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
© 2023 Christian Reformed Church in North America

1700 28th Street SE
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49508-1407 U.S.A.
Printed in the United States of America
The Christian Reformed Church is active in missions, education, publish-
ing, media, pastoral care, advocacy, diaconal outreach, and youth minis-
try. To learn about our work in North America and around the world,
visit crcna.org.
CONTENTS
Preface..................................................................................................................9
Announcements ...............................................................................................11
Delegates to Synod...........................................................................................15
Council of Delegates of the Christian Reformed Church in North America

Council of Delegates Report .....................................................................23
Appendix A: Code of Conduct Review Team Report ....................54
Appendix B: Church Order Review Task Force Interim Report ...72
Appendix C: Curriculum Vitae: Kevin DeRaaf ...............................73
Appendix D: Congregational Ministries Reorganization
Document ........................................................................................77
Appendix E: “One Family Conversation” Report ...........................80
Appendix F: Condensed Financial Statements of the Agencies
and Institutions...............................................................................83
Reports of Agencies, Institutions, and Ministries

Introduction ........................................................................................113
Faith Formation
Calvin University .........................................................................115
Faith Formation ............................................................................121
Servant Leadership
Chaplaincy and Care ...................................................................123
Christian Reformed Church Loan Fund, Inc., U.S. .................125
Diversity ........................................................................................128
Pastor Church Resources ............................................................130
Pensions and Insurance ...............................................................132
Global Mission
ReFrame Ministries ......................................................................137
Resonate Global Mission .............................................................144
Mercy and Justice
Committee for Contact with the Government/Centre
for Public Dialogue ................................................................149
Disability Concerns ......................................................................152
Indigenous Ministry (Canada) ...................................................155
Race Relations ...............................................................................158
Safe Church ...................................................................................161
Social Justice..................................................................................164
World Renew ................................................................................166
Gospel Proclamation and Worship
Calvin Theological Seminary .....................................................181
Worship .........................................................................................192
Standing Committees
Candidacy Committee.............................................................................197
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Contents 3

Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee.................................203
Appendix A: World Council of Churches Background
References from Agendas and Acts of Synod .............................214
Appendix B: Cost of Membership ...................................................216
Historical Committee ..............................................................................217
Denominationally Related Educational Institutions

Dordt University ......................................................................................231
Institute for Christian Studies ................................................................234
The King’s University ..............................................................................238
Kuyper College .........................................................................................240
Redeemer University ...............................................................................243
Trinity Christian College ........................................................................245
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
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
4 Contents AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

Develop a Strategy to Reverse the Trend of Membership Decline
and Require Annual Reporting of Progress .........................................389
13. Council of Wyoming (Ont.) CRC
Declare that a Virtual Church Is Not a Church ...................................397
14. Council of First Hamilton CRC, Hamilton, Ontario
Adopt Belhar Confession as a Confession of the CRC .......................401
15. Classis Alberta South/Saskatchewan
Revise Belgic Confession Articles 18 and 34 ........................................403
16. Classis Ontario Southwest
Change Decision re Confessional Status of Sins to Agreement ..........404
17. Benjamin J. Petroelje, Fourteenth Street CRC, Holland, Michigan
Clarify and Affirm that the CRC’s Doctrine of Marriage Is
Confessional Doctrine .............................................................................406
18. Members of Fourteenth Street CRC, Holland, Michigan
Reverse Synod 2022’s Interpretation of Q&A 108 and Declaration
on Confessional Status; Provide an Alternative Interpretation ........411
19. Classis Lake Erie
Reverse Synod 2022’s Declaration That Its Interpretation of
“Unchastity” Has Confessional Status; Instead Make the
Interpretation Nonbinding .....................................................................414
20. Officebearers of New Life CRC, Guelph, Ontario
Confessional-Revision Gravamen .........................................................418
21. Classis Holland
In Pursuit of Scriptural and Confessional Unity, Alter Synod 2022’s
Decision on Confessional Status in Three Ways .................................423
22. Council of Maranatha CRC, Edmonton, Alberta
Confessional-Revision Gravamen .........................................................430
23. Classis Toronto
Remove Confessional Status from Interpretation of “Unchastity” ..433
24. Classis Rocky Mountain
Declare that Synod 2022’s Interpretation of Heidelberg Catechism
Q&A 108 Has Synodical Authority but Not Confessional Status .....437
25. Council of Monroe Community CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Alter the Action of Synod 2022 regarding Confessional Status of
Interpretation of “Unchastity” ...............................................................440
26. Members of Fourteenth Street CRC, Holland, Michigan
Reverse Synod 2022’s Interpretation of “Unchastity” in Heidelberg
Catechism Q&A 108.................................................................................444
27. Classis Eastern Canada
Allow Classes of the CRCNA to Declare Article 65, Item 2 of the
Acts of Synod 2022 Inoperative................................................................448
28. Council of Bethany CRC, Bloomfield, Ontario
Reverse Decision re Definition of “Unchastity” ..................................451
29. Classis Grand Rapids East
Declare that Synod 2022's Interpretation of “Unchastity” in Heidel-
berg Catechism Q&A 108 Does Not Have Confessional Status ........453

30. Classis Lake Erie
Reverse the Interpretation That “Unchastity” in the Heidelberg
Catechism Has Confessional Status ......................................................456
31. Nick Loenen, Ladner CRC, Delta, British Columbia
Do Not Implement the Interpretation of “Unchastity” before 2027 ...457
32. Classis Alberta North
Declare that Synod 2022's Definition of “Unchastity” as Having
Confessional Status Was a Change to the Confessions ......................459
Revise Definition of Homosexuality ........................................................461
34. Council of Church of the Savior CRC, South Bend, Indiana
Alter the Interpretation Given to Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108
and Remove “Homosexual Sex” from the List of Sins That
Constitute “Unchastity” ..........................................................................468
Reverse Synod 2022’s Interpretation of “Unchastity” as Including
a List of Specific Behaviors .....................................................................473
36. Council of Mill Creek Community Church, Mill Creek, Washington
Remove “Homosexual Sex” from Definition of “Unchastity” ..........477
37. Council of Alger Park CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Reverse the Synod 2022 Decision Defining “Unchastity”..................480
38. Council of Kibbie CRC, South Haven Michigan
Reverse Synod 2022’s Interpretation of “Unchastity” in
Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 ............................................................483
Reverse Synod’s Endorsement of the Human Sexuality Report .......488
40. Council of Jubilee Fellowship CRC, St. Catharines, Ontario
Address Harm Done to LGBTQ+ Persons ............................................493
41. Classis Eastern Canada
Hold Implementation of the ”Confessional Status” Decision by
Synod 2022 until Synod 2028..................................................................498
Reverse Synod 2022’s Interpretation of “Unchastity” as Including
“Homosexual Sex” ...................................................................................502
43. Council of Hope Christian Reformed Church, Oak Forest, Illinois
Amend the Decision of Synod 2022 regarding the Definition of
“Unchastity” .............................................................................................505
44. Members of Woody Nook CRC, Lacombe, Alberta
Remove Definition of “Unchastity” as Part of the Confessional
Interpretation of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108..............................508
45. Council of Inglewood CRC, Edmonton, Alberta
Confessional-Revision Gravamen: Revise Interpretation of
Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 by Synod 2022 .................................511
46. Council of First CRC, Denver, Colorado
Declare that the Interpretation of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108
Does Not Have Confessional Status ......................................................513

47. Council of Fellowship CRC, Edmonton, Alberta
Create Local Option to Allow LGBTQ+ Christians to
Participate Fully .......................................................................................515
Reverse Synod 2022’s Decision to Interpret “Unchastity” in Q&A
108 of the Heidelberg Catechism as Including “Homosexual Sex”....518
49. Classis Grandville
Amend Church Order Supplement, Article 5, B .................................522
50. Classis North Cascades
Establish a Time of Discipleship for Officebearers with a
Confessional-Difficulty Gravamen ........................................................529
51. Classis Northcentral Iowa
Hold Officebearers to Biblical and Confessional Standards ..............534
52. Classis Georgetown
Require the Council of Neland Avenue CRC to Comply with the
Decision of Synod 2022 or Come Under Church Discipline ..............537
53. Classis Georgetown
Require Confessional-Revision Gravamina on the Occasion of
Clear Disagreement with the Confessions ...........................................538
54. Classis Central Plains
Prohibit Exceptions and Gravamina in All Agencies, Ministries,
Boards, Broader Assemblies, and Other Entities of the CRCNA ......540
55. Classis Illiana
Do Not Accept Confessional Difficulties That Would Allow What
the Church Confesses to Be Sin; Officebearers Who Cannot Agree
with Our Beliefs Are to Resign or Be Released ....................................544
56. Council of Trinity CRC, Fremont, Michigan
Call Churches to Repent of Affirming Same-Sex Relationships .......547
57. Classis Minnkota
Require Council of Delegates to Reverse the Process of Members’
Taking Exception to the Statement of Agreement with the Beliefs
of the CRCNA ...........................................................................................550
Clarify the Usage of Confessional-Difficulty Gravamina ..................553
Instruct Classes to Begin the Process of Special Discipline ...............557
60. Classis Greater Los Angeles
Amend Church Order to Define Gravamina .........................................559
61. Classis Heartland
Withhold Denominational Funding from Calvin University until
Faculty and Staff Adhere to CRCNA Covenantal Standards ............561
62. Classis Iakota
Restrict Delegates Who Have Not Signed the Covenant for
Officebearers without Exception or Reservation.................................563
63. Classis Iakota
Prohibit Officebearers Who Have Submitted Confessional-Difficulty
Gravamina from Being Delegated to Higher Governing Bodies ......563

Remind and Instruct Churches and Institutions about Rules for
Confessional-Difficulty Gravamen ........................................................564
65. Classis Zeeland
Redistrict the Churches of and Complete the Work of Classis
Grand Rapids East ...................................................................................567
66. Classis Iakota
Require All Delegates to Synod 2023 to Sign the Covenant for
Officebearers .............................................................................................571
Amend Rules for Synodical Procedure to Suspend Delegates
Whose Classes Have Not Adequately Implemented Discipline .......571
68. Council of Moline CRC, Moline, Michigan
Shepherd Congregations into Another Denomination ......................573
69. Council of River Park CRC, Calgary, Alberta
Enable Listening to Facilitate Discernment ..........................................575
70. Classis Huron
Commit to Love, Charity, and Grace in Disagreement; Equip
Congregations to Minister Pastorally with LGBTQ+ People .............585
71. Classis Grand Rapids East
Prevent and Reduce Harm to LGBTQ+ Persons..................................586
Depose Council of Neland Avenue CRC; Instruct Classis
Grand Rapids East to Oversee the Process...........................................588
73. Classis Chatham (Deferred from 2021)
Clarify Distinctions in Synodical Decisions .........................................590
74. Classis Zeeland (Deferred from 2020)
Adopt an Additional Supplement to Church Order Articles 82-84....591
75. Classis Zeeland
Evaluate Polity to Clarify Relationship of Assemblies .......................596
76. Classis Hackensack (Deferred from 2022)
Appoint a Task Force to Develop Church Order Procedures to
Discipline Officebearers, Including Disaffiliation Initiated by a
Major Assembly .......................................................................................597
Communications
1. Classis Minnkota ......................................................................................599
2. Classis Northcentral Iowa .......................................................................600
3. Classis Holland .........................................................................................601
4. Council of Fellowship CRC, Toronto, Ontario ....................................611
Unprocessed Overtures or Communications

1. Council of New Hope CRC, Lansing, Illinois ......................................613
2. Councils of High River (Alta.) CRC; Covenant CRC, Calgary,
Alberta; Nobleford (Alta.) CRC; and Granum (Alta.) CRC ...............617
Appeals
1. Christian Reformed Church of St. Joseph, Michigan ..........................621
2. Neland Avenue CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan .................................622

PREFACE
It is with gratitude to God that we look forward to coming together as del-
egates and advisers to synod for conversation and deliberation and to cel-
ebrate the continued ministry of the Christian Reformed Church.
The Agenda for Synod 2023 provides a historical snapshot of what God has
continued to do in our ministries and denomination as a whole through-
out the past year. The reports of the ministries, agencies, and institutions
of the CRCNA, along with responses via overtures and communications,
provide an important reminder of God’s work among us.
Synod 2023 will begin its sessions on Friday, June 9, at 8:15 a.m. in the
Calvin Chapel on the campus of Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Mich-
igan. Church of the Servant CRC of Grand Rapids will serve as the conven-
ing church. Reverend Karen Campbell, pastor of Church of the Servant
CRC, will serve as president pro-tem until synod is duly constituted and its
officers have been elected. A community-wide Synodical Service of Prayer
and Praise will be held Sunday, June 11, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. at Church of the
Servant CRC, 3835 Burton Street SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Prior to the convening session, all delegates and advisers to synod are en-
couraged to take time to view the video orientations posted on the synod
site—designed as a secure site for delegates and advisers only. The orien-
tation will assist first-time delegates and advisers in understanding the na-
ture of synod and will provide helpful reminders for returning delegates
and advisers to synod. In addition, special orientations will be held for ad-
visers to synod, as well as for advisory committee chairs and reporters
and their alternates (see the proposed daily schedule in the Announce-
ments section on the following pages for more information).
The congregations of the Christian Reformed Church in North America
are requested to remember the synodical assembly in intercessory prayers
on the Sundays of June 4 and 11. Let us pray that the Holy Spirit will
equip the synodical delegates to serve in faith and obedience and will lead
the Christian Reformed Church in unity, growth, and renewal.
The apostle Paul writes in Philippians 2:1-2: “If you have any encourage-
ment from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any
common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then
make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being
one in spirit and of one mind.”
May we bring our Lord and Savior joy during Synod 2023 by demonstrat-
ing love, compassion, and care for one another. And may we give account
for the Spirit’s work among us during the joyful and difficult conversa-
tions. “The one who calls [us] is faithful, and he will do it” (1 Thess. 5:24).
Zachary J. King
General Secretary of the CRCNA
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Preface 9

ANNOUNCEMENTS
I. Welcome
Thank you for serving as a delegate to Synod 2023. Whether you are a re-
turning delegate or you are coming for the first time, we sincerely hope
and pray that you will find synod to be a rewarding and blessed experi-
ence. We come together as disciples of Jesus Christ, as members of the
CRC, and as delegates of the classes that appointed you to serve. Synod is
more than just a gathering of church leaders or a governing body. It is a
reflection of the church and a time for reflection and celebration of what
God is doing in and through the Christian Reformed Church in North
America. Most of all, it is a time to discern the Holy Spirit’s leading by lis-
tening to God through the voices of our brothers and sisters in Christ, in
prayer, and through careful application of Scripture. God has richly
blessed us, and you have been given a unique privilege to serve him and
his kingdom by your engagement at synod.
The synodical services staff, under the leadership of Scott DeVries, is
available to assist you as you prepare for, arrive at, and serve throughout
the week of synod. Please feel free to contact the Office of Synodical Ser-
vices, if you need information or have any questions, by writing
[email protected] or calling 800-272-5125.
II. Confidentiality of the executive sessions of synod
The Council of Delegates calls the matter of confidentiality to the attention
of Synod 2023 and urges that all necessary precautions be taken to prevent
violations of confidentiality.
Synod 1954 stated that “the very principle of executive sessions, or ses-
sions that are not open to the public, involves the practical implication
that reporters may not ‘report’” (Acts of Synod 1954, p. 15). If reporters are
not permitted to report on executive sessions of synod, it is certainly a
breach of confidentiality also for delegates to the synodical assembly to re-
port—publicly, privately, orally, or in print—on the discussions held in an
executive session of synod (cf. Acts of Synod 1982, p. 16).
III. Social media contact
Synod 2019 recognized the increased influence of social media on synodi-
cal delegates and advisers and decided that delegates and advisers shall
follow “guidelines to avoid inappropriate use of social media contact with
nondelegates during advisory committee meetings and plenary sessions
of synod, because such use might compromise the transparency and integ-
rity of the deliberative process” (Acts of Synod 2019, pp. 811-12).
IV. Audio and video recordings of synod
Synod 1979 authorized the making of an official audio recording of the en-
tire proceedings of the general sessions of synod as a way to verify the
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Announcements 11

written record of the synodical proceedings. Although the general ses-
sions of synod are recorded, executive sessions are not recorded. Dele-
gates to synod are informed at the opening session of synod that all the
general sessions are being recorded. Synod has designated that the Office
of General Secretary be responsible for the use and storage of the record-
ings.
The following regulations were adopted by Synod 1989 concerning audio
and video recordings of synodical sessions by media representatives and
visitors:
A. Representatives of the media are permitted to make video recordings
of synodical proceedings provided they observe the restrictions placed
upon them by the synodical news office under the direction of the gen-
eral secretary of synod.
B. Visitor privileges
1. Visitors are at liberty to make audio recordings of the public
proceedings of synod provided they do so unobtrusively
(i.e., in no way inhibiting or disturbing either the proceed-
ings of synod, the synodical delegates, or other persons).
2. Video recordings are permitted provided the following re-
strictions are observed:
a. Video cameras are permitted only at the entrances, not back-
stage or in the wings.
b. Auxiliary lighting is not permitted.
c. Video[recording] is to be done unobtrusively (i.e., in such a
way that it in no way inhibits or disturbs either the proceed-
ings of synod, the synodical delegates, or other persons).
(Acts of Synod 1989, p. 445)
V. Proposed daily schedule
Although each new assembly is free to alter the schedule, the following
general schedule is tentatively in place for Synod 2023:
Thursday check-in
5:30 - 7:00 p.m. Orientation over supper for advisory committee
chairs, reporters, and their alternates
5:30 - 6:30 p.m. Supper
7:00 - 8:30 p.m. Ministry Fair/Ice Cream Social
Convening Friday
8:15 - 11:00 a.m. Opening worship and convening session of synod
11:15 - 12:00 p.m. Advisory committee meetings
12:00 - 1:00 p.m. Lunch
5:30 - 6:30 p.m. Supper
12 Announcements AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

