Lambert Sikkema

The opening sentence of the answer to question # 6 ought to give all the "rank-and-file" members of each and every local congregation "pause". It reads, "The Christian Reformed Church in North America is made up of eight ministry organizations and educational institutions, all of which were once created by an act of synod." My hunch most folks are scratching their heads thinking "what about the local congregation"? Where do "we" fit into this system? Did the authors of this answer miss something or omit something or take something for granted? I don't think so. I think the CRCNA is exactly as they define here: "eight ministry organizations and educational institutions, all of which were created by an act of synod". I think its high time we come to terms with the state of affairs vis-a-vis the local churches and the CRCNA. The local congregations are simply the "funding-source" for the CRCNA. That's it. All talk about "we're in this together" is not so. Our ecclesiastical admistrators have grown larger and larger by acts of Synod. This is true. But these ministries and educational institutions have also grown further and further apart from the local congregations. Add to that the issue of bi-nationality and things become exponentially more complicated. It's clear from reading all the documents regarding S.A.L.T. that Burlington and Grand Rapids are not complimentary system.  It's clear they're in competition with each other. At least that's what the Canadian side of the aisle seems to think. We have something like a sibling rivalry going on here and we ought to admit it and reckon with the implications of doing so. Isn't it time for the bi-nationality arrangement to be concluded? The Canadians seem to want to be set free to pursue their own vision of ministry in the context and culture of Canada. They should be set free to do so. Then the Americans can simply go on doing what they've been doing. We can cut costs and reduce staff and simply get back to doing what we all thought the administrative office were supposed to be doing in the first place and that is support the local congregations in advancing the kingdom locally. However that brings us full circle: we don't belong to the CRCNA. How did we get here? 

On another note, what exactly is "organizational-justice"? Who is bringing up that subject and why? Back in October of 2021 the "Banner" published a document entitled "The CRC in Canada: A Field Guide". The subtitle reads: "Your guide to the history and development of Canadian ministry in the Christian Reformed Church." The opneing paragraph simply indicates that CRCs on both sides of the boarder have "wrestling with the ministry...should mesh together."  Then follows a question: How did we get here? Answer: It's complicated. The obvious reaction for any alert reader would be what do you mean by the question. Where is "here" and how did we jump to "complicated" so quickly. Then, to make things more problematic the second paragraph opens with the following: "In fact, to write this guide The Banner went back through more than 100 years of synod records to help trace the origins of those wounds and frustrations." (italics mine). What? I can assure you that there isn't a single member of the CRC in the United States of America, not one congregation south of the border that would characterize our relationship with those congregations north of the border with those two words (wounds & frustrations). I'm calling attention to this fact because it speaks to the underlying problem no one seems to deal with. The USA and Canada are entirely different cultures. We share a common language and heritage but we are not the same culturally. Canadians are, in the main, keenly aware of this fact. In fact they celebrate it. It is an essential component of their identity. They are "not" American. No American says such a thing in reverse. I have never heard a single American say "I am not a Canadian". It doesn't enter their head to think or say such a thing. I realize this is just personal observations but it is nevertheless valid to point this out as key to understanding that SALT is never going to solve the issue of perceived "organizational injustice" and the wounds and frustration inflicted on Canadians by Americans. The "Guide" referenced earlier runs 25 pages cataloging every injustice, wrong, hurt, slight, oversight, snub, and disregard felt by Canadians in the CRC. It reminds me of all 5 of children going through their teens and feeling their mother and I were heartless, unfeeling callous and unjust. Then they moved out and moved on. I think its time the Canadian CRC stands on its own. Once we do that I think we will all get along famously and then we can write up joint partnership on any number of joint ventures. However, until that happens I think we're going to be seeing more "wounds and frustrations", most of which the average American member of the CRC will remain blissfully unaware. 

Regarding the matter of "paying" for the expense of maintaining offices in Burlington: How are those expenses being paid for today? CRC's in Canada are paying those expenses already. With regard to spinning off any or all of the associate organizations of the CRC: by all means and the sooner the better. Let them all solicit support from folks who truly want to be invested in and fully supportive of these ministries. In the long run these ministries will gain more support and funding.  The label "red herring" with regard to pointing out that the cultural divide between USA and Canada is dismissive and fails to reckon with profound distinctions between these two nation-states. Is Alberta different culturally than either Ontario or British Columbia or the Maritime provinces. Of course it is. However, no one would assert that Alberta is virtually "North-Montana" with regard to "culture". This brings me back to the document "The CRC in Canada: A Field Guide". It's a 25 page litany of grievances. How do we understand the significance of that "record-of-wrongs" spanning a century. This isn't a "red-herring". It summarizes the over-all psychological impact among Canadian CRC members, many of whom are second generation immigrants from the Netherlands, who are simply trying to partner with another group of CRC members, most of whom are third, fourth or fifth generation Americans and these two groups don't really do not understand each other anymore. The effort to bridge the divide, which is what the SALT document attempts to do, is really nothing more than nostalgia at this point. We should just admit the obvious. Canadians CRC members are culturally distinct and ought to be set free to pursue their unique vision of the kingdom rooted in that distinction. We did that with other nations. Why not simply do that with our Canadian brothers and sisters and move on. Let's end the heartache outlined in that "Field-Guide" once and for all. 

