Agenda For Synod 2023
Agenda For Synod 2023
Agenda For Synod 2023
Agenda
for Synod
2023
Synod 2022 instructed the Program Committee of synod to designate
appropriate matters, such as receiving the condensed financial statements
as information, taking note of the unified budget approval, and authorizing
pension amounts for housing allowance, to the consent agenda of synod
in future years. All other matters in this agenda will be deliberated by
the advisory committees and the assembly of Synod 2023.
462049
2023
Christian
Reformed
Church
June 9-15, 2023
Calvin University
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Preface..................................................................................................................9
Announcements ...............................................................................................11
Delegates to Synod...........................................................................................15
Standing Committees
Candidacy Committee.............................................................................197
Task Forces
Ecclesiastical Marriage Task Force ........................................................251
Study of Bivocationality Task Force ......................................................285
In Loco Committee
Neland Avenue CRC In Loco Committee Report ................................317
Overtures
1. Classis Niagara
Refrain from Reading Repetitious Notes at the Beginning
of Synod .....................................................................................................351
2. Classis Zeeland
Make a Statement on Assisted Suicide .................................................354
3. Classis Southeast U.S.
Refocus Ecclesiological Communication ..............................................356
4. Classis Zeeland
Receive Code of Conduct as Helpful but Not Required ....................359
5. Classis Columbia
Commend Code of Conduct as Helpful but Not as a
Church Order Revision ...........................................................................361
6. Classis Minnkota
Reject the Proposed Code of Conduct for Ministry Leaders .............365
7. Classis Lake Superior
Do Not Accept and/or Use Code of Conduct as a
Binding Document ...................................................................................370
8. Classis Iakota
Do Not Implement or Mandate the Code of Conduct ........................378
9. Classis Southeast U.S.
Reject the Proposed Code of Conduct ..................................................380
10. John and Debra Kamer, St. Joseph, Michigan
Provide Procedures for Discipline of Church Leaders .......................382
11. Classis Quinte
Revise Church Order Article 61; Encourage Churches to Include
Lament in Their Public Prayers..............................................................385
Communications
1. Classis Minnkota ......................................................................................599
2. Classis Northcentral Iowa .......................................................................600
3. Classis Holland .........................................................................................601
4. Council of Fellowship CRC, Toronto, Ontario ....................................611
Zachary J. King
General Secretary of the CRCNA
Alberta North
Minister - Henry P. Kranenburg Alternate - Richard J. deLange
Elder - Michelle Rooker Alternate - Art C. van Loo
Deacon - Michael A. Werkman Alternate - Coni Rozema
Other - Peter Rockhold Alternate - Ryan T. Pedde
Alberta South/Saskatchewan
Minister - Paul J. Droogers Alternate - David J. Swinney
Elder - Ryan S. Poelman Alternate - Judy Heim
Deacon - Joshua Johnson Alternate -
Other - Adrian R. de Lange Alternate - Peggy N. Dekens
Arizona
Minister - Ernesto J. Hernandez Alternate -
Elder - Philip G. Fritschle Alternate - Jeffrey A. Dykema
Deacon - Jarrad S. McDaniel Alternate -
Other - Andrew W. Littleton Alternate - Rodney J. Hugen
Atlantic Northeast
Minister - Matthew D. Burns Alternate - Michael R. Saville
Elder - Clyde H. Williams Alternate -
Deacon - Dan L. Wierenga Alternate -
Other - Willard H. Barham Alternate - Joel D. Vande Werken
B.C. North-West
Minister - Kevin J. VanderVeen Alternate - Paul D. DeWeerd
Elder - Daniel E. Schultz Alternate - Evelyn M. Kersbergen
Deacon - Robin de Haan Alternate - Elizabeth A. Gysbers
Other - Willem J. Delleman Alternate - Andrew E. Beunk
B.C. South-East
Minister - Erik M. DeLange Alternate - Michael J. Vander Laan
Elder - Sonya J. Grypma Alternate - Lee Hollaar
Deacon - Katelyn Van Hove Alternate -
Other - Jason D. Crossen Alternate - Christopher W. deWinter
California South
Minister - John Harold Caicedo Alternate - Donald C. Porter
Elder - John H. Jansen Alternate -
Deacon - Serene Rao Alternate -
Other - Weichuan C. Wang Alternate - Rudy Gonzalez
Central California
Minister - Patrick D. Anthony Alternate - Kyle Brooks
Elder - Titus E. Davis Alternate - Randall W. Postmus
Deacon - Jayne E. McClurg Alternate - Andrea V. Kamper
Other - David E. Vander Meulen Alternate - Bruce A. Persenaire
Chicago South
Minister - Neil P. Jasperse Alternate - Tsung-Lin Bosco Jen
Elder - Derk A. Deckinga Jr. Alternate - Debra J. Kamp
Deacon - James C. Bolhuis Alternate - Elizabeth Koning
Other - Daniel J. Roeda Alternate - Timothy S. Bossenbroek
Columbia
Minister - Joel J. Sheeres Alternate - Frank Meneses
Elder - Jeffrey A. Cutter Alternate - Brent M. Osborn
Deacon - Doug Vande Griend Alternate - Virgil L. Michael
Other - D. Vance Hays Alternate - Peter B. Armstrong
Eastern Canada
Minister - Daniel A. Meinema Alternate - Charles G. Lawson
Elder - Sonya Boersma Alternate - Colin Conrad
Deacon - Kathleen M. Dixon Alternate - Laura A. Snippe
Other - Sidney Ypma Alternate - Aaron M. Thompson
Georgetown
Minister - Nate Meldrim Alternate - Gerald A. Koning
Elder - Herb Kraker Alternate - Edward A. Steenbergen
Deacon - Dan Winiarski Alternate - Kathy L. Jelsema
Other - David C. Ten Clay Alternate - Cory J. Nederveld
Grandville
Minister - Brandon L. Haan Alternate - Joseph VandenAkker
Elder - Steve J. Longstreet Alternate - Ruth M. Carr
Deacon - James P. Heyboer Alternate - Brad Diekema
Other - Thomas S. VanderPloeg Alternate - Cedric W. Parsels
Hackensack
Minister - Edward W. Coleman Alternate - Paul A. Van Dyken
Elder - David J. Apol Alternate - Karen J. Walker
Deacon - Efren S. Echipare Alternate - Daryl Thornwall
Other - Gabriel Wang-Herrera Alternate - Stephen F. Jefferson
Hamilton
Minister - Michael W. Bootsma Alternate - Kenneth F. Benjamins
Elder - Peter Bulthuis Alternate - Herb Grootenboer
Deacon - Eric G. Tisch Alternate -
Other - Cara L. DeHaan Alternate - Joel Bootsma
Hanmi
Minister - Sung H. Hur Alternate -
Elder - Alternate -
Deacon - Alternate -
Other - Jeong Ha Chun Alternate -
Heartland
Minister - Jesse L. Walhof Alternate - Benjamin E. Wiersma
Elder - Michael V. Krommendyk Alternate - Jeff J. Heerspink
Deacon - Dan Brunst Alternate -
Other - John C. Klompien Alternate - Brian R. Dunn
Holland
Minister - Chad M. Steenwyk Alternate - Stephen M. Hasper
Elder - Jodi L. Gillmore Alternate - Keith Lubbers
Deacon - Albertena P. Praamsma Alternate -
Other - Darren C. Kornelis Alternate - Benjamin J. Petroelje
Hudson
Minister - Mary B. Stegink Alternate - Timothy J. McHugh
Elder - Roy G. Heerema Alternate -
Deacon – Alternate -
Other - Alternate -
Huron
Minister - Henry W. Meinen Alternate - Amanda C. Bakale
Elder - Arnold D. Bosman Alternate - Isaac Bokma
Deacon - Bernard H. De Jonge Alternate -
Other - Victor S. Laarman Alternate - Ray Vander Kooij
Iakota
Minister - Kurt A. Monroe Alternate - Drew Hoekema
Elder - Stan L. Wynia Alternate - Duane H. Bajema
Deacon - Jevon K. Groenewold Alternate - David VanderTuin
Other - Matthew A. Haan Alternate - Wayne C. Klein
Kalamazoo
Minister - Derek M. Zeyl Alternate - Maria L. Bowater
Elder - Craig H. Lubben Alternate - Jack G. Kuipers
Deacon - Alternate -
Other - Michael D. Koetje Alternate -
Ko-Am
Minister - Edward W. Yoon Alternate - Alternate -
Elder - Alternate -
Deacon - Jenny Yoon Alternate -
Other - Kyung Ho Park
Lake Erie
Minister - Matthew T. Ackerman Alternate -
Elder - Marilyn F. McLaughlin Alternate -
Deacon - Mary B. Smith Alternate -
Other - Nathan J. Groenewold Alternate -
Lake Superior
Minister - Aaron Greydanus Alternate - David S. Huizenga
Elder - Gaye A. Hanson Alternate - Rob R. Braun
Deacon – Alternate -
Other - Steven A. Zwart Alternate - David M. Dick
Minnkota
Minister - Scott M. Muilenburg Alternate - C. James den Dulk
Elder - Donley G. Walhof Alternate - Larry M. Van Otterloo
Deacon - Nick E. Sjaarda Alternate - Mitchel W. Slagter
Other - Chad E. Werkhoven Alternate - John A. Bothof
Muskegon
Minister - Drew K. Sweetman Alternate - Arthur J. Van Wolde
Elder - Pat J. Cavanaugh Alternate - Ronald L. Folkema
Deacon - Heidi J. Sytsema Alternate -
Other - Timothy D. Blackmon Alternate - Richard A. Britton III
Niagara
Minister - M. Jeff Klingenberg Alternate - Robert J. Loerts
Elder - Eleanor Sarkany Alternate -
Deacon - Henrietta Hunse Alternate -
Other - Steven J. deBoer Alternate - William F. Hoogland
North Cascades
Minister - Bryan A. Dick Alternate - Ben E. deRegt
Elder - Don Korthuis Alternate - Mark L. Wagenaar
Deacon - Drake D. Likkel Alternate - Rob H. Hilverda
Other - Michael T. Jager Alternate -
Northern Illinois
Minister - Kyle E. Haack Alternate - Daniel L. Jongsma
Elder - Craig E. Buma Alternate -
Deacon - Timothy J. Wurpts Alternate -
Other - John L. Hoekwater Alternate - Daniel L. Jongsma
Northern Michigan
Minister - Todd F. Kuperus Alternate - Steven J. Datema
Elder - Kenneth E. English Alternate - Dennis J. Miller
Deacon - Alternate -
Other - John P. Kostelyk Alternate - Dennis J. Miller
Ontario Southwest
Minister - Rafik Kamel Alternate -
Elder - Daniel F. Meyers Alternate - Boreas B. Meiboom
Deacon - John Klein-Geltink Alternate -
Other - Derek Ellens Alternate - Ralph S. Wigboldus
Pacific Northwest
Minister - Joshua S. Lee Alternate - Douglas E. Fakkema
Elder - Darrel R. Lagerwey Alternate -
Deacon - In O. Yang Alternate -
Other - John C. Knoester Alternate - Vincent C. Stout
Quinte
Minister - Ryan W. Braam Alternate - Bruce G. Adema
Elder - Bill Wybenga Alternate -
Deacon - Nellie Westerman Alternate -
Other - Rita S. Klein-Geltink Alternate - Joshua C. Tuininga
Red Mesa
Minister - Stanley W. Jim Alternate - Caleb N. Dickson
Elder - Francis B. Nelson Alternate - Darleen Litson
Deacon - Julia A. Alonzo Alternate -
Other - Evelyn H. Bennally Alternate - Sean Kass
Rocky Mountain
Minister - Mark A. Quist Alternate - Greg R. Dyk
Elder - Mary L. Gallegos Alternate -
Deacon - Alternate -
Other - Christian Sebastia Alternate - William H. Jensen
Southeast U.S.
Minister - Scott A. Vander Ploeg Alternate -
Elder - James Dykstra Alternate - John S. Maatman
Deacon - Jeffrey Huntley Alternate - Irma Rodriguez
Other - Christopher N. Cassis Alternate -
Toronto
Minister - Richard A. Bodini Alternate - David A. Salverda
Elder - Sandra V. Williams Alternate - Jake Veenstra
Deacon - Julius J. Williams Alternate -
Other - Maarthen Reinders Alternate -
Wisconsin
Minister - Jason S. Ruis Alternate - Josh Van Engen
Elder - Floyd Leo Alternate - Benjamin Verhulst
Deacon - Deborah Fennema Alternate - Roshelle Doornbos
Other - Young-Kwang Kim Alternate - Christopher J. Ganski
Yellowstone
Minister - Timothy A. Kuperus Alternate - Steve Bussis
Elder - David K. Hoekema Alternate - Clifton G. Sanders
Deacon - Elsa C. Vander Neut Alternate -
Other - Clair Vander Neut Alternate - Clifton G. Sanders
Zeeland
Minister - Aaron J. Vriesman Alternate - Stephen F. Terpstra
Elder - Chuck DeVries Alternate - Robert W. Brower
Deacon - Travis Datema Alternate -
Other - Lloyd H. Hemstreet Alternate - Tyler J. Wagenmaker
APPENDIX A
ADDENDUM A
ADDENDUM B
ADDENDUM C
In light of the feedback from the classes and local churches, the following recom-
mendations are presented to synod for adoption:
1. That synod adopt the proposed revised CRCNA Code of Conduct for Ministry
Leaders and endorse the accompanying FAQ sheet.
2. That synod adopt the following revisions/additions to the Church Or-
der and its Supplements (indicated by italics):
a. Add the following new Article 5-b and Supplement, Article 5-b to
the current Church Order Article 5 and its Supplement (the existing
Article 5 and its Supplement would become Article 5-a and Supple-
ment, Article 5-a).
The establishment of the Church Order Review Task Force was approved
by Synod 2022 (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 849). Following the parameters of
composition and membership delineated by synod, the committee was
formed with the following membership: Rev. Laura de Jong, Rev. Chelsey
Harmon, Casey Jen, Pastor James Jones, Rev. Rita Klein-Geltink (reporter),
Rev. John Sideco, Rev. Kathy Smith (ex officio), and Rev. Joel Vande
Werken (chair). The task force is also assisted by advisors Rev. David Den
Haan (Pastor Church Resources) and Rev. Susan LaClear (Candidacy).
The mandate given to the task force follows:
to conduct a comprehensive review of Church Order Articles 8, 12, 13,
14, 16, and 17 and their supplements in conversation with Pastor
Church Resources and relevant voices, and to bring an interim report
to Synod 2023 through the COD and a final report to Synod 2024. The
task force shall develop suggestions for clearer guidelines to pastors
and churches in times of conflict, as well as assistance for positive pas-
toral transitions and more effective oversight of individuals in special-
ized ministries, including attention to the readmission of pastors via
Article 8.
(Acts of Synod 2022, p. 849)
The background for this mandate stems from several overtures submitted
to synod in 2020 and 2022, dealing with issues of transition and accounta-
bility in ministry. In particular the task force recognizes the “increasing
use of Article 17 and its often-perceived stigma” (Acts of Synod 2022, p.
849) as an ongoing conversation within the CRCNA. While synod’s man-
date primarily addresses the need for administrative guidelines and po-
tential updates to the Church Order, the task force is also keenly aware
that behind every situation involving transition and supervision are real
people; our goal is to find ways to process those stories so that God’s
grace and care can be on display as clearly as possible in the work of
Christ’s church.
At the time of this writing (Jan. 2023), the task force is only just beginning
its work. The group has outlined its tasks and has sent a survey to classi-
cal stated clerks, seeking their input. It is anticipated that the work of the
task force will fall into two main areas: (1) regulations dealing with the su-
pervision of ministers in nonparish work and (2) guidelines for effective
transitions when pastors leave a church or the denomination (or perhaps
reenter ordained ministry in the CRCNA). Recognizing that the landscape
of ministry has changed significantly since the last major revision of the
Church Order in 1965, the task force intends to review the history behind
the development of the present Articles 12-17, assumptions about the the-
ological significance of call and vocation, and the logic of flow in these ar-
ticles as we seek to fulfill the mandate of synod.
APPENDIX C
1 We recognize that congregations are made up of both formal and informal ministry
leaders as well as a wide range of other people, some of whom might be baptized or pro-
fessing members and others of whom might participate in the communal life, worship,
discipleship, and mission of the church in a variety of ways. We further recognize that
congregations come in diverse sizes and expressions, from microchurches and home-
based worshiping communities to well-established, multistaff, multisite congregations—
with a large variety in between. Within the CRC context, we also note that classis-based
meetings, ministries, and gatherings can serve as a valuable location and vehicle for
equipping and encouraging congregations and their leaders. As such, our understanding
of “congregations” includes the various people who engage in the life of a congregation
and the diverse expressions of church, as well as the classis structures that support con-
gregations and their leaders.
