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.
As you kow we went the opposite direction a couple of years ago, so our experience won't be much help to you, but what was helpful was talking to US citizens who had recently taken calls and moved to Canada. Probably the most helpful thing for you would be to do the same with Canadians that have recently come to the US. The denom. office will likely have a list of Canadians that have made the move recently. You likely won't be a problem since you're a US citizen and (for better or worse) we have to take you back. Sandy might be tougher. She likely won't have a problem getting in since you and the kids are US citizens but getting a work permit might be a longer process. If the church is willing to, you might want to ask them to hire an immigration attorney to give you some advice. Can't say about importing the vehicle, we had to pay off ours (purchased in the US) and have a clear title in order to bring it into Canada, as the bank wouldn't sign off on the title without having it paid off. I don't know whether it would be the same going the other way, but my guess would be that it is similar. But good to get a clear answer one way or the other.
My one suggestion would be that you have as much paperwork as possible relating to your move and employment (even stuff you don't think you need). Our experience was that if you make them go blind on paperwork and give them the impression that you've got all your ducks in a row and aren't hiding anything they're just a lot less likely to give you a hard time. I would suggest that you and the family go to the US customs and immigration with your paperwork a week or so before your actual move and get any potential difficulties taken care of, because the last thing you want to have happen is to get stuck at the border with a truck full of your stuff and have them turn you around. We had a gret mover recommedned by an American who had moved to Ontario recently, but they probably wouldn't be much help to you in Alberta.
One more thing. About covering the costs of the immigration attorney, it's best to figure that out before you accept a call and have it spelled out in the call letter. Even without it being explicitly spelled out, I think you could reasonably read it into the phrase in the call letter re: "paying for the costs of moving, etc." Hope that helps.
Thanks for sharing this post. I'm reminded of a recent conversation in which a older, wiser church leader cautioned that in this age of anxiety over declining memberships and budgets, not to ever underestimate the power of the Spirit (especially in this season of Pentecost). He said, "When you stop and think about it what we are called to do is not expensive. It doesn't require much. Just a Bowl, a Book, Bread, and a Cup. It isn't about fancy programs or facilities.
Thanks for your blog post on the early church. I agree that our individual and communal faith would be enriched by a deepened awareness of and appreciation for the first centuries of the church's history...after all, we do claim to be part of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church".
You write, "I’d love to see a Protestant revival of interest in the history of the ancient church." Though perhaps not widespread there is indeed such a revival going on largely due to the work of Christopher Hall (Eastern University), DH Williams (Baylor), and Tom Oden (Drew), Christopher Seitz and Ephraim Radner (Wycliffe College - Toronto), the late Robert Webber and numerous, though less well known, others. So be encouraged.
Posted in: Guidance on the Meaning of “Affirming the Confessions”
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.
Posted in: Planning an International Move
Randy,
As you kow we went the opposite direction a couple of years ago, so our experience won't be much help to you, but what was helpful was talking to US citizens who had recently taken calls and moved to Canada. Probably the most helpful thing for you would be to do the same with Canadians that have recently come to the US. The denom. office will likely have a list of Canadians that have made the move recently. You likely won't be a problem since you're a US citizen and (for better or worse) we have to take you back. Sandy might be tougher. She likely won't have a problem getting in since you and the kids are US citizens but getting a work permit might be a longer process. If the church is willing to, you might want to ask them to hire an immigration attorney to give you some advice. Can't say about importing the vehicle, we had to pay off ours (purchased in the US) and have a clear title in order to bring it into Canada, as the bank wouldn't sign off on the title without having it paid off. I don't know whether it would be the same going the other way, but my guess would be that it is similar. But good to get a clear answer one way or the other.
My one suggestion would be that you have as much paperwork as possible relating to your move and employment (even stuff you don't think you need). Our experience was that if you make them go blind on paperwork and give them the impression that you've got all your ducks in a row and aren't hiding anything they're just a lot less likely to give you a hard time. I would suggest that you and the family go to the US customs and immigration with your paperwork a week or so before your actual move and get any potential difficulties taken care of, because the last thing you want to have happen is to get stuck at the border with a truck full of your stuff and have them turn you around. We had a gret mover recommedned by an American who had moved to Ontario recently, but they probably wouldn't be much help to you in Alberta.
I hope everything goes well.
Grace and Peace,
Mike
Posted in: Planning an International Move
Randy,
One more thing. About covering the costs of the immigration attorney, it's best to figure that out before you accept a call and have it spelled out in the call letter. Even without it being explicitly spelled out, I think you could reasonably read it into the phrase in the call letter re: "paying for the costs of moving, etc." Hope that helps.
Mike
Posted in: Is Your Church Too Small or Too Poor to Do Missions?
Wendy,
Thanks for sharing this post. I'm reminded of a recent conversation in which a older, wiser church leader cautioned that in this age of anxiety over declining memberships and budgets, not to ever underestimate the power of the Spirit (especially in this season of Pentecost). He said, "When you stop and think about it what we are called to do is not expensive. It doesn't require much. Just a Bowl, a Book, Bread, and a Cup. It isn't about fancy programs or facilities.
Grace and Peace,
Michael Borgert
Posted in: The Apostles According to National Geographic
Paul,
Thanks for your blog post on the early church. I agree that our individual and communal faith would be enriched by a deepened awareness of and appreciation for the first centuries of the church's history...after all, we do claim to be part of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church".
You write, "I’d love to see a Protestant revival of interest in the history of the ancient church." Though perhaps not widespread there is indeed such a revival going on largely due to the work of Christopher Hall (Eastern University), DH Williams (Baylor), and Tom Oden (Drew), Christopher Seitz and Ephraim Radner (Wycliffe College - Toronto), the late Robert Webber and numerous, though less well known, others. So be encouraged.
Grace and Peace,
Michael Borgert