Saturday
8:15 - 8:45 a.m. Opening worship
8:45 - 9:15 a.m. Brief plenary session
9:30 - 11:45 a.m. Advisory committee meetings
11:45 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Lunch
5:30 - 6:30 p.m. Picnic hosted by President Boer
7:00 - 9:00 p.m. Advisory committee meetings or tentative plenary
session
Sunday
Morning worship at area CRC churches
12:15 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. Lunch
5:00 p.m. Synodical Service of Prayer and Praise
6:15 - 7:15 p.m. Supper
7:30 - 8:30 p.m. Synod workshops
Monday - Wednesday
8:45 - 11:45 a.m. Plenary session
11:45 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Lunch
1:15 - 5:00 p.m. Plenary session
5:30 - 6:30 p.m. Supper
7:00 - 9:00 p.m. Plenary session
Thursday
8:45 - 11:45 a.m. Plenary session
11:45 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Lunch
1:15 - 3:00 p.m.* Final session
*Synod will adjourn no later than 3:00 p.m. on Thursday.
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Announcements 13

DELEGATES TO SYNOD 2023
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
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Delegates to Synod 15

Central Plains
Minister - Brian L. Ochsner Alternate - Jianlou Xu
Elder - Ivan R. Mulder Alternate - Lee S. Talma
Deacon - Caleb C. Gunsaulus Alternate - Aaron J. Sandbulte
Other - Brad Bierma Alternate - Aaron J. Gunsaulus
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
Grand Rapids East

Minister - Michael F. Abma Alternate - Karen Campbell
Elder - Patricia Borgdorff Alternate - Michael J. Van Denend
Deacon - Kathy L. DeMey Alternate - Chris Snyder
Other - Elizabeth A. Vander Haagen Alternate -
Grand Rapids North
Minister - Matthew A. Pearce Alternate - Nathaniel A. Schmidt
Elder - Bryan R. Dam Alternate - Keri M. Laporte-Montero
Deacon - Todd A. Ritzema Alternate - Jaci Kerkstra
Other - Heather Stroobosscher Alternate - William B. Sneller
Grand Rapids South

Minister - Robert L. Boersma Alternate - Willem de Vries
Elder - Danny L. Buist Alternate - Perrin Rynders
Deacon - Richard S. Gerndt Alternate -
Other - David A. Struyk Alternate - Edward C. Visser
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
16 Delegates to Synod AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

Greater Los Angeles
Minister - Matthew B. Ford Alternate - Fernando Valencia
Elder - Jim DenOuden Alternate -
Deacon - Lucinda L. Fleming Alternate - John M. Doran
Other - Ken Kyunghun Hong Alternate - Robert D. Golding
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

Illiana
Minister - William R. Sytsma Alternate - Joshua Christoffels
Elder - Joshua D. Dykstra Alternate - Dan J. Aardsma
Deacon - Timothy C. Turner Alternate - Gary L. Siegersma
Other - Blake I. Campbell Alternate - Jeffrey R. Hale
Kalamazoo
Minister - Derek M. Zeyl Alternate - Maria L. Bowater
Elder - Craig H. Lubben Alternate - Jack G. Kuipers
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 -

Northcentral Iowa
Minister - Randall C. Raak Alternate - Russell W. Boersma
Elder - Duane C. Vanderploeg Alternate -
Other - Herbert W. Schreur Alternate - Jason T. Semans
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
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 -
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 -

Thornapple Valley
Minister - David J. Bosscher Alternate -
Elder - Ren Tubergen Alternate - Daniel G. Bos
Deacon - Carroll L. Burgess Alternate -
Other - Paul R. DeVries 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

COUNCIL OF DELEGATES
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 21

COUNCIL OF DELEGATES REPORT
The Council of Delegates (COD) of the Christian Reformed Church in

North America (CRCNA) began its service of interim governance on be-
half of the CRC’s annual synods after being appointed by Synod 2017.
COD delegates represent the CRC’s forty-nine classes. There are also cur-
rently six at-large members. The ministry matters addressed by the COD
include governance matters regarding ReFrame Ministries and Resonate
Global Mission, along with matters concerning the congregational minis-
tries of the CRCNA.
The COD presents the following report as a summary of its work in the in-
terim between the synods of 2022 and 2023.
I. Introduction
A. Governing on behalf of synod
This constituent-representative model of policy governance provides a
“link between the organization’s board and its constituents. The con-
stituents are represented on the governing board and participate in
policy development and planning.”1 For these purposes, the term con-
stituents refers to CRCNA members.
Like all forms of policy governance, there is clear differentiation be-
tween board activity and staff/administrative activity. Those serving
on the COD are not invited into management functions. Staff/adminis-
trative members do not chart the direction and set the policies for the
denomination, but they serve as implementers, working within the
contours of COD-set policies toward the goals and limitations identi-
fied by the COD in conjunction with the CRC constituency. Moreover,
as the COD sets direction and evaluates the effectiveness of outcomes,
staff and administration are always attentive to context, making rec-
ommendations and providing analysis to the COD in ways that con-
sider national contexts, diversity, and the like.
This model flows from CRCNA church polity as described in Church
Order Article 27-a: “Each assembly exercises, in keeping with its own
character and domain, the ecclesiastical authority entrusted to the
church by Christ; the authority of councils being original, that of major
assemblies being delegated.”
1 Bradshaw, P., R. Hayday, R. Armstrong, "Non-profit Governance Models: Problems and
Prospects," paper originally presented at ARNOVA Conference, Seattle, Washington, 1998.

The COD functions with a constituent-representative model of policy
governance. Policy governance suggests a board’s role is to see that the
organization achieves what it should, avoiding the unacceptable (via
the concept of limitations), all on behalf of its constituents. [Read more
about the constituent-representative model in the COD Governance
Handbook at crcna.org; search “COD Governance Handbook.”]
In other words, ecclesiastical authority begins with congregations and
is delegated to classis and then to synod. Church Order Article 27-a is
balanced by Article 27-b: “The classis has the same authority over the
council as the synod has over the classis”—emphasizing the authority
of the broader assemblies, which are made up of officebearers who
represent Christ’s authority in those assemblies as they make decisions
for the broader church. The role of officebearers in each of these assem-
blies is significant in Church Order Article 1-a: “The Christian Re-
formed Church, confessing its complete subjection to the Word of God
and the Reformed creeds as a true interpretation of this Word, ac-
knowledging Christ as the only head of his church, and desiring to
honor the apostolic injunction that officebearers are ‘to prepare God’s
people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up’
(Eph. 4:12), and to do so ‘in a fitting and orderly way’ (1 Cor. 14:40),
regulates its ecclesiastical organization and activities.”
As an ecclesiastical governance entity serving in the interim of synod,
the COD provides governance by means of the authority delegated to
it by synod and with its synodically elected membership representing
classes or serving in at-large capacities.
(COD Governance Handbook, section 1.1: Governance)
The mandate and functions of the Council of Delegates as adopted by
synod are outlined in the Council of Delegates Governance Handbook.
(Note that the COD Governance Handbook is undergoing a rewrite to re-
flect the structural changes adopted by Synod 2022. This revised hand-
book will be presented in the COD Supplement report to synod, but will
not go into effect until adopted by synod.)
COD members also serve as the directors of the CRCNA Canada Ministry
Board, the CRCNA U.S. Ministry Board, the ReFrame Canada Ministry
Board, and the ReFrame U.S. Ministry Board. (Please note that, in order to
promote ministry-centered language and culture, the term “Ministry
Board” replaces the term “Corporation,” used previously in COD reports.)
These legal entities in Canada and the United States interact via joint min-
istry agreements to provide organizational governance to ReFrame and
CRCNA ministries that are shared across the national borders. (In fall 2019
the directors of the CRCNA and BTGMI Canada Ministry Boards alerted
the COD to organizational implications of charitable laws in Canada,
which necessitated immediate interim action by the COD to comply with
the Canada Revenue Agency [CRA]. In 2022 synod adopted these new
structures.)
24 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

The Council of Delegates met three times since May 2022—in regular
meetings in October 2022 and February 2023 as well as in a special meet-
ing in November 2022. A regular meeting is scheduled for May 2023, an
account of which will come via the COD Supplement report.
The COD’s agenda items are first reviewed by one of five committees:
Congregational Ministries; Global Missions Ministries; Mercy and Justice
Ministries; Ministry Plan, Communication, and Synodical Services; and
Support Services. These committees hear and study reports regarding the
mission, vision, and values of our various ministries; the ways our minis-
tries are integrated into and evaluated according to a strategic ministry
plan; and the ways in which the COD responds both to synod and constit-
uents. Committees present their recommendations to the full COD for in-
formation and any required action. In addition, the COD is responsible for
overseeing the work of the general secretary of the CRCNA.
The COD meeting schedule also incorporates time for delegates to meet
separately with their legal ministry boards incorporated nationally, as
mentioned above. The ministry boards focus on nonecclesial matters such
as reviewing the financial status, administrative leadership, and noneccle-
sial aspects of organizational health. In compliance with Canadian regula-
tions, the Canadian ministry boards review and approve all actions rela-
tive to providing effective national direction and control for collective
ministry and any other matters that relate directly to uniquely national
matters of law.
The COD, as synod’s agent, is grateful for the opportunity to serve the en-
tire church.
B. Tasks carried out on behalf of synod
A significant part of the COD’s work over the past year reflects the contin-
ued response to synodical instructions to the COD or to the general secre-
tary in conjunction with the COD. An outline of the various instructions,
organized by ministry-priority area, is provided in the following.
1. Faith formation
Note: The COD received no additional assignments in this ministry-prior-
ity area.
2. Global mission
Status of Resonate Global Mission (Acts of Synod 2022, pp. 930-31): “That
synod take note that the COD will review the status of Resonate Global
Mission with a view to possible modification by a future synod in order to
make its status equivalent to that of World Renew and ReFrame Minis-
tries, and that the purpose of such a review is to ensure internal ministry
presence on the Ministries Leadership Council and to foster ministry inte-
gration (COD Supplement 2021, section I, G and Appendix A).” (See sec-
tion II, B, 8.)

3. Gospel proclamation and worship
Ask questions of all candidates regarding race and justice (Acts of Synod
2022, p. 944): “That synod instruct the COD to encourage classes to ask
questions of all candidates for ministry regarding their commitment to
preach a biblical and Reformed perspective on race and justice. (See sec-
tion II, A, 13.)
4. Mercy and justice
Diversity Report (Acts of Synod 2016, p. 829): “The [general secretary] will
continue to request an annual diversity report from each agency and min-
istry and will include a summary of these reports in the report to the
[COD] each February.” (See sections II, A, 3 & 4)
Addressing abuse of power (Acts of Synod 2019, pp. 794-99)—Monitoring
by the COD: “That synod mandate the Council of Delegates to ensure im-
plementation by . . . monitoring progress at each meeting of the COD . . .
making necessary adjustments in specific plans . . . and reporting to
synod. . . .” (See section II, A, 10, c.)
Implementation of Code of Conduct (Minutes of the Special Meeting of the
Council of Delegates 2021, p. 633): “That the COD, on behalf of synod, adopt
the proposed Code of Conduct report . . . and instruct the COD to devise a
plan for implementation for the denomination, classes, and churches per
the instruction of Synod 2019.” (See section II, A, 10, b.)
Safe Church reporting (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 935): “That synod ask the
Council of Delegates to instruct Safe Church Ministry to carry on their
task of gathering data and reporting the current number of churches and
classes with Safe Church teams and coordinators.” (See the Safe Church
report, section III.)
5. Servant leadership
Church planting in both the RCA and CRC denominations (Acts of Synod
2022, p. 840): “That synod instruct the Council of Delegates to review the
implications of the church planting activities in Classis Arizona and rec-
ommend any needed Church Order changes to help church plants find ex-
pression in both denominations (RCA/CRC).” (See section II, A, 12, b.)
Classis Renewal Advisory Team (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 856): “That synod
receive the Classis Ministry Plans report as a fulfillment of the request
from Synod 2018 and instruct the COD to request that the Classis Renewal
Advisory Team report to Synod 2023 regarding (1) new resources being
developed for creating or refining a classis ministry plan and (2) an up-
date on which classes have a ministry plan, since many are currently in
process (2020, II, A, 13; Appendix D).” (See section II, B, 11.)
6. Other areas
Evaluation and prioritization (Acts of Synod 2018, p. 455): “That synod in-
struct the Council of Delegates and the [general secretary] to continue the

important work of evaluation and prioritization by working together to
implement a robust evaluation strategy whereby in a five-year cycle all
agencies and ministries will be continually evaluated through the frame-
work of the five ministry priorities.” (See section II, B, 5.)
Review of evaluation (Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Council of Dele-
gates 2021, p. 674): “That the COD, on behalf of synod, instruct the [gen-
eral secretary] to review the four-year program evaluation process; clarify
the purpose, outcomes, goals, and metrics to be used; and bring any rec-
ommended revisions to the COD for consideration to the current policy.”
(See section II, B, 5.)
Fill vacancy on Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee (Acts of
Synod 2022, p. 842): “That synod, by way of exception, ask the Council of
Delegates to appoint a new member at the October meeting to fill the va-
cancy on the Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee.” (See section
II, A, 6.)
Review of Ministry Shares Reimagined (Acts of Synod 2022, pp. 846-47):
“That synod instruct the Council of Delegates to examine congregational
responses to Ministry Shares Reimagined, with particular attention to
questions such as the following:
• Why are ministry share contributions declining, especially in the
U.S.?
• How are churches contributing in alternate ways?
• What other ministry priorities are congregations funding?
• What should we be doing going forward?” (See section II, C, 3.)
Church Order Review Task Force (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 849): “That
synod direct the COD to form a task force to conduct a comprehensive re-
view of Church Order Articles 8, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 and their supple-
ments 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.” (See section II, A, 12, c.)
Legal entity to house the Office of General Secretary (Acts of Synod 2022,
p. 929): “That synod take the following actions with respect to the for-
mation of a separate legal entity to house the ecclesiastical office (to be
known as the Office of General Secretary) of the CRCNA:
1) Endorse the formation of this separate legal entity, note the work that
has been done on the certificate of incorporation and bylaws of what
has tentatively been called the “Worldwide Christian Reformed
Church,” and receive the accompanying “Christian Reformed Church
Ecclesial and Ministry Organizational Views” document as back-
ground regarding the new corporation.
2) Instruct the Council of Delegates executive committee to review the
proposed articles of incorporation and bylaws for this new ecclesiasti-
cal corporation and make the necessary changes to bring the articles of
incorporation and bylaws into harmony with each other as well as

with the Council of Delegates Governance Handbook, and to consider
a new name for the ecclesiastical corporation, before presenting these
documents for final approval by the Council of Delegates.” (See section
II, A, 8, a.)
Chief administrative officer (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 930): “That synod
grant the COD authority to act on the appointment of a chief administra-
tive officer should a nominee be identified and presented to the COD
prior to Synod 2023 (COD Supplement 2022, section I, C, 3).” (See section
II, A, 8, b.)
Appoint senior level staff within the Office of General Secretary (Acts of
Synod 2022, p. 930): “That synod, upon adoption of the new structure as
proposed in the Structure and Leadership Task Force report and adoption
of a new ecclesiastical corporation, grant the COD authority to appoint all
senior level staff within the Office of General Secretary (including the
chief administrative officer, but excluding the General Secretary) going
forward (COD Supplement 2022, section I, C, 6).” (See section II, A, 8, b.)
C. COD membership
The members of the Council of Delegates from the classes include
Matthew T. Ackerman (Lake Erie), Jesus Bayona (Southeast U.S.), Rachel
Bouwkamp (Grandville), Wayne Brower (Holland), Steve Bussis
(Yellowstone), Thomas Byma (Greater Los Angeles), J. Harold Caicedo
(California South), Paula Coldagelli (Wisconsin), Wendy de Jong
(Niagara), Andy de Ruyter (B.C. North-West), Kyle J. Dieleman (Chicago
South), Jeanne Engelhard (Grand Rapids East), Sherry Fakkema (Pacific
Northwest), Jill Feikema (Illiana), Roy G. Heerema (Hudson), Sheila E.
Holmes (Hackensack), Paul K. Im (Hanmi), Michael Irshad (Toronto),
Casey Jen (Thornapple Valley), Jeanne Kallemeyn (Georgetown), Debbie
Karambowich (Alberta South/Saskatchewan), Jonathan J. Kim (Ko-Am),
Michael D. Koetje (Kalamazoo), William T. Koopmans (Hamilton), Jose
Antonio (Tony) Lara (Arizona), John R. Lee (Iakota), Jessica Maddox
(Grand Rapids South), Daudi Mutisya Mbuta (Grand Rapids North), Peter
Meerveld (Huron), Daniel A. Meinema (Eastern Canada), Amy Nydam
(Alberta North), Herbert W. Schreur (Northcentral Iowa), Anthony T.
Selvaggio (Atlantic Northeast), Arnie J. Stolte (Northern Illinois), Drew
Sweetman (Muskegon), Michael L. Ten Haken (Lake Superior), Rob J.
Toornstra (Columbia), Nathaniel E. Van Denend (Ontario Southwest),
Arie Vander Zouwen (North Cascades), Mark VanDyke (Central
California), Tyler J. Wagenmaker (Zeeland), Frederick Wind (Quinte), and
Thomas R. Wolthuis (Central Plains).
The following persons are serving as interim delegates until Synod 2023
can act on their appointments (presented in section I, D below): Tabitha D.
Manuelito (Red Mesa), Loren Veldhuizen (Heartland), and Jim Winkel
(Northern Michigan).
The delegate positions for Classes B.C. South-East, Minnkota, and Rocky
Mountain are currently vacant due to the resignations of Bev Bandstra