Izaak: The "body" to be discerned isn't Jesus'...it's the church/congregation. The apostle isn't chastising the Corinthians for failure to know Jesus as lord and savior. He is upset because the wealthy left out the poor. They created a division in the "body" where isn't supposed to be one. We do the exact same thing when we leave out the children of believers from celebrating the sacrament of the covenant that is ours in Christ. Our congregation has had children at the Lord's table for more than 14 years already. The sacrament is all about what the Lord says to us, not what we say to him. What we say in response is our "profession-of-faith" and it marks our entry into confessing member status in the body of Christ as "believers". 

Just curious: how many of our worship facilities across the CRCNA are not "gun-free-zones" on Sundays? My hunch is that many if not a majority of them, at least in the USA are not. Ours certainly isn't.

As citizens of 2 kingdoms,we have an admittedly uneasy relationship with the 2nd amendment since its the one that protects all the rest. I"m especially fond of the 1st since it protect the right to worship with out the fearing the government. Plus, holding the government accountable to the consent of the governed is what the 2nd is all about. 

I, too, never thought of the message of Esther as having anything to do with the right to self-preservation against the vagaries of the state, but since the book says what it says about just how it was the Jews survived the king's edict, I think its a point well taken. 

Why do we assume our president in fact said this? The reports are unsubstantiated. In fact they are reliably rebuffed by others in the room.  Dick Durbin has been guilty of making stuff up in the past. I find it curious that we assume that a man who has previously been hailed as champion of the black community in our country has suddenly become  a raging racist. He isn't. Im really disappointed that any pastor would take as gospel anything that is reported by partisan politicians. Why aren't we celebrating the lowest unemployment rate of black Americans since records have been kept. I think that's something to wonder about and ask what has precipitated such a development. 

And another thing with regard to supplanting or subordinating the ministry of the local church, it isn't simply a matter of 'ministry-shares'. Because ministry shares only account for a fraction of actual ministry costs, the local church membership is hit-up for additional "private" donations from deep-pocketed individuals. Those generous souls cannot donate dollars twice. When they given to ministry causes over and above ministry shares receipts, those same funds are no lost to the ministry plans and strategies of the local church. On top of that we have our missionaries being told to circle back to the local church for direct funding as a means of staying in touch with their supporters. How's that for irony? The very system designed to ensure that no missionary would have to do such a thing every 2-3 years, now must do that very thing because the administrators have consumed the lion's share of the ministry shares. This scenario supplants ministry at the local level.

Perhaps it would be worth our while to engage in a forensic audit of just exactly how much money is donated to denominational causes over and above ministry shares. Why aren't the local deacons given a complete report of exactly how much money was received from their members via private, meaning development director solicitation. That would be an eye-opening document...one that would induce a flood of questions and decisions. 

Wendy your first paragraph does not follow at all. All Christians belong to congregations/churches. The ministry they engage in is attached to that entity. Our conversation is precisely about that fact. The issue is that now we have administrative offices functioning as if they were a local congregation. They are not. The plan I'm speaking of is the Ministry Plan discussed at Synod this year. The administrators are shopping that thing around. The other plans I'm speaking of are the local church's plan...the point of this discussion is that these 2 things are competing for the attention and financial support of the same people. This is not a sustainable model. 

With regard to a violation of confidentiality: It is not a breach of confidentiality to simply inform each local congregation that, in addition to the ministry shares sent in via the deacons, the denomination also received x amount of total funds from a given local congregation...no names needed. The issue is this: such a document is warranted in terms of transparency. Also, such a document would inform the local church how many dollars are no longer available for local ministry. 

With respect to writing and marketing competitive plans for local churches, your comments in this regard illustrate the problem we're having of late. 

Darren:

The fact that there is yet another CRCNA ministry plan is a case in point. Did that ministry plan flow from a broad-spectrum conversation with the local congregations? No...it was, like all the other plans, generated by the BOT and the machinery located at 1700 28th St and its counterpart in Burlington Ontario....Our 'Doctrine of Discovery" study is another case in point. Which congregation or classis asked for this study? Was there an overture from a local congregation, submitted to classis adopted and then sent to Synod? No. And yet, the report gets a hearing because somehow or other it makes it's way into the agenda. Things are up-side-down in our system and we keep asking about how can we affect renewal. The very structures, as they now exist, seem to be the problem. Streamlining them isn't going to jix anything. What is needed is a radical redesign across the board. Is it reasonable to ask the folks who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo to create the new paradigm? Of course not. What will be the tipping point towards radical change is anyone's guess at this point. My hunch is that we must suffer much further decline, lead by the current mind-set, before we truly commit to a paradigm shift on the order of magnitude required to get the CRCNA re-deployed into an effective agency of the kingdom. I was ordained in 1987 and the goal then was 400,000 by 2000. Look where we are today. Nothing has changed. In fact we appear to be willing to double down on current priorities and practices.