APPENDIX E
Liabilities
Trade Payables $ 747 $ 690
Other Payables $ 1,525 $ 1,279
Total Payables $ 2,272 $ 1,969
Net Assets
Donor Designated $ 56,589 $ 57,530
Unrestricted $ 23,584 $ 19,408
Total Net Assets $ 80,173 $ 76,938
Other Income:
Tuition/Sales $ 2,526 $ 2,413 $ 2,230 1,898
Agency Services $ - $ - $ -
Grants/Miscellaneous $ 1,092 $ 1,699 $ 1,926 $ 1,022
Total Other Income 3,618 $ 4,112 $ 4,156 $ 2,920
% of Total Income 48.7% 52.8% 51.6% 43.7%
EXPENSES
Program Services:
Education $ 5,139 $ 5,274 $ 4,877 $ 4,904
International $ - $ - $ -
Domestic Ministries $ - $ - $ -
Disaster $ - $ - $ -
Other $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Program Service 5,139 $ 5,274 $ 4,877 $ 4,904
% of Total $ 76.8% 73.7% 68.9% 68.3%
Support Services:
Management & General $ 995 $ 902 $ 1,162 $ 1,330
Plant Operations $ 555 $ 482 $ 594 $ 463
Fund-raising $ 573 $ 494 $ 447 $ 480
Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Support Service 1,550 $ 1,878 $ 2,203 $ 2,273
% of Total Expenditures 23.2% 26.3% 31.1% 31.7%
20-21 21-22
Actual Actual
Assets
Cash $ 10,174 $ 3,624
Investments $ 346,519 $ 354,149
Other $ 229,681 $ 225,129
Total Assets $ 586,374 $ 582,902
Liabilities
Trade Payables $ 3,860 2967
Other Payables $ 131,477 $ 128,545
Total Payables $ 135,337 $ 131,512
Net Assets
Donor Designated $ 177,219 176642
Unrestricted $ 273,818 $ 274,748
Total Net Assets $ 451,037 $ 451,390
Other Income:
Tuition & Sales $ 92,175 $ 82,887 $ 93,626 $ 75,976 73,199
Grants $ - $ - $ - $ -
Miscellaneous $ 5,803 $ 8,411 $ 4,256 $ 4,674 $ 6,004
Total Other Income 97,978 $ 91,298 $ 97,882 $ 80,650 $ 79,203
% of Total Income 94.5% 94.1% 94.3% 91.1% 89.9%
EXPENSES
Program Services:
Education $ 85,342 $ 80,841 $ 78,992 $ 64,780 67,694
Interenational $ - $ - $ - $ -
Domestic Ministries $ - $ - $ - $ -
Disaster $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Program Service $ 85,342 $ 80,841 $ 78,992 $ 64,780 $ 67,694
% of Total Expenditures 82.8% 82.8% 76.6% 78.7% 81.3%
Support Services:
Management & General $ 2,105 $ 2,302 $ 8,326 $ 2,327 2,713
Plant Operations $ 7,491 $ 6,862 $ 7,603 $ 7,035 8,133
Fund-raising $ 2,817 $ 2,298 $ 2,898 $ 2,898 $ 2,137
Debt Service $ 5,355 $ 5,326 $ 5,300 $ 5,300 $ 2,600
Total Support Service 17,768 $ 16,788 $ 24,127 $ 17,560 $ 15,583
% of Total Expenditures 17.2% 17.2% 23.4% 21.3% 18.7%
Other Income:
Tuition/Sales $ - $ - $ -
Agency Services 6,989 $ 7,143 $ 8,219 $ 7,142
Grants/Miscellaneous $ - $ - $ -
Total Other Income 6,989 $ 7,143 $ 8,219 $ 7,142
% of Total Income 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
EXPENSES:
Program Services:
Education $ - $ - $ -
International $ - $ - $ -
Domestic Ministries $ - $ - $ -
Disaster $ - $ - $ -
Other $ 5,569 $ 5,662 $ 7,112 $ 6,038
Total Program Service $ 5,569 $ 5,662 $ 7,112 $ 6,038
% of Total Expenditures 79.7% 79.1% 86.5% 84.5%
Support Services:
Management & General $ - $ - $ -
Plant Operations/Debt Serv. $ 1,420 $ 1,496 $ 1,107 1,104
Fund-raising $ - $ - $ -
Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Support Service 1,420 $ 1,496 $ 1,107 $ 1,104
% of Total Expenditures 20.3% 20.9% 13.5% 15.5%
Year Year
2021 2022
Actual Actual
Assets
Cash $ 361 $ 396
Investments $ 6,408 $ 4,964
Other $ - $ -
Total Assets $ 6,769 $ 5,360
Liabilities
Trade Payables $ - $ -
Other Payables $ - $ -
Total Payables $ - $ -
Net Assets
Donor Designated $ - $ -
Unrestricted $ 6,769 $ 5,360
Total Net Assets $ 6,769 $ 5,360
DEDUCTIONS:
Distributions $ 714 $ 524 $ 969 1,292
Loss on investments $ - $ - $ - 937
Management & General $ 24 $ 29 $ 29 $ 26
TOTAL FTE's
Year Year
2021 2022
Actual Actual
Assets
Cash $ - $ -
Investments $ 46,337 $ 37,134
Other $ - $ -
Total Assets $ 46,337 $ 37,134
Liabilities
Trade Payables $ - $ -
Other Payables $ 24 $ 10
Total Payables $ 24 $ 10
Net Assets
Donor Designated
Unrestricted $ 45,313 $ 37,124
Total Net Assets $ 45,313 $ 37,124
DEDUCTIONS
Distributions $ 4,529 $ 4,701 $ 3,126 $ 3,871
Management & General $ 131 $ 136 $ 139 $ 70
TOTAL FTE's - - -
Liabilities
Trade Payables
Other Payables
Total Payables $ -
Net Assets
Donor Designated $ 2,254
Unrestricted
Total Net Assets $ 2,254
Other Income:
Tuition/Sales $ 3 $ - 348
Agency Services $ - $ 314
Grants/Miscellaneous $ 1,674 $ 1,003 $ 291
Total Other Income $ 1,677 $ 1,317 $ 639
% of Total Income 5.8% 0.0%
EXPENSES:
Program Services:
Education $ 1,798 $ 1,644 2,000
International $ - $ -
Domestic Ministries $ - $ -
Disaster $ - $ -
Other $ - $ - $ -
Total Program Service $ 1,798 $ 1,644 $ 2,000
% of Total Expenditures 100.0% 100.0%
Support Services:
Management & General $ - $ -
Plant Operations $ - $ -
Fund-raising $ - $ -
Debt Service $ - $ - $ -
Total Support Service $ - $ - $ -
% of Total $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Year Year
2021 2022
Actual Actual
Assets
Cash $ 1,814 $ 2,566
Investments $ 86,038 $ 73,405
Other $ 81 $ 81
Total Assets $ 87,933 $ 76,052
Liabilities
Trade Payables
Other Payables $ 216 $ 262
Total Payables $ 216 $ 262
Net Assets
Donor Designated
Unrestricted $ 87,717 $ 75,791
Total Net Assets $ 87,717 $ 75,791
DEDUCTIONS:
Distributions $ 2,943 $ 3,018 $ 3,098 $ 3,186
Management & General $ 891 $ 952 $ 1,086 $ 895
TOTAL FTE's 1 1 1 1
Year Year
2021 2022
Actual Actual
Assets
Cash $ 4,128 $ 4,863
Investments $ 138,124 $ 111,698
Other $ 240 $ 944
Total Assets $ 142,492 $ 117,505
Liabilities
Trade Payables
Other Payables $ 70 $ 236
Total Payables $ 70 $ 236
Net Assets
Donor Designated
Unrestricted $ 142,422 $ 117,269
Total Net Assets $ 142,422 $ 117,269
DEDUCTIONS:
Distributions $ 10,271 $ 10,570 $ 10,636 10,718
Management & General $ 1,176 $ 1,223 $ 1,545 $ 1,090
TOTAL FTE's 2 3 3 3
Liabilities
Trade Payables $ 85 $ 3
Other Payables $ 717 $ 718
Total Payables $ 802 $ 721
Net Assets
Donor Designated $ 73 $ 442
Unrestricted $ (715) $ (1,378)
Total Net Assets $ (642) $ (936)
Other Income:
Tuition/Sales $ 211 $ 156 295
Agency Services $ - $ - -
Grants/Miscellaneous $ 359 $ 391 $ 93
Total Other Income $ 570 $ 547 $ 388
% of Total Income 71.9% 51.1% 33.0%
EXPENSES
Program Services:
Education $ - $ -
International $ - $ 308 350
Domestic Ministries $ 915 $ 517 507
Disaster $ - $ -
Other $ - $ - $ 1
Total Program Service $ 915 $ 825 $ 858
% of Total Expenditures 71.8% 72.1% 69.4%
Support Services:
Management & General $ 274 $ 239 301
Plant Operations $ - $ -
Fund-raising $ 85 $ 80 77
Debt Service $ - $ - $ -
Total Support Service $ 359 $ 319 $ 378
% of Total Expenditures 28.2% 27.9% 30.6%
Liabilities
Trade Payables $ 183 $ 67
Other Payables $ 450 $ 631
Total Payables $ 633 $ 698
Net Assets
Donor Designated $ 1,418 $ 1,637
Unrestricted $ 9,712 $ 11,125
Total Net Assets 11,130 12,762
Other Income:
Tuition/Sales $ - $ - $ -
Agency Services $ - $ - $ -
Grants/Miscellaneous $ 357 $ 750 $ 1,664 $ (669)
Total Other Income 357 $ 750 $ 1,664 $ (669)
% of Total Income 3.7% 8.6% 16.4% -9.3%
EXPENSES
Program Services:
Education $ 165 $ 120 $ 75 -
International $ 3,093 $ 3,130 $ 2,774 2,840
Domestic Ministries $ 2,257 $ 2,400 $ 2,299 2,775
Disaster $ - $ - $ - -
Other $ - $ - $ - -
Total Program Service $ 5,515 $ 5,650 $ 5,148 $ 5,615
% of Total Expenditures 69.5% 69.0% 70.7% 70.9%
Support Services:
Management & General $ 880 $ 990 $ 887 906
Plant Operations $ - $ - $ - -
Fund-raising $ 1,538 $ 1,545 $ 1,246 1,404
Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Support Service 2,418 $ 2,535 $ 2,133 $ 2,310
% of Total Expenditures 30.5% 31.0% 29.3% 29.1%
Liabilities
Trade Payables $ 1,388 $ 644
Other Payables $ 773 $ 1,688
Total Payables $ 2,161 $ 2,332
Net Assets
Donor Designated $ 4,456 $ 4,495
Unrestricted $ 18,730 $ 16,433
Total Net Assets $ 23,186 $ 20,928
INCOME:
Ministry Share $ 6,792 $ 6,343 $ 6,606 5,229
% of Total Income 32.9% 30.3% 30.1% 32.5%
Other Income:
Tuition/Sales $ 75 $ 38 $ 21 $ 175
Agency Services $ - $ - $ - $ -
Grants/Miscellaneous $ 715 $ 1,651 $ 3,433 $ (1,489)
Total Other Income $ 790 $ 1,689 $ 3,454 $ (1,314)
% of Total Income 3.8% 8.1% 15.7% -8.2%
Support Services:
Management & General $ 1,641 $ 1,796 $ 1,819 2,175
Plant Operations $ - $ - $ - -
Fund-raising $ 2,338 $ 2,439 $ 1,973 2,240
Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Support Service $ $ 3,979 $ 4,235 $ 3,792 $ 4,415
% of Total $ 20.7% 22.8% 22.1% 23.9%
Year Year
2021 2022
Actual Actual
Assets
Cash $ 417 $ 396
Investments $ - $ -
Other $ 1 $ -
Total Assets $ 418 $ 396
Liabilities
Trade Payables
Other Payables $ 10 $ -
Total Payables $ 10 $ -
Net Assets
Donor Designated
Unrestricted $ 408 $ 396
Total Net Assets $ 408 $ 396
TOTAL ADDITIONS 91 92 67 22
DEDUCTIONS:
Distributions $ 23 $ 28 $ 107 $ 34
Management & General $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL FTE's - - - -
Year Year
2021 2022
Actual Actual
Assets
Cash $ 290 186
Investments $ - 0
Other $ 37 36
Total Assets $ 327 $ 222
Liabilities
Trade Payables
Other Payables $ 28 0
Total Payables $ 28 $ -
Net Assets
Donor Designated
Unrestricted $ 299 222
Total Net Assets $ 299 $ 222
DEDUCTIONS:
Distributions $ 105 $ 92 $ 74 87
Management & General $ - $ - $ 1 $ 1
TOTAL FTE's - - - -
Fiscal Fiscal
20-21 21-23
Actual Actual
Assets
Cash $ 6,905 $ 8,699
Investments $ 1,062 $ (932)
Other $ 6,492 8,319
Total Assets $ 14,459 $ 16,086
Liabilities
Trade Payables $ 582 $ 226
Other Payables $ 2,722 $ 2,363
Total Payables $ 3,304 $ 2,589
Net Assets
Donor Designated $ 377 $ 215
Unrestricted $ 10,778 $ 13,282
Total Net Assets $ 11,155 $ 13,497
Other Income:
Tuition & Sales $ 63 $ 1,592 $ 24 $ 461
Agency Services $ - $ 1,573 $ 1,131 $ -
Grants/Misellaneous $ 1,554 $ 1,246 $ 2,026 $ 136
Total Other Income $ 1,617 $ 4,411 $ 3,181 $ 597
% of Total Income 38.3% 65.9% 52.8% 15.5%
EXPENSES:
Program Services:
Education $ 1,670 $ 1,169 $ - $ -
International $ - $ - $ - $ -
Domestic Ministries $ - $ - $ 199 $ 1,403
Disaster $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other $ 35 $ - $ - $ -
Total Program Service $ 1,705 $ 1,169 $ 199 $ 1,403
% of Total Expenditures 52.7% 16.6% 4.5% 31.1%
Support Services:
Management & General $ 1,304 $ 3,768 $ 4,236 $ 3,113
Plant Operations/Debt Serv. $ - $ 1,822 $ - $ -
Fund-raising $ 224 $ 293 $ - $ -
Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Support Service $ 1,528 $ 5,883 $ 4,236 $ 3,113
% of Total Expenditures 47.3% 83.4% 95.5% 68.9%
Fiscal Fiscal
20-21 21-22
Actual Actual
Assets
Cash $ 4,886 $ 15,095
Investments $ 27,908 $ 20,197
Other $ 3,299 $ 8,122
Total Assets $ 36,093 $ 43,414
Liabilities
Trade Payables $ 1,133 $ 1,860
Other Payables $ 259 $ 3,000
Total Payables $ 1,392 $ 4,860
Net Assets
Donor Designated $ 12,948 $ 16,627
Unrestricted $ 21,753 $ 21,927
Total Net Assets $ 34,701 $ 38,554
Other Income:
Tuition/Sales $ - $ - $ -
Agency Services $ - $ - $ -
Grants/Miscellaneous $ 3,035 $ 3,625 $ 5,862 $ (636)
Total Other Income $ 3,035 $ 3,625 $ 5,862 $ (636)
% of Total Income 9.2% 11.1% 15.9% -1.5%
EXPENSES:
Program Services:
Education $ 1,443 $ 1,993 $ 1,924 $ 1,890
International $ 11,273 $ 11,765 $ 11,339 $ 12,015
Domestic Ministries $ 312 $ 372 $ 254 $ 253
Disaster $ 13,974 $ 15,614 $ 14,784 $ 16,728
Other $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Program Service $ 27,002 $ 29,744 $ 28,301 $ 30,886
% of Total Expenditures 84.7% 83.9% 82.2% 82.5%
Support Services:
Management & General $ 1,892 $ 1,982 $ 2,048 $ 2,384
Plant Operations $ - $ - $ -
Fund-raising $ 2,974 $ 3,710 $ 4,083 $ 4,170
Debt Service $ - $ - $ -
Total Support Service $ 4,866 $ 5,692 $ 6,131 $ 6,554
% of Total Expenditures 15.3% 16.1% 17.8% 17.5%
Introduction
It is the responsibility of the Council of Delegates of the CRCNA to submit
a unified report to synod composed of ministry updates provided by the
agencies, educational institutions, and congregational ministries of the
Christian Reformed Church. The reports of the ministries are organized
and presented in alignment with Our Calling—five ministry priorities en-
dorsed by synod (Acts of Synod 2013, p. 610; Acts of Synod 2014, p. 563):
Faith Formation, Servant Leadership, Global Mission, Mercy and Justice,
and Gospel Proclamation and Worship. Supplementary reports will be
provided by denominational boards and standing committees of synod, if
necessary.
These reports provide helpful information for local churches. Much of the
material also supplies significant background for decisions that synod will
be asked to make. The content also provides the transparency necessary to
enhance our life together as a denomination.
Together these reports present the story of how God is blessing and
guiding our work through the agencies, institutions, and ministries of the
Christian Reformed Church as we covenant together. As you read the
material that follows, I encourage you to respond with gratitude for what
God is doing through the Holy Spirit, transforming lives and communities
worldwide, by means of the Christian Reformed Church in North
America.
Zachary J. King
General Secretary of the CRCNA
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Reports of Agencies, Institutions, and Ministries 113
FAITH FORMATION
Calvin University
I. Executive Summary
The missional work of Calvin University continues with fervor: equipping
students to think deeply, to act justly, and to live wholeheartedly as
Christ’s agents of renewal in the world. Our students, faculty, staff, and
alumni seek renewal in every field of study and in every corner of the
globe. Our longstanding undergraduate programs endure with excellence,
alongside our ever-expanding graduate-level offerings.
Since the last meeting of synod, Calvin University has made a presidential
transition, launched new programming, opened new spaces, and hosted
milestone moments for our campus and community. We’ve experienced
record-level global diversity and North American BIPOC (Black, Indige-
nous, and People of Color) representation. And fresh initiatives are
emerging from three campuses: our Grand Rapids, Michigan, Knollcrest
campus; our Handlon campus in Ionia, Michigan, the site of the Calvin
Prison Initiative; and our global campus—reaching students wherever
they are learning from.
Our hope is that this report shares the momentum happening here at Cal-
vin University, a vibrant learning community and ministry of the Chris-
tian Reformed Church in North America. Thank you for allowing us to
partner with you to empower Christ’s agents of renewal and for investing
to build this institution into what it has become over almost 150 years.
II. Reflecting on Our Calling and church partnerships
Calvin University is animated by a Christian faith that seeks understand-
ing and promotes the welfare of the city and the healing of the world. In
doing so, our educational community reflects the CRC’s ministry priori-
ties: faith formation, servant leadership, global missions, mercy and jus-
tice, and gospel proclamation and worship. We also connect with local
churches through scholarship; service partnerships; and student, staff, and
faculty church membership. We continually seek partnerships with other
CRCNA ministries, such as discussions with Resonate around a partner-
ship for missionaries to gain continuing education while serving in the
field.
While faith formation happens in the classroom, through student life,
among athletic teams, and across every facet of Calvin’s campus, our
Campus Ministries team’s work in this area is also to be celebrated. LOFT,
chapel, and dorm worship services bring us together and point us to God.
Bible study leaders and residence hall Barnabas leaders disciple students
in their faith. In addition, pastoral partners from local churches are serv-
ing within the Campus Ministries team to serve the spiritual needs of our
student body.