(B.C. South-East), effective prior to the February meeting of the COD, and
of Roger W. Sparks (Minnkota) and Kelly L. Vander Woude (Rocky
Mountain), both effective prior to the May COD meeting. The COD antici-
pates presenting nominations to fill the recent vacancies by way of the
COD Supplement report to synod. Kelli Berkner (Canada at-large) also re-
signed, effective prior to the May COD meeting. The CRCNA Canada
Ministry Board is determining whether or not that at-large position is still
required. Frederick Wind (Quinte) has indicated his desire to conclude
service at the end of his second year in June. A nominee for the Classis
Quinte position is expected by way of the COD Supplement report to
synod.
Six at-large members currently serve the COD. They include Henry
Eygenraam, Greta Luimes, Melissa Van Dyk, Roberta Vriesema, and
Ralph S. Wigboldus in Canada, and Elsa Fennema in the U.S.
The denomination’s general secretary (Zachary J. King) serves as an ex of-
ficio member of the Council of Delegates (without vote). The general sec-
retary also serves the CRCNA U.S. Ministry Board and the ReFrame U.S.
Ministry Board and is invited as a guest to the meetings of the CRCNA
Canada and ReFrame Ministries Canada ministry boards.
In addition, guest representatives from three denominational boards at-
tend the meetings of the COD and serve on a COD committee: Robert
Drenten, Charles Veenstra, and Brian Verheul from the Calvin Theological
Seminary Board of Trustees; Richard P. Mast from the Calvin University
Board of Trustees; and Chuck Adams and Andrew Geisterfer from the
World Renew Board of Delegates. These nonvoting COD guests are given
privilege of the floor during committee and plenary meetings.
The following serve as officers of the COD and of the respective ministry
boards for the 2022-2023 term:
1. COD officers: Andy de Ruyter, chair; Michael L. Ten Haken, vice chair;
John R. Lee, secretary; Greta Luimes, treasurer.
2. Ministry board officers
a. CRCNA Canada Ministry Board: Andy de Ruyter, president; A.
Henry Eygenraam, vice president; Greta Luimes, treasurer. Bev
Bandstra served as secretary until her resignation in February.
b. CRCNA U.S. Ministry Board: Michael L. Ten Haken, president;
Sheila E. Holmes, vice president; John R. Lee, secretary; Daudi Mut-
isya Mbuta, treasurer.
c. ReFrame Ministries Canada Ministry Board: Andy de Ruyter, presi-
dent; A. Henry Eygenraam, vice president; Greta Luimes, treasurer.
Bev Bandstra served as secretary until her resignation in February.
d. ReFrame Ministries U.S. Ministry Board: Michael L. Ten Haken,
president; Sheila E. Holmes, vice president; John R. Lee, secretary;
Daudi Mutisya Mbuta, treasurer.

3. Executive Committee: Andy de Ruyter, chair; Jill Feikema; Sheila E.
Holmes; John R. Lee; Greta Luimes; Michael L. Ten Haken; and
Melissa Van Dyk. Zachary J. King serves ex officio. Bev Bandstra
served until her resignation in February.
D. COD nominations
Prior to the fall meeting of the Council of Delegates, the COD received the
resignations of Lora Copley (Red Mesa), Bruce De Kam (Northern Michi-
gan), and Mark Vandezande (Heartland). The COD appointed the follow-
ing persons as interim delegates in October 2022 and February 2023 and
recommends these interim members to synod for appointment to the spe-
cific terms as indicated:
Classis Heartland
(First term will conclude June 30, 2025, and the nominee will be eligible
for reappointment to a second term.)
Loren Veldhuizen is a member of Calvary CRC in Orange City, Iowa. In his
retirement he volunteers as a regional representative for Calvin Theologi-
cal Seminary and Barnabas Foundation. He has previously served as an el-
der and deacon in his church, as a synodical delegate (three times, includ-
ing as clerk of synod), and has served on the Judicial Code Committee and
the Board of Trustees for the CRCNA. He also served on the board of trus-
tees of Calvin Theological Seminary and on the Barnabas Foundation
board (serving as president from 2015-2018). Currently he serves on the
synodical Ecclesiastical Marriage Task Force, reporting to Synod 2023.
Classis Northern Michigan
Jim Winkel is a member of Vogel Center CRC in McBain, Michigan. He is
employed as an emergency medical technician and is retired from dairy
farming. He has served as a deacon and elder, and has served as chair of
the Vogel Center CRC council, its vision team, and its pastor-search com-
mittee.
Classis Red Mesa
Tabitha D. Manuelito, a member of First Navajo CRC in Tohatchi, New
Mexico, is a Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act specialist. She
has experience serving as treasurer of her local council and is currently a
member of the Rehoboth Christian School board, for which she also serves
on the personnel committee.
The COD Nominating Services Committee works from an adopted rota-
tion of concluding terms for the current COD membership—ideally eight
or nine members conclude their term of service with the board each year
to provide continuity.

Concluding service to the Council of Delegates in June 2023 are the fol-
lowing members:
Classis Member
Arizona Tony Lara
B.C. North-West Andy de Ruyter
California South Harold Caicedo
Grand Rapids North Daudi Mbuta
Hackensack Sheila Holmes
Northern Illinois Arnie Stolte
U.S. at-large Elsa Fennema
Wendy de Jong (Niagara) and Jeanne Engelhard (Grand Rapids East) are
completing a first term on the COD and have decided not to serve a sec-
ond term on the COD.
The COD recommends that synod express its gratitude to these members
for their faithful service and significant contributions to the denomination
during their tenure on the Council of Delegates.
The COD recommends the following nominees from the classes indicated
for appointment to a first term of three years on the Council of Delegates:
Classis B.C. North-West
Hyung-Jun Kim serves as the associate pastor at New Westminster CRC in
Burnaby, British Columbia. A graduate of the University of Toronto, Re-
gent College, and Calvin Theological Seminary, he served as an ethnic ad-
viser to Synod 2022. In this work for the local church he has been actively
engaged with international students, provided leadership to the worship
team, and has served seven years on the council.
Classis California South
H. John Jansen, a member of CrossPoint CRC in Chino, California, has a de-
gree in electrical engineering and is employed as a district application en-
gineer for Eaton Corporation. He previously served as an elder and as
president of the board of trustees of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in
New York; and he served three terms as an elder at Community CRC in
Cold Springs, New York, including attendance at classis meetings and ser-
vice as a church visitor. He also served on the Ontario (Calif.) Christian
School Board. He helped start and continues to serve on the Providence
Christian College board of trustees, including three years as board presi-
dent. He currently is a member of the board’s nominating committee,
president search committee, and finance committee. He has served as
clerk and president of CrossPoint CRC’s council and on the search com-
mittee for a new pastor.
Classis Grand Rapids North
Ronald L. Karelse, a member of Riverside CRC in Grand Rapids, Michigan,
is a retired owner and manager of a funeral service organization in Grand
Rapids (for over 50 years). He was a delegate to Synod 2022, serving on
the Church Order Advisory Committee. Previously he served as president

of the Michigan Funeral Directors Association, on various committees of
the National Funeral Directors Association, and on area civic club boards.
He has been an active member of his church, serving as a young couples
leader, a Sunday school and catechism leader, and as a deacon (several
terms). He presently serves as an elder and as a Bible study and small
group leader.
Classis Hackensack
Joyce G. Jackson is a member of Madison Avenue CRC in Paterson, New
Jersey. Trained in early childhood education, as a parent educator, and in
social work, she is retired but continues as a part-time administrator in a
preschool with the Paterson Board of Education. She has previously
served as an advisory committee member for Worship Ministries and
Race Relations. She has also served as elder at Madison Avenue CRC.
Classis Niagara
Janet deVries is a member of Covenant CRC in St. Catharines, Ontario. A
fundraising professional, she is a principal of Crossroads Consulting. She
served on the committee for closure of nearby Maranatha CRC and cur-
rently serves on the facility renewal team at her church. In addition, she
has served on the Covenant CRC council for seven years (four years as
chair) and on the church’s governance and human resources committees.
Classis Northern Illinois
Bonnie Zigterman, a member of Lombard (Ill.) CRC, now retired, earned a
law degree from the University of Illinois and practiced law until 1986, af-
ter which time she served as an assistant state’s attorney in Sangamon
County (Ill.), working primarily in the juvenile division. She has previ-
ously served on the boards of Timothy Christian Schools, Chicago Chris-
tian Counseling Center, CRWRC, Ugandan Orphanage Relief Fund, and
Love Christian Clearinghouse. She has served as a deacon and elder in her
local church (including service as president in each role), as chair of the
congregation’s COVID response team, and as a delegate to Synod 2022.
U.S. at-large
Christian Sebastia is a third-generation pastor serving at Carismah CRC in
Katy, Texas (an emerging church); his membership is held by New Life
CRC in Spring, Texas. He has helped to plant several emerging congrega-
tions in Texas. He currently is a member of Consejo Latino and the Classis
Rocky Mountain Plantation Team, and he previously served as an adviser
to Worship Ministries.
The COD recommends the following members for reappointment to a sec-
ond term of three years:
Classis Member
Grandville Rachel Bouwkamp
Greater Los Angeles Thomas Byma
Illiana Jill Feikema
Ko-Am Jonathan J. Kim

Lake Superior Michael Ten Haken
Muskegon Drew Sweetman
Ontario Southwest Nathaniel (Nate) Van Denend
Canada at-large Melissa Van Dyk
E. Salary disclosure
At the directive of synod, the Council of Delegates reports the following
salaries for senior CRCNA, ReFrame Ministries, and Resonate Global Mis-
sion staff directly employed by the Council of Delegates:
Job level # of positions # below target # at target
E1 1 1 0
E2 4 4 0
E3 7 7 0
Synod 2014 adopted a salary administration system that uses a salary
range target and a minimum of 85 percent of that target. In addition, the
COD recently adopted a revised salary structure with fewer levels than
the previous structure. Salary ranges for the current fiscal year are as fol-
lows:
2022-2023 Salary Grade and Range Structure
U.S. Range Canadian Range
Level Minimum Target Minimum Target
E1 $158,538 $198,172
E2 $143,069 $178,836 $137,632 $172,040
E3 $121,244 $151,556 $120,602 $150,753
H $102,750 $128,437 $103,370 $129,212
I $87,076 $108,845 $88,601 $110,751
J $73,793 $92,241 $75,941 $94,926
K $62,537 $78,171 $65,090 $81,363
L $52,997 $66,246 $55,790 $69,738
M $44,913 $56,141
N $38,062 $47,577
II. Activities of the COD
A. Polity matters
1. Interim appointments
On behalf of synod, the COD has ratified the following classical appoint-
ments of synodical deputies and alternate synodical deputies*:
Classis Member Alternate Term
Alberta South/
Saskatchewan Rev. David J. Swinney 2024(1)
Central Plains Rev. Brad Bierma 2024(2)
Hamilton Rev. Michael W. Bootsma Rev. Doug Nieuwstraten 2025(1)
Heartland Rev. Phillip T. Westra Rev. Brian M. Hofman 2024(1)
Kalamazoo Rev. Hendrick De Vries Rev. Daniel S. Sarkipato 2023(1)

Classis Member Alternate Term
Rocky Mountain Rev. Roger De Young Rev. John Terpstra 2025(2)
Southeast U.S. Rev. Gerrit Besteman Rev. Scott A. Vander Ploeg 2025(2)
*Terms of alternate synodical deputies run concurrent with those of
the synodical deputies.
The COD Supplement report to synod is expected to include further ac-
tions whereby COD ratified, on behalf of synod, the classical appoint-
ments of synodical deputies and alternate synodical deputies for Classes
Illiana, Northern Michigan, and Zeeland.
2. Classes that have declared that women officebearers (ministers, elders,
deacons) may not be delegated to classis
In accordance with the instructions of Synod 2007, the general secretary
keeps a list of classes that, in keeping with their understanding of the bib-
lical position on the role of women in ecclesiastical office, declare that
women officebearers (ministers, elders, deacons) may not be delegated to
classis. Although some of these classes have developed their own regula-
tions regarding the permissibility of women officebearers participating in
classis meetings, some classes have adopted a decision to declare that
women officebearers may not be delegated to classis. A list of these classes
may be obtained by contacting the Office of General Secretary.
3. Annual report on gender and ethnic diversity on denominational
boards
Data for the board diversity report (with regard to gender and ethnic di-
versity) for the 2022-2023 year has been received from the denominational
boards (Council of Delegates, Calvin Theological Seminary, Calvin Uni-
versity, and World Renew). In addition, data from the World Renew Joint
Ministry Council (JMC) is included along with data from the World Re-
new Board of Delegates. Note: The JMC is elected from the membership of
the World Renew Board of Delegates.
There are presently 154 denominationally appointed board members (not
including the JMC count), and the JMC, elected from the World Renew
Board of Delegates, has 15 members. So, among a total of 169 members, 63
(37%) are women, and 29 (17%) are people of color. The data received
from the boards for the 2022-2023 board term reflects an increase of 6 per-
cent in women delegates, while the percentage of people of color on our
denominational boards is unchanged as compared to the 2021-2022 report-
ing year.
The diversity on individual denominational boards is also reported in
light of synod’s goal of having at least 25 percent ethnic minority membership.
The board membership of Calvin Theological Seminary is 24 percent eth-
nic minority; Calvin University, 16 percent; World Renew (JMC), 20 per-
cent; and the COD, 18 percent.

4. Annual report on denominational efforts to address ethnic diversity and
racial justice
At the instruction of Synod 2013, each CRC agency and ministry, Calvin
Theological Seminary, and Calvin University are asked to submit to the
general secretary, as part of their strategic plan, diversity goals and time-
lines in their leadership, administrative, and regional ministry teams. This
annual report was received by the general secretary, and the compliance
and progress were reported to the Council of Delegates in February.
In addition, the director of synodical services regularly reminds and en-
courages stated clerks and denominational boards to seek ethnic diversity
in nominating people to serve on denominational boards and as delegates
to synod. We need to be diligent in continuing to increase diversity.
5. Advisers to Synod 2023
a. Young adult representatives
Since 2009 synod has welcomed the engagement of youth and young
adults (18- to 26-year-olds) in the current issues faced by our denomina-
tion and has sought to raise up leadership within the church through the
appointment of young adult representatives to participate in the delibera-
tions of synod. These individuals bring a valuable and unique perspective
to the issues we face as a denomination by listening, engaging delegates
during advisory committee meetings, and offering input on matters that
arise in plenary.
The COD has appointed the following persons to serve as young adult
representatives to synod (* indicates service in this capacity in 2022). We
express gratitude for their commitment and gracious willingness to serve
the denomination in this way.
Daniel Choi* Gavin Schaefer
Samantha Brinkman Samantha Sebastia Pina
Myiah Klinger Ana Timmer
Luke Nieuwendorp
b. Ethnic advisers
Determination of the need for the appointment of ethnic advisers to synod
is based on a rolling three-year average (greater than 25) of ethnically di-
verse delegates appointed to synod. Due to a decrease in the diversity of
synod delegates, the Council of Delegates appointed the following as eth-
nic advisers to Synod 2023 (* indicates service in this capacity in 2022):
Hyung Jun Kim*, Darlene Silversmith*, William Krahnke, and Catherine
Chan. One other ethnic adviser withdrew. We are grateful for the willing-
ness of these advisers to offer their unique perspectives to the issues be-
fore synod.

