At its annual national meeting this week, the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA), one of the oldest denominations in the United States, voted 134-50 on Wednesday to put congregational leaders on “limited suspension” if their churches publicly welcome LGBTQ+ members, violating the CRCNA’s official stance on same-sex relationships.
The synod also voted last Tuesday to tighten rules for how congregations voice their differences with the ruling body of the denomination and asked for new resources for dissenting churches as they seek to realign or disaffiliate in the wake of the week’s decisions.
Like other Christian denominations in recent years, the CRCNA has been debating inclusion and participation in church life for LGBTQ+ individuals and couples. Two years ago, the CRCNA synod voted to include “homosexual sex” alongside other behaviors, such as adultery, polyamory and pornography usage, in its official definition of “unchastity.” The move elevated the church’s stance against LGBTQ+ behavior to confessional status, meaning that anyone who holds office in the church is expected to uphold this belief.
How exactly the decision will be implemented will be left largely in the hands of regional subdivisions of the CRCNA, known as classes (singular: classis). Elizabeth Koning said her church, Hessel Park Church in Champaign, Illinois, is the only church in Classis Chicago South to have a publicly available statement that affirms LGBTQ+ people.
Before attending synod as a deacon delegate this year, Koning said she didn’t know what to expect. “I came here to make sure that our experience as a church was represented, our point of view and understanding of Scripture was represented. And I came here because I really love the CRC, and I am invested in its future, and I was hoping that future would include me,” Koning said.
Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Donate $75 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you can elect to receive the “Reimagine Church” 2-Book Bundle including ‘Invisible Jesus’ by Scot McKnight & Tommy Phillips and ‘Need to Know’ edited by Danielle Strickland. To donate, haga clic aquí.
She added that while there are many conversations ahead about how to proceed at Hessel Park, Koning doesn’t expect her church to be interested in revoking its statement. The church spent more than a year in conversation with its members and other organizations while drafting its statement, according to Koning.
For those in favor of the decision, the move is seen as a chance for everyone in the denomination to follow Christ in “humility and joy,” according to the Rev. Michael Bentley, pastor at Trinity CRC in St. Louis, Missouri. Bentley said pastors have a responsibility to “minister like Jesus did and still say, ‘I love you, I’m calling you out of your sin, and Jesus calls you out of your sin.’”
He emphasized that the move shouldn’t be seen as only applying to certain churches and is instead a reminder that “we are all under the yoke of Christ.”
As the denomination moves forward, Bentley said he hopes that all of its members will be “able to be ministered to and loved and brought to walk with Christ gently.”
But the Rev. Ryan Schreiber, pastor of Grace CRC in Grand Rapids, which has a publicly available statement supporting LGBTQ+ involvement, said the synod vote threatens the existence of the denomination.
The pastor delegate from Classis Grand Rapids East, who said he took on a “very visible” role at this week’s synod, said Grace CRC will now begin the process of disaffiliating itself with the CRCNA. While he appreciates that the synod was “very generous in the terms outlined for churches like mine, that are openly affirming,” Schreiber is deeply concerned that the split over LGBTQ+ will deprive the denomination of needed resources.
“There is a coalition of churches in the Christian Reformed Church that is turning the polity of the Christian Reformed Church into a steamroller,” moving to push out most of the churches in his classis, Schreiber said.
In the CRCNA, a denomination of roughly 200,000 members, he said, this creates a real risk of financial collapse. He claimed that many churches now on the path to disaffiliation have “historically given much more in ministry shares to the Christian Reformed Church than any other classes.”
But Schreiber believed he was also acting in the best interest of the church, saying he was “called to this moment by God to speak for those who can’t speak for themselves.” Schreiber said that in his time in Russia as a missionary, he encountered the concept of “yurodivye,” or “holy fools” — those who challenged the behavior of the Russian tsars on moral grounds.
Describing his involvement with this year’s Synod, Schreiber said he “took on the role of a yurodivye, or God’s fool, in front of an all-powerful Synod.”
Even as it reaffirmed its belief that same-sex sex is sinful, synod delegates declined to call it a “salvation issue,” which may lead some to interpret it as a more egregious sin than others.
The synod also declined to label the belief that the Bible sanctions same-sex marriage a heresy, noting that the overture, or proposed ballot item asking for this belief to be formally declared heretical, “does not meet the high standards of definition and articulation needed for declaring a heresy.”
Ethan Meyers is a journalist and contributor to Religion News Service.