Calvin University
Wiebe K. Boer, president
Faith Formation
Christopher J. Schoon
Diversity
Reginald Smith
ReFrame Ministries
I. Introduction—Mission and Mandate
ReFrame Ministries serves as the worldwide media ministry of the Chris-
tian Reformed Church in North America. ReFrame looks much different
than when it launched as a single English radio program, The Back to God
Hour, in 1939. Today our vision is that the lives and worldviews of all
people around the globe will be transformed by God's gospel message.
Relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we create contextual media re-
sources that proclaim the gospel, disciple believers, and strengthen the
church throughout the world using ten major languages. This work takes
place through four core strategies:
• Church rooted: We believe the Holy Spirit works through the
church, so we partner with churches to build and strengthen the
body of Christ.
• Major languages: We strive to reach the widest possible audience,
so we create content in the world's most-spoken languages.
• Context driven: We work with local partners who faithfully contex-
tualize the gospel message and use the most effective media for
connecting with diverse audiences.
• Relationship focused: Following the example of Christ, we seek to
build long-term, discipling relationships with individual members
of our mass audiences.
II. Reflecting on Our Calling
The focus of ReFrame Ministries is primarily global mission. All of our
work is guided by the Great Commission in Matthew 28. Much of our
work also naturally aligns with other parts of the CRCNA’s fivefold call-
ing as we seek to work alongside churches and ministries worldwide.
A. Global mission
ReFrame carries out ministry in ten major world languages: Arabic, Chi-
nese, English, French, Hindi, Indonesian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian,
and Spanish.
Using media, ReFrame is uniquely positioned to provide gospel outreach
in nearly every country of the world, even in places where Christian mis-
sionaries are not allowed. By proclaiming the gospel through radio, televi-
sion, Internet, mobile apps, and social media, we are able to reach people
who may not otherwise have access to a community of believers or a safe
way to ask life’s difficult questions. We regularly receive responses from
people around the world who testify that they heard about Jesus for the
first time through the media resources produced by ReFrame.
ReFrame Ministries
Kurt Selles, director
As we look back on the past year, we are encouraged to see that mission
work remains an area of unity for the Christian Reformed Church in
North America.
We are thankful for all that we’ve accomplished together over the past
year, and we hope you will give thanks with us for all that God has done
through your support. In addition to the ongoing work of Resonate minis-
try staff around the world, we are also seeking to sharpen our focus on
Resonate’s identity as the mission agency of the Christian Reformed
Church equipping congregations for mission. This past year also marked
the consolidation of Raise Up Global Ministries with Resonate. Raise Up
served as a partnership of Timothy Leadership Training, Educational
Care, and Global Coffee Break programming.
Thank you for all that you do—in your own neighborhood and around
the world. Resonate partners with you, your church, and Christians in
more than 40 countries who minister to people of different faiths and cul-
tures. Thank you as well for your prayers and gifts that make this ministry
possible. Thanks to your support, the good news of Jesus is going out like
an expanding, amplifying sound around the world!
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Committee for Contact with the Government 149
B. Mercy and justice
We assist local churches in loving mercy and doing justice as follows:
1. Communicating with government, through direct interaction with pol-
icy makers and shapers from our office in Ottawa, Ontario, and
through mobilizing Christian citizens to interact with their elected rep-
resentatives. We continue to work closely with partners to help local
churches respond to urgent issues of justice and reconciliation. These
partnerships include World Renew, Mennonite Central Committee
Canada, the Canadian Council of Churches, the Evangelical Fellow-
ship of Canada, KAIROS, and Citizens for Public Justice. We continue
to raise the issue of long wait times for refugees alongside our partners
at World Renew who are Refugee Sponsorship Agreement holders. We
work alongside the Climate Witness Project to encourage local respon-
sibility and citizen advocacy for climate justice.
2. Responding to requests for information from churches and members
on current issues of concern. This has included requests for infor-
mation on Bill C-4 regarding conversion therapy, on refugees, and on
medical assistance in dying. Our advocacy-awareness raising contin-
ues to be appreciated by constituents. We heard this feedback regard-
ing a refugee action alert: “Thank you for sharing it. It was a shock to
realize the scope of the problem.”
3. Working with CRCNA partners to bring justice-themed learning expe-
riences to churches: Faith in Action: Practicing Biblical Advocacy is a
practical citizen planning and action tool that was launched as an
online workshop this year using the Thinkific platform. The Hearts Ex-
changed program continues to be an important pillar of work in col-
laboration with Indigenous Ministries. Thirteen cohorts are taking
place across Canada.
4. Advocacy continues on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s
calls to action. We build on churches' understanding of the importance
of community involvement in education through the Education To-
gether campaign. We advocate with them to support this essential
right for Indigenous youth.
C. Gospel proclamation and worship
Doing justice and reconciliation is gospel proclamation—we know and
celebrate that Christ is renewing all things and that he calls us to be cola-
borers in this task. When the church does justice, our witness is stronger
and has more integrity. As such, the work and partnerships mentioned
above are an element of gospel proclamation and are motivated by a con-
viction that justice and worship are integrated.
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Committee for Contact with the Government 151
Disability Concerns
I. Introduction
Congregational Ministries’ efforts in Disability Concerns strive toward the
full participation of all people with disabilities in the life of the church. To-
gether with Disability Concerns of the Reformed Church in America, Disa-
bility Concerns pursues its mission:
Following God’s call to mutual love and service, Disability Concerns
collaborates with churches and partner organizations to break individ-
ual and systemic barriers that keep people with disabilities from full
participation—so that churches truly reflect the body of Christ where
everybody belongs and everybody serves.
The 2021-22 theme for Disability Concerns focused on equipping young
adult disability advocates to lead the church into an accessible future. That
theme played out in a variety of ways, including a year-long cohort coach-
ing young adults in disability advocacy in collaboration with the RCA’s
NextGen program. The theme for 2022-23 is Let’s End Ableism at Church.
Learning about ableism helps us understand the experiences of people
with disabilities at church and why people with disabilities are un-
derrepresented in our churches.
II. Reflecting on Our Calling
The church’s call to mercy can be described as having compassion for the
experiences of people on the margins. Likewise, the church’s call to justice
can be described as equity for all people. Within this framework of mercy
and justice Disability Concerns works to raise awareness of the experi-
ences of marginalization that people with disabilities often face at church
and to make changes toward equity so that all people have access to full
participation in the life of the church.
People with disabilities often feel marginalized when they ask for an ac-
commodation and are dismissed. The responses come in many forms: “It’s
not in the budget,” “It’s not our priority right now,” or even, “They can
just go to a different church.” That is ableism at work. The message to
people with disabilities is “You’re not worth it.” Dr. Amy Kenny sums it
up well in our book of the year, My Body Is Not a Prayer Request:
I picture Jesus telling the church who fought against the ADA (Ameri-
cans with Disabilities Act): “Depart from me, for I was in a wheelchair
and you gave me no ramp; I was d/Deaf, and you gave me no inter-
preter; I was blind, and you gave me no visual descriptions. I needed
an accessible bathroom, and you did not install one because it was too
expensive. I asked you not to insult me by saying ‘lame,’ and you
laughed at me. I wanted to be included, and you said it would violate
your faith commitments. I was disabled, and you did not accommo-
date me.”
The River Community Church in Edmonton, Alberta, is actively working
to raise awareness of the experiences of people with disabilities and to
Disability Concerns
Lindsay Wieland Capel
Race Relations
Sarah Roelofs
Safe Church
Amanda Benckhuysen
Social Justice
Sarah Roelofs
World Renew
Carol Bremer-Bennett, executive codirector, World Renew-U.S.
Kenneth Kim, interim executive codirector, World Renew-Canada
Worship
Katie Roelofs
Candidacy Committee
I. Introduction
Synod 2004 established the concept of the Synodical Ministerial Candi-
dacy Committee, which is now known as the Candidacy Committee. The
committee began meeting in late 2004 and was provided with a full-time
staff person in late 2007. The committee mandate is available in a docu-
ment titled Journey Toward Ordination, accessible on the Candidacy
Committee website (crcna.org/candidacy).
II. Committee membership
The members of the committee meet three times per year. As with other
synodical standing committees, Candidacy Committee members serve a
potential of two three-year terms.
The following people currently serve on the Candidacy Committee: Rev.
Henry Kranenburg (2025/1), Rev. Andy Sytsma (2025/1), Rev. Andrew
Beunk (2024/1), Pastor Caleb Dickson (2024/1), Pastor Debra Chee (2024/1),
Judy Cook (2025/2), Rev. Felix Fernandez (2025/2), Rev. Moon Kim
(2023/1), Rev. Ashley Bonnes (2023/2), Rev. Susan LaClear (staff), Rev. Jul
Medenblik (ex officio, as the Calvin Theological Seminary representative),
and Zachary King (ex officio, as general secretary).
Rev. Moon Kim is completing his first term on the committee and is will-
ing to serve a second term. Rev. Ashley Bonnes is completing her second
term and is not eligible for reappointment. Therefore, the Candidacy
Committee presents to synod the following slate of nominees for appoint-
ment to fill one vacant position:
Rev. Rita Klein-Geltink is the pastor at Grace CRC in Cobourg, Ontario. She
also served Ancaster (Ont.) CRC for seven years and Lucknow (Ont.)
Community CRC for five years. Before going into pastoral ministry, she
worked in administration and development at Redeemer University for
twelve years. She is also a graduate of Redeemer. Rita studied for one year
at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario, and she completed
her M.Div. at Calvin Theological Seminary. She has served on the board of
World Renew and on multiple classical committees, including the ministe-
rial leadership team of Classis Huron and the interim committee of Classis
Hamilton. She currently serves as vice-chair of the interim committee of
Classis Quinte and is on the Church Order Review Task Force.
Rev. Lora (Byker) Copley received degrees from Dordt University (1998, the-
ology) and Calvin Theological Seminary (2002, M.Div.) and served
churches in Washington, Florida, and New Mexico before being ordained
in 2006 and proceeding to serve two churches in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Lora ministered seven years as a coordinator/instructor of Classis Red
Mesa’s Leadership Development Network, training and credentialing
Candidacy Committee
Susan LaClear, director
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee 203
III. Nominations for membership/protocols
InSoon Hoagland and Ruth Palma are concluding two terms of service on
the EIRC. The EIRC recommends that synod express its gratitude to them
for their faithful service.
Yvonne Schenk is completing her first term on the EIRC, and, given her
contributions and willingness to continue, the committee recommends
that synod reappoint her to a second three-year term.
The Council of Delegates, by way of exception, appointed Jake Bentum to
the EIRC on behalf of synod, effective November 1, 2022.
In keeping with the synodical guidelines and requirements for diversity in
terms of gender, ethnicity, geographical location, and ordination among
the membership of the committee, the EIRC will present a slate of two
nominees for the USA Central and USA East positions in its supplemen-
tary report to Synod 2023.
IV. Bilateral relationships
The CRC maintains a relationship of churches in communion with 23 de-
nominations and of churches in cooperation with 18 denominations/part-
ners. Of these categories combined, we have 22 partners on the African
continent; five partners in Central and South America (including the
Caribbean); two partners in Europe; six partners in Asia and the Pacific
Rim; and six partners in North America. A complete list is available on the
“Relationships” page of the EIRC website (crcna.org/EIRC).
A. Activities with bilateral partners
Interchanges with four bilateral partners call for specific mention. In addi-
tion, CRCNA representatives had communications with several other
partner churches.
1. Reformed Church in America
Our arrangement with the Reformed Church in America (RCA) as well
as the accord we struck together in Pella, Iowa, in 2014 leads us to
many collaborative efforts. The general synod of the RCA and the
synod of the CRC both adopted a plan in 2018 to combine our inter-
faith efforts. That work continues; the Interfaith Subcommittee of the
EIRC met with the RCA’s Interreligious Committee two times in the
past year to share updates and ways to collaborate.
Reformed Collaborative meetings continue quarterly between the RCA
and the CRC, focusing primarily on the relationship and the church
planting process. Conversations are also developing around interna-
tional church affiliation processes.
2. Kingdom Network, USA
Synod 2022 approved recognizing the Kingdom Network, USA, as a
church in cooperation. Representatives of the EIRC and the Kingdom
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee 205
B. Canadian Council of Churches
Transitional executive director-Canada Al Postma as well as other EIRC
members (see section V, D) routinely participate in gatherings and initia-
tives of the Canadian Council of Churches (CCC) and represent the
CRCNA on the council’s governing board.
C. Other multilateral organizations and dialogue
We benefit from partnership with the National Association of Evangelicals
and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and we participate in the U.S.
Roman Catholic-Reformed Dialogue. The ninth round of dialogue for the
U.S. Roman Catholic-Reformed Dialogue began in March 2022 on justifi-
cation and justice, and an in-person meeting was held in June 2022. The
sixth general assembly of the World Reformed Fellowship met in Orlando,
Florida, in October 2022 on the theme of the nature and mission of the
global church. Due to travel disruptions, Zachary King, general secretary,
was unable to attend.
D. Appointed representatives and observers
The EIRC appoints representatives and observers to many of the afore-
mentioned multilateral ecumenical organizations and to other ecumenical
efforts; often Christian Reformed Church members are asked by these or-
ganizations to serve as well.
1. Colin P. Watson, Sr., serves as the CRCNA’s representative on the
board of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE)
and on the steering committee for the WCRC’s Caribbean and North
American Area Council.
2. Al Postma and Ruth Hofman serve on the governing board of the Ca-
nadian Council of Churches (CCC). The Christian Reformed Church
also has a number of representatives who serve on various standing
committees, reference groups, and commissions of the CCC. Michael
Wagenman is a member of the Youth Involvement Committee, and
Anthony Elenbaas is a member of the Nominations Committee. Greg
Sinclair serves on the Christian Interfaith Reference Group. Jessica
Joustra represents the CRC on the Commission of Faith and Witness.
Working groups associated with the Commission of Faith and Witness
are served by Zachary DeBruyne (National Muslim Christian Liaison
Committee) and Elly Boersma (Week of Prayer for Christian Unity).
Ben Vander Windt represents the CRC on the Commission on Justice
and Peace. Bruce Adema serves as chair of the board of Project Plough-
shares, a Canadian peace research institute that seeks to advance poli-
cies and actions to prevent war and armed violence and to build peace.
3. Mike Hogeterp serves on the board of KAIROS; a number of CRC
members serve on KAIROS’s partnership circles.
4. Al Postma represents the CRCNA to the Evangelical Fellowship of
Canada (EFC).
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee 207
VII. Synodical assignments
A. EIRC membership distribution/nomination process
The updates regarding EIRC membership in various regions that the EIRC
proposed to Synod 2022 were received for information.
B. Categories of affiliation
After Synod 2022 approved Church Order changes relating to the new cat-
egories of affiliation, the EIRC updated their information and website to
reflect approved changes regarding churches in communion and churches in
cooperation.
C. Kingdom Network, USA
As mentioned earlier in this report, Synod 2022 approved recognizing the
Kingdom Network, USA, as a church in cooperation. The grounds presented
with that decision (see Acts of Synod 2022, p. 842) have proven helpful in
discussions toward recognizing similar church bodies (see section VIII, C).
VIII. Additional updates
A. World Council of Churches
The report of the EIRC to Synod 2022 noted the intention to send a repre-
sentative to the next assembly of the World Council of Churches (WCC),
that was scheduled to be held in September 2022. The purpose of that rep-
resentation included an opportunity to meaningfully engage in the ad-
vancement of the CRCNA’s ecumenical involvement at a global level and
to provide observations and feedback that would assist in a consideration
of possibly seeking membership in the World Council of Churches.
Zachary King, as general secretary of the CRCNA, currently serves as the
denomination’s ecumenical officer. However, because of his newness to
the role, he asked William T. Koopmans, chair of the EIRC, to attend. The
11th Assembly of the WCC took place in Karlsruhe, Germany, August 31-
September 8, 2022. Dr. Koopmans provided an extensive report to the
EIRC at its meeting on October 24, 2022, the content of which is summa-
rized here.
The theme for the 11th Assembly of the WCC was “Christ's love moves
the world to reconciliation and unity.” This theme overtly hints at some of
the key aspects included in the agenda for this meeting. There was a clear
focus on addressing crises of war (particularly the Ukraine-Russia con-
flict), climate change, calls for reconciliation, and greater Christian cooper-
ation in addressing many other issues of justice in local and global set-
tings.
Significantly, the first meeting of the World Council of Churches took
place in Amsterdam in August 1948 amid the aftermath of World War II.
The 11th Assembly was also painfully aware of the ravages of war, this
time most prominently occurring in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The
assembly is generally held every seven or eight years. The 11th Assembly
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee 209
regional meetings, plenary business meetings, and weekend excur-
sions.
j. The venue provided opportunity over meals and refreshment
breaks to engage in countless conversations. For participants who
already had ecumenical connections, it provided opportunities to
reengage many friendships and networking connections. The
CRCNA representative had the opportunity to meet with many
people known from previous WCRC settings, CANAAC contexts,
Canadian Council of Churches gatherings, and some bilateral eccle-
siastical relationships, while also making many new acquaintances,
resulting in the opportunity to share with them the ministry and vi-
sion of the CRCNA.
k. To prepare for and benefit from the 11th Assembly of the WCC,
preassembly regional meetings and a postassembly debriefing were
set up via Zoom.
l. The regional meeting of North American participants included a fo-
cus on prioritizing key topics and issues that the members wished
to highlight for further consideration by the central committee, as
well as a presentation of nominees from the region for considera-
tion to serve as one of eight regional WCC presidents. The partici-
pants identified the following six topics, ranking them in order of
urgency:
• racism, white privilege/supremacy
• climate justice
• poverty and wealth inequity
• reconciliation with Indigenous peoples
• Christian nationalism
• polarization and division
m. The plenary meetings of the WCC employ a consensus model of
decision making, and the atmosphere in these business meetings is
generally very orderly and amicable (although some delegates la-
mented more privately that “politicking and power struggles” were
happening at committee levels and behind the scenes).
n. While some churches that are members of the WCC hold and pro-
mote theological positions that differ significantly from those of the
CRCNA, the clear intent of the WCC leadership is to focus on bibli-
cal essentials that are widely accepted in the global Christian
church. The WCC clearly aims to provide a forum for Christian de-
nominations to work together in a spirit of tolerance and unity.
o. The 11th Assembly was well organized and for the most part ran
very efficiently for a meeting of its size.
p. There were many more opportunities for involvement and engage-
ment than any one person could participate in, since various com-
mittee meetings, discussion groups, and workshops overlapped.
