Officebearers and serve as an officebearer in the CRCNA.
Question for OGS: What do you think?
My impression (and again, my impression may be wrong) is that your Guidance here would suggest that there is no room for this long-time officebearer to continue as an officebearer in the CRCNA. As I read your guidance, all officebearers should have their children baptized as infants (part of "living in conformity" with the confessions). And that recent synodical decisions have clarified that there is no longer room for humble submission to the churches teaching while still holding a 'settled conviction' contrary to that teaching.
Please advise. Thank you for your work.
In Christ,
Rev. Paul Verhoef
I asked ChatGPT to reflect on this article, along with Paul's comment, in our current context, adding some details about the roles of church visitors, synodical deputies, and who may have authorized the guidelines shared in this article.
While I take full responsibility for the prompts, the opinions shared here are those of ChatGPT.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10XHiyQgEM2O4diA88Iw4PMFHhILQ4KIFUlcau80kjvk/edit?usp=sharing
ChatGPT also offered to create some additional resources which may be useful for onboarding new CRCNA office bearers. They are buried somewhere in the weeds, and may not yet have been fully instantiated.
Hello John! Thanks for this. Fun, eh? I have some professor friends who LOVE playing with ChatGPT as a pedagogical tool.
A couple initial comments/questions:
ChatGPT says that the "authorship of Hebrews" is non-adjudicated. It also says that my question about baptism is non-adjudicated. If that is true, that raises two questions.
(1) Tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that OGS wants to avoid speaking about the 'close, but out of bounds' settled convictions (they do not want to articulate, "Sadly, given recent decisions, it is now clear that this person would not be allowed in office") but this article demonstrates that they are willing to speak about the 'close, but acceptable' settled convictions (where OGS is willing to say, "Even with this settled conviction, this person would be allowed in office"). Why not speak about both (to be honest about what maybe has changed) or avoid speaking about either (to really focus on the local council discernment)?
(2) What if a local council actually wants to locally adjudicate the authorship of Hebrews, and wants to decide that such a settled conviction DOES keep a person out of office? Has the OGS -- by writing this up in this way -- subtly removed that local authority?
Hey Paul,
Is baptism really so insignificant of a doctrine that we should not expect our officebearers to uphold our position on it? I think we all agree that baptists are Christians, but there are significant differences that have implications on soteriology, sanctification, and especially our theology of covenant. The catechism spends three whole Lord's Days on baptism. That's a lot of volume for a doctrine that doesn't matter when deciding who is qualified to lead our churches. We don't just disagree with baptists about who, how and when to baptize someone, we disagree with them about what baptism is.
One of the qualifications of an Elder is that, "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9). This means we're not looking for someone who is simply wise and pastoral, although those qualifications are essential as well. It seems to me that rather than lowering the bar when it comes to theological knowledge and conviction, this verse from Titus requires us to raise the bar.
And let's be honest about the dynamics here. Even conservatives are tempted to allow the Reformed Baptist into our councils because we don't doubt that person's faith whereas, conservatives draw the line when it comes to affirming same sex marriage because that is considered a "salvation issue". The potential "Reformed Baptist" is the token conservative weak spot. If we compromise on that one, then we have no way of guarding any other doctrine. There are only two ways to move forward. One would be to stand our ground against the baptist serving. The other would be to change our theology, which would be impossible given that infant baptism is built in to the fabric of our theological system.
As someone who served on Committee 8 and Committee 9 in 2023 and 2024, I can say plainly that this came up early and often in our conversations. We worded our synodical report precisely the way we did so as to encourage raising up officebearers who would affirm our theology (including our theology of baptism). At the end of the day I know our intentions better less than what is meant by the words we did use. But our intention was clear: every officebearer in the CRC should wholeheartedly agree with the confessional theology we profess, baptism included.
Rev. Patrick Anthony
Thank you, Rev. Patrick Anthony, for carefully reading my question and for sharing the intention of the two committees you were on in Synod 2023 and Synod 2024. It is helpful to see why you did what you did. It was also helpful to read, in tandem, the comments below of Rev. Joel Vande Werken. If "clarity is kindness," I think your comments read together provide additional helpful clarity to this article. Much appreciated.