6. Fill vacancy on Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee
In October the COD appointed Jake Bentum to serve a modified first term
on the Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee, effective Novem-
ber 1, 2022, through July 1, 2025, with eligibility for reappointment to a
subsequent term.
7. Convening church of Synod 2024
The COD recommends that synod accept the invitation of Lee Street CRC
in Wyoming, Michigan, to serve as the convening church of Synod 2024,
to be held in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on the campus of Calvin Univer-
sity.
Ground: Lee Street’s multicultural focus with both English and Spanish
services, as well as their partnerships with local schools and other min-
istries, offer synod the opportunity to celebrate diversity and outreach
in the CRC.
8. Denominational structure and senior leadership
The Council of Delegates and its ministry boards continued work to re-
spond to structure and leadership matters made evident in 2019 with re-
gard to compliance to the Canada Revenue Agency. The Structure and
Leadership Task Force (SALT) report, adopted by the COD and Synod
2022, provides background to the following:
a. Legal entity to house the Office of General Secretary
The chief administrative officer (CAO) is working on revising/updating
corporation articles and bylaws as well as the COD Governance Hand-
book. An updated status on this will be included in the COD Supplement
report to synod.
b. Senior leadership transition
A new chief administrative officer, Shirley DeVries, was appointed by the
COD in November. Shirley began her work on January 3, 2023. Simultane-
ously a new director of synodical services, Rev. Scott DeVries, was ap-
pointed and also began on January 3, 2023. In February the CRCNA U.S.
Ministry Board decided to move forward in creating a full-time position
for a director of ministry operations in the U.S.
9. Judicial Code Committee
The Judicial Code Committee (JCC) hears appeals from a decision made
by a council, a classis, or an agency of the Christian Reformed Church if it
is alleged that an action violates the Church Order or the agency’s man-
date. The procedures followed by the Judicial Code Committee are set
forth in Church Order Supplement, Article 30-c. The committee’s mem-
bers from both Canada and the United States include people with legal ex-
pertise, clergy, and nonclergy.

a. Membership
Synod 2014 adopted guidelines stating that the composition of the JCC re-
flect the diversity of the denomination and provide balance in expertise
among its members (trained in law, ordained as minister of the Word,
nonordained/nonlaw background). In addition, terms have been stag-
gered to provide continuity to the work of the committee.
John Koot and Doug Vande Griend are completing a second term in 2023
and are not eligible for reappointment. It is recommended that synod ex-
press gratitude for their years of service to the denomination.
The COD Nominating Services Committee, on behalf of the COD, has so-
licited nominees for the anticipated vacancies of two persons trained in
law. The COD anticipates presenting these nominations by way of the
COD Supplement report.
b. Reappointments to second term
The Council of Delegates recommends the following JCC members for re-
appointment to a second term of three years: Bomsu Kim and Deloris
Carter.
10. Addressing Abuse of Power—responses to Synod 2019 directives (see
Acts of Synod 2019, pp. 794-99)
a. Dignity Team
The Abuse of Power Ad Hoc Committee report, adopted by the COD in
lieu of Synod 2021, included a proposal for the creation of a denomina-
tional Dignity Team (see Agenda for Synod 2021, pp. 63-68). This new team
began its work in summer 2022 and meets regularly in executive session
with the COD Executive Committee to discuss matters pertaining to per-
sons with whom it has met.
b. CRC Code of Conduct for Ministry Leaders and implementation plan
At its February meeting the Council of Delegates heard from the CRC
Code of Conduct and Implementation Plan committee, which had com-
piled extensive feedback from churches and classes. Based on that feed-
back, revisions to the Code of Conduct for Ministry Leaders were made
and, along with a helpful sheet of frequently asked questions, these up-
dates are now recommended to Synod 2023 for approval. The revised
Code of Conduct for Ministry Leaders and the FAQ sheet are included in
Appendix A.
The proposed implementation of the Code of Conduct also includes rec-
ommendations for revisions and/or additions to the Church Order and its
Supplements. Those recommendations were adopted by the COD for ap-
proval by synod and are included in the Recommendations section at the
end of this report.
The COD also recommends that Synod 2023 encourage councils and clas-
ses to require assent to the Code of Conduct by all staff (whether or not

they are ordained) and volunteers who are providing leadership in the lo-
cal church or classis.
In addition, the COD recommends that synod mandate the General Secre-
tary to oversee the development of training modules to orient officebear-
ers and ministry leaders to the Code of Conduct.
c. Continued implementation and monitoring
The COD is committed to continually monitoring the progress and ensur-
ing implementation of the decisions of Synod 2019 to aid in the prevention
of abuse of power in CRCNA leadership. This is a standing agenda matter
for the COD’s Mercy and Justice Ministries Committee. At its February
meeting, the COD received updates with regard to addressing the abuse
of power. In particular, staff led trainings on “The Power to Do Good: The
Use and Misuse of Power in the Church” in Classes Hamilton and Red
Mesa.
11. Publications and services
a. Yearbook
Following an extensive process to gather ordained personnel and local-
church information each fall (data effective as of August 31), staff within
the Synodical Services Office produce an annual “snapshot” each Febru-
ary as the CRCNA Yearbook. The Yearbook is made available in print, as a
downloadable PDF (available at faithaliveresources.org), and in online
format (crcna.org/Yearbook). In addition, data received from the churches,
classes, and ordained personnel throughout the rest of the year is continu-
ally updated in the online Yearbook, often making the most current infor-
mation available within days. The online format includes the Church
Finder feature (crcna.org/church-finder), which provides maps, church
service times, membership information, and links to church websites,
among other helpful information. Minister service history, special days to
be observed in the church calendar, and denominational ministry-share
information are all linked via the online Yearbook.
In addition, classis and denominational statistics can be accessed or down-
loaded at crcna.org/Yearbook. Among some of the statistics available in
the online Yearbook are the total number of members (baptized and con-
fessing) in a local congregation, number of families, number of professing
members over eighteen years of age, number of professing members,
number of baptized members, number of membership transfers from
other CRCs, and number of members received through evangelism and
from other denominations. This data continues to present a historical rec-
ord of our church and ministry together through the years.
b. Church Order and Its Supplements and Rules for Synodical Procedure
The Church Order and Its Supplements 2022 reflects revisions to the Church
Order adopted by Synod 2022. The latest version of the Church Order and
Its Supplements, published by the Office of Synodical Services, was distrib-
uted to the churches in fall 2022 and has been translated into Korean and

Spanish. The Rules for Synodical Procedure, last updated following decisions
of Synod 2022 and translated for Spanish-speaking and Korean-speaking
churches, is available in digital format only. Both the Church Order and Its
Supplements and the Rules for Synodical Procedure are available for down-
load at crcna.org/SynodResources.
c. Agenda for Synod and Acts of Synod
The publication of the Agenda for Synod and the Acts of Synod is the respon-
sibility of the director of synodical services under the direction of the gen-
eral secretary. From time to time some decisions need to be made by the
general secretary about which material properly belongs in the Agenda for
Synod. The general secretary may consult with the COD or Program Com-
mittee (officers of the previous synod) for advice and input when materi-
als are in question. In many cases, erring on the side of grace seems more
appropriate than erring on the side of rigid regulation. Synod itself will fi-
nally decide in all cases whether material is properly on its agenda.
Synod 2019 decided that to improve the connections between synod, clas-
ses, and churches, a summary of the Agenda for Synod should be sent to
delegates and church council clerks with an encouragement to pass it
along to church members. The summary document is usually available for
distribution in mid-spring.
d. Manual for Synodical Deputies
The Manual for Synodical Deputies is distributed to synodical deputies, their
alternates, and the stated clerks of classes. The latest revision of the man-
ual was completed in summer 2022 by the Office of Synodical Services, re-
flecting updated language for denominations in communion (formerly de-
nominations in ecclesiastical fellowship), clarifications in reference to Church
Order Article 24-a and its Supplement, and a strengthening of the appeal
process. Anyone desiring to access or download a copy of this tool for the
classes may do so by way of the stated clerk and synodical deputy
webpage at crcna.org/SynodicalDeputies.
e. Manual of Christian Reformed Church Government
A very helpful tool for churches and classes, the Manual of Christian Re-
formed Church Government was updated by Henry DeMoor in fall 2019 to
reflect changes made to the Supplements through Synod 2019 that have
been incorporated into the Church Order. The manual is currently in the
process of being revised by Kathy Smith, polity professor at Calvin Theo-
logical Seminary, and hopefully will be available for purchase by late
spring 2023. We are grateful to Rev. Smith and Dr. De Moor for their con-
tributions in providing a tool for use by classes, churches, and many oth-
ers working and advising on polity matters. This resource is intended as a
companion to the CRC’s Church Order, offering commentary and expla-
nation of guidelines set forth and decisions made by synod over the years.
The manual is available for reading in the CRC Digital Library
(crcna.org/DigitalLibrary), and print and downloadable versions are avail-
able through Faith Alive (faithaliveresources.org).

f. Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary
Henry DeMoor updated the Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary
in 2020. This invaluable resource, providing context for the rules of the
church—the “why” behind the rules—is available for viewing in the CRC
Digital Library (crcna.org/DigitalLibrary), and print and downloadable
versions are available through Faith Alive (faithaliveresources.org).
12. Church Order changes proposed by Synod 2022
a. Synod 2022 proposed the following change to Church Order Article 45
for adoption by Synod 2023 (see Deferred Agenda for Synods 2020-2021, pp.
430-34; and Acts of Synod 2022, p. 848):
That Church Order Article 45 be amended to allow greater flexibility to
classes in formulating their delegations to synod (additions indicated by
italics):
Synod is the assembly representing the churches of all classes. Each
classis shall ordinarily delegate one minister, one elder, one deacon,
and one other officebearer to synod. A classis may send no more than two
delegates bearing the same office.
Grounds:
a. This permits needed flexibility for classes in constituting their dele-
gations to achieve full participation at synod.
b. Recent history has demonstrated a persistent difficulty in classes’
sending a full delegation to synod.
c. The principles of Christian fellowship and unity call us to act in
ways that promote justice and equality and maximize the voices pre-
sent at synod, especially from minority-majority classes, rural or geo-
graphically distant classes, and smaller classes that have struggled to
send a full delegation under the present system.
d. Retaining four delegates while allowing a maximum of two per of-
fice maintains diversity of office while also maintaining a full comple-
ment of deliberative voices at synod.
b. Church planting in both the RCA and CRC denominations
Synod 2022 noted that “Classis Arizona is doing excellent church planting
work born from the Reformed Collaborative” with the Reformed Church
in America (RCA); it was further noted that “while this matter arose out a
local context, there are denominational implications for our relationship
with the RCA” (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 840). In response, synod instructed
the COD to review those implications and to recommend any Church Or-
der changes that could “help church plants find expression in both de-
nominations.” The COD asked the Church Planting Collaborative, an initi-
ative of Resonate Global Mission, to carry out this review, with particular
attention to allowing mutual recognition of commissioned pastor status in
both the CRC and the RCA. After consultation with the CRC’s director of

Candidacy and the RCA’s director of Church Multiplication, it was deter-
mined that the designation “commissioned pastor” is not equivalent in the
two denominations. Church Order changes are not recommended. How-
ever, the RCA’s director of Church Multiplication and the CRC’s Church
Planting leader will continue to collaborate and converse about church
planting needs, opportunities, and resources.
c. Church Order Review Task Force
In response to several overtures, Synod 2022 directed the COD “to con-
duct a comprehensive review of Church Order Articles 8, 12, 13, 14, 16,
and 17 and their supplements in conversation with Pastor Church Re-
sources and relevant voices, and to bring an interim report to Synod 2023
through the COD and a final report to Synod 2024.” Their work is to “de-
velop suggestions for clearer guidelines to pastors and churches in times
of conflict, as well as assistance for positive pastoral transitions and more
effective oversight of individuals in specialized ministries, including at-
tention to the readmission of pastors via Article 8” (Acts of Synod 2022, p.
849).
The COD appointed members to this Church Order Review Task Force at
its October 2022 meeting. The work of the task force is under way, and an
interim report of their work is provided in Appendix B to this report.
d. Implementation of Code of Conduct
As noted above (in section II, A, 10, b), the Code of Conduct report (Ap-
pendix A) also includes recommendations for revisions and/or additions
to the Church Order and its Supplements. Those recommendations were
adopted by the COD for approval by synod and are included in the Rec-
ommendations section at the end of this report.
13. Oppose White Supremacy and Systemic Racism
In its letter summarizing Synod 2022, the COD noted synod’s encourage-
ment to classes “to ask questions of all candidates for ministry regarding
their commitment to preach a biblical and Reformed perspective on race
and justice” (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 946). This was part of synod’s response
to an overture from Classis Greater Los Angeles to oppose white suprem-
acy and systemic racism. The COD also asked the director of Candidacy to
consider including this feature in resources provided for the examination
of candidates. The director will communicate this directive to the Candi-
dacy Committee at their April 2023 meeting and ask for their advice on
how best to implement it. Synod also requested that Calvin Theological
Seminary (CTS) “report to the COD on how they are teaching a biblical
and Reformed perspective on issues of race and justice” (p. 946), and the
general secretary has asked CTS to report on this matter at the May COD
meeting. In addition, the general secretary asked Congregational Minis-
tries to publish a list of worship resources on this topic, and that list is ex-
pected to be ready this spring and shared with the churches.

14. Repositioning the CRC through listening and supporting
The COD, through the Congregational Ministries Committee, asked the
general secretary to facilitate a “One Family Conversation.” This conversa-
tion focuses on the key role that ethnic diversity is playing in the current
and future reality of the CRCNA, and how classes have an important role
to play in listening and supporting the growing diversity in congrega-
tional leadership. The plan for this conversation is included as Appendix
E.
15. Discontinue annual review of organizations recommended for support
The COD also took up the matter of annually reviewing external charita-
ble organizations for accreditation and recommendation to CRC churches
for offerings (see Appendix E in the COD Governance Handbook). This
review process has been found to require significant staff time and effort,
whereas today for any such organization the information is readily availa-
ble online. In addition, there is minimal anecdotal evidence that this ser-
vice is being used by our churches. A recommendation to discontinue this
practice is found in the Recommendations section of this report.
B. Program matters
A significant part of the Council of Delegates’ work relates to the ministry
programs of the denomination. With the adoption of the Structure and
Leadership Task Force (SALT) report by Synod 2022, the COD itself fo-
cuses on the ecclesial aspects of these programs, while the CRCNA Can-
ada and U.S. ministry boards (formerly called corporations) focus more on
the personnel and finances. Program and personnel details are reported to
synod by way of the reports of the agencies, institutions, and ministries
and via this section of the COD report. Additional information regarding
financial matters is contained in Appendix F to this Council of Delegates
Report as well as in the Agenda for Synod 2023—Financial and Business Sup-
plement that will be distributed in late May. The final budget approved by
the COD, including the allocation of ministry-share pledges by churches,
will be presented as information to synod by way of the COD Supplement
report through synod’s financial matters advisory committee.
The COD provides denominational oversight on behalf of synod through-
out the year. The Office of General Secretary serves as the primary link be-
tween the COD and the denomination’s ministries. Currently serving
within the Office of General Secretary are the general secretary, the chief
administrative officer (CAO), the director of synodical services (DSS), the
director of communications and marketing (DCM), and the director of
candidacy (DC). The new Office of General Secretary (OGS), implemented
in July 2022, does not include agency or ministry directors; however, the
OGS is responsible for ensuring that all ministries and legal entities are
appropriately implementing synodical decisions and ecclesiastical man-
dates through the use of a reconfigured Ministries Leadership Council
(MLC, see below) and through revisions to the structure and committees
of the Council of Delegates.