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee 211
(WCRC), with the CRCNA playing a key role in that merger. Since
then, the CRCNA has prioritized engagement in and with the
WCRC rather than with the WCC. Reconsideration of this situation
was initiated at the October 2021 meeting of the EIRC, resulting in
the decision to send an observer to the 11th Assembly of the WCC.
Additional information regarding our synodical engagements of
the issue of the WCC and possible membership, as well as refer-
ences to the reports of previous observers, is included below in Ap-
pendix A.
b. Key present deliberation points and considerations
A thorough and informed consideration of potential membership
of the CRCNA in the WCC needs to address numerous aspects, in-
cluding but not limited to the following pros and cons:
Some pros of membership:
• demonstrates ecumenical solidarity with the worldwide church,
underscoring principles of ecumenicity that have become part
of our charter
• provides opportunity to celebrate with and work with the
global church; “we are stronger together,” considering that the
voice of the WCC to the world is much more influential than the
testimony of individual denominations
• many of the goals and initiatives of the WCC to promote justice,
reconciliation, unity, and stewardship align with key interests of
the CRCNA and its ministries and agencies
• membership in the WCC would provide or enhance networking
opportunities
• our involvement in the Global Christian Forum could be seen as
a significant step that could progress toward membership in the
WCC
Some cons of membership
• considerations of costs that would be involved; the costs would
include membership dues (see Appendix B) as well as funding
our regular involvement (e.g., on various committees of the
WCC that meet regularly between assemblies). These costs need
to be considered in conjunction with other ministry priorities.
• meaningful membership and engagement in the WCC might
likely require establishing a structure in the CRCNA for ecu-
menical work that moves significantly beyond the present sys-
tem, which includes limited staff involvement and ad hoc and
volunteer roles. If the CRCNA intends to be fully engaged in the
WCC and its various committees, then serious consideration
must be given to expanding our model for ecumenical leader-
ship and to the resulting need for increased staff time allocated
to this realm of denominational engagement.
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee 213
Order matters regarding “orderly exchange” of officebearers (Church Or-
der Supplement, Art. 8), and other matters related to benefits of CRC of-
ficebearers.
Grounds:
1. Synod has asked the EIRC to facilitate good ecumenical relations
with bodies of former RCA congregations.
2. This body testifies to being Reformed in persuasion and ministry.
3. This body describes itself as an association and is developing their
vision, values, frameworks, and other documents.
4. This satisfies the immediate needs of affiliated officebearers and
congregations while providing a space for discernment of future re-
lationships.
Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee
William T. Koopmans, chair
Zachary King, general secretary (ex officio)
APPENDIX A
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee 215
Dr. David H. Engelhard and Rev. Leonard J. Hofman attended the con-
sultation. The idea for such a consultation arose in conversations within
the World Council of Churches (WCC), but was called by an independ-
ent committee to explore the concept of a Global Christian Forum where
a wide range of traditions may have a common platform to discuss is-
sues of mutual concern. Some thirty church leaders from throughout the
world gathered September 9-11, 2001, to discuss what might be the con-
tours of a future forum. Another consultation made up of members of
churches who are not now members of the WCC may be invited to carry
the discussion further. Dr. George Vandervelde participated in making
arrangements for the September meeting.
D. An appendix to the IRC report in the Agenda for Synod 2001 notes the
following resolution made by the Reformed Ecumenical Council: “that the
REC maintain contact with the WCC through its secretariat” (p. 233).
APPENDIX B
Cost of Membership
Correspondence from the WCC membership income coordinator regard-
ing cost of membership in the World Council of Churches:
The amount of each member church’s annual membership contribution
is determined in agreement with the church in question, based on what
they would like and can contribute. Much more than an amount, what
matters is that each member church, through its giving, help us to main-
tain a vibrant fellowship of churches working for unity, justice, and
peace. A church’s membership commitment is more than a financial
contribution. In fact, it is a multifaceted gift that not only helps provide a
solid financial foundation for our mutual work but also illustrates the
good stewardship of the fellowship of churches, inspiring other partners
to support our work.
Should the Christian Reformed Church in North America join us as a
member church, we would start by suggesting a starting annual contri-
bution based on contributions from churches of similar size in the region,
and continue the discussion from there so that the amount fits with what
your church is willing and able to contribute.
Estimated cost of membership
To gain a further sense of the estimated cost of membership, contact was
made with Rev. Laura Osborne, coordinator for Interreligous Relations of
the Reformed Church in America, who noted that the RCA currently pays
$15,000 annually but will reevaluate that contribution in the light of
present changes regarding RCA denominational membership numbers.
Historical Committee
Wiebe Boer
John Bolt, chair
James A. De Jong, secretary
Herman De Vries
William Katerberg
Zachary J. King
Tony Maan
Jul Medenblik
Dordt University
Greetings to the synod of the Christian Reformed Church! Dordt Univer-
sity is grateful for the many blessings God has given us, including our
connection to the CRC.
It is our mission at Dordt University to “equip students, alumni, and the
broader community to work effectively toward Christ-centered renewal in
all aspects of contemporary life.” When Dordt began in 1955, our founders
envisioned that Christian education would go beyond devotional work—
“in the larger and deeper sense that all the class work, that all of the stu-
dents’ intellectual, emotional, and imaginative activities shall be perme-
ated with the spirit and teaching of Christianity.” Thanks in part to that
bold vision and clear mission, we have continued to stand firm in our Re-
formed Christian perspective and faith and to provide students with a
unique, faith-infused educational experience.
This past fall we had a record total degree-seeking undergraduate enroll-
ment of 1,460. In addition, we have seen growth through “Planting for the
Future,” Dordt’s largest-ever capital campaign. To date, we have raised
$87 million toward our $90 million goal. This will help us to develop and
expand research and innovative programs, to develop and improve spaces
for students to live and learn in Christian community, and to increase ac-
cess to a Christ-centered education at Dordt. Because of our donors’ gen-
erous gifts to the campaign, we will soon break ground on some construc-
tion projects, including a new dining commons, updates to the B.J. Haan
Auditorium, the Rozenboom Family Athletic Center, and a new set of
apartments overlooking the Dordt Prairie. We debuted several new build-
ings in the past year as well; the Agriculture Stewardship Center is now
home to a monoslope building featuring two lots for a small dairy herd
and market cattle. We also added the American State Bank Sports Com-
plex, an indoor turf facility that will draw about 200,000 visitors each year.
Faith formation and a Reformed perspective continue to be integral to
Dordt’s purpose. Our students regularly attend Wednesday chapel, which
has an average attendance of more than 850 students. Many students also
participate in a praise and worship gathering on Thursdays and take part
in regular Bible studies. Even after graduation, Dordt alumni make their
faith a priority: according to a recent alumni survey, 93 percent of alumni
report that they attend church on a weekly basis. And being Reformed
means something here—so much so that we require faculty and staff to at-
tend confessionally Reformed congregations and to enroll their children in
Christian day school or a homeschool setting. We also want our biblical
and missional fidelity to be clear to outside entities, as seen through our
recent interactions with the Higher Learning Commission for our ten-year
accreditation. In their summary report, the commission team stated that
“the institution’s primary strength is in its deep and abiding commitment
to its mission and providing a positive and uplifting learning environment
Dordt University
Erik Hoekstra, president
Kuyper College
Patricia R. Harris, president
Redeemer University
David Zietsma, president
B. Mandate
On these grounds Synod 2019 mandated this task force to study and
address, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Is it legal in the various states, provinces, and territories of Canada and the
United States to perform an ecclesiastical (non-civil) wedding ceremony?
2. What implications do the current CRCNA position on marriage and the
Church Order have on ecclesiastical (non-civil) weddings and marriages?
3. Is it morally legitimate to perform an ecclesiastical (non-civil) wedding in
order to avoid the financial costs and obligations of a civil marriage?
4. If people are declared married in a non-civil ceremony in a home country
outside the United States or Canada, should that marriage be recognized by
the CRCNA?
5. What are the implications for the church with regard to a specifically ecclesi-
astical marriage?
6. What are the implications of ecclesiastical (non-civil) marriages for senior
citizens, including such matters as pensions and end-of-life care issues?
7. What, if anything, have other faith communities done with regard to this
issue?
8. Consult with the Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical
Theology of Human Sexuality for insights that might be beneficial to this
task force.
(Acts of Synod 2019, p. 792)
1
The names of the individuals in these stories are pseudonyms.
2
See Report 29, Acts of Synod 1980: “What is marriage? What is its essence, its purposes, and
its obligations?” pp. 468ff.
3
It should be noted that in his theology of what “makes” a marriage, John Calvin identifies
each party (God, couple, pastor, witnesses, and magistrate) as essential components to the
solemnization of marriage. See Section III, B (“Historical/theological”) of this report for
further information.
7
CRC Form for the Solemnization of Marriage (1979).
8
“We recognize the wide variety of literary genres that yield information on ancient family
life: laws, narratives, polemical prophetic texts, songs, didactic wisdom compositions, etc.”;
Daniel I. Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel” in Marriage and Family in the Bibli-
cal World, ed. Ken M. Campbell (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2003), p. 34.
9
Victor H. Matthews, “Marriage and Family in the Ancient Near East” in Marriage and Fam-
ily in the Biblical World, ed. Ken M. Campbell (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2003), p. 7.
10
We see some of these elements in Genesis in the marriage arrangements between Re-
bekah with Isaac, and then Jacob with Rachel and Leah. “For a marriage to be arranged,
the groom’s family must provide a bride price, while the bride’s family provides a dowry”;
John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan,
2001), p. 531.
11
David W. Chapman, “Marriage and Family in Second Temple Judaism” in Marriage and
Family in the Biblical World, ed. Ken M. Campbell (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2003), p. 184. “Cer-
tainly some marriage and family practices could be left to custom, but other aspects of family
life required legal discussion—especially when money was involved”; Chapman, p. 239.
Witness, for example, God’s continued concern for “the widow and the or-
phan,” as well as protections for women in cases where they had been taken
advantage of sexually, legally, by divorce or otherwise.14 Protocols, regula-
tions, and provisions were a necessary part of regulating sinful society and
protecting persons with lower social status. By supplying procedures and a
legal code, God was at work enacting his plan for maintaining some order,
right relationships, and justice in society.
In the New Testament we can see that again more is assumed about
marriage than is explained. The Old Testament theme of God in relation-
ship with his people, as in a covenant of marriage (in Hosea, for example),
is expanded in the New Testament in an extended metaphor of the church
as the bride of Christ. Thus marriage is held in high regard as something
to be regulated and guarded. Infidelity and divorce were not matters to be
taken lightly, since the marriage covenant was representative of God and
his people. In fact, Jesus intensifies the teaching on divorce, saying that God
had allowed it because of hardness of heart but that it was not God’s original
intent (Matt. 19:8).
It is not possible to ascertain from the New Testament alone exactly what
the relationship between Christians and the state was in terms of legalizing
a marriage. Peter Coleman says that in the Second Temple period (up to 70
A.D.), “the actual procedures for marriage were largely the same in Palestine
as in other parts of the Near East, unchanged for centuries.”15 He adds that
the Jewish marriage ceremony itself was a simple procedure that “did not
involve a visit to the synagogue nor the presence of a rabbi, but this did not
mean it was a civil rather than a religious ceremony. Prayers and blessings
would be said by senior members of the families. . . .”16 It seems that early
Christians continued wedding practices unattached to church authorities. In
researching marriage rites during the New Testament and the early centuries
of Christian practice, Willy Rordorf found that marriages proceeded “accord-
ing to the contemporary laws” and that “the first generation of Christians
12
Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” p. 56.
13
Ibid., p. 51.
14
Deut. 24:1-4.
15
Peter Coleman, Christian Attitudes to Marriage: From Ancient times to the Third Millennium
(London: SCM Press, 2004), p. 86.
16
Ibid., pp. 86-87.
Surprisingly, then, the conclusion here is that the early church abided by
state regulations and practices regarding marriage, and only later did some
ecclesiastical oversight or involvement become an optional convention.
On the other hand, given the New Testament’s silence on the matter,
perhaps this conclusion is not surprising. The New Testament is simply
assuming that people will follow the customs of the day to solemnize a
marriage. There does not seem to be any discussion or argument about how
such a Christian marriage should be solidified. In addition, the fact that
w riters such as Paul address divorce as a procedural reality means that it
was also a formalized possibility, not only under rabbinic teaching but also
for Christians.
Attending to the more general topic of the relationship of Christians to
the state, the New Testament is not ambiguous, even in a time when, under
Roman rule, that relationship was detrimental to Christians in many in-
stances. This is most clearly addressed in the letter of Romans, where Paul
says, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no
authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist
have been established by God” (Rom. 13:1). Paul asserts that, on the whole,
government has been instituted for the good of citizens and has been given
authority to regulate and enforce orderly judgment of right and wrong
in society, a theme that we find in God’s expectations of rulers in the Old
Testament also. Paul then goes on to spell out respect for government in
more concrete terms as well, saying, “This is also why you pay taxes, for the
authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give
to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue,
then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor” (Rom. 13:6-7).
Respect, honor, and obedience to governing authorities was and is expected
of Christians.
Further, writers of the New Testament were pretty clear about the impor-
tance of how believers interacted with, and were perceived by, their unbe-
lieving family, colleagues, civil authorities, friends, and neighbors. Part of
this obligation involved obeying authorities that were placed over them. In
1 Peter 2:13-17, for example, the apostle Peter exhorts believers this way:
17
Willy Rordorf, “Marriage in the New Testament and in the Early Church,” Journal of
Ecclesiastical History (20:2; Oct. 1969), p. 209.
18
Ibid.
Such teaching applies to the whole life and practice of the Christian and
should also be taken seriously in relation to marriage. Andreas Kostenberger
comments: “Marriage, as well as other human relationships, is thus set in the
framework of a believer’s Christian testimony in the surrounding unbeliev-
ing world.”19 In our North American contemporary context, where marriage
commitments are often treated lightly or disregarded altogether, this is an
area where Christian commitment and fidelity can speak volumes.
Summarizing, then, what we might ascertain of the biblical witness, it
seems that God’s people in the Old Testament acted within certain accepted
procedural parameters for marriage that included a contract of some sort
and the exchange of a dowry or similar payments. A marriage was under-
stood to include mutual obligations, and there was also a legal code sur-
rounding divorce. The New Testament does not expressly address the matter
of how a marriage was constituted and what the relative involvement of
religious or civil authorities was. So it is safe to assume, as scholars do, that
in this era, as well, believers adhered to local customs and cooperated with
civil authorities to ratify a marriage, however that was done in their region.
What is clear is that in both the Old and New Testaments God intends law as
a benefit to regulate society in a sinful world. In the New Testament believers
are clearly instructed to respect and honor governing bodies. As we shall see,
this is a theme that continues in the Reformed tradition through its leaders,
particularly John Calvin.
B. Historical/theological
Although there is ample scriptural evidence that marriage is a God-
ordained institution and a societal norm, Scripture does not dictate that the
civil authorities must be involved in the solemnization of marriage. It does,
however, teach that marriage is a creational and societal good with benefits
beyond the married couple. Further, there are no scriptural grounds claim-
ing that the solemnization of marriage belongs solely to the church, meaning
that the state does not usurp ecclesiastical authority if it claims marriage as
its own.20 In summary, there is no set marriage form or ceremony in Scrip-
ture, and yet that does not mean that any kind of ceremony or understand-
ing of the parties involved in a marriage is allowed. Scripture provides
guidance, guidelines, and an underlying logic concerning marriage and the
parties involved in “making” a marriage. As mentioned above, the goal of
this report is not to cover this ground again but to focus on the specific ques-
tion of whether or not the CRC’s scriptural, theological, and historical under
standing of marriage would allow for its pastors to perform e cclesiastical
marriage.
19
Andreas Kostenberger, “Marriage and Family in the New Testament” in Marriage and
Family in the Biblical World, ed. Ken M. Campbell (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2003), p. 254.
20
Acts of Synod 1955, p. 247.
21
Acts of Synod 1980, pp. 468-69: “Marriage was instituted by God at creation. Declaring that
it was not good for the man to be alone, God created woman as a helper fit for him (Gen.
2:18). Man and woman, created in the image of God, were made for each other to become
one flesh in marriage. Thus marriage is not a human invention nor an experiment in social
relationships which can be altered or abandoned at will. It is a God-ordained, monogamous
structure, requiring faithful commitment on the part of husband and wife.”
22
Ibid., pp. 469-71.
He also argued that the CRC Church Order represented the cultural
context of the Netherlands. Van Dyken maintained that the language of
confirmation was not valid because a marriage solemnized by the state
did not need confirmation by the church in the United States. He claimed
that in the Netherlands such a practice was a “relic” of Roman Catholi-
cism. Further, he noted that within the United States the government
grants judges and ministers of the gospel the power to solemnize marriag-
es. In other words, ministers are agents of the state when they solemnize a
marriage, acting on behalf of the civil government, not the church. To Van
Dyken, including an article on marriage in the Church Order causes con-
fusion by presenting marriage as “semi-civil” and “semi-ecclesiastical,”
when in reality the solemnization of a marriage properly belongs to the
state as an “authoritative representative of God’s justice.”26
In summary, Van Dyken argued on the basis of common grace and the
God-ordained role of civil government that an article on marriage does
not belong in the CRC Church Order. In response to Van Dyken’s over-
ture, Synod 1947 commissioned a study to determine if the article should
be removed, retained, or changed.
Synod discussed these issues until 1955 and ultimately decided to
retain but change Article 70 (now Art. 69). For the purpose of this report,
while it is not necessary to trace the discussion from 1947 to 1955 in full,
23
At the time of discussion, the Church Order article regarding marriage was Article 70
(now Art. 69). The numbering of this article changed after Synod 1965 adopted a revision of
the Church Order.
24
See Agenda for Synod 1947, p. 181.
25
Agenda for Synod 1947, p. 181.
26
Ibid., pp. 181-82.