Hi Paul! Thanks for your question and for engaging this conversation. Your question about baptism is partially addressed in the report submitted to synod this year from the Team to Clarify Distinctions in Synodical Pronouncements:
Our confessions clearly teach the appropriateness of infant baptism (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 74; Belgic Confession, Art. 34). Officebearers should be expected to hold this teaching “without reservation” and to “promote and defend” this doctrine in their ministries. However, while officebearers should be expected to defend infant baptism as the most faithful interpretation of Scripture, this does not require that they completely deny that biblical arguments can be made for credobaptism (Church Order Supplement, Art. 5, A, 2). Agenda for Synod 2025, p. 327-328
In other words, while it is clear that officebearers cannot deny that Scripture teaches infant baptism, the point at which an “emotional struggle” with a particular doctrine becomes a “settled conviction contrary to” that doctrine (the phrases are from the Church Order Supplement, Art. 5-a) is a matter for individual officebearers to discern in communication with their fellow council members - and, if necessary, with the additional input of the classis.
To respond to your examples: it would seem unusual for a CRC church to be willing to ordain an officebearer who, though not actively advocating against infant baptism, appeared by his public actions to not be willing to support our doctrines. But questions about the "fringe cases" would be best addressed by the church assemblies - the council and the local classis - who are in the best position to assess the particulars of a local situation, provided they keep in mind our shared doctrinal commitments such as (in this case) our understanding of God's covenant action reflected in baptism. Any local discussions would also need to keep in mind our past consideration of these questions as a denomination, which would inform a decision about whether or not a council could disqualify (for example) someone who didn't subscribe to Pauline authorship of Hebrews (on that, see Acts of Synod 1961, p. 88).
These are good questions, and I’d be happy to follow up more individually if you’d like ([email protected]).
Thank you, Joel, for the additional synodical references. As you of all people know, there is a LOT to read in the history of synodical decisions, and it is helpful to have a response from someone like you who is called to steward those decisions for the wider body. As I said to Rev. Patrick Anthony above, if "clarity is kindness," I think your comments here read together with Rev. Anthony's provide additional helpful clarity to this article. I imagine it will prove helpful as our church asks "Do we want to remain in the CRCNA?" -- a very painful question to even ask, but better to be asked with as much clarity as possible around the consequences of a "yes" response. Much appreciated.
At about the same time I wrote responses to Revs. Anthony and Vande Werken this morning, Shiao Chong (former Editor-in-Chief of The Banner, who resigned in protest after changes to The Banner's mandate by Synod 2025) posted on Facebook. He shared his article published this morning online via the Christian Courier (CC) -- also in their October print addition. His situation seems like one additional piece of information / clarity around recent decisions of CRCNA synods. He wrote this on FB, and then linked the CC article:
No Room for Not Sure -- article for Christian Courier. In this article, I described how the "middle ground" in my denomination, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, has shrunk, leaving no room for even people who are "not sure" about the same-sex marriage debate.
https://www.christiancourier.ca/no-room-for-not-sure/
Hey Paul,
I am also grateful for the clarity. I think the reason the "middle ground" is shrinking is because it's not really possible to have a middle ground on the issue of SSM. I would liken it to not being sure whether to get on the Ark or not. This is why, even though the issue of baptism is similar procedurally, it's not really similar ethically. Either same sex marriage is an ethical good or it is damnable evil. Someone either needs to be assured and comforted in their chosen identity or taught to put to death their evil desires.
And even if we grant that it's possible to be genuinely not sure. In my mind, someone who is not sure on a subject that carries such gravity with respect to how we read and understand the Bible and how we minister to people who experience same sex attraction, should not be in a leadership position. Leaders need knowledge and conviction. I think Joel's framework (i.e. there being tension between intellectual assent and emotional reservations) could work with baptism but I struggle to see how that framework could work with SSM. One could navigate being an Elder in a paedobaptist church with some slight emotional hesitation on that doctrine. There would rarely if ever be a pastoral conflict. But it would be impossible to do so with any hesitation on SSM. People who experience same sex attraction need to know "thus saith the Lord". There mental health and biggest life choices hang in the balance.
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.