The Ministries Leadership Council (MLC), convened by the general secre-
tary of the CRCNA, has responsibility for supporting implementation of
the Ministry Plan of the Christian Reformed Church (Our Journey 2025),
for the collaboration of the ministries, and for the review of program mat-
ters. The binational membership of the MLC is made up of executive lead-
ership, directors of agencies, presidents of the educational institutions (or
their designees), and others representing specific offices and functions.
The Canadian Ministries Team, convened by the executive director- Can-
ada, provides leadership specific to the ministries of the Christian Re-
formed Church in Canada.
The U.S. director of ministry operations convened a U.S. ministry
roundtable conversation between the ministry agencies in the U.S. office.
The roundtable conversations are leading to productive collaboration be-
tween Resonate Global Mission and Congregational Ministries.
Joint ministry agreements are created annually by the agencies. These
agreements are legal documents between the Canada and U.S. ministry
boards. The agreements are managed through Joint Management Com-
mittees convened by the chief administrative officer. These committees are
responsible for ensuring that the activities outlined in the agreement are
being fulfilled and reported to the ministry boards.
The Administrative Leadership Council (ALC) is convened by the chief
administrative officer of the CRCNA. This council is a forum of adminis-
trative and operations leaders in Canada and the U.S. who have the au-
thority to design and implement policy. The purpose of the ALC is to ad-
vance a culture of administrative cooperation, collaboration, and partner-
ship across the ministry offices and agencies of the CRCNA.
The program and financial matters processed by the COD from July
through February are presented to synod as information. Any matters that
require action by synod are identified within the body of this report.
1. 2022 denominational survey summary report
With the rollout of Our Journey 2020 (denominational Ministry Plan) in
2015, an annual denominational survey was implemented to help track
progress of the Ministry Plan, in addition to metrics recorded along the
way. Synod delegates are invited to read an executive summary of the
2022 denominational survey at crcna.org/survey/survey-results. The 2023
survey is currently under way.
2. Update on Our Journey 2025 (Ministry Plan)
The denominational Ministry Plan, Our Journey 2025, following the en-
dorsement of the COD acting on behalf of Synod 2020, is well under way
(see crcna.org/OurJourney). There’s something about a journey that’s excit-
ing and invigorating—a promise of new horizons, new possibilities, new
challenges. The Christian Reformed Church is on such a journey. It’s
called Our Journey 2025. “Our” because we are on it together as CRC peo-
ple from congregations across the United States and Canada. “Journey” be-
cause we are moving ahead in our shared mission to express the good

news of God’s kingdom that transforms lives and communities world-
wide, while also striving toward specific goals that our congregations and
leaders have identified. And “2025” to remind us that this is just one stage
of a journey that will see us living and growing together in new ways and
new places by the year 2025.
For the current five-year period, churches and classes helped to identify
four “milestones” that we are working toward. We desire to become con-
gregations and communities that do the following:
• Cultivate practices of prayer and spiritual disciplines, transforming
our lives and communities by the power of the Holy Spirit.
• Listen to the voices of every generation, shaping us for ministry to-
gether.
• Grow in diversity and unity by seeking justice, reconciliation, and
welcome, sharing our faith as we build relationships with and
honor the cultures of our neighbors and newcomers.
• Share the gospel, live it missionally, and plant new churches in our
neighborhoods as we discover how to connect with our local and
global ministry contexts.
Churches can request resources including visuals, conversation cards, and
other tools that can help congregations and members feel excitement and
ownership of the ministry plan in more than a theoretical way. Beginning
in January 2023, leaders in each of the four areas began directing more at-
tention to the “stories, stats, and opportunities” that are arising out of
these efforts. These will be shared with churches and classes through vari-
ous means. Visit crcna.org/OurJourney to learn more about sharing in the
excitement!
3. Our Calling
Proposed by the Task Force Reviewing Structure and Culture to Synod
2014, the term Five Streams—changed to “Our Calling” in 2016—became a
focus of the ministries of the Christian Reformed Church in its collabora-
tion, programs, and reporting. Synod 2015 adopted the five themes of Our
Calling of the Christian Reformed Church (included below) to function as
“ministry priorities to strategically focus and adaptively organize the
work of the Christian Reformed Church in North America while respect-
ing and building on our previous mission efforts, history, and legacy of re-
lationships and member support” (Acts of Synod 2015, p. 680).
Faith Formation—As a community of believers, we seek to introduce
people to Jesus Christ and to nurture their faith through all ages and
stages of life.
Servant Leadership—Understanding that the lifelong equipping of lead-
ers is essential for churches and ministries to flourish, we identify, re-
cruit, and train leaders to be servants in the kingdom of God.

Global Mission—Called to be witnesses of Christ’s kingdom to the ends
of the earth, we start and strengthen local churches in North America
and around the world.
Mercy and Justice—Hearing the cries of the oppressed, forsaken, and
disadvantaged, we seek to act justly and love mercy as we walk hum-
bly with our God.
Gospel Proclamation and Worship—Believing that faith comes through
the hearing of God’s Word, we proclaim the saving message of Jesus
Christ and seek to worship him in all that we do.
We note that these ministry priorities continue to be utilized to communi-
cate more effectively what the CRC members and ministers, congregations
and classes, and ministries and agencies are called to do. The Annual Min-
istry Report (see crcna.org/MinistryReport), the Agenda for Synod, and intro-
ductory brochures all utilize this categorization.
4. Ministry presentations at synod
For presentations to synod by CRC ministries, a rotation schedule reflect-
ing the denomination’s five ministry priorities was implemented by synod
in 2018. Delegates to Synod 2023 will receive presentations on Faith For-
mation and on Gospel Proclamation and Worship from the following min-
istries: Calvin University and Congregational Ministries’ Faith Formation
and Worship.
5. Ministry evaluation
Synod 2018 instructed the COD and the general secretary “to continue the
important work of evaluation and prioritization by working together to
implement a robust evaluation strategy whereby in a five-year cycle all
agencies and ministries will be continually evaluated through the frame-
work of the five ministry priorities” (Acts of Synod 2018, p. 455).
In response to this directive, the COD adopted a policy to ensure contin-
ual evaluation of all agencies and ministries over a four-year cycle accord-
ing to the five ministry priorities. The agencies and ministries are required
to have comprehensive and strategic program goals and objectives and, by
means of fitting evaluation and assessment approaches, to provide annual
outcomes in their reporting year.
The executive committee of the Council of Delegates agreed to a request
by the general secretary to pause these reporting practices temporarily un-
til the current COD reorganization is finalized.
6. Inspire
The Council of Delegates instructed the Office of General Secretary to ex-
plore the feasibility of holding future Inspire events. A small team of staff
worked on this assignment and explored a variety of options for reducing
costs and expectations on staff time while increasing attendance. Weigh-
ing the report of this team, the COD decided to instruct staff to discon-
tinue holding large-scale Inspire events and instead to encourage staff to

explore smaller-scale and/or regionalized events on particular ministry
themes applicable to the churches.
7. Appointments of ministry directors
a. Appointments of Congregational Ministries directors for Canada and U.S.
In October 2022 the COD acknowledged the administrative appointment
of Rev. Lesli van Milligen as the Congregational Ministries director-Can-
ada, and Dr. Chris Schoon as the Congregational Ministries director-U.S.
(effective Jan. 1, 2023) as a further step in the Congregational Ministries re-
organization process.
b. Appointment of Resonate Global Mission director
Rev. Kevin DeRaaf was interviewed by the COD in February 2023 and is
recommended to synod for ratification as the new director of Resonate
Global Mission, effective July 1, 2023. He will be interviewed at synod,
and his curriculum vitae is included as Appendix C of this report.
c. Recommendation of World Renew-Canada director
In January 2023 the World Renew-Canada board selected Jamie McIntosh
to be the next executive director of World Renew-Canada. He will be in-
troduced to the COD in May and, pending approval, will be recom-
mended to synod for ratification of the appointment.
8. Status of Resonate Global Mission
After discussions with the interim director of Resonate Global Mission
and senior leadership (general secretary, chief administrative officer, U.S.
director of ministry operations, and executive director-Canada), it was de-
termined that the transition to a COD agency-based committee structure
(moving from a Global Missions Ministries Committee to a Resonate
Committee) would provide the governance space intended by the recom-
mendation from the Structure and Leadership Task Force report on this
matter. This change in committee structure also responds to feedback pre-
sented by a committee that evaluated the work of the Global Missions
Ministries Committee. It was determined that any further change in the
status of Resonate would risk losing the benefits of the integration of Res-
onate into the Council of Delegates and the U.S. and Canada ministry
boards.
9. Recognize Congregational Ministries as a new agency
Synod 2022 was informed of plans for a major reorganization of Congre-
gational Ministries (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 710). Implementation of this
plan is well under way and is described in detail in the Congregational
Ministries reorganization document in Appendix D of this report. The
COD brings a set of recommendations proposing to effectively combine
the existing congregational ministries into one new agency with a new
synodical mandate, vision, and mission.

10. Safe Church reporting
Safe Church has consistently gathered and reported data on the current
number of churches and classes that have Safe Church teams and coordi-
nators. That role of reporting was reviewed and affirmed by Synod 2022
(Acts of Synod 2022, p. 935), and the COD has passed along synod’s in-
structions to Safe Church to carry on in this task.
11. Classis Renewal Advisory Team
The Classis Renewal Advisory Team was requested to “report to Synod
2023 regarding (1) new resources being developed for creating or refining
a classis ministry plan and (2) an update on which classes have a ministry
plan” (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 856). However, the classis renewal coordina-
tor position is currently vacant, and the Classis Renewal Advisory Team
has not met for many months. Some of the classis renewal coordinator
work is in the process of being incorporated into Synodical Services and
Pastor Church Resources. Through the integration of Connections project
principles and staff into Congregational Ministries and Resonate Global
Mission, these agencies are helping to guide the CRCNA organization to
build and maintain greater presence and relationship with classes and
classis leaders. Further, the general secretary will assign staff to assess
which aspects of the classis renewal work has been taken up now by oth-
ers and which aspects remain to be apportioned. That assessment will in-
clude how best to assist classes with the development of classis ministry
plans. The general secretary will bring the findings of this assessment to
the COD during the 2024 fiscal year.
12. Ministry Support Services
a. Shared ministry services
The staff of Ministry Support Services (MSS) is responsible for The Banner,
Faith Alive Christian Resources, Libros Desafio (Spanish-language re-
sources), and a number of professional services that support CRC minis-
tries. These services include marketing, order and subscription processing,
call center, editorial services, translation, rights and permissions manage-
ment, design and web services, purchasing, and distribution. At any one
time, more than 100 projects are in process, and thousands of words are
being combined with design elements for publication via paper or pixels.
The call center handles about 20,000 phone calls per year, in addition to
processing online orders, email, and live chats on various CRCNA web-
sites.
In the interest of consistent style, branding, and quality presentation, MSS
has supported CRC communications staff in creating guides for Brand
Standards and Editorial Style.
b. The Banner
The Banner, the magazine of the Christian Reformed Church, currently
prints and distributes about 70,000 copies of its paper version. Website
pageviews average more than 85,000 per month, and more than 11,000
people have signed up to receive the weekly Banner email. Our efforts on

social media also help to ensure that Banner content is available to anyone
in a variety of forms.
The Banner app is available for free download on iPhone and Android de-
vices (thebanner.org/App); monthly, the app is receiving more than 10,000
pageviews.
We are most thankful for a huge show of support from Banner readers, as
nearly 5,000 donors gave more than $470,000 for the annual appeal fund-
raiser in 2022.
c. Faith Alive and Libros Desafio
Synod 2013 approved the dissolution of the Faith Alive Christian Re-
sources board and transitioned critical functions of Faith Alive to MSS. We
continue to sell and reprint resources that were already published, sup-
port the ongoing development of the Dwell Sunday school curriculum and
Discover Your Bible series, and publish a small number of new titles as re-
quested by our ministries. Sales of older products continue to decline, and
the pandemic radically halted sales of curriculum and other church-based
resources. Those sales have now bounced back, but not to pre-pandemic
levels. Faith Formation Ministries and MSS continue to pour energy into
the Dwell curriculum, including further development of Dwell Flex (for
smaller churches and multiage contexts) and Dwell Digital (the online ver-
sion of our Dwell leader materials).
Similarly, Libros Desafio has ceased publishing new titles but continues to
sell and reprint backlisted titles when economically viable. We are explor-
ing options for selling our translated works to other Spanish-language
publishers so that they can continue to be made available throughout
Latin America and beyond.
Christian Reformed congregations continue to receive a special “CRC dis-
count” in comparison to what churches of other denominations pay. In
addition, the CRC Digital Library allows anyone attending a Christian Re-
formed congregation free access to most Faith Alive titles online. Since the
start of the pandemic we have also provided CRCs with free, online access
to Dwell Digital (other churches pay up to $500 per year to access these
Sunday school curriculum resources). All of these initiatives are intended
to help Christian Reformed churches make full use of these resources that
they helped to publish.
d. The Network
Over the past decade the Network has become one of the CRC’s most-vis-
ited websites where people involved in their local church can connect—
with each other and with denominational staff—about the practical as-
pects of doing church ministry. Ministry Support Services oversees the site
with a half-time community manager. Launched in 2010, the Network
(crcna.org/Network) was redesigned over the past year with a whole new
look and improved functionality. The site receives about one million
pageviews per year, as folks across the denomination read, ask questions,
and share ideas with each other about their congregation’s ministries.

13. CRC agency, institution, and congregational ministries reports
The Council of Delegates is responsible for submitting a unified report to
synod composed of individual segments provided by the agencies, educa-
tional institutions, and ministries of the Christian Reformed Church. The
individual reports of the CRC ministries appear in the following pages of
this Agenda for Synod.
These reports portray the ministry of the Christian Reformed Church both
locally and around the world. As you read these materials, we invite you
to give thanks to God for ministry opportunities and for the thousands of
staff and volunteers throughout the church who are living and sharing the
gospel.
C. Financial matters
1. Introduction
In order to assure that synod has the most up-to-date and accurate finan-
cial information, detailed financial data will be included in the Agenda for
Synod 2023—Business and Financial Supplement, which will be made availa-
ble to the delegates at the time synod convenes. This supplement will in-
clude financial disclosure information and agency and ministry budgets
for fiscal year 2024 (July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024). In addition, synod will be
asked to approve a schedule for one or more above-ministry-share offer-
ings for the ministries of the denomination, a quarterly offering for World
Renew (in lieu of ministry-share support), and a listing of requests for ac-
credited organization status for recommendation to the churches. Addi-
tional financial information and/or recommendations will also be included
in the Council of Delegates Supplement report in May.
2. Future of recommended list of organizations for support
At its October meeting the COD heard a subcommittee recommendation
regarding the process of providing a recommended list of organizations
for offerings/giving to the churches and diaconates. They summarized
that there is little evidence that the list is used, and that the vetting process
of charitable organizations requires significant time and attention from fi-
nance staff. The COD is recommending that Synod 2023 discontinue the
practice of providing a recommended list of charitable organizations to
the churches.
3. Reimagining Ministry Shares update
Since June 2020 churches have been asked to pay ministry shares based on
what they decide to pledge rather than on a member-based assessment.
This has been called Ministry Shares Reimagined. Synod 2022 asked the
COD to examine congregational responses to this relatively new practice,
with particular attention to questions such as the following (see Acts of
Synod 2022, pp. 846-47):
• Why are ministry share contributions declining, especially in the
U.S.?

• How are churches contributing in alternate ways?
• What other ministry priorities are congregations funding?
• What should we be doing going forward?
The chief administrative officer and the advancement director-U.S. were
asked by COD to shepherd a process of meeting with stakeholders and
key denominational staff with an interest in the ministry-share system and
to gather the data and information synod requested. COD members also
suggested sending a letter to the classes encouraging a conversation at
their fall meetings. An update on this matter is expected at the May meet-
ing of the COD. Any changes recommended to synod by the COD will
come through the COD Supplement report.
III. Recommendations
A. That synod grant the privilege of the floor to Andy de Ruyter, chair of
the Council of Delegates; Michael L. Ten Haken, vice chair of the Council
of Delegates; Zachary J. King, general secretary; and members of the exec-
utive staff as needed when matters pertaining to the Council of Delegates,
ReFrame Ministries, or Resonate Global Mission, or other ministries of the
CRCNA are discussed.
B. That synod grant all requests for privilege of the floor by the COD,
agencies and ministries, educational institutions, standing committees,
and study committees of synod contained within the reports to Synod
2023.
C. That synod approve all requests for special offerings for the agencies,
ministries, and educational institutions of the CRC that are contained
within the reports to Synod 2023.
D. That synod by way of the ballot appoint Tabitha D. Manuelito (Red
Mesa), Loren Veldhuizen (Heartland), and Jim Winkel (Northern Michi-
gan), previously appointed as interim COD classical delegates, to a modi-
fied first term (I, C-D).
E. That synod thank COD members who are retiring from or concluding
service on the Council of Delegates for their faithful service and significant
contributions to the denomination (I, D).
F. That synod by way of the ballot elect new members to the COD from
the nominations presented to a first term of three years and reappoint
members to a second term (I, D).
G. That synod approve the interim appointments made by the COD for
synodical deputies and alternate synodical deputies (II, A, 1).
H. That synod accept the invitation of Lee Street CRC in Wyoming, Michi-
gan, to serve as the convening church of Synod 2024, to be held in Grand
Rapids, Michigan, on the campus of Calvin University (II, A, 7).
Ground: Lee Street’s multicultural focus with both English and Spanish
services, as well as their partnerships with local schools and other

ministries, offer synod the opportunity to celebrate diversity and out-
reach in the CRC.
I. That synod express gratitude to John Koot and Doug Vande Griend for
their years of service to the Judicial Code Committee (II, A, 9, a).
J. That synod reappoint Bomsu Kim and Deloris Carter, respectively, to a
second term of three years on the Judicial Code Committee (II, A, 9, b).
K. In light of feedback about the Code of Conduct from classes and con-
gregations, the COD presents the following recommendations to synod
for adoption (II, A, 10, b and Appendix A):
1. That synod adopt the proposed revised CRCNA Code of Conduct
for Ministry Leaders (see Addendum A) and endorse the accompa-
nying FAQ sheet (see Addendum B).
Grounds:
a. Classes and churches have had adequate time to give feedback
and input into the Code of Conduct as requested by Synod 2022.
b. The proposed revised CRCNA Code of Conduct for Ministry
Leaders and the FAQ sheet address the feedback, questions, and
concerns received from classes and local churches about the
Code of Conduct and the implementation plan.
c. Approving the Code of Conduct fulfills the intentions of Synod
2019 in its directives regarding the abuse of power.
2. That synod adopt the following revisions/additions to the Church
Order 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 Supplement, Article 5-a).
Church Order Article 5-b
All officebearers shall uphold the standards of behavior summarized in
the CRCNA Code of Conduct for Ministry Leaders.
—Cf. Supplement, Article 5-b
Supplement, Article 5-b
[The full text of the CRCNA Code of Conduct for Ministry Leaders in
Appendix A.]
b. Revise Church Order Supplement, Article 13-c, section c as indi-
cated by the following addition in italics:
Supplement, Article 13-c, section c
The duties of the minister are spiritual in character and directly
related to the ministerial calling, and such duties do not conflict
with the minister’s commitment to the faith and practice of the
Christian Reformed Church as required by one’s signature to