By adopting the revised version of Article 70 (now Art. 69), Synod 1955
highlighted the pastor’s role in solemnizing marriage, which is a role
granted to them by the state. But in acknowledging that civil and religious
definitions of marriage may differ, they also required pastors to solemnize
marriages in line with the Word of God.
The CRC’s discussion of this Church Order article shows that the CRC
has engaged in discussions regarding the relationship between the state
and the church. Further, throughout this discussion the CRC affirmed
the role of the civil government in marriage, sometimes even going so far
as to claim that the civil government has sole jurisdiction over marriage.
However, the question remains whether the references and allusions to
the roles of the church and the state in the CRC’s forms and statements on
marriage are a result of the CRC’s context, or if they are rooted deeper in
the CRC’s theology regarding marriage itself. Simply affirming marriage
as a creational, covenantal, and societal reality does not necessarily imply
that the church and the state should be granted relative authority with
respect to marriage. It is possible and could be argued that these realities
could be identified and maintained within an ecclesiastical marriage. To
be clear, the CRC’s current forms and statements are certainly influenced
by its cultural context. The legal structures of Canada and the United
States, in which ministers are granted the authority of the state to perform
legal marriages, allow for one ceremony to be both civil and religious.
3. Reformed theology of marriage
For the Reformers, issues related to marriage and marriage reforms
were not peripheral concerns. Rather, they were rooted in and were an ex-
pression of the theological and societal concerns of the Reformers. As his-
torian Joel Harrington asserts, marriage “stood by implication at the heart
of almost every major legal, religious, and social reform of the period.”30
27
Acts of Synod 1955, p. 251.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid., p. 250 (cf. Article 69 in the current Church Order).
30
Joel F. Harrington, Reordering Marriage and Society in the Reformation (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 26.
31
John Witte, Jr., From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradi-
tion, 2nd ed. (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2012), p. 113.
32
Ibid., p. 8.
33
See Agenda for Synod 2016, pp. 421-25.
34
This option has been modified for the purposes of this report. The modification was made
in order to focus this section of the report on the relationship between the church and the
state outside of the question of same-sex marriage, which this task force was not commis-
sioned to study.
35
Agenda for Synod 2016, p. 422.
36
This statement is made so that no couple who comes into the church will have to go
through the process of having a “religious ceremony” to make their marriage “valid.”
37
For more information on the Canadian context, see the Appendix to this report.
38
Common-law marriage is rooted in the British common-law tradition. An early example
of common-law marriage in the British commonwealth legal tradition in North America
was the 1730 union of Benjamin Franklin and Debbie Read in Boston. The thread of this
cultural practice runs through the shared fabric of U.S. and Canadian marriage laws and
customs. See H.W. Brands, The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin (New
York: Anchor Books, 2010).
39
C.R.S 14-2-109.5.
40
IA Code Ann. §595.1A. It should be noted that this portion of the Iowa Code does not
expressly reference common-law marriage (and thus neither prohibits nor endorses
common-law marriage). However, Iowa courts, as recently as 2019, have noted that Iowa
does recognize common-law marriage.
41
Kan. Stat. §23-2502 (parties must be over 18 for the state to recognize common-law
marriage); Kan. Stat. §23-2714 (in a dissolution action, testimony regarding common-law
marriage is admissible).
42
Mont. Code Ann. §40-1-403.
43
N.H. Stat. §457:39. New Hampshire requires that the parties cohabitated for at least three
years prior to the death of one of the parties. New Hampshire has very limited case law
regarding common-law marriage; it seems to be only for probate/inheritance purposes.
44
Tex. Family Law §1.101; Tex. Family Law §2.401-402.
45
Utah Stat. §30-1-4.5. Utah requires a court order to establish the validity of a common-law
marriage. If a relationship terminates, then the parties must petition for recognition of the
marriage within one year of the end of the relationship.
46
See, e.g., Luis v. Gaugler, 185 A.3d 497, 502–03 (R.I. 2018), as corrected (June 21, 2018).
47
Brooks v. Sanders, 2008 OK CIV APP 66, 190 P.3d 357, 358.
48
See, e.g., Coates v. Watts, 662 A.2d 25, 27 (D.C. 1993) (“The District of Columbia has long
recognized common law marriage. . . .”).
49
Since only seven U.S. states explicitly recognize common-law marriage, there is also far
less case law to study in order to ascertain the implications.
50
See, e.g. Martinez v. Furmanite Am. Inc., 2018 WL 4469973, at *3 (Tex. App. Sept. 19, 2018),
review denied (Mar. 29, 2019). See also In Re Dallman’s Estate, 228 N.W.2d 187, 189 (Iowa
1975); Budd v. Tanking, 425 P.3d 373 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018), review withdrawn (Apr. 17, 2019); In
re Estate of Ober, 62 P.3d 1114, 1115 (Mont. S. Ct. 2003).
51
Estate of Ober at 1115.
52
In Canada, ecclesiastical marriages as we have defined them would generally be regu-
lated by the body of law that governs common-law marriages. That body of law may make
one party subject to an obligation to provide financial support for the other party after the
relationship ends, whether by death or by separation. While there is no statutory protection
for ecclesiastical marriage partners with regard to the division of family assets, this has not
stopped the courts from intervening in situations where one partner has benefited from the
union more than the other has.
53
In re Dallman’s Estate, 228 N.W.2d at 189.
54
People v. Schuppert, 577 N.E.2d 828 (Ill. 1991).
55
Ibid. at 829.
V. Pastoral care for people who might contemplate entering into a non-
civil marriage
A. General considerations
In stating what pastoral care and advice we would give to churches, pas-
tors, and constituents, we want to follow the biblical and historical advice
in this report, along with the wisdom of adhering to established laws. Each
situation and circumstance can be very different; however, there is enough
guidance already given to propose this counsel to the churches.
56
Would the church then also have to consider granting an ecclesiastical divorce?
VI. Recommendations
A. That synod grant the privilege of the floor to Gerry Koning (chair), Gayle
Doornbos (reporter), and Loren Veldhuizen when the report of the Ecclesias-
tical Marriage Task Force is discussed.
B. That synod instruct the executive director to disseminate the report on
ecclesiastical marriage to the churches of the CRC to serve as guidance re-
garding the issue of ecclesiastical marriage.
C. That synod strongly advise pastors of the CRC not to solemnize ecclesiasti-
cal marriages (as defined in this report) as sanctioned and solemnized solely by
the church to the exclusion of the state (civil government) whereby a couple is
considered “married in the eyes of the church but not in the eyes of the state.”57
Grounds:
1. The biblical record clearly teaches us to submit to the governing au-
thorities in all matters that do not conflict with the Word of God.
2. Historically, Reformed churches have acknowledged the role and right
of civil authorities to regulate marriage in their jurisdictions.
3. In both the United States and Canada there could be negative legal
consequences for the participants and/or for pastors who solemnize a
non-civil or ecclesiastical marriage.
D. That synod encourage the churches to respect and honor the marriages
of immigrants who did not obtain a civil marriage prior to arriving in Cana-
da or the United States and counsel them in the understanding of Christian
marriage and its relationship to civil authority in our countries.
57
Agenda for Synod 2019, p. 518.
Appendix
Ecclesiastical Marriages—A Canadian Legal Perspective
Memorandum from Legal Counsel, David van der Woerd
I. Introduction
Synod 2019 of the Christian Reformed Church in North America consid-
ered an overture submitted by Classis Georgetown and appointed a commit-
tee to study the morality and advisability of ecclesiastical (non-civil) mar-
riages. Classis Georgetown believed that this type of study committee would
assist congregations and pastors in their ministry to couples seeking to be
united in marriage where they requested the omission of the registration of
the marriage with the relevant governing authorities for reasons to avoid the
financial entanglements that are associated with civil marriage unions. Clas-
sis Georgetown posed a number of questions relating to the topic.
In acceding to the overture, Synod 2019 acknowledged that churches are
being confronted with questions and situations related specifically to eccle-
siastical (non-civil) marriages and that pastors and elders need guidance on
how to respond to these questions. Synod also observed that the CRCNA
position on marriage does not specifically address the relationship between
civil and ecclesiastical marriage. Synod 2019 declared that the synodical task
force’s mandate was to include, among other things, what the law of various
states, provinces, and territories of Canada and the United States had to say
II. Analysis
Ecclesiastical marriages are, in general, not recognized by Canadian law.
What I mean by that is that generally the same rights and privileges granted
by provincial statutes for parties that have met civil marriage requirements
III. Conclusion
This memorandum provides a glance at law in Canada that has touched
upon ecclesiastical marriages. It should be noted that in most of the cases
referred to in the memorandum where ecclesiastical marriages have been
considered by the Canadian courts, the fact and consideration of the ecclesi-
astical marriage has been mostly in the nature of obiter dicta in the ultimate
decision of the court. Obiter dicta is Latin phraseology for incidental remarks
that are made by a judge in the course of making a decision. Obiter dicta does
not refer to the main thrust of the case, instead obiter dicta are additional
observations or remarks or opinions expressed by the court on other issues
made by the judge which often explain the court’s rationale in coming to its
final decision. Obiter dicta may offer guidance in similar matters in the future,
but they may not be binding upon future decisions by the court. As such, the
principles that may have been pronounced in this memorandum need to be
read in that context and need to be reviewed with a certain degree of appre-
hension. The law is not clear or settled.
Nonetheless, there are patterns that can be identified in the cases referred
to in this memorandum and which will be included in summary below.
Ecclesiastical marriages may be recognized in Canada as valid marriages if
an applicant can prove on a balance of probabilities that the parties intended
to comply with provincial legislation when undergoing an ecclesiastical
ceremony. Provincial legislation gives jurisdiction to the judiciary to deter-
mine whether parties have intended to comply with marriage legislation
when engaging in ecclesiastical ceremonies, and to deem these marriages
valid. However, if these marriages are not deemed valid, they will likely be
considered to be a common-law union in which common law principles will
be applicable. The church and marriage commissioners should be cautioned
from performing such ecclesiastical marriage ceremonies, because legislation
across Canada requires officiants to register any marriage that they perform
and a fine could be applicable if they fail to comply with legislation.
A final remark relates to the limitation of this memorandum. It should
be apparent to the reader, but it is worth a reminder that this memorandum
is restricted to the legal treatment of ecclesiastical marriage in Canada. It is,
quite frankly, only one factor (and likely one of the less interesting factors)
that the task force will consider in its report. There are broader, more compel-
ling biblical, theological, cultural, or policy questions that Synod 2019 has
asked the task force to comment upon regarding ecclesiastical marriage, and
that this memorandum does not address in a fulsome manner.
In May 2019 the task force presented their report identifying six areas
with suggestions for the COD to consider: Church Order requirements, theo-
logical basis for bivocational ministry, practices of the denomination, contex-
tualization between the United States and Canada, educational matters, and
supporting a cultural change.
The COD concluded that a more in-depth study should be done on the
topic and asked synod to appoint a synodical task force to continue the work
of the Bivocational Task Force (see Acts of Synod 2019, pp. 552-53).
II. Mandate
Synod adopted the following mandate for our task force:
[To continue] the work of the Bivocational Task Force as reported in the Council
of Delegates Supplement, Appendix A [pp. 558-77], to examine what it means
to be a bivocational pastor today and report to Synod 2021. The new task force
will be mandated to give consideration to matters such as the following:
– Create a definition of bivocationality
– Give biblical support to bivocationality
– Address financial implications and responsibilities (clearly defined “proper
support”; see Church Order Supplement, Art. 15) relative to church, classis,
pastor, and the like
– Classical oversight
– Cultural differences
– Church Order implications
Grounds:
a. A compelling biblical, theological, and historical case supporting bivoca-
tional ministry is needed.
The task force also received the following note from the executive director
at the time of appointment:
In addition, the officers of synod and the advisory committee chair and reporter
suggest that the task force feel free to consider other key matters that may im-
pact a bivocational pastor, including spouses serving the same church/ministry
when both are part-time, and benefit plans (e.g., retirement and insurance).
The task force is made up of the following members: Rev. Bernard Bakker
(chair), Rev. John Bouwers, Pastor Beth Fellinger, Rev. Ernesto Hernandez,
Ms. Sharon Jim, Rev. Michael Vander Laan (reporter), Rev. Phillip Westra
(secretary), Pastor Robert Zoerman, Rev. David Koll (staff).
V. Definitions
The word bivocationality implies two vocations or callings from God, one
in ministry and the other in another field of work. This simple definition falls
short theologically and practically. All Christians have multiple callings from
God. Likewise, this definition does not reflect the various callings a pastor
may be called to. Thus defining bivocationality simply in terms of calling or
vocation is problematic.
The COD Bivocational Task Force defined bivocationality in terms of finan
cial income. Bivocationality is “any arrangement in which a pastor gains
financial support from more than one employer.” This definition is helpful
in its practicality. Financial dynamics are often an important factor related to
bivocational ministry. Yet it is not the desire of the task force to define bivoca-
tionality exclusively in financial terms. There are other dynamics in play.
One of those dynamics for pastors in bivocational ministry is accountabil-
ity. An individual involved in bivocational ministry is accountable to at least
two entities, one of which is the supervising council (and/or in coopera-
tion with other congregations, institutions, or agencies involved). The other
entity could be a corporation, the customers of one who is self-employed, a
VI. Cultural and contextual considerations: what is, what will be, and
why it matters
A. What is
What are the cultural and contextual experiences of bivocational ministry
within the CRCNA? What follows is dependent on several informal and
qualitative surveys done within the CRCNA and on external resources such
as the Canadian Multivocational Ministry Project: Research Report1 and the
Wellness Project @ Wycliffe (University of Toronto).2
Although bivocational ministry is relatively rare within churches of the
CRCNA that are monoethnic and middle class, the same is not true among
1
Canadian Multivocational Ministry Project: Research Report; James W. Watson, Wanda M.
Malcolm, Mark D. Chapman, Elizabeth A. Fisher, Marilyn Draper, Narry F. Santos, Jared
Siebert, Amy Bratton; May 22, 2020; canadianmultivocationalministry.ca.
2
wycliffewellnessproject.com/
3
These were informal and qualitative surveys connected to bivocational ministry experi-
ences among ethnic-minority church leaders (by David Koll), church planters (by Erica
Ezinga, Kevin Schutte) and CRCNA church leaders (by Beth Fellinger) in general.
4
See soc.duke.edu/natcong/Docs/NCSIII_report_final.pdf
X. Postscript
As a task force, we are grateful to God for the men and women who serve
in bivocational or other nontraditional arrangements. We pray for God’s
blessing on these and all pastors so that they may know “the gift of God’s
grace given . . . through the working of his power” (see Eph. 3:7-13). We ask
synod and the congregations of the CRCNA to join us in prayers of thanks-
giving and supplication for our shared mission as a denomination and for
the pastors who serve our congregations.
XI. Recommendations
The Study of Bivocationality Task Force presents the following recommen-
dations for consideration by Synod 2021:
A. That synod grant the privilege of the floor to Rev. Bernard Bakker (chair)
and Rev. Michael Vander Laan (reporter) when matters pertaining to the
Study of Bivocationality Task Force report are discussed.
B. That synod propose to Synod 2022 the following changes to Church
Order Articles 14, 15, and 23 and their Supplements for adoption (with addi-
tions indicated by underline and deletions by strikethrough):
Appendix
Internet Resources regarding Bivocational Ministry
“Why I Choose to Be a Bivocational Pastor”—story of a Canadian
bivocational pastor in Saskatoon; thegospelcoalition.org/article/
chosen-bivocational-pastor/
Eight Characteristics of the New Bivocational Pastor; factsandtrends.net/
2018/01/26/eight-characteristics-new-bi-vocational-pastor/
“The Art of Bivocational”—Theology on Mission podcast by Northern Semi-
nary; seminary.edu/the-art-of-bi-vocational-theology-on-mission-podcast/
Bivocational Pastor Job Description; bscln.net/ministry-description/
bivocational-pastor-job-description/
Understanding Bivocational Ministry; nph.com/vcmedia/2419/2419936.pdf
“A Bivocational Minister Warns against Bivocational Ministry”—
The Christian Century; christiancentury.org/blogs/archive/2013-08/
bi-vocational-minister-warns-agains-bi-vocational-ministry
Video presentations from speakers at “What Role Will Bivocational Min-
istry Play in the Future of the CRCNA?”; network.crcna.org/pastors/
resources-bivocational-ministry-gathering-last-month
Canadian Multivocational Ministry Project; canadianmultivocational
ministry.ca/master-report
The Wellness Project @ Wycliffe College (University of Toronto);
wycliffewellnessproject.com/
Appendix
I. Meeting dates
The in loco committee met August 15, 2022; September 1, 2022; September
29, 2022; November 3, 2022; November 17, 2022; December 2, 2022; Janu-
ary 4, 2023; January 30, 2023; February 20, 2023; March 2, 2023; and March
13, 2023.
II. Formal communications
A. Letter to Neland Avenue CRC – September 13, 2022
Dear Neland Ave CRC Council,
The in loco committee of synod appreciates the opportunity to meet with
you on the evening of September 13. Thank you for hosting us.
Our team members will be working through the material that you have
sent us in your recent email. For your part, we trust that you have read the
HSR report (Agenda for Synod 2022, pp. 313-490) and the Acts of Synod 2022
which pertain to the report, Neland Ave CRC, and Classis Grand Rapids
East (pp. 904-26). With this material firmly in our minds, we are confident
that we can have meaningful presentations and productive listening.
As was mentioned in an email from Zach on 9-2-22, our agenda could look
like this:
2 Classis GRE further notes that the communication contained a summary of several con-
versations with Rev. Smith about the nature and authority of synodical decisions and re-
ports related to homosexuality. (Minutes of 5-20-21 Meeting of Classis GRE, Appendix, p.
18). Rev. Smith’s opinion was that these were pastoral advice and thus of a less authorita-
tive nature than confessional or church order matters. (Id., citations omitted.) This infor-
mation helped to address the question that classis was trying to answer about whether
Neland’s actions were “allowable” within the pastoral guidelines of synod.