Spanish 
English
10 Respuestas
The self-contradictory statements made by the Affirming crowd should be obvious. On one hand, they want to convince conservatives the Affirming position is not a matter of salvation or doctrinal importance. Much like whether one prefers hymns or CCM. Notwithstanding their rejection of two of the traditional seven deadly sins- lust and pride. On the other hand, they are willing to cause serious division and split from their church. Which is it? The subterfuge used by Affirmers hides the true motives of making Affirmation part of the denomination’s branding. After all, how will visitors and seekers differentiate between Affirming and not? Note the negative connation.
This article was a bit difficult to distill. So, CRC is sort of like mini SBC- ish?
The issue I have with these membership organizations like SBC and now CRCNA is their sheer HYPOCRISY.
It’s like their guiding principle is voting on which issues are most sinful in order to justify ‘disaffiliate’ campaign. For SBC, it’s women pastors. CRCNA is LGBQTIA.
When will they vote to disaffiliate all churches that are pastored or led by men with history of immorality, and criminal/felony records current and present?!? You know like former and current sex offenders, child/adult/women abusers, adulterers and on it goes……
To be clear: The issue of homosexuality is clearly elucidated in scripture; both old and new covenant. HaShem did not stutter nor mince words there. Even much more clearer than topics of abortion and women pastors. Bible does condemn it as abhorrent sin with capital punishment. I can’t even pretend to straddle lanes here.
That said……………..I reiterate: my chief complaint against these sorts of organisations is their mega-hypocritical, duplicitous nature. Often times, they swallow camel attempting to strain a gnat.
As Yeshua said to the Pharisees: “it is for judgement that I came in to the world, that they who are blind, are made to see; and those who see, are made blind.” If you think you see, you are truly blind; for if you recognize your blindness, only then can you recover sight and be made whole.
Low hanging fruit is always the easiest to pluck.
What’s the difference between welcoming LGBTQ+ members as part of a congregation of sinners who are all trying to grow in discipleship and deepen their relationship with Jesus – and affirming them? Is it about who is in leadership? Or making some sort of statement? Genuine question, because I don’t know. I would WANT an LGBTQ+ person to feel welcome enough in my church to be willing to discuss, listen, and accept discipling. Same for someone who is unmarried and pregnant or living with a significant other. Speaking of which… I DO know that fornication – sex outside of marriage – is immoral, yet conveniently left off the CRCNA list of “unchastity.”
Interesante.
There have been some historical debates whether the church is a hospital for the sick or a sanctuary for the saints. While Jesus famously stated it’s the sick who need a physician and not the righteous, “affirmation” tends to be a denial of sickness in regard to sexual appetites. The trick is learning to see oneself as “sick” without destroying our sense of worth, which should absolutely be affirmed. After all, that’s why Christ died for us.
“There have been some historical debates whether the church is a hospital for the sick or a sanctuary for the saints.”
Son ambos.
“The trick is learning to see oneself as “sick” without destroying our sense of worth, which should absolutely be affirmed. After all, that’s why Christ died for us.”
Christ died to save us from our sin and to re-connect us with a Holy God. He did NOT die to give us a “sense of worth.”
I will never support a church that believes homosexuality is “normal”, “godly”, “acceptable”, “life affirming”, “ Christ like”. Period. I lived in the San Francisco Area for many decades and had close friends that were gay in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and 2000’s. They lived in the Castro district and were very kind to me. I loved them and saw first hand the “culture”. We must be compassionate, empathetic and generous to those in need but believers follow the whole Bible not just some. Societal pressure does not make a sin into a virtue.
Thank you, CRC, for making a good decision.
Even as someone who takes a traditional stance on sexuality, I consider the outcome of Synod 2024 to be disastrous. It goes far beyond affirming the CRC’s historic position on homosexuality and has far-reaching implications regarding gravamen.
For those not familiar, gravamen are a means by which pastors, deacons, and elders can disclose their disagreement with official denominational positions. Many churches have utilized this process to allow people of good character to serve their congregations despite disagreement on issues like infant baptism, same-sex marriage, etc., while others see it as a temporary measure to allow church officers time to work through uncertainty (with the unstated corollary that failure to come to the “right” view in a timely manner will disqualify them from serving). Synod has endorsed the latter view, which means that not only are affirming churches being pushed out, but so are pastors, elders, and deacons who fail to align on any number of confessional issues, regardless of their characters or whether it has any practical bearing on their work. Frankly, this is fundamentalism in all but name, and the long-term effect will be to purge opposing views on a variety of issues from the denomination.
Infant baptism and same sex relations are hardly on the same level morally or theologically. Trying to put them side by side as issues for good faith agreement is misleading at best, duplicitous at worst.