the Covenant for Officebearers and as articulated in the Code of
Conduct.
Grounds:
1) These changes to the Church Order reflect the intention of the
Addressing the Abuse of Power Committee to implement a
Code of Conduct that all ministry leaders commit to uphold.
2) Concerns about the original implementation plan (found in Ad-
dendum C) were that it gave the impression that the Code of
Conduct would be on the same level as the Covenant for Office-
bearers. This was reflected most clearly in the requirement for
officebearers to sign both the Covenant for Officebearers and
the Code of Conduct on all occasions stipulated by council, clas-
sical, and synodical regulations. The proposed revisions correct
that impression by clearly distinguishing between the Covenant
for Officebearers and the Code of Conduct.
3. That synod encourage councils and classes to require assent to the
Code of Conduct by all staff (non-ordained as well as ordained)
and volunteers who are providing leadership in the church or clas-
sis.
Ground: This recommendation carries out the decision of Synod
2019 in response to the report of the Addressing the Abuse of
Power Committee that the Code of Conduct be upheld by all minis-
try personnel who are employed by the CRCNA, local churches,
and classes while preserving the authority of the local council and
classis to implement the Code of Conduct in their particular set-
tings.
4. That synod mandate the general secretary to oversee the develop-
ment of training modules that orient officebearers and ministry
leaders to the Code of Conduct.
Grounds:
a. Training modules on the Code of Conduct were requested in
the feedback to help churches introduce and orient ministry
staff to expectations and appropriate behaviors.
b. Training modules will help to ensure that the Code of Conduct
becomes a living document that shapes the leadership culture of
our denomination and has a real impact on addressing the mis-
use of power.
L. That synod take note of the updates provided within the COD report
on addressing directives of Synod 2019 regarding the abuse of power
(II, A, 10, c).
M. That synod adopt the following change to Church Order Article 45
proposed by Synod 2022 (II, A, 12, a) (additions indicated by italics):
Synod is the assembly representing the churches of all classes. Each
classis shall ordinarily delegate one minister, one elder, one deacon,

and one other officebearer to synod. A classis may send no more than two
delegates bearing the same office.
Grounds:
1. This permits needed flexibility for classes in constituting their dele-
gations to achieve full participation at synod.
2. Recent history has demonstrated a persistent difficulty in classes’
sending a full delegation to synod.
3. The principles of Christian fellowship and unity call us to act in
ways that promote justice and equality and maximize the voices
present at synod, especially from minority-majority classes, rural or
geographically distant classes, and smaller classes that have strug-
gled to send a full delegation under the present system.
4. Retaining four delegates while allowing a maximum of two per of-
fice maintains diversity of office while also maintaining a full com-
plement of deliberative voices at synod.
N. That synod take note of the Our Journey 2025 (Ministry Plan) resources,
including visuals, conversation cards, and other tools to aid in engaging
classes and churches in the excitement and ownership of the ministry plan
(II, B, 2).
O. That synod ratify the nomination of Rev. Kevin DeRaaf as the director
of Resonate Global Mission, effective July 1, 2023 (II, B, 7, b and Appendix
C).
P. That synod adopt the following with regard to Congregational Minis-
tries (II, B, 9 and Appendix D):
1. That synod recognize Congregational Ministries as a ministry
agency of the CRCNA to engage and accompany Christian Re-
formed congregations as they seek to faithfully and holistically em-
body the gospel in their respective contexts.
2. That synod approve the vision, mission, mandate, and core pos-
tures in the guiding document as the synodical framework for Con-
gregational Ministries (Appendix D).
3. That synod (a) conclude the synodical mandates and directives
given to the previously separate ministries in Congregational Min-
istries and (b) instruct Congregational Ministries to utilize these
historical guidelines as valuable information for understanding
synod’s intent regarding the desired denominational support for
congregations.
Q. That synod approve discontinuing the practice and policy of reviewing
and recommending charitable organizations to CRC churches for offerings
(II, A, 15; II, C, 2; see also Appendix E in COD Governance Handbook).
Grounds:
1. The annual review process requires a significant amount of staff
time and effort.

2. Information about charitable organizations is readily available
online.
3. There is minimal anecdotal evidence that the list of organizations
recommended for offerings is used by our churches.
R. That synod receive as information the condensed financial statements
of the agencies and educational institutions (Appendix F).
Council of Delegates of the

Christian Reformed Church in North America
Andy de Ruyter, chair
APPENDIX A
Code of Conduct Review Team Report

Outline of report
I. Background
II. Summary of feedback from classes and churches
Addendum A
I. Proposed Revisions to the CRC Code of Conduct for Ministry Lead-
ers (changes indicated and clean versions)
II. Proposed Revised Code of Conduct (clean)
Addendum B: Proposed Code of Conduct FAQs Document
Addendum C: Proposed Revisions to Code of Conduct Implementation
Plan
I. Background
Synod 2018 instructed “the Council of Delegates, in consultation with the
executive director, to appoint a small team to bring recommendations
through the Council of Delegates to Synod 2019 regarding how the
CRCNA can best address patterns of abuse of power at all levels of the de-
nomination” (Acts of Synod 2018, p. 523). In one short year, that committee
produced an extensive report that included nine recommendations for
curtailing abuses of power in our denomination. Synod 2019 approved all
nine recommendations, including that synod mandate a committee “to
draft a code of conduct for all employed ministry staff within the CRC.”
The draft code of conduct was to be presented “to Synod 2020 for ap-
proval and with recommendations for implementation for the denomina-
tion, classes, and churches” (Acts of Synod 2019, p. 795). The rationale
given for this recommendation was presented in the report of the Ad-
dressing the Abuse of Power Committee (see Acts of Synod 2019, p. 602).

• A code of conduct provides clarity about the attitudes and behav-
iors that parishioners can expect from a pastor or from ministry
staff in the practice of ministry.
• The behaviors and ethical practices described in the code are essen-
tial for healthy and safe ministry.
• A code of conduct can enhance and encourage accountability for
ministry leaders.
• A code of conduct can provide guidance on aspects of contempo-
rary ministry that were not envisioned in biblical times.
• A code of conduct is different from the Covenant for Officebearers,
which describes beliefs and doctrine but does not include descrip-
tions of behavior.
Because Synods 2020 and 2021 were canceled due to the COVID-19 pan-
demic, the Code of Conduct didn’t come before synod until 2022. Synod
2022 raised some hesitations about approving the proposed Code of Con-
duct and implementation plan on grounds that the local churches and
classes had not had adequate opportunity to provide feedback and input.
To address this concern, Synod 2022 directed that the proposed Code of
Conduct (with an amendment suggested by the advisory committee) and
the implementation plan be forwarded “to the classes for study and input,
and that these be revised in light of feedback received for consideration by
Synod 2023” (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 898).
To collect feedback from the classes, the general secretary sent a letter
dated August 15, 2022, to the stated clerk of each of the 49 classes asking
that the classes have a discussion on the Code of Conduct and the pro-
posed implementation plan at their fall classis meeting and that they sub-
mit their feedback by December 31, 2022. Responses were received from
23 classes (16 whole classes, 12 councils, and 5 individuals). Some classes
submitted a summary of the discussion that took place at their fall meet-
ing. Others passed along the feedback submitted by individual churches.
The general secretary also assembled a Code of Conduct Review Team to
review the feedback received from the classes and, based on this feedback,
propose revisions to the Code of Conduct and the implementation plan.
The review team was made up of six persons from across the denomina-
tion who met together six times over the course of three months with the
goal of closely considering the responses and concerns reflected in the
feedback and making recommendations for a way forward.
II. Summary of feedback from classes and churches
A significant number of classes and churches expressed appreciation for
the Code of Conduct as a helpful resource for ministry leaders to outline
what it means to conduct themselves in Christlike ways as persons with
power, influence, and authority within the community of believers. In
light of this, some classes and councils have already adopted the Code of
Conduct and have incorporated it into their policies and practices.

Other classes and churches suggested that the Code of Conduct is unnec-
essary or redundant and pointed to the Bible and the confessions, as well
as Church Order Articles 82-84, as sources that outline a standard of be-
havior for ministry leaders. Furthermore, some classes and churches re-
flected their concern that having ministry leaders sign a Code of Conduct
would not, in itself, make the church a safer place and that this initiative
will just become an administrative hoop.
Finally, some classes and churches expressed objections to implementing a
Code of Conduct, expressing fear and concern that it would be weapon-
ized against ministry leaders.
A. Suggestions from classes and churches for revisions to the Code of Conduct
Specific suggestions for revising the Code of Conduct included the follow-
ing:
• Edit the opening line from “As a ministry leader, I commit to the
following . . .” to “As a ministry leader, I will, to the best of my abil-
ity, commit to the following. . . .”
• Clarify terms like “abuse of power,” “hospitality,” “safe environ-
ment,” “confidentiality,” “voice of God,” “conflict of interest,”
“spiritual abuse,” etc.
• Alter wording to better reflect the language of Scripture (e.g.,
“kingdom of God” rather than “common good”).
• Add “sexual orientation” under second bullet in Relational section.
• Add “vulnerable or dependent populations” under the second bul-
let in Safety section.
• Change wording to reflect a more positive tone.
• Reorder the Code of Conduct from broader to more specific princi-
ples.
• Add a reporting number to the bottom of the Code of Conduct.
• Add a section on technology/social media.
The committee considered all of these suggestions and incorporated some
of them in the proposed revisions to the Code of Conduct.
B. Suggestions from classes and churches for implementing the Code of Conduct
Classes, churches, and individuals also submitted suggestions and com-
ments about implementing the Code of Conduct. The following are com-
mon themes in the suggestions:
• Incorporate the Code of Conduct in the exercise of mutual censure
by the council.
• Develop a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document as an ad-
dendum to the Code of Conduct.
• Develop online training modules on the Code of Conduct that in-
clude case studies.

• Make the Code of Conduct part of the onboarding process for
council members and new staff.
• Make the Code of Conduct a recommended resource, not a require-
ment.
• In lieu of the Code of Conduct, add something like “I understand
that I am called to steward my authority in ways that do not cause
harm to others and have completed the ‘Stewarding Our Authority’
training” to the Covenant for Officebearers.
The committee considered all of these suggestions and incorporated some
of them in the recommendations for implementing the Code of Conduct.
C. Common questions submitted by classes and churches
Finally, classes, churches, and individuals submitted questions about the
Code of Conduct and its implementation plan. The following questions
represent common themes that emerged.
• Who is a ministry leader?
• Who oversees the implementation of and accountability for abiding
by the Code of Conduct?
• How is the Code of Conduct enforced?
• Who defines what constitutes an abuse of power?
• How do we prevent the Code of Conduct from being weaponized
against ministry leaders?
• How will we make modifications to the Code of Conduct? Will this
need to be approved by synod?
• How does the Code of Conduct relate to other documents, policies,
and practices?
• Will the church be more liable for allegations of misconduct if it
adopts a Code of Conduct?
The review team provided answers to many of these questions in the pro-
posed FAQ document.
In light of the feedback from the classes and local churches, the following
recommendations are presented to synod for adoption:
A. That synod adopt the proposed revised CRCNA Code of Conduct for
Ministry Leaders (see Addendum A) and endorse the accompanying FAQ
document (see Addendum B).
Grounds:
1. Classes and churches have had adequate time to give feedback and
input into the Code of Conduct as requested by Synod 2022.
2. The proposed revised CRCNA Code of Conduct for Ministry Lead-
ers and the FAQ document address the feedback, questions, and

concerns received from classes and local churches about the Code
of Conduct and the implementation plan.
3. Approving the Code of Conduct fulfills the intentions of Synod
2019 in its directives regarding abuse of power.
B. That synod adopt the following revisions/additions to the Church Or-
der and its Supplements (indicated by italics):
1. 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).
All officebearers shall uphold the standards of behavior summarized in the
CRCNA Code of Conduct for Ministry Leaders.
Supplement, Article 5-b
[The full text of the CRCNA Code of Conduct for Ministry Leaders in Ad-
dendum A.]
2. Revise Church Order Supplement, Article 13-c, section c as indi-
The duties of the minister are spiritual in character and directly re-
lated to the ministerial calling, and such duties do not conflict with
the minister’s commitment to the faith and practice of the Christian
Reformed Church as required by one’s signature to the Covenant
for Officebearers and as articulated in the Code of Conduct.
Grounds:
a. These changes to the Church Order reflect the intention of the Ad-
dressing the Abuse of Power Committee to implement a Code of Con-
duct which all ministry leaders commit to uphold.
b. Concerns about the original implementation plan (found in Adden-
dum C) were that it gave the impression that the Code of Conduct
would be on the same level as the Covenant for Officebearers. This
was reflected most clearly in the requirement for officebearers to sign
both the Covenant for Officebearers and the Code of Conduct on all
occasions stipulated by council, classical, and synodical regulations.
The proposed revisions correct that impression by clearly distinguish-
ing between the Covenant for Officebearers and the Code of Conduct.
C. That synod encourage councils and classes to require assent to the Code
of Conduct by all staff (non-ordained as well as ordained) and volunteers
who are providing leadership in the church or classis.
Ground: This recommendation carries out the decision of Synod 2019 in
response to the report of the Addressing the Abuse of Power Commit-
tee that the Code of Conduct be upheld by all ministry personnel who

are employed by the CRCNA, local churches, and classes while pre-
serving the authority of the local council and classis to implement the
Code of Conduct in their particular settings.
D. That synod mandate the general secretary to oversee the development
of training modules that orient officebearers and ministry leaders to the
Code of Conduct.
Grounds:
1. Training modules on the Code of Conduct were requested in the
feedback to help churches introduce and orient ministry staff to ex-
pectations and appropriate behaviors.
2. Training modules will help to ensure that the Code of Conduct be-
comes a living document that shapes the leadership culture of our
denomination and has a real impact on addressing the misuse of
power.
Code of Conduct Review Team

Amanda Benckhuysen, convener
Gary Duthler, reporter
Fred Harvey
Hyung-Jun Kim
Luann Sankey
Lesli van Milligen
ADDENDUM A
I. Proposed Revisions to the CRCNA Code of Conduct for Ministry

Leaders (changes indicated)
Note: In addition to the proposed revisions noted by italics/strikeout, the
Review Team proposes reordering the sections and points within the
Code of Conduct to move from broader categories to more specific ones:
Relationships, Safety, Pastoral Leadership, Confidentiality, and Finances.
A revised version that shows these changes follows in section II below.
Preamble
In Philippians 2 the apostle Paul brings to his Philippian readers the
words of a hymn in which Christ Jesus is acknowledged as being, in his
very nature, God. Among other things, this means that Christ is the one to
whom all power belongs.
The hymn goes on to say that Christ did not consider equality with God as
something to be used to his own advantage. In fact, he made himself noth-
ing, taking the very nature of a servant, and humbling himself toward a
life-sacrificing kind of obedience. In other words, he used his power for
the glory of God and the thriving of others.
All of us who are united to Christ by faith and who serve in the life of the
church are called, in this passage and others, to this way of being. Jesus

himself, in response to the desire for power expressed by his disciples,
called them (and us) to use power to bring glory to God and serve people, a
way of holding power that confronts and contrasts with the ways that the
world uses power.1
Not only do we have this call from Christ, but we actually have Jesus liv-
ing and growing within us (Gal. 2:20). As a result, we find ourselves being
transformed into the kind of people who hold and use power in a Christ-
like way.
That being said, until Christ returns and brings us to perfection, we will
continue to wrestle with the urge to misuse power and abuse others. Ugly
realities such as verbal, emotional, psychological, physical, sexual, and
spiritual abuse are found among us. The power that we hold by virtue of
our person or our position can always be twisted into the project of build-
ing our own kingdoms at the expense of others. This is true for pastors,
lay ministry leaders, and church members alike.
In awareness of these ugly realities and in the beautiful hope of Christ’s
transforming work, the following code of conduct is offered for ministry
leaders. It is shaped by Scripture and by commitments found in our con-
fessional statements and contemporary testimonies.2 (See Belgic Confession,
Article 28; Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A’s 55, 107, 111.) It emerges out of a re-
sponse by Synod 2018 to patterns of abuse that had been brought to its at-
tention3 and is aimed at preventing such abuse in the future. May God’s
peace be among us.
Code of Conduct
Abuse of power is a misuse of position, authority, or influence to take ad-
vantage of, manipulate, or control. Ministry leaders have been empowered by
God and the church to serve the body of Christ for good. They are called to resist
all temptations to abuse that power through the misuse of position, authority, or
influence. Abuse of power is often defined as misusing power to harm another
person or using power and influence to take unjust advantage of another person
occurs when a person with power, regardless of its source, uses that
power to harm and/or influence another for personal gain at the other’s
expense. All abuse by faith ministry leaders within the church is also spir-
itual abuse and has spiritual impacts that often heighten the harm caused
to individuals and to the family of God. (For more background, see Acts of
Synod 2019, pp. 587-615). For more on the use and misuse of power, see the re-
port of the Addressing the Abuse of Power Committee (Acts of Synod 2019, pp.
587-615).
As a ministry leader, I will, to the best of my ability, commit to the following:
Confidentiality
I will use maintain and uphold confidentiality appropriately, which means I
will hold in confidence whatever information is not mine to share.
I will not use information shared with me in confidence in order to elevate
my position or to depreciate that of others.