3 The in loco committee thanked Neland in its letter dated October 7, 2022:
The Synod In Loco Committee has carefully considered what we had received from
you during our September 13 in-person meeting and the written communications
dated September 29, 2022. In response, we first wish to express our thanks. We appreciate
the gracious manner in which our committee was received by you, and the way that your
council and congregation engaged in conversation with us on September 13, 2022. We had
the opportunity to hear the details of your congregational journey leading to the de-
cision to ordain as a deacon one of your congregational members living in a same-sex
marriage. Members of your congregation and council clearly described for us many pastoral
dynamics that have been involved in this journey, as well as the responses that the deci-
sions of synod evoked within your church. You also openly shared with us the Power
Point presentation that you prepared for your congregation following the decisions
of synod. Your latest correspondence is detailed and specific, and you have forthrightly re-
sponded to the inquiries that were posed by the Synod In Loco Committee. For all of these con-
siderations we thank you.” (10-7-22 Letter from in loco committee to Neland, emphasis
added.)
4The in loco committee recommended but did not require that Classis GRE establish an
oversight committee to guide the Neland congregation and leadership into alignment
with the biblical guidelines affirmed by Synod 2022 regarding same-sex sexual relation-
ships. (Report, Section IV, p. 3)
OVERTURE 1
3 “Americans Say Birth Control, Divorce Most 'Morally Acceptable,'” by Megan Brenan,
June 9, 2022; news.gallup.com/poll/393515/americans-say-birth-control-divorce-morally-
acceptable.aspx.
4 “Broad Support for MAID in Canada Has Caveats and Concerns,” by Ray Pennings and
center/poll-support-for-medically-assisted-dying-in-canada-2.
6 "Does Legalizing Assisted Suicide Make Things Better or Worse?" by Anscombe Bioeth-
Classis Zeeland
Ronald J. Meyer, stated clerk
OVERTURE 3
Classis Columbia
Roger D. Kramer, stated clerk
Classis Minnkota
LeRoy G. Christoffels, stated clerk
APPENDIX
Classis Iakota
Bernard J. Haan, stated clerk
OVERTURE 9
Classis Southeast U.S. overtures Synod 2023 to reject the proposed Code
of Conduct to be signed by ministry leaders.
Comments
• We condemn any abuse of power, the misuse of one’s position and au-
thority as a ministry leader that may lead to take advantage of, manip-
ulate, or control another person.
• As reported by previous synods, incidents of abuse occur in the church
and should be handled in an appropriate manner; however, we do not
believe that a Code of Conduct is the correct way of eliminating or
curbing abuse in the church.
• The Code of Conduct recommended for adoption is one-sided and an
overreach in regard to the oath ministers take at their ordination.
Note: This overture was submitted to the council of the Christian Re-
formed Church of St. Joseph, Michigan, at its summer meeting and was
not adopted. This overture was then submitted to the winter meeting of
Classis Holland and was not adopted.
OVERTURE 11
Classis Quinte
Joan Crawford, stated clerk
OVERTURE 12
2023 ADDENDUM
Since the writing of this overture, two additional years of data for CRCNA
membership are now available:
• In 2022 the total membership of the CRCNA stood at 204,664, which
means that the total membership loss for 2022 was 7,042 members, a
3.3 percent drop.
APPENDIX 1
Total Membership by Classis
Classis 1996 2006 2016 2021
Alberta North 9,472 9,781 9,069 8,880
Alberta South/ Saskatchewan 4,833 4,763 4,357 4,134
Arizona 1,612 849 481 478
Atlantic Northeast 4,114 3,314 3,132 2,598
B.C. North-West 5,318 5,052 4,039 3,709
B.C. South-East 7,371 7,369 6,584 5,508
California South 6,825 5,450 4,894 3,915
Central California 7,809 7,874 6,945 6,361
Central Plains (formerly Pella) 7,322 5,883 5,097 4,488
Chicago South 6,236 5,913 4,789 4,004
Columbia 2,858 2,213 2,131 1,690
APPENDIX 2
Decadal Rates of Increase or Decrease by Classis for 1996-2006, 2006-
2016, and Five-Year Rate of Increase or Decrease by Classis for 2016-2021
Classis 1996 - 2006 2006 - 2016 2016-2021
Alberta North 3.26% -7.28% -2.08%
Alberta South/ Saskatchewan -1.45% -8.52% -5.12%
Arizona -47.33% -43.35% -0.62%
Atlantic Northeast -19.45% -5.49% -17.05%
B.C. North-West -5.00% -20.05% -8.17%
B.C. South-East -0.03% -10.65% -16.34%
California South -20.15% -10.20% -20.00%
Central California 0.83% -11.80% -8.41%
Central Plains (formerly Pella) -19.65% -13.36% -11.95%
Chicago South -5.18% -19.01% -16.39%
Columbia -22.57% -3.71% -20.69%
Eastern Canada -6.74% -18.12% -13.45%
Georgetown -9.80% -3.53% -10.90%
Grand Rapids East -7.10% -4.59% -6.96%
Grand Rapids North -18.61% -37.19% -24.50%
Grand Rapids South -5.67% -12.92% -5.20%
Grandville -4.21% -13.04% -7.51%
Greater Los Angeles 23.83% -40.68% -10.70%
Hackensack -6.73% -10.41% -15.65%
Hamilton 5.05% -8.31% -13.54%
Hanmi (formerly Pacific Hanmi), Est. 1996 12.85% -1.98%
Heartland -14.59% 0.93% -3.14%
Holland 4.97% -7.47% -18.85%
Hudson -26.55% -19.21% -12.44%
Huron 6.70% -11.65% -9.64%
*In 2016 Classis Pacific Northwest became two classes: Pacific Northwest and North Cas-
cades. Their combined membership in 2021 stands at 4,969, a decrease of 18.77 percent
from 2016, when the membership stood at 6,117.
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis On-
tario Southwest but was not adopted.
OVERTURE 14
Note: This overture was submitted to Classis Hamilton at its winter meet-
ing but was not adopted.
OVERTURE 15
OVERTURE 16
I overture Synod 2023 to clarify and affirm that the doctrine of marriage,
as historically defined and affirmed by our synodical study reports (1973,
2022), is a doctrine contained in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108, and so is
confessional doctrine.
I offer the following grounds in support of the above, clarifying (1) the na-
ture of what “confessional” means; (2) the authority of the assemblies in
this area; and (3) why a traditional doctrine of marriage is contained/im-
plicit in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108.
Grounds:
1. What “confessional” means: In Reformed theology and polity, to say
that something is “confessional” is simply to say that it is a doctrine
contained in our confessional standards. The following statements
from our Covenant for Officebearers and Church Order make this
clear:
a. We “affirm three confessions—the Belgic Confession, the Heidel-
berg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort—as historic Reformed ex-
pressions of the Christian faith, whose doctrines fully agree with the
Word of God” (Covenant for Officebearers, emphasis added). At
the heart of the confessions is their doctrinal content—doctrine that
is derived from, and which then shapes how we read, Holy Scrip-
ture.
b. Later in the Covenant for Officebearers, officebearers pledge, “We
heartily believe and promote and defend [the confessions’] doctrines
faithfully, conforming our preaching, teaching, writing, serving,
and living to them” (emphasis added). When officebearers promise
“to be formed and governed by [the confessions],” therefore, it is
the doctrines they contain to which officebearers are regulating
their life and ministry.
c. This is made explicit in Church Order Supplement, Article 5, A,
which clarifies what it means to affirm the confessions when we
sign the Covenant for Officebearers. It says, “The person signing
the Covenant for Officebearers affirms without reservation all the
doctrines contained in the standards of the church as being doctrines
that are taught in the Word of God” (Supplement, Art. 5, A, 1, em-
phasis added). This does not mean that the confessions state each of
these doctrines perfectly, nor that the confessions include every-
thing Scripture teaches on the doctrine in question, nor that the
standards confess all scriptural doctrine (Supplement, Art. 5, A, 2).
It simply means that “a signatory is bound only to those doctrines
1 Beyond our own study committee reports, see the useful exploration of this consensus
definition in Scripture and the tradition in Darrin Snyder Belousek, Marriage, Scripture,
and the Church: Theological Discernment on the Question of Same-Sex Union (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker, 2021), pp. 29-55.
2 In addition to Snyder Belousek’s work cited above, see also Christopher C. Roberts, Cre-
ation and Covenant: The Significance of Sexual Difference in the Moral Theology of Marriage
(New York: T&T Clark, 2007). Specifically, on the form of marriage as unitive of the sexes
(male/female), Roberts shows that this is the univocal witness of the Christian tradition.
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meetings of the council of
Fourteenth Street CRC and Classis Holland but was not adopted.
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meetings of the council of
Fourteenth Street CRC and Classis Holland but was not adopted.
Confessional-Revision Gravamen
I. Acknowledgments
A. The signatories to this confessional-revision gravamen are current of-
ficebearers of New Life Christian Reformed Church in Guelph, Ontario
(“New Life CRC, Guelph”), within Classis Huron of the Christian Re-
formed Church in North America.
B. By an act of Synod 2022, Synod 2022 adopted the following (Acts of
Synod 2022, p. 922):
That synod affirm that “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism
Q. and A. 108 encompasses adultery, premarital sex, extramarital
sex, polyamory, pornography, and homosexual sex, all of which
violate the seventh commandment. In so doing, synod declares this
affirmation “an interpretation of [a] confession” (Acts of Synod 1975,
p. 603). Therefore, this interpretation has confessional status.
C. This gravamen is submitted out of concern and love for the Christian
Reformed Church, which has by its own admission declared that “we
have failed each other.”
II. Gravamen request
We, the signatories of this confessional-revision gravamen, overture
Synod 2023 to reverse the decision by Synod 2022 that its interpretation of
Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 has “confessional status.”
Grounds:
1. The interpretation of “confessional status” is based on theological ar-
guments from a report (Human Sexuality Report [HSR]) that was writ-
ten by a selected committee of CRC members “who adhere to the
CRC’s biblical view on marriage and same-sex relationships” (Acts of
Synod 2016, p. 926). This interpretation was limited to exclude discus-
sion of broader context and interpretation regarding many aspects of
human sexuality and especially committed same-sex relationships.
2. Synod 2022 took an unprecedented step in the matter of declaring its
synodical interpretation of the act of homosexual sex to have “confes-
sional authority.” As such, it is not applicable for a revision of the con-
fession and should not be used with such authority. A reversal of the
“confessional status” will provide important clarity in this matter of
authority within the CRCNA.
III. Further implications
1. The decision of Synod 2022 to entrench its interpretation as “confes-
sional status” has already resulted in deep division and sorrow within
the CRCNA membership and effectively requires some congregations
to limit hospitality and grace historically extended to the LGBTQ+
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Huron
according to the regulations in Church Order Supplement, Article 5, C,
but was rejected.
1 The whole passage from Colossians 3 is worth quoting in full, as a way of shining the
light of Scripture into our present darkness: “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and
beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with
one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord
has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds
everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts,
to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ
dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing
psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And
whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving
thanks to God the Father through him” (vv. 12-17).
2 As the 1975 report says, “There is an obvious difference between the use and function of
a pronouncement as interpretation of the confessions and a decision involving ‘guide-
lines’ or ‘pastoral advice’” (p. 598).
Classis Holland
Calvin Hoogstra, stated clerk
3On this same point/balance, see also section IV.B.2 in Report 47, in which Synod 1975
adopted the following recommendation, “Synodical pronouncements on doctrinal and
ethical matters are subordinate to the confessions and ‘shall be considered settled and
binding, unless it is proved that they conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order’
(Church Order, Art. 29). All officebearers and members are expected to abide by these
synodical deliverances” (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603).
Confessional-Revision Gravamen
1 Belgic Confession, Article 21 (1985): “Therefore, we rightly say with Paul that we ‘know
nothing but Jesus and him crucified’; we consider all things as ‘dung for the excellence of
the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ We find all comforts in his wounds and have no
need to seek or invent any other means to reconcile ourselves with God than this one and
only sacrifice, once made, which renders believers perfect forever.” Heidelberg Cate-
chism Q&A 60 describes how we are righteous: “Without any merit of my own, out of
sheer grace, God grants and credits to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and ho-
liness of Christ, as if I had never sinned nor been a sinner, and as if I had been as per-
fectly obedient as Christ was obedient for me. All I need to do is accept this gift with a
believing heart.”
2 Belgic Confession, Article 24: “These works, proceeding from the good root of faith, are
good and acceptable to God, since they are all sanctified by his grace. Yet they do not
count toward our justification—for by faith in Christ we are justified, even before we do
good works.”
3 Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 114 also recognizes this context, noting, “In this life even
Classis Rocky Mountain overtures Synod 2023 to rule and declare that the
interpretation of Q&A 108 of the Heidelberg Catechism adopted by Synod
2022 (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922) has the weight of synodical authority but
does not have confessional status.
Synod 2022 of the CRCNA adopted the following resolution:
That synod affirm that “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q. and A.
108 encompasses adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, poly-
amory, pornography, and homosexual sex, all of which violate the
seventh commandment. In so doing, synod declares this affirmation
“an interpretation of [a] confession” (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603). There-
fore, this interpretation has confessional status.
(Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922)
We believe the confessional status granted to this interpretation should be
removed because it presents serious Church Order, theological, and pasto-
ral care problems.
A. Church Order concern
Synod 1975 determined that there is “a difference in the nature of the au-
thority of the confessions and synodical pronouncements” as recognized
in how earlier synods handled the relationship between confessional au-
thority and synodical authority (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 601). On the basis of
their study, they concluded that synodical decisions have not been given
confessional status, “even when the particular decision involved was an
interpretation of the confessions” (p. 599). The report makes it very clear
that synodical decisions do not have confessional status.
Part of the work of the 1975 committee was to sort through various synod-
ical pronouncements and distinguish how those pronouncements should
be taken by the church. They noted that synodical pronouncements do
various things. They distinguished six kinds of synodical pronounce-
ments: (1) interpretation of a confession, (2) extension of church teaching
into a new area, (3) adjudication of doctrinal or moral disputes, (4) public
testimony, (5) guidelines for further study, and (6) pastoral advice. Each of
these has its own kind of authority, but the authority remains synodical
authority. It does not become confessional authority.
Interpretation comes with the authority of the synod, not with the author-
ity of the confession. This is an important and fundamental principle of
Reformed polity. If synodical interpretations of a confession are them-
selves confessional, then what is confessional can be extended infinitely.
Every time the synod makes an interpretation of a confession, the confes-
sion grows, and the meaning of one’s subscription to the confession
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Grand
Rapids South but was not adopted.
Note: This overture was submitted to Classis Quinte at its January 21, 2023,
meeting but was not adopted.
Classis Lake Erie received the following as an overture from River Terrace
Church (RTC) of East Lansing, Michigan, located near Michigan State Uni-
versity and dedicated to serving its students:
I. Background
The decision of Synod 2022 to declare its interpretation of “unchastity” in
the Heidelberg Catechism as having confessional status has been difficult
for RTC. Prior to 2022, we understood that the decision of Synod 1973 re-
lating to same-sex attraction and same-sex intimate relationships were in-
tended as pastoral advice. This advice had considerable weight, but it was
not determined to have confessional status. This was great for RTC. It re-
flected the CRC’s teaching on the subject but left room for differing view-
points. It allowed us to focus on the gospel and remain in good relation-
ship with each other and the CRC. We recognized that in view of changes
to societal norms we had work to do on how to faithfully and effectively
address human-sexuality matters in our ministry. We think we were posi-
tioned to address this challenge in a constructive way.
Since Synod 2022, RTC’s reality has changed. The “confessional status”
decision now severely hampers full engagement on this matter. Many
who previously felt safe to disagree, now feel unable to express their sin-
cerely held beliefs. They must agree with synod or accept a limited status
within the CRC. Some are now reluctant to be associated with the Chris-
tian Reformed denomination. This matter has potential to divide us.
II. Scope
Our overture is limited in scope. It is not intended as an objection to or an
endorsement of the biblical position articulated in the Human Sexuality
Report (HSR). Our overture focuses on the process that led up to the re-
port, and that ultimately assigned confessional status.
Per Church Order Article 29, “Decisions of ecclesiastical assemblies shall
be reached only upon due consideration.” By specifying that “the commit-
tee will be constituted of up to twelve individuals, CRC members who
represent diversity in gender, ethnicity, binationality, and ministry loca-
tion, and who adhere to the CRC’s biblical view on marriage and same-sex
relationships” (Acts of Synod 2016, p. 926), due consideration was signifi-
cantly compromised.
We believe that if a synodical committee had intentionally been composed
of those adhering to the CRC’s long-standing position, along with those
not in agreement with that position, it would have been a good step in
meeting the threshold of due consideration. A discovery process where
opposing positions could be fully represented, compared side-by-side,
OVERTURE 31
Note: This overture was presented to the council of Ladner CRC and to
Classis B.C. South-East but was not adopted.
OVERTURE 33
3 Calvin's Commentary on Ex. 20:17 states, “This commandment extends to those that have
proceeded it.” God's “condemnation of lusts . . . not only imposed obedience on our
hands and feet, but also put restraint upon our minds, lest they should desire to do what
is unlawful.” Keil & Delitzsch says that the “tenth commandment is directed as a root
against desiring from which every sin against a neighbor springs.” Hodge calls it a com-
prehensive command that “forbids a state of the heart.”
5 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, 2.1.8, p. 218;
ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
13James K.A. Smith, You Are What You Love (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2016), p.
13.
We, the council of Church of the Savior CRC, submit this confessional-
revision gravamen as an overture to Synod 2023 to alter the interpretation
given to Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 by Synod 2022—specifically, to
remove “homosexual sex” from the list of sins that constitute “unchas-
tity.”
Our difficulty with Synod 2022’s interpretation is on several fronts. What
follows is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but will, we hope, illus-
trate the tremendous difficulty we have with Synod 2022’s interpretation
of Q&A 108.
A. Our most pressing and urgent objection is that this interpretation
teaches “the sinfulness of desire,” the idea that not just homosexual sex
but same-sex attraction and desire itself are sinful. This effectively
overturns the CRC’s position on homosexuality laid out in Report 42 to
Synod 1973 from the Committee to Study Homosexuality 1—namely,
that same-sex attraction and desire are not in themselves sinful, a posi-
tion which has been taught in the CRC since 1973 and with which we
heartily agree. 2
B. Our second objection is that we are not convinced that Scripture
teaches that all homosexual sex is wrong. There are good arguments to
be made that the handful of verses in the New Testament forbidding
homosexual sex have to do with exploitative homosexual sex. 3 They
don’t speak to (nor could they even know about) homosexual sex
within a committed, lifelong Christian marriage. The Human Sexuality
Report (HSR) gave short shrift to these alternative interpretations,
claiming that Scripture was “clear, consistent, and compelling” on this
issue—when it is anything but for many readers and scholars.
