Skip to main content

This may have been asked before. Do all CRCNA members appointed to Boards or Committees of the CRCNA sign the Declaration of Office Bearers? This would have a great deal to do with their integrity on speaking or making decisions on behalf of the CRCNA.


Thanks for this discussion. I have wondered if Pareto's rule:   20/80 (20% of churches raise 80% of the funds) this rule can apply to many more situations.  Somewhere in the church's info base there must be a list of what churches pay x percentage of the ministry shares.  While I have no desire to see the list I wonder if the church could categorize the size of the church (in number of professing members) and provide the % of ministry shares paid. Groups could be sorted with churches up to 100 members, churches with 100-150 members, churches with 200-300 members and churches with 300-500 members and churches with over 500 members.  Just list the number of churches by each number and the average amount of ministry shares paid.

In some narrow way it might also help define "healthy" church groupings.

The CRCNA (Resonate) has made some headway in asking congregations (and missionaries) to get more involved in the funding of their (its) ministries.  The decision processes at both congregations and Resonate around this are not well developed.  Congregations lack specific details of the program spending (not simply salary) of the missionary. There is also no feedback on how much any individual missionary has raised. A missionary supported by, say, 3 churches... were the total funds raised sufficient? If more than sufficient where did or do the extra funds go?

What I would like to see is an individual program designed and costed by the missionary, approved by Resonate and put in a format of a hand out.  To cover the issue of salary privacy the only thing churches need to know is what scale missionaries are paid on. (That info is provided for senior church executives in the agenda for synod each year) I am sure such a scale exists for others employed by the church.

It is the action in this comment that makes me nervous. Not renewing a contract sounds too easy. How old was this Pastor? How long had he been in this location? How long had he been a Pastor? If the rules of his engagement had changed (and that is possible) there could be labour law action that apply. Certainly in Canada this approach would not be simple.  

I just want to be assured that this Pastor was treated fairly regardless of the reason for termination.

Kathy raises a significant point. The members that make up a Synod can vote with their conscience. The problem is that they have often not made their own church council aware of that conscience. Here is where democracy can play havoc.   To send people to Synod who, when they can vote which ever way they "feel" at the time, leaves the rest of us in a quandary. So how a process "to have their own input as uniquely positioned stake holders..... respected" is an interesting way of putting this.  I am (a concerned outsider) trying to figure out how this will affect the denomination. Will a Pastor (Elders can at least not be fired) who comes back from Synod having voted a way that was not what the local Elders felt was appropriate be fired? What happens then to their "uniquely positioned shareholder stake"?

Like the RCA there are no easy answers. But they, at least, gave at least some "no win"  options. Sadly I can only posit the problems but not solutions. Scripture can but many can not fundamentally agree there either. I urge all those going to Synod to let their own congregations know where they stand and eliminate any surprises. Surely 10 years is enough to make up one's mind?

What I do not understand is why folks who think like you do not leave the CRC and join churches that have already solved this problem. They are crying (dying) for members. Way back in the 1970/80's we had people that said Love is the "be all and end all".     But not in all places or situations.

"Sola scriptura, meaning by scripture alone, is a Christian theological doctrine held by some Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism, that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice."

Notice the word "some".  Hence my first comment. At least up to some point the CRC was clearly in the Reformed tradition.

Your call is too late. This, like the same issue in the world, is unstoppable humanly speaking. You are probably not the only one that has not been consulted. All members in the CRC will be put into a position of having to make a decision in June, no matter what the Synod decides. I for one have made it already.  I can no longer handle the trauma of these situations. 

I have said it before, the method of assigning Synod reps this year will be a challenging (traumatic) one.  

"Instead, use that energy to delegate wise, godly and discerning leaders to classis and Synod. Pray for them. And then, invest enormously in your local church’s life together in Christ."


This is the key issue and very good advice! The selection process for this Synod will be critical. Sometime back I suggested that the various Classes select double the number required delegates and then draw lots for the the four (or  whatever number) that will attend. With God in charge of everything that may be the way to go.

The discussion is focussed on the overall decline in membership over time. For Canada I researched (10 years ago) the data for the United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada. At about the same time I reviewed the data for the CRCNA.  The human conclusions for all three denominations was that the UCC will become non-sustainable sometime in 2025, the ACC about two years later and the CRCNA in 2037.

Dr. Carlson's analysis, which is well done, if projected forward, would probably show to show about the same outcome as mine which used data between 1997 and 2012 and forecast it forward based on trends from those years.

The good news is that annual percentage declines will never get you to zero!

Is Dr. Carlson's report to the COD going  be shown at the Synod Meeting?  A report on the FTE  growth of the CRCNA HO functions (excluding  Calvin University and World Renew) since 2018 would cause some really good discussions.


The first halve of the above is very valid.

Combining resources to achieve (certainly international and media ministries) mission outreach is something that should be thought through very carefully before being abandoned. The world is getting smaller is one side, the other is that people are becoming introverted (self absorbed). Having 20 independent missions in, say for example, Haiti, is not a wise use of resources of  20 organizations, all staffed with well paid managers.

"Just Decide Already! Can’t We Just Vote and Move On?"

We have just done that and moved out. After 75 years I think we have been very patient. We still care but not enough to stay.


I commend you for starting this dicussion. Try and engage people from Barnabas (USA)  and Christian Stewardship Services (CDN). These folks are involved, usually, with CRC members on ``end of life``  financial issues.  Also suggest you seperate the USA discussion from the CND discussion because of the legal and tax issues that come up. It can be very confusing  if the person writing is not identified as coming from the USA or CND.

I am from CND.

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post