My use of confidentiality will also be guided by mandatory reporting as
required by law.
RelationalRelationships
I will speak and act, in all my personal and professional relations, in ways
that follow the pattern of Christ, who used his power to serve (1 Pet. 5;
Mark 10; Phil. 2; 2 Tim. 4:2).
I will conduct myself with respect, love, and treat with integrity and truth-
fulness toward all regardless of position, status, race, gender, age, or abil-
ity. people of every position, status, race, ethnicity, gender, age, or ability.
To the best of my ability, I will contribute to an environment of hospital-
ity.
FinancialFinances
I will ensure that funds for which I am responsible or which are under my con-
trol are used for their intended ministry purposes.
In all financial matters, including the acceptance of gifts, I will act with
scrupulous honesty, transparency, and appropriate accountability.
I will appropriately use and encourage accepted accounting practices and
regular reviews and/or audits of ministry funds.
Intimate Relationships
I will maintain standards and appropriate emotional, physical, and sexual
boundaries in all relationships which are informed by the Scriptures.
I will keep all of my professional relationships free from inappropriate
emotional and sexual behaviors. This includes not engaging in inappropri-
ate intimate contact or a sexual relationship, unwanted physical contact,
emotional or sexual intimacy, sexual comments, gestures, or jokes.
Safety
I will actively promote a safe welcoming and respectful environment where
all persons are treated with dignity respected and valued, and where any
form of abuse, bullying, or harassment is neither tolerated nor allowed to
take place.
I will report known or suspected cases of physical, sexual, or emotional
abuse or neglect of minors or vulnerable adults to the proper government
authorities.
I will support adults those who disclose physical, sexual, or emotional
abuse in a way that appropriately empowers the person who has been vic-
timized to seek out justice and healing.
SpiritualPastoral Leadership
I will acknowledge the use of Scripture and the Spirit’s work in the com-
munity of the church and, therefore, refrain from presuming to be the sole
“voice of God.”

I will refrain from using references to Scripture or God to manipulate, coerce, or
threaten another person.
I will teach, admonish, or discipline in ways that are biblical and Christ-
like, and I will seek other people’s well-being (Matthew 18; Colossians 1:28;
3:16). promoting the shalom and flourishing of those to whom I am ministering.
I will use my power, authority, and position as a way to serve build up the
body community of believers, rather than myself, for the common good
and the cultivation of the gifts of the Spirit. and seek first the kingdom of God.
Additional Commitments
I will work within my professional competence, especially in counseling
situations, and I will refer individuals to other professionals as appropri-
ate.
I will promote truthfulness, transparency, and honesty in all of my work.
I will disclose any perceived or actual conflict of interest.
In the event that I misuse my power, either intentionally or unintention-
ally, as a ministry leader, I will acknowledge the harm that has been
caused and the trust that has been broken, and I will actively seek restora-
tion with justice, compassion, truth, and grace. I will humbly submit to the
insight and accountability of others to ensure that I use any power en-
trusted to me fully in service to Christ.
In the beautiful hope of Christ’s transforming work, in all that I do, I will seek
to use my position, power, and authority prudently and humbly to support
and encourage all the members of his body in my care and in nonexploitive
ways.
1
See Mark 10:35-45. Note that there are other Scripture texts that address
the use of power to bless, such as 1 Peter 5:1-4. In addition, there are texts
that describe abuses of power and the damage that such abuses cause (see,
for example, 2 Sam. 11 and Ezek. 34).
2
See Belgic Confession, Article 28, and Heidelberg Catechism, Q. and A.
55, 107, 111. See also the statement in the Confession of Belhar that says,
“We believe . . . that the church as the possession of God must stand
where the Lord stands, namely against injustice and with the wronged;
that in following Christ the church must witness against all the powerful
and privileged who selfishly seek their own interests and thus control and
harm others” (Confession of Belhar, Article 4). Further, in Our World Be-
longs to God, we read that the church is a “new community,” gathered by
God, in which “all are welcome” (para. 34); that the church’s mission in
this broken world is a mission of proclaiming the gospel and its implica-
tions for life today (para. 41); and that, “restored in Christ’s presence,
shaped by his life, this new community lives out the ongoing story of
God’s reconciling love, announces the new creation, and works for a
world of justice and peace” (para. 39). Such statements describe the mis-
sion of the church in general and provide foundation for the specific code
of conduct presented here.

3
Bev Sterk’s overture to Synod 2018, titled “Address Patterns of Abuse of
Power That Violate the Sacred Trust Given to Leaders and Recognize How
These Hinder Due Process and Healing,” and appendices specifically re-
lated to it, can be found in the Agenda for Synod 2018, pp. 282-307 (see
crcna.org/Synod Resources). The subsequent action of Synod 2018 was to
form an “Abuse of Power Committee” to study “how the CRCNA can best
address patterns of abuse of power at all levels of the denomination” (Acts
of Synod 2018, pp. 523-24). The work of Synod 2019 related to this over-
ture can be found in the Acts of Synod 2019, pp. 794-96 (see
crcna.org/Synod Resources). The particular recommendation calling for a
code of conduct is recommendation 3, c (p. 795).
II. Proposed Revised Code of Conduct (clean)
Preamble
In Philippians 2, the apostle Paul brings to his Philippian readers the
words of a hymn in which Christ Jesus is acknowledged as being, in his
very nature, God. Among other things, this means that Christ is the one to
whom all power belongs.
The hymn goes on to say that Christ did not consider equality with God as
something to be used to his own advantage. In fact, he made himself noth-
ing, taking the very nature of a servant, and humbling himself toward a
life-sacrificing kind of obedience. In other words, he used his power for
the glory of God and the thriving of others.
All of us who are united to Christ by faith and who serve in the life of the
church are called, in this passage and others, to this way of being. Jesus
himself, in response to the desire for power expressed by his disciples,
called them (and us) to use power to bring glory to God and serve people,
a way of holding power that confronts and contrasts with the ways that
the world uses power.
Not only do we have this call from Christ, but we actually have Jesus liv-
ing and growing within us (Gal. 2:20). As a result, we find ourselves being
transformed into the kind of people who hold and use power in a Christ-
like way.
That being said, until Christ returns and brings us to perfection, we will
continue to wrestle with the urge to misuse power and abuse others. Ugly
realities such as verbal, emotional, psychological, physical, sexual, and
spiritual abuse are found among us. The power that we hold by virtue of
our person or our position can always be twisted into the project of build-
ing up ourselves and our own kingdoms at the expense of others. This is
true for pastors, lay ministry leaders, and church members alike.
In awareness of these ugly realities and in the beautiful hope of Christ’s
transforming work, the following code of conduct is offered for ministry
leaders. It is shaped by Scripture and by commitments found in our con-
fessional statements and contemporary testimonies. (See Belgic Confes-
sion, Article 28; Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A’s 55, 107, 111.) It emerges out

of a response by Synod 2018 to patterns of abuse that had been brought to
its attention and is aimed at preventing such abuse in the future. May
God’s peace be among us.
Code of Conduct
Ministry leaders have been empowered by God and the church to serve
the body of Christ for good. They are called to resist all temptations to
abuse their power through the misuse of position, authority, or influence.
Abuse of power is often defined as misusing power to harm another per-
son or using power and influence to take unjust advantage of another per-
son. All abuse by ministry leaders within the church is also spiritual abuse
and has spiritual impacts that often heighten the harm caused to individu-
als and to the family of God. For more on the use and misuse of power,
see the report of the Addressing the Abuse of Power Committee (Acts of
Synod 2019, pp. 587-615).
As a ministry leader, I will, to the best of my ability, commit to the follow-
ing:
Relationships
1. I will speak and act, in all my personal and professional relations, in
ways that follow the pattern of Christ, who used his power to serve (1
Pet. 5; Mark 10; Phil. 2; 2 Tim. 4:2).
2. I will respect, love, and treat with integrity and truthfulness people of
every position, status, race, ethnicity, gender, age, or ability.
3. I will maintain appropriate emotional, physical, and sexual boundaries
in all relationships.
4. I will keep all my relationships free from inappropriate or unwanted
physical contact, emotional or sexual intimacy, sexual comments, ges-
tures, or jokes.
Safety
1. I will actively promote a welcoming and respectful environment where
all persons are treated with dignity and value, and where any form of
abuse, bullying, or harassment is neither tolerated nor allowed to take
place.
2. I will report known or suspected cases of physical, sexual, or emo-
tional abuse or neglect of minors or vulnerable adults to the proper au-
thorities.
3. I will support those who disclose physical, sexual, or emotional abuse
in a way that empowers the person who has been victimized to seek
out justice and healing.
Pastoral Leadership
1. I will promote truthfulness, transparency, and honesty in all of my
work.

2. I will use my power, authority, and position to build up the commu-
nity of believers and seek first the kingdom of God.
3. I will work within my professional competence, especially in counsel-
ing situations, and I will refer individuals to other professionals as ap-
propriate.
4. I will refrain from using references to Scripture or God to manipulate,
coerce, or threaten another person.
5. I will teach, admonish, or discipline in ways that are biblical and
Christlike, promoting the shalom and flourishing of those to whom I
am ministering.
6. I will disclose any perceived or actual conflict of interest.
Confidentiality
1. I will maintain and uphold confidentiality appropriately, which means
I will hold in confidence whatever information is not mine to share.
2. I will not use information shared with me in confidence in order to ele-
vate my position or to depreciate that of others.
Finances
1. I will ensure that funds for which I am responsible or which are under
my control are used for their intended ministry purposes.
2. In all financial matters, including the acceptance of gifts, I will act with
scrupulous honesty, transparency, and appropriate accountability.
3. I will appropriately use and encourage accepted accounting practices
and regular reviews and/or audits of ministry funds.
In the event that I misuse my power, either intentionally or unintention-

ally, I will acknowledge the harm that has been caused and the trust that
has been broken, and I will actively seek restoration with justice, compas-
sion, truth, and grace. I will humbly submit to the insight and accountabil-
ity of others to ensure that I use any power entrusted to me fully in service
to Christ.
In the beautiful hope of Christ’s transforming work, in all I do, I will seek
to use my position, power, and authority prudently and humbly to sup-
port and encourage all the members of his body in my care.
ADDENDUM B
Proposed Code of Conduct FAQs Document

1. Why do we need a Code of Conduct?
A Code of Conduct serves both ministry leaders and congregations by
clearly identifying expectations for Christlike behavior. It allows churches

to be proactive in educating staff and volunteers about expectations rather
than reactive when unspoken expectations are not met. Additionally, a
Code of Conduct, when implemented well, helps to shape the culture of a
congregation, particularly with respect to how people are treated, foster-
ing a culture in our churches where the value of every person is protected
and where everyone is free to worship God and grow in faith free from
harm.
2. But we have the Bible and the confessions. Why do we also need a
Code of Conduct?
The Bible is our guide for faith and life. The confessions are systematic
summaries and interpretations of the Bible around which we are united as
a denomination and which we confess to be faithful and true to the teach-
ings of Scripture. The Code of Conduct is a document that outlines, in a
succinct and accessible way, what the teachings of Scripture mean for spe-
cific aspects of ministry leadership today. As such, it establishes standards
of behavior and practices in addressing contemporary realities related to
mandatory reporting, interpersonal relationships, confidentiality, financial
integrity, and pastoral leadership in one short document. One way to
think of it is as a summary of Christian standards for contemporary minis-
try leadership. It clarifies for ministry leaders what is required for healthy
and safe ministry, and it communicates to parishioners what they can ex-
pect from a pastor or from ministry staff in the practice of ministry.
3. Haven’t ministry leaders already shown themselves to be people of
character and integrity? Why do they need a Code of Conduct?
Ministry leaders have a significant amount of authority and emotional
and spiritual influence over the people who participate in the ministries of
the church. People extend a great deal of trust to ministry leaders, inviting
them into their lives at times and on occasions of significant vulnerabil-
ity—birth, death, sickness, times of fear, doubt, joy, and suffering. It is a
rare privilege to come alongside and support someone in their faith jour-
ney, being the presence of Christ to them. But with such great power
comes great responsibility—responsibility to use this power in ways that
lead to the shalom and flourishing of others.
Typically, ministry leaders are mature Christians who exemplify good
character and integrity, exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, such as love, joy,
peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control. Still,
like all human beings, they are prone to sin, and they make mistakes.
Stress, anxiety, burnout, and disappointment may lead them to act out of
their worst selves rather than their life in Christ. As a result, they may fail
at times to use their authority in a way that is good and instead use it in a
way that brings about harm. When ministry leaders use their authority
and influence in ways that bring harm, the whole congregation and the in-
tegrity of the church’s witness to the gospel are affected. For this reason, it
is crucial that the church put in place tools and measures of accountability
that help ministry leaders use their authority and influence responsibly in

order to build up the people to whom they are ministering. The Code of
Conduct is one such tool.
4. Who is a ministry leader?
• All officebearers (ordained ministers, commissioned pastors, el-
ders, and deacons).
• All CRCNA staff members and members of the Council of Dele-
gates.
• Local church councils are also encouraged to require assent to the
Code of Conduct by all church staff (whether or not they are or-
dained) and volunteers who are providing leadership in the
church.
5. Who oversees the implementation of the Code of Conduct?
The implementation of the Code of Conduct is the responsibility of the lo-
cal council that holds the membership or credentials of the ministry
leader. A classis has responsibility to implement the Code of Conduct for
its ministry leaders and employees. For CRCNA staff members, this over-
sight is shared with the Human Resource departments for denominational
staff.
6. How is the Code of Conduct enforced?
The assembly that implements the Code of Conduct is also responsible for
determining how to enforce the Code of Conduct and the ramifications for
people who violate it based on the gravity of the offense and the harm
done. For instance, a one-time minor offense may be made right through a
heartfelt apology and acknowledgment of wrongdoing to the person or
people who have been harmed. A pattern of behavior that brings harm to
others may be addressed by calling the offender to repentance, establish-
ing a plan to make amends for the harm done, requiring the offender to
take “The Power to Do Good” course offered through Safe Church or
other training, requiring the offender to attend counseling, and establish-
ing greater measures of accountability for the offender. Should it be deter-
mined that the violation of the Code of Conduct rises to the level of un-
godly behavior, ordained ministry staff will be subject to special discipline
as outlined in Church Order Article 83, and unordained staff or volunteers
who are members of a church may be subject to general discipline per
Church Order Article 81. Should the violation of the Code of Conduct in-
clude a criminal act, the council will report the incident to law enforce-
ment.
7. Who defines what constitutes an abuse of power or a violation of the
Code of Conduct?
Discerning the gravity of a violation is dependent on assessing the harm
done. While ordinarily it is up to the local council to enforce the Code of
Conduct and determine consequences for violation, Safe Church coordina-

tors, denominational Safe Church staff, and the Dignity Team are availa-
ble for consultation and advice. If in doubt, councils are encouraged to
email [email protected].
8. How do we prevent the Code of Conduct from being weaponized
against people?
Key to cultivating a culture of dignity and respect in the church is creating
safe and receptive avenues for reporting abuse or misconduct. Those who
have been harmed need to be heard and cared for by the church. This pos-
ture, however, does not assume the guilt of the accused. Allegations of vi-
olations should be examined and assessed through a fair process. The lo-
cal church council is responsible for deciding the best way to follow up on
the allegations (see “Guidelines to Handling Abuse Allegations against a
Church Leader” at crcna.org/SafeChurch/abuse-response). Denomina-
tional Safe Church staff are available to provide counsel and support.
9. How will we make modifications to the Code of Conduct? Will this
need to be approved by synod?
Because approval by synod is required for modifications to the Church
Order, modifications to the Code of Conduct would need to come before
synod if the Code of Conduct is incorporated into the Supplement for
Church Order Article 5-b.
10. How does the Code of Conduct relate to other documents, policies,
and practices?
• While the Covenant for Officebearers identifies our shared beliefs,
the Code of Conduct is an invitation for ministry leaders to cove-
nant around a shared standard of behavior. These two documents
address different aspects of Christian discipleship.
• Some churches may choose to incorporate the Code of Conduct into
their Safe Church policies so that it becomes part of the annual
training for all church staff and volunteers.
• Furthermore, the Code of Conduct can be a helpful educational and
self-assessment tool for councils in the practice of mutual censure.
11. Will the church be more liable for allegations of misconduct if it
adopts a Code of Conduct?
The church is already legally responsible for providing a reasonable
standard of safety, care, and commitment to the well-being of the people
who participate in its ministry while they are involved in ministry pro-
grams and events. The church’s legal liability increases when it fails to at-
tend to its fiduciary duty of care, regardless of whether the church imple-
ments a Code of Conduct. The implementation of a Code of Conduct does
not make the church more liable. Instead, it helps ministry leaders take
greater heed of their legal responsibility toward those involved in the
church’s ministry.