C. Our third objection has to do with the semantic and hermeneutical
contortions required for Synod 2022 to interpret Q&A 108 as it did.
Q&A 108 has to do with the seventh commandment: You shall not
commit adultery. The plain meaning of this commandment is that the
sexual relationship within a marriage is to be respected and protected.
Yet Synod 2022’s interpretation of Q&A 108 serves to forbid sex within
gay marriages. Whatever one thinks of gay marriage, marshalling the
seventh commandment in particular to forbid married people from
having sex is far afield from its original intent.
1 crcna.org/sites/default/files/1973_report_homosexuality.pdf
2 Lord’s Day 41 overture
3 classisgreast.org/downloads/ssmstudyreport2016.pdf
4 Ursinus, one of the Heidelberg Catechism’s framers, no doubt had homosexual sex in
mind with Q&A 108. However, we are not confessionally bound to Ursinus’s opinions
but to the text of the catechism.
5 The framers of the 1973 report were tasked with advising synod on what the CRC’s po-
sition on homosexuality ought to be. If it was so clear that homosexual sex was forbidden
in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108, why did they not say so? How could they have
missed that? If it wasn’t so clear, then Synod 2022 did indeed give Q&A 108 a novel inter-
pretation (as far as the CRC is concerned). Either the framers of the 1973 report didn’t
know their catechism, or Synod 2022 was introducing something new. We can’t have it
both ways.
6 HSR, Appendix A (Agenda for Synod 2022, p. 471).
7 “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged nat-
ural intercourse for unnatural. . . .”
8 It has been well documented in other places that there were a myriad of ways that
number of books and authors in Scripture who treat a particular topic, the more compel-
ling the case. Specifically, he notes that twelve texts are more compelling than six. What
would he say about making a point “confessional”—not to mention (effectively) depos-
ing a deacon—based on a mere one verse of Scripture?
10 HSR, p. 424.
11 That is, God’s.
12 Guenther Haas, “The Kingdom and Slavery: A Test Case for Social Ethics,” Calvin Theo-
logical Journal 28 (1993): 74-89.
13 See, for example, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals, where William J. Webb marshals
the abolition of slavery as an obvious and “neutral” example, which he uses as a foil for
the more controversial example of women’s equality and as the obvious and opposite (to
him) example of homosexual practice in the New Testament.
14 We are not in the dark about what the previously held viewpoints of the HSR commit-
tee members were: only those who were already opposed to gay marriage were allowed
to serve on the committee. It is no wonder that the application of Reformed hermeneutics
brought them to that conclusion. The tool can only be used according to the hands that
wield it.
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Hol-
land but was not adopted.
Note: This confessional-revision gravamen was not adopted by the classis
and therefore comes to synod as an appeal of the classis decision, per
Church Order Supplement Art. 5, C, 5. Such gravamina will be processed
according to Church Order, Supplement Art. 30-a, B & C.
We, the council of Church of the Savior CRC, overture Synod 2023 to re-
verse Synod 2022’s interpretation of “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism
Q&A 108 as including a list of specific behaviors—namely, “adultery, pre-
marital sex, extramarital sex, polyamory, pornography, and homosexual
sex.”
Grounds:
1. This list of behaviors has proven very divisive for the CRC as a whole
and has caused hurt and tension within and among many of our con-
gregations. Reversing the decision about this list would honor the
spirit of Heidelberg Q&A 54, which encourages and even mandates the
unity of the church. It would also give space and safety to nurture
deeper conversations about Christian discipleship among diverse
groups within the CRC.
2. It is highly unusual, and perhaps even unprecedented, for a Reformed
governing body to create an illustrative list of behaviors that constitute
“unchastity.” 1 This reticence is with good reason because as Reformed
Christians, we have always respected the Spirit’s work within individ-
ual believers and within the church to interpret what is chaste and un-
chaste within a particular time and a particular culture.
3. It is not practical to enumerate a list of behaviors that can cover the full
range of unchaste activities of which fallen human beings living in a
fallen world are capable. As a result, a specific list of unchaste behav-
iors runs the very real risk of condemning certain behaviors while con-
doning, downplaying, or ignoring others.
4. Enumerating this particular list of unchaste behaviors limits the wit-
ness and mission of the Christian Reformed Church in the context of
global Christianity, as it disregards cultural differences in what is con-
sidered “unchaste.”
I. Background
A. Our primary purpose in presenting this overture is to maintain the
precious unity of the Christian Reformed Church, for which Jesus
prayed in John 17:20-26. The present list of unchaste behaviors divides
the church and violates the spirit of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 54,
which states, “I believe that the Son of God through his Spirit and
2 See “After Synod 2022: Discerning What’s Next,” The Banner (Sept. 2022), p. 14.
3 Acts of Synod 1995, p. 727.
4 Herman Hoeksema, The Triple Knowledge: An Exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, Vol. 3
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1972), pp. 342-76; Andrew
Kuyvenhoven, Comfort and Joy: A Study of the Heidelberg Catechism (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Faith Alive Christian Resources, 1988), pp. 239-43; Fred H. Klooster, Our Only Comfort: A
Comprehensive Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Faith
Alive Christian Resources, 2001), pp. 1003-10.
5 See footnote 1. We know the catechism’s authors did not hesitate to offer lists in other
places (see for example Q&A 110). Refraining from doing so in Q&A 108 appears to be
intentional, and their decision ought to be respected.
in light of the careful and nuanced discussion of pornography in the HSR itself.
9 See HSR, pp. 344, 415, 458-59.
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Hol-
land but was not adopted.
Note: This overture was submitted to the March 2, 2023, meeting of Classis
Pacific Northwest but was not adopted.
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Grand
Rapids South but was not adopted.
2 “After Synod 2022: Discerning What’s Next,” The Banner (Sept. 2022), p. 14.
3 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia,
7Herman Hoeksema, The Triple Knowledge: An Exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, Vol-
ume 3 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1972), pp. 342-76;
Andrew Kuyvenhoven, Comfort and Joy: A Study of the Heidelberg Catechism (Grand Rap-
ids, Mich.: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 1988), pp. 239-43; Fred H. Klooster, Our Only
Comfort: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Volume 2 (Grand Rap-
ids, Mich.: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2001), pp. 1003-10.
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Hol-
land but was not adopted.
The council of Church of the Savior CRC, South Bend, Indiana, overtures
Synod 2023 to reverse Synod 2022’s recommendation of the Human Sexu-
ality Report to CRC churches as “useful information.”
Grounds:
1. The Human Sexuality Report (HSR) teaches doctrine on sexual sin that
violates all three of the confessions of the Christian Reformed Church.
a. Teaching #1: “Like idolatry, unrepentant sexual immorality de-
stroys one’s place in the church and kingdom of God” (HSR, p.
344).
This teaching straightforwardly implies that someone who has a
place in the church and kingdom of God but then sins sexually and
fails to repent (perhaps as a result of dying in the very act) thereby
destroys their place in the church and kingdom of God. Against this
doctrine, Article 22 of the Belgic Confession states: “For it must nec-
essarily follow that either all that is required for our salvation is not
in Christ or, if all is in him, then he who has Christ by faith has his
salvation entirely. Therefore, to say that Christ is not enough but
that something else is needed as well is a most enormous blas-
phemy against God—for it then would follow that Jesus Christ is
only half a Savior. And therefore we justly say with Paul that we
are justified ‘by faith alone’ or by faith ‘apart from works.’” Repent-
ance on the part of a believer in Christ in the wake of sin is, of
course, a work. Thus, Teaching #1 commits “a most enormous blas-
phemy.”
• It may be objected that underlying this remark is the familiar
idea that those who live in “unrepentant sin” are, in fact, show-
ing themselves by their unrepentance to be non-Christians. In
reply, we say the HSR cannot possibly mean this, because in the
invitation to confession at the beginning of the document, the
authors declare (and thereby invite the rest of us, as believers, to
declare), “Instead of confessing our sins and praying for each
other, we live in unrepentant sin” (HSR, pp. 321-22).
The teaching also straightforwardly contradicts the doctrine of the
perseverance of the saints in the Canons of Dort, specifically at
Fifth Point, Article 9: “Concerning this preservation of those chosen
to salvation and concerning the perseverance of true believers in
faith, believers themselves can and do become assured in accord-
ance with the measure of their faith. By this faith they firmly be-
lieve that they are and always will remain true and living members
of the church, and that they have the forgiveness of sins and eternal
life.”
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Hol-
land but was not adopted.
1 See “Wise Words from Church Members” for a summary of themes in gravamina and
letters of concern, available at hesedprojectcrc.org/work_genre/learn/#a13lightbox-work-
11968.
2 Eric M. Rodriguez, Ph.D. (2009), “At the Intersection of Church and Gay: A Review of
3 Matthew J.L. Page, Kristin Lindall, and Neena Malik, “The Role of Religion and Stress
in Sexual Identity and Mental Health Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bi-sexual Youth,” Journal
of Research on Adolescence (2013), 23(4), 665- 77. Angie Dahl and Renee V. Galliher,
“LGBTQ Adolescents and Young Adults Raised with a Christian Religious Context,”
Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012), 1611-18. Angie Dahl and Renee Galliher, Ph.D., “Sexual
Minority Young Adult Religiosity, Sexual Orientation Conflict, Self-Esteem and Depres-
sive Symptoms,” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health (2010), 14:4, 271-90. Edward F.
Lomash, Tabria D. Brown, and M. Paz Galupo (2018), “‘A Whole Bunch of Love the Sin-
ner Hate the Sin’: LGBTQ Microaggressions Experienced in Religious and Spiritual Con-
text,” Journal of Homosexuality
(tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918369.2018.1542204?journalCode=wjhm20). Shelley
L. Craig, Ashley Austin, Mariam Rashidi, and Marc Adams, “Fighting for survival: The
experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students in religious
colleges and universities,” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services (2017), 29:1,1-24.
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Niag-
ara but was not adopted.
1 Eric M. Rodriguez, Ph.D. (2009), “At the Intersection of Church and Gay: A Review of
the Psychological Research on Gay and Lesbian Christians,” Journal of Homosexuality,
57:1, 5-38. Kirk A. Foster and Sharon Bowland, “All the Pain Along with All the Joy: Spir-
itual Resilience in Lesbian and Gay Christians,” American Journal of Community Psychology
(2015), 55:191-201. David M. Barnes and Ilan H. Meyer, “Religious Affiliation, Internal-
ized Homophobia, and Mental Health in Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals,” American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry (2012) 82:4, 505-515. Suzanne Lease, Sharon Horne, and Nicole
Noffsinger-Frazier, “Affirming Faith Experiences and Psychological Health for Caucasian
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Individuals,” Journal of Counseling Psychology (2005) 52:3, 378-
88. Edward F. Lomash, Tabria D. Brown, and M. Paz Galupo (2018): “‘A Whole Bunch of
Love the Sinner Hate the Sin’: LGBTQ Microaggressions Experienced in Religious and
Spiritual Context,” Journal of Homosexuality
(tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918369.2018.1542204?journalCode=wjhm20).
2 Matthew J.L. Page, Kristin Lindall, and Neena Malik, “The Role of Religion and Stress
in Sexual Identity and Mental Health Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bi-sexual Youth,” Journal
of Research on Adolescence (2013), 23(4), 665- 77. Angie Dahl and Renee V. Galliher,
“LGBTQ Adolescents and Young Adults Raised with a Christian Religious Context,”
Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012), 1611-18. Angie Dahl and Renee Galliher, Ph.D., “Sexual
Minority Young Adult Religiosity, Sexual Orientation Conflict, Self-Esteem and Depres-
sive Symptoms,” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health (2010), 14:4, 271-90. Edward F.
Lomash, Tabria D. Brown, and M. Paz Galupo (2018): “‘A Whole Bunch of Love the Sin-
ner Hate the Sin’: LGBTQ Microaggressions Experienced in Religious and Spiritual Con-
text,” Journal of Homosexuality
(tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918369.2018.1542204?journalCode=wjhm20). Shelley
L. Craig, Ashley Austin, Mariam Rashidi, and Marc Adams. “Fighting for survival: The
experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students in religious
colleges and universities,” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services (2017), 29:1,1-24.
OVERTURE 42
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Hol-
land but was not adopted.
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Chi-
cago South but was not adopted.
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Alberta
North but was not adopted.
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Rocky
Mountain but was not adopted.
II. Overture
The council of Fellowship Christian Reformed Church of Edmonton,
Alberta, overtures Synod 2023 to do the following:
A. Create a local option for communities in the CRCNA who wish to al-
low all LGBTQ+ Christians—either celibate, single, or in committed
same-sex relationships—to participate fully in the life of the church, in-
cluding as officebearers.
B. Correspondingly, remove the phrase “and homosexual sex” from the
Synod 2022 decision (copied in italics, below), as it is at odds with a lo-
cal option.
That synod affirm that “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism
Q. and A. 108 encompasses adultery, premarital sex, extramarital
sex, polyamory, pornography and homosexual sex, all of which vio-
late the seventh commandment. In so doing, synod declares this af-
firmation “an interpretation of [a] confession” (Acts of Synod 1975,
Note: This overture was submitted to Classis Alberta North at its winter
meeting but was not adopted.
We, the council of Church of the Savior CRC, overture Synod 2023 to re-
verse Synod 2022’s decision to interpret the word “unchastity” in Q&A
108 of the Heidelberg Catechism as including “homosexual sex.” 1
Ground: This decision effectively makes the Christian Reformed Church’s
position on homosexuality internally incoherent. It places Report 42 from
the Committee to Study Homosexuality 2 (hereafter “the 1973 report”) in
opposition to Synod 2022’s interpretation of Lord’s Day 41 of the Heidel-
berg Catechism, and Synod 2022’s interpretation of Lord’s Day 41 in op-
position to the 1973 report.3
I. Background
The 1973 report makes a distinction between homosexuality (as an orien-
tation) and homosexualism (homosexual activity, that is, engaging in “ex-
plicit sexual acts with persons of the same sex” 4). 5 According to the 1973
report, having a homosexual orientation (a condition often or always be-
yond one’s control) is not a sin, while engaging in homosexual activity
(i.e., by having homosexual sex) is a sin. This has been an important dis-
tinction for the CRC, as it seeks to support people who identify as LGBTQ
while not condoning behaviors that Scripture seems to condemn.
The 1973 report acknowledges the difficulty of the same-sex oriented per-
son, who has desires for sexual fulfillment with a person of the same sex
but who is unable to have those desires fulfilled in a biblically justifiable
way. A handful of quotations will illustrate this point:
The direction of the homosexual’s desires is not to be regarded as
merely physical attraction. His desires cover the whole range of the
rich interpersonal relations associated with the heterosexual form of
sexuality, including love, understanding, friendship, the desire to be-
long to someone and to develop one’s humanity in constant compan-
ionship with another human being. What is different for the homosex-
ual is that these feelings are experienced with respect to a person of the
same sex. (p. 612)
The homosexual, as constitutionally predisposed to erotic attraction to
members of the same sex, bears the disorder of our broken fallen
world in his person. (p. 623)
turned Synod 1973 on this matter, all the while purporting to be in agreement with it.
4 Acts of Synod 1973, p. 612.
5 Ibid., p. 613.
uting to the purity of body and soul, agreeing with the will of God, and shunning all
lusts prohibited by God, all unlawful intercourse and inordinate copulation in connection
with all the desires, causes, effects, suspicions, occasions, &c., which may lead thereto,
whether in holy wedlock or in a single life” (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism,
the “sinfulness of desire,” concluding that “the [same-sex] attraction (desire) itself is sin-
ful, and not only behaviors arising from it.” If they had remained in the CRC another
month, they would have found their views very much at home—indeed, now confes-
sional—in the CRC (see thebanner.org/news/2022/05/historic-california-congregation-dis-
affiliates-from-the-crc).
9 Given that the Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Hu-
man Sexuality (whose conclusions led to Synod 2022’s decision) was supposed to be in
agreement with the 1973 report, this overture must of necessity call into question all the
recommendations made by that committee. Not only did this committee show itself not
to be in agreement with the 1973 report, it went so far as to directly contradict it (all the
while claiming to uphold it), and succeeded in overturning the CRC’s long-held position
on homosexuality that the 1973 report laid out.
10 At least, not without interpreting Q&A 109 against the grain of its plain meaning and
its original intent (see n. 7). No doubt one can invent one’s own nuanced reading of the
catechism here to bring it into line with the 1973 report, but that is not an intellectually
honest solution to the problem.
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Hol-
land but was not adopted.
Classis Grandville
Daniel B. Mouw, stated clerk
that if “the gravamen is adopted by the consistory and the classis as its own, it becomes an
overture to the broader assemblies. . . .”
7 Form of Subscription, Acts of Synod 1988, pp. 530-31.
10 thebanner.org/news/2022/10/requesting-an-exception-to-synod-2022s-human-sexuality-
decisions
11 calvinchimes.org/2022/11/01/board-of-trustees-retains-faculty-who-disagree-with-
crcna-on-lgbtq-relationships/
12 crcna.org/synod/hsr-faq
13 See crcna.org/synod/hsr-faq, Question 16.
14 Engelhard, David H., and Leonard J. Hofman, Manual of Christian Reformed Church Gov-
ernment, 2001 revision (Grand Rapids, Mich.: CRC Publications, 2001), p. 174.
OVERTURE 51
OVERTURE 52
OVERTURE 53
1 crcna.org/synod/hsr-faq
2 crcna.org/news-and-events/news/council-delegates-meets-
0?fbclid=IwAR1PhkGAYuE1e-QH0KFUUqIWfjAUjBoFpb-
0rfwBIMvP5M3YpHQ3FP4OzoU
3 calvinchimes.org/2022/11/01/board-of-trustees-retains-faculty-who-disagree-with-crcna-
on-lgbtq-relation-
ships/?fbclid=IwAR0Gfwr5bLlzBLU7jGrvKRb2GY_ez_SIpM2ilON6uhCtECzCuDQ8eC5z
zDM
4crcna.org/sites/default/files/cod_statement_of_agreement_with_beliefs_of_the_crcna_7-
17.pdf (emphasis added)
1 crcna.org/synod/hsr-faq
2 thebanner.org/news/2022/10/requesting-an-exception-to-synod-2022s-human-sexuality-
decisions
3 calvinchimes.org/2022/11/01/board-of-trustees-retains-faculty-who-disagree-with-crcna-
on-lgbtq-relationships/
Classis Illiana
Laryn G. Zoerhof, stated clerk
1 Appendix B: Process for Submitting and Addressing Exceptions to the COD Statement
of Agreement with the Beliefs of the CRCNA; COD Minutes, Oct. 12-14, 2022.
2 COD Governance Handbook, p. 98.
Classis Minnkota
LeRoy G. Christoffels, stated clerk
5 “Council of Delegates’ Authority Comes from Synod,” The Banner, June 11, 2018.
1A quia confessional subscription is one that stipulates that the doctrines of our confes-
sions fully agree with the Word of God.
Classis Minnkota
LeRoy G. Christoffels, stated clerk
Classis Minnkota
LeRoy G. Christoffels, stated clerk
OVERTURE 60
1 crcna.org/news-and-events/news/calvin-board-responds-synod-2022
2 Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922.
3 Church Order, Article 29.
Classis Heartland
Phillip T. Westra, stated clerk
4 thebanner.org/news/2022/06/synod-2022-upholds-traditional-stance-on-same-sex-rela-
tionships
5 Calvin Faculty Handbook, p. 44, Article 3.5.1.1.
Classis Iakota
Bernard Haan, stated clerk
OVERTURE 63
OVERTURE 64
1 religionnews.com/2022/06/29/grand-rapids-church-wont-remove-gay-deacon-votes-to-
appeal-denominations-order/
2 As stated by retired Classis GRE minister Rev. Thea Leunk (currently serving as re-
gional pastor for GRE), in the All One Body video Responding to Synod 2022—How Can
Churches Respond? on YouTube, Oct. 7, 2022 (youtube.com/watch?v=E0B11mDBVL0),
time stamp 17:35ff. See Eastern Avenue CRC's declaration of affirmation at eacrc.org/our-
affirmations-nuestras-afirmaciones or Sherman Street CRC's statement of inclusion at
shermanstreetchurch.org.
3 Leunk, time stamp 18:40ff.
Classis Zeeland
Ronald J. Meyer, stated clerk
Classis Iakota overtures Synod 2023 to require that all officebearers dele-
gated to Synod 2023 sign the Covenant for Officebearers without reserva-
tion with the clear understanding of the decisions of Synod 2022 in view.
Grounds:
1. All leaders of the church sent to synod are required to be of one mind
and heart in faith and covenant revealed in God’s Word, taught by our
Lord Jesus Christ and directed by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor.
13:11; Phil. 2:2).
2. Synod 2022 gave clarity to the doctrines of penal substitutionary atone-
ment and human sexuality that should be affirmed by all signers of the
Covenant for Officebearers.
3. The goal of this re-signing is to highlight the covenant that we make
with one another regarding our unity in fidelity to the full revelation of
God’s Word and our denominational confessions.
Classis Iakota
Bernard Haan, stated clerk
OVERTURE 67
OVERTURE 68
1 This overture originated in River Park Church in Calgary, Alberta. River Park Church
was one of those many churches who wrote an overture asking synod not to adopt the
recommendation on “confessional status.” River Park Church has a diversity of views on
human sexuality and has officebearers who have written confessional-difficulty gravam-
ina since the “confessional status” decision of Synod 2022.
2 In Appendix 1 we have tried to articulate why this decision has been disruptive for
many.
3 In River Park Church’s own classis, Classis Alberta South/Saskatchewan (ABSS), nu-
merous councils have formally barred ministers within classis from their pulpits and
have ceased supporting shared classical ministry, including ceasing financial support to
the point of explicitly redirecting their classical funds elsewhere. The first meeting of
Classis ABSS after Synod 2022 was so painfully divided that River Park Church sent an
overture asking that Classis ABSS be dissolved so that healthier and fruitful realignments
can be made.
4 The Agenda for Synod 2016 details the 2014 survey of 700 ordained ministers in the
CRCNA in which 98 of 700 ministers reported they would be in favor of same-sex mar-
riage in the church. If 15 percent of ministers were okay with same-sex marriage in the
church in 2014, there is the potential that hundreds of officebearers are okay with same-sex
marriage in the church in 2023.
5 Please see Appendix 1 for further details.
6 This is similar to what each church of Classis ABSS was asked to do after our challeng-
ready we have heard multiple ideas: realignments with other denominations (i.e., RCA
and CRC realigning); a “gracious separation” into two or more separate denominations; a
move toward “affinity” classes; or shifting from a denominational model to a looser affil-
iation that some have called a “network” model.
8 Both Calvin Theological Seminary (CTS) and Calvin University have boards appointed
by the CRC synod, and both boards have approved policies that leave room for respect-
ful disagreement with perspectives on homosexuality. For instance, in 2021 the CTS
board of trustees affirmed a handful of guidelines as the HSR was being discussed, in-
cluding that “CTS should strive to model a community of people who hold diverging
views and can discuss them honestly and civilly.” And at Calvin University, a policy pa-
per published in 2016 (Confessional Commitment and Academic Freedom: Principles and Prac-
tices at Calvin College) articulates a similar posture.
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Alberta
South/Saskatchewan but was not adopted.
9 This overture is aware that not all who identify as “traditional” fit this definition, but
many do.
10 This overture is aware that not all who identify as “affirming” fit this definition, but
many do.
11 The word Vision will be capitalized throughout this appendix in order to remind the
reader that we are using this word to identify Vision 1 and Vision 2.
12 As per an email exchange with current Church Order professor, Rev. Kathy Smith. In
her reply of September 28, 2022, she writes, “Henry's commentary has been a required
textbook in all CRC Polity courses at CTS since it was published in 2010.”
13 Henry DeMoor, Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary, 2nd. ed. (CRCNA, 2020),
pp. 168-69.
14 In September 2018 the original author of this overture was made aware that a pastor in
his classis (ABSS) had decided to perform a same-sex wedding. In preparation for our
upcoming classis meeting in October, he asked faculty of CTS several questions to better
understand how our CRC positions function, with a focus on our position on homosexu-
ality. The thoughtful and thorough reply he received on September 30, 2018, included at-
tachments to the Acts of Synod 1975, as well as this paragraph: “The matter of homosexu-
ality and same-sex marriage, addressed by Synods 1973, 2002, and 2016, has been catego-
rized each time by synod as pastoral advice and has never been addressed in relation to
the confessions. The minority report to Synod 2016 was in error when it implied that peo-
ple who disagreed with synod's decisions on same-sex marriage may be delinquent in
doctrine. Synod has never addressed this as a matter of doctrine or an interpretation of
the confessions. By Synod 1975's standards, pastoral advice is the last category of deci-
sions mentioned and likely the least amount of agreement is expected.”
15 To be clear, we have not seen or heard that CTS taught these implications directly or
openly. We are simply saying that these implications are reasonable if one honestly believes
that the CRC position on homosexuality is not confessional.
16 If one believes that same-sex marriage is an acceptable Christian action, then sex within
that same-sex marriage would not be considered “adultery” (sex against your marriage
covenant), and one does not consider “homosexual sex” to be “unchaste.”
17 For instance, we believe these five implications align with the material published on
the Abide Project website (abideproject.org). These also seem to be assumptions behind
some of the actions (i.e., registered negative votes; attending “in protest”; extended con-
cern listed in credentials) that occurred at the October 28-29, 2022, meeting of Classis
ABSS (see minutes).
Classis Huron, at its February 15, 2023, session, accepted the motion to
send the following overture to Synod 2023:
Classis Huron overtures Synod 2023 to direct the appropriate agency or
office of the CRCNA to do the following:
A. To affirm our commitments to manage disagreements within our con-
gregations, and among churches, with love, charity, and grace, and to
ensure that all who seek to follow Christ are afforded a respectful place
to honestly share their views and listen to those of others.
B. To develop resources and tools, or endorse existing resources and
tools, to equip congregations to minister pastorally with and to
LGBTQ+ people.
Grounds:
1. Congregations in Classis Huron (and likely in other classes) have a
considerable number of members who have expressed disappointment
with Synod 2022’s deliberations and decisions regarding the Human
Sexuality Report (HSR). As a result, there is a measure of division
which has the potential to increase.
2. The Christian Reformed Church has failed in the way it relates to
LGBTQ+ people. This is articulated in the discussion on homosexuality
found in the HSR, which states: “It is a sad truth that the Christian
community, including our Christian Reformed denomination, has
failed in its calling to empathize with, love, and bear the burdens of
persons who are attracted to the same sex, making it very difficult for
them to live a life of holiness” (Agenda for Synod 2022, p. 407).
Classis Huron
Fred Vander Sterre, stated clerk
1 npr.org/2022/11/22/1138555795/how-political-rhetoric-factors-into-violence-against-the-
lgbtq-community
2 npr.org/2022/06/20/1106112160/patriot-front-extremists-lbgtq-pride
3 bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-21/colorado-club-shooting-follows-rise-in-anti-
lgbtq-rhetoric-violence?leadSource=uverify%20wall
4 acleddata.com/2022/06/16/fact-sheet-anti-lgbt-mobilization-is-on-the-rise-in-the-united-
states
OVERTURE 72
OVERTURE 73
Classis Chatham
Ron Middel, stated clerk
OVERTURE 74
Classis Zeeland
Ronald J. Meyer, stated clerk
Classis Hackensack
Sheila E. Holmes, stated clerk
COMMUNICATION 1
Classis Minnkota
The churches of Classis Minnkota affirm that men and women are created
by God with equality in essence and dignity but with distinction in some
roles. We praise God for the beautiful diversity he created when he made
us male and female. These distinct roles are taught in Scripture, derive
from God’s creative will, and are to be manifest in complementary roles in
the family and church. This belief is reflected in an accurate translation of
the Belgic Confession, Article 30, which reads, “when faithful men are
chosen, according to the rule prescribed by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timo-
thy.” (See the original French wording, which refers to persons using the
masculine gender.) This belief is therefore not rooted in chauvinism or pa-
triarchy but in Scripture and in our historic confession of faith. It is our
hope and prayer that this communication will provide a clear and respect-
ful understanding of our convictions in this matter.
We believe that men and women are created equal as imagebearers of
God and as heirs of salvation. We also believe that men and women com-
plement each other in mutually enriching ways and that God has given
each gender specific callings in the church and home. We seek to honor
and glorify God by celebrating and using the gifts and abilities he has
given to us within the roles he has established for us.
A. As a classis we affirm the following convictions:
1. That men and women equally bear the image of God and are called
to serve him throughout their lives (Gen. 1:27-28).
2. That we are to follow Christ’s example when he honored and re-
spected women during his earthly ministry (Luke 8:1-3; 10:38-42)
and as he continues to equip them for service in his church today (1
Cor. 12:4-7).
3. That the roles for men and women in the church must be defined
solely by the Word of God and not by human ideologies such as
feminism, male chauvinism, patriarchy, or sexist oppression (2 Tim.
3:16-17).
4. That from the beginning of creation God assigned headship to
males in the family and in the church (1 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:12-13;
3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).
COMMUNICATION 2
COMMUNICATION 3
Classis Holland
1 One is reminded of Jesus’s parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, in which the
Pharisee cries out, “God, I thank you that I am not like other people” (Luke 18:11). Phari-
saism runs in multiple directions today; no “vision” or its adherents is immune to it. The
proper prayer belongs to the tax collector: “God, be merciful to me, a sinner” (v. 13)!
2 Even if we believe our brothers and sisters err in the midst of this discernment, it re-
mains the case that any correction is to be done with “complete patience and teaching”
(2 Tim. 4:2).
3 As Ephraim Radner writes, “Confusion, disagreement, and political hostilities over sex-
uality reflect deep cultural issues that may one day be resolved—but not in the short
term, and probably not without the intervention of catastrophic social changes driven by
factors other than theological discussion” (“The Last Lambeth Conference,” First Things,
Oct. 2022, 10). Or, we might add prayerfully and hopefully, through the “catastrophic”
intervention of the Holy Spirit.
4 As Synod 1975 said, “Full agreement with the confessions is expected from all members
of the church and subscription to the confessions is required of all officebearers by sign-
ing the Form of Subscription” (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 601).
5 As well as in light of our expectations relative to the “settled and binding” character of
synodical deliverances spelled out in Report 47 in the Acts of Synod 1975 (pp. 595-604).
6We can certainly envision it being used as a means of giving officebearers, churches,
and entire classes a way “in the door” to serve, after which they might carry on teaching
and discipling in a way contrary to Scripture and the confessions. But that would be an
abuse, and so it would (and should) invite a process of discipline—processes we may well
need to create in order to give higher assemblies a way (in limited instances) of initiating
discipline on a minor assembly.
7Even as it did not overprescribe answers to vital conversations we will need to have
about creative ministry within those boundaries.
(Matt. 20:26-28). Where this has not been the case, where authority and discipline have
been misused, abused, and born from punitive motives—a desire to “lord it over” the
other (1 Pet. 5:3)—this itself is an egregious error, a wrong done, unbefitting of servants
of Christ, with no place in the church. But authority and discipline are not inherently that
way. They cannot inherently be that way, for these things find their origin in God, and
God is not that way. Authority and discipline can (must) be an expression of love, for
“the Lord disciplines the one he loves” (Heb. 12:6).
12 As we said above, we should always be open to reform according to the Word of God,
and we are open to areas of vital dialogue, diversity, and disagreement. But such diver-
sity is not an end in itself but a means to greater faithfulness to Scripture—and ultimately
of greater faithfulness to Christ. Not all theological diversity is tolerable. Some such di-
versity contributes and some detracts from the faithfulness which we seek. This, of course,
is a question of discernment.
13 Such a requirement raises all sorts of questions, which we acknowledge. One thing it
does not mean is that we cannot talk about these things—from the pulpit, in adult educa-
tion hours, in small groups, with our youth groups, in council rooms, and in pastoral care
and counsel. To the contrary, we must talk about these things, although the way in which
we do so will be shaped by what context we are in (pulpit, adult education, etc.) and who
is present (only leaders, all members, youth, etc.). A list of rules to govern this is impossi-
ble and not desirable, but a few principles can guide us, along with mature, humble, sub-
missive character from those involved. First, we would be negligent if we did not engage
any and all intellectual and social trends that shape the world in which we live. Insofar as
these trends shape our churches and members (and they do), we must engage them. Sec-
ond, we should do so charitably and in their most thoughtful form(s), with an openness
to learning new things, a willingness to engage in critical self-reflection, and a humility to
admit blind spots. This is basic Christian responsibility—part of “loving our neighbor.”
But third, we will do all of this by allowing Scripture and our Reformed tradition to
guide and lead this engagement—that is, to shape our approach to, and ultimately to
have the authority to call into question, such intellectual and social trends, in part or in
whole. Fourth, then, as we engage these matters, what will not be acceptable, in a public
or private forum of any kind with members, is to teach, disciple, care, or counsel so as to
affirm or recommend a view that is in conflict with the church’s explicit teaching, as the
church reads and interprets Scripture on a given subject.
14 See Jessica Martin’s prescient critique along these lines in her Holiness and Desire (Nor-
COMMUNICATION 4
UNPROCESSED COMMUNICATION
This is a statement regarding overtures that are before Synod 2023 re-
questing the removal and limitation of pastors, officebearers, leaders, and
employees who have requested exceptions or filed gravamina with their
churches, institutions, or agencies.
Our institutions, including the Council of Delegates (COD), have compre-
hensive processes in place to review gravamina and exceptions, particu-
larly in the case of confessional-difficulty gravamina. 1 Within the COD,
these standards hold individuals to a high standard of accountability. That
standard does not allow for any activity that disregards our confessional
standards. On the contrary, these standards place an extra-heavy burden
on members to act, teach, and minister in accordance with our confes-
sions. COD leaders hold comprehensive conversations with those who
seek exceptions. These conversations give individuals an open and honest
forum to state the nature of their difficulties with synodical decisions and
allow us, as COD leaders, to agree on how those difficulties can or cannot
be expressed. This process frees us to serve alongside each other in “God’s
big mission” 2 from a place of unity, not division and disunity.
Overtures passed by classis assemblies in recent months to remove the
participation of individuals who have filed for exceptions and gravamina
will profoundly damage our unity and remove gifted pastors, leaders, and
laborers from the work of the CRCNA.
These overtures set the stage to justify a comprehensive “house cleaning”
of the denomination. These overtures close doors, enforce silence, and
force leaders to move against each other, not toward each other. They do
not allow us to do the hard work of finding a common unity in open and
honest dialogue. All of our CRCNA agencies, governing bodies, and insti-
tutions including our mission agencies, Resonate and ReFrame, will suffer
from the implementation of overtures that work against the present excep-
tion process. This will unnecessarily limit our hiring practices, diminish
1 “Ministers shall not solemnize marriages which would be in conflict with the Word of
God.”
2 The Road Church, “2SLGBTQIA+ Inclusion,” theroadchurch.ca/lgbtq-inclusion: “When
we say ‘fully affirming,’ we mean that people of all gender identities, gender expressions,
and sexual orientations are valued and welcomed into full participation in the life, disci-
pleship, and leadership of the church, including baptism, communion, and marriage.”
3 allonebody.org
sources/liturgical-forms/marriage/form-solemnization-marriage-1979
5 Using the word “gender” in the sense that it may be defined as “the state of being male
or female chiefly in cultural or social contexts,” see Catherine Soanes and Angus Steven-
son, eds., Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press, 2004).
6 Such sins include, but are not limited to, adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, poly-
amory, pornography, and homosexual sex. All these were acknowledged by the 2022
Synod of the Christian Reformed Church in North America as being encompassed in the
Heidelberg Catechism’s use of the word “unchastity” in Q. and A. 108, and this under-
standing was deemed to have confessional status.
APPEAL 1
APPEAL 2