12. How can the Code of Conduct be used effectively in annual reviews
of ministry staff?
Suggested questions for annual review
Questions related to the employee's use of power
1. How are you stewarding the trust and authority that have been
given to you in your work?
2. What are some of the key ways that you have been able to use your
position, authority, and influence to build others up over the past
year?
3. In what ways might you need to grow in how you fulfill your com-
mitment to elements of the Code of Conduct? How might we help
you to do that?
Questions related to the employee's experience of the power of those in
supervision
1. In what ways are you experiencing your supervisor(s) as being
faithful in the ways they steward trust and authority over you?
2. In what ways have you experienced the positions, authority, and
influence of those who supervise your work in ways that have
helped you to flourish?
3. Are there any ways in which you have felt marginalized or mis-
treated by those who supervise you? Please describe.
4. In what ways might we need to grow in how we fulfill our commit-
ment to elements of the Code of Conduct? How might you help us
to do that?
ADDENDUM C
Proposed Revisions to the Implementation Plan for the

CRCNA Code of Conduct for Ministry Leaders
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).

All officebearers and ministry leaders, on occasions stipulated by council,
classical, and synodical regulations, shall uphold signify their agreement
the standards of behavior summarized in the CRCNA Code of Conduct for
ministry leaders. with the expected behavior of leadership in the church by
signing the Code of Conduct.
*Supplement, Article 5-b
[Text of the proposed Code of Conduct for Ministry Leaders]
b. Revise Church Order Supplement, Article 13-c, section c as indi-
The duties of the minister are spiritual in character and directly re-
lated to the ministerial calling, and such duties do not conflict with
the minister’s commitment to the faith and practice of the Christian
Reformed Church as required by one’s signature to the Covenant
for Officebearers and as articulated in the Code of Conduct.
c. Revise Church Order Article 83 as indicated by the following addi-
tion in italics:
Church Order Article 83
Special discipline shall be applied to officebearers if they violate the
Covenant for Officebearers or the Code of Conduct, are guilty of ne-
glect or abuse of office, or in any way seriously deviate from sound
doctrine and godly conduct.
3. That synod encourage councils and classes to require assent to the Code of
Conduct by all staff (whether or not they are ordained) and volunteers who
are providing leadership in the church or classis.
4. That synod mandate the general secretary to oversee the development of train-
ing modules that orient officebearers and ministry leaders to the Code of Con-
duct.
That the Council of Delegates recommend that synod adopt the following
guidelines related to the CRC Code of Conduct for Ministry Leaders:
1. Who signs the code?
• Paid CRCNA staff members.
• New Council of Delegates members as they onboard.
• Churches and classes to implement the Code for council members
and employees as part of an annual review.
• The Code of Conduct for Ministry Leaders is referenced in the
Abuse of Power Training. It would also be included in the Calvin
Theological Seminary Church Order course after adoption of the
Church Order changes. The Candidacy Committee will recommend

that all Article 8 candidates be required to take the Abuse of Power
training.
2. Who is responsible for ensuring it is signed (e.g., councils, classes, and
CRCNA ministry staff)?
• Councils, classes, COD, and denominational leadership.
• Safe Church has been encouraging churches to include a reference
to the Code of Conduct in their policy. It is reviewed as part of the
Safe Church training.
3. What are the implications if individuals refuse to sign or deviate from
the Code?
• There are guidelines in the Supplement to Church Order re gra-
vamina.
• Each governing body would decide the ramifications.
• Another team is discussing ramifications for Council of Delegates
members for consideration by the COD.
• Discipline would be tied to their position (not membership in the
church).
• Discipline is a local matter (for church or classis).
4. Suggestions for incorporating the Code of Conduct include the follow-
ing:
• Require all ministry staff to classes and churches to sign the Code
of Conduct when they sign their contract upon hiring.
• Annual performance reviews with sample questions to ensure that
it is a meaningful conversation (see Appendix). It is suggested that
an elder, human resources professional, or personnel committee
conduct the review so that an employee may freely share any po-
tential forms of abuse. Or consider holding a special conversation
another time of year to review the sample questions—an employee
may not be as forthright in such a conversation, tied to the possibil-
ity of promotion/demotion/raises.
• Incorporate into council training and orientation.
• Church visitor training (also with the Healthy Church Executive
survey from Pastor Church Resources).
• The current CRCNA staff Code of Conduct and the Code of Con-
duct for Ministry Leaders could be combined and then reviewed at
the annual performance review.

APPENDIX B
Church Order Review Task Force Interim Report
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.
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.

We are hopeful that the work of this task force can be completed in fall
2023, in time for its report to be processed through the fall Council of Del-
egates meeting and distributed to the churches and classes in advance of
Synod 2024 so that any proposed Church Order changes can be submitted
to synod. In the meantime, the task force welcomes both your prayers and
your input (questions or comments can be emailed to ChurchOrderRe-
[email protected]). It is our hope and prayer that our work will ultimately
serve to strengthen the work of ministers and churches as together they
serve the Lord.
Church Order Review Task Force

Laura de Jong
Chelsey Harmon
Casey Jen
James Jones
Rita Klein-Geltink, reporter
John Sideco
Kathy Smith, ex officio
Joel Vande Werken, chair
APPENDIX C
Curriculum Vitae: Rev. Kevin P. DeRaaf

Objective
My personal mission is to serve as a disciple of Jesus who is actively work-
ing to help develop and encourage other disciples into God’s mission. I
have a special passion for the local church, believing that God’s purpose
for the local church is to shine as a community of love and grace, showing
in tangible ways that Jesus is the hope of the world. I recognize that God
has given me a set of unique leadership gifts and experiences, and I be-
lieve that in this season of life I am to serve the church and the CRCNA in
a team setting in whatever capacity the Lord calls me.
Education
General Humanities (B.Sc.), 1990, Redeemer College, Ancaster, Ontario
Master of Divinity, 1993, Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids,
Michigan
Ministry Experience
Seminary internship at Palos Heights (Ill.) CRC (1991-1992)
• General pastoral duties with special focus on youth work
Lead pastor at First CRC in Owen Sound, Ontario (1993-1999)

• Regular preaching, pastoral care, youth work, and council leader-
ship
Lead pastor at Faith CRC in Burlington, Ontario (1999-2017)
• Helped lead the church through a number of significant transitions
and growth periods
• Focus on preaching, staff development and leadership, vision cast-
ing, and pastoral care
Canada East Regional Mission Leader, Resonate Global Mission (2017-2019)
• Oversaw and supported the development of mission-shaped
churches, missional leaders, and holistic mission networks in the
seven classes that make up the Canada East region of Resonate
• Special focus on church planting, campus ministry, and diaspora
ministry within a changing Canadian cultural and spiritual context
• Oversaw and supported a regional team to assist in the ministry
and worked closely with classis missions committees and other
partners within and outside the CRC in the Canadian context
• Special projects included the Church Plant Institute, Mission Mon-
treal, and a Community of Practice focused on Indigenous justice
and reconciliation issues (now called Hearts Exchanged)
Director of North America Regional Teams, Resonate Global Mission (2019-
present)
• Oversaw and supported the work of the six regional mission lead-
ers in North America (four in the U.S., two in Canada)
• Tasks included budget support, goal development, and annual re-
views
• Oversaw such mission-focused initiatives as church planting, cam-
pus ministry, congregational mission support, and work with dias-
pora communities in the North American context
• Represented the North America regional work on the Resonate
Leadership Team where overall support, oversight, and visioning is
provided for Resonate’s work worldwide
• Served on several denominational leadership projects and teams,
such as the Collaborative Church Planting Team and the Canadian
Ministries Team
Acting Canada Director, Resonate Global Mission (2019-present)
• Supported and encouraged the work of all Resonate staff working
in Canada. This includes holding regular staff meetings of Cana-
dian staff and aiding where necessary
• Provided direction and control over Resonate’s financial activity in
Canada, including serving as a signatory for partnership agree-
ments with domestic and international projects and staff; also in-
cludes overseeing the development and support of joint ministries

agreements between Resonate Canada and Resonate U.S. as well as
serving on the Joint Ministries Agreement Committee
• Served on the senior leadership team for the Canada CRCNA of-
fice, helping to provide support and oversight for denominational
operational matters in the Canadian context; I participated in a vi-
sioning project with other Canadian staff leaders and board mem-
bers called “Establishing the Canadian Office” in 2018-19
• Served as chair of the Mission Montreal Board, a partnership be-
tween the CRCNA in Canada and a Montreal-based ministry called
Christian Direction
Additional experience
Board member of the Board of Home Missions (1998-1999)
Team leader of the Burlington Church Planting Vision Team (2003-2004)
Led a team representing three local CRCs to plant a church in the city of
Burlington. This work led to the call of a church planter and the for-
mation of Living Mosaic Church.
Cofounder and teacher of the Eastern Canada Leadership Development
Network (2004-2010)
Taught and administered (on a three-person team) the ECLDN, a three-
year training and mentoring program for lay leaders in the region,
meeting monthly in Burlington
Team member of the Eastern Canada Home Missions Regional Team (2010-
2015)
Served on the support and vision team for Adrian Van Giessen when he
was the regional leader for Home Missions; as a benefit of serving on
this team, received professional executive coaching by John Caplin
Board member and adjunct faculty of Dunamis Fellowship Canada (2013-
2016)
Taught, as an adjunct faculty member, at numerous conferences on vari-
ous aspects on the person and work of the Holy Spirit
Team member of the Churches Learning Change (formerly Ridder) Sustain-
ing Team (2016-present)
Helped oversee the finances and development of Churches Learning
Change in the RCA and CRC
Served as a member of the Ontario Regional Team, which involves
teaching responsibilities
Classis leadership roles (1994-2017)
Served approximately ten years on various Home Missions commit-
tees; spearheaded a vision renewal team in Classis Hamilton; served as
chair of classis for two years, along with various other functions
Served as a delegate to synod five times

Coach training through New Leaf Network and Coach Training Canada
(2017-2018)
Achieved Level I and II Coaching Certification
Skills
• Team/staff leadership: Active experience in leading volunteers and
staff at various levels of church organization (i.e., classis, classis
committees, ECLDN) and in the local church. Developed and led
the Canada East regional team. In Resonate roles, strengthened the
team of North America regional leaders and the Canada Resonate
office, creating a more inclusive and supportive team environment.
• Strategic planning/visioning: Active involvement in various vision
and strategic processes within Resonate and the CRCNA. This in-
cludes vision work for the CRCNA Canada Office and design work
with the Resonate Leadership Team, strengthening the operational
structures of our Resonate teams. Was involved in vision-related
conversations with classes, classis ministry teams and missions
committees. Led churches through a number of vision exercises.
Helped churches tackle a number of issues around culture and the-
ology (i.e., women in office, children at the Lord’s Supper) and
helped churches develop a stronger missional mindset (i.e., con-
ducting a Community Opportunity Scan, developing a staff posi-
tion for outreach and discipleship, discipleship groups). Helped
lead a vision process for Classis Hamilton.
• Leadership development: Actively involved in working with
emerging leaders both formally (ECLDN, Ridder Church Renewal)
and in the local church. I currently lead a lay preaching team and a
Faithwalking discipleship group in my local church.
• Public speaking: Over 30 years’ experience of preaching in local
churches. Keynote speaker at several leadership retreats and con-
ferences, including the annual (World Missions) West Africa mis-
sionary retreat in Gambia in 2012.
• Pastoral care: Over 24 years’ experience walking with people in cri-
sis and with spiritual concerns.

APPENDIX D
Congregational Ministries Reorganization:

An Introduction to “YourNewMinistryAgency”—a Ministry of
the CRCNA
I. Preface – Our denominational context
The Christian Reformed Church in North America is a denomination of
over 1,000 congregations across Canada, the United States, and Venezuela
who share a commitment to following Jesus and proclaiming the good
news of God’s kingdom through Jesus Christ. Grounded in the biblical
narrative and shaped by Reformed confessions, we join together as con-
gregations to support and encourage each other, discern together what it
means to be faithful to God in our world today, attend to where and how
we can join in the Spirit’s work in the world, and share in the work of
ministry together. For over 165 years the CRCNA has sought to bear wit-
ness to Christ and his kingdom in communities across North America
through faith formation, global mission, gospel proclamation and wor-
ship, mercy and justice, and servant leadership. By God’s grace, the im-
pact of our shared ministry has far exceeded what any one church or clas-
sis could do alone. In other words, we are better together. Continuing to
deepen and advance our ministry together, #YourNewMinistryAgency ex-
ists to help the denomination express the good news of God’s kingdom
and transform lives and communities worldwide.
II. Vision – What is #YourNewMinistryAgency oriented toward?
That all Christian Reformed congregations 1 will faithfully and holistically
embody the good news of Jesus Christ within their particular contexts.
III. Mission – What does #YourNewMinistryAgency do?
#YourNewMinistryAgency (YNMA) engages and accompanies Christian
Reformed congregations as they seek to embody the gospel faithfully and
holistically in their respective contexts.
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.

IV. Mandate – What is #YourNewMinistryAgency’s charge?
In pursuit of this mission, YNMA is charged to provide expertise, wis-
dom, and compassionate support to congregations while remaining atten-
tive to a wide range of opportunities and challenges facing the church to-
day. More specifically, YNMA encourages and equips Christian Reformed
congregations to do the following:
• practice lifelong faith formation and missional discipleship from a
Reformed perspective, across all ages and stages of life, with partic-
ular attention to children, youth, and emerging adults
• practice worship that is inspired by the Spirit, directed toward God,
biblically based, theologically Reformed, and contextually relevant
• identify and engage seasons of congregational renewal, growth,
transition, or challenge
• cultivate communities of increased inclusivity where everybody be-
longs and everybody serves, across abilities, ethnicities, languages,
ages, and genders
• engage in the work of dismantling the multitude of damaging
causes and effects encountered within a disordered creation, such
as racism, sexism, ableism, and ageism, particularly within the
body of believers
• implement and integrate safe church practices that include abuse
prevention, awareness, and response
• support and care for ministry leaders, whether they serve congre-
gations in ordained or nonordained capacities, or in specialized
ministry roles such as chaplaincy
• respond to God’s call to justice by advocating alongside and in sup-
port of people who are marginalized, vulnerable, and oppressed
While YNMA’s primary focus is on local Christian Reformed congrega-
tions, YNMA’s capacity to encourage and equip congregations will be en-
riched and strengthened by engagement with external associations and
partnerships, particularly those that focus on specialized aspects of
YNMA’s responsibilities.
V. Core postures
What character traits and practices do we value as we engage and accom-
pany congregations?
Core Posture 1: We are curious listeners. Rooted in the Christian Scriptures
and attentive to the Holy Spirit, we value listening practices, especially
practices of prayer, Scripture engagement, and communal discern-
ment, that help to enrich and expand attention to God, to those we
serve, and to each other. As part of our listening, we value practices of
wondering with and learning from people whose experiences and per-
spectives are different from our own. This posture empowers us and
everyone we serve to encounter and respond to the robust diversity of

God’s kingdom to a far greater extent than any of us could do on our
own.
Core Posture 2: We are Reformed practitioners working toward excellence.
Grounded in Reformed theology, we bring together a wide array of ex-
periences and expertise that allow us to serve congregations with wis-
dom and compassion. We maintain an ongoing commitment to staff
formation and development in order to serve congregations as compe-
tently and robustly as possible.
Core Posture 3: We are holistic and wholehearted. Believing that each per-
son is created and called to serve, we value practices that nurture a
wholehearted contribution from all of God’s people to the life and
ministry of the kingdom. The holistic dimensions of our salvation in Je-
sus Christ and the diverse gifts and interests entrusted to God’s people
lead to diverse and robust expressions of the gospel that can vary
widely from congregation to congregation.
Core Posture 4: We are realistic. Knowing the biblical narrative and our
own shortcomings, we value practices that remind and assure us that
the establishment of God’s kingdom is not dependent on us. Even as
Jesus through the Spirit invites us to actively participate in the tangible
and prophetic unfolding of the gospel here and now, we remain rooted
in the biblical narrative, which declares that God, in Jesus and the
Spirit, is at work making all things new.
Core Posture 5: We are hopeful. We value practices that root us more
deeply in the eschatological hope of the gospel. Even as we eagerly an-
ticipate the fullness of God’s presence, we commit ourselves to faith-
assuring practices that make room for both lamenting our resistance to
the Spirit’s renewal work and celebrating the places we see the biblical
vision of God’s united and diverse family becoming reality.
VI. Our Calling and Our Journey 2025
YNMA supports and actively participates in the CRCNA’s ministry priori-
ties (Our Calling) and Our Journey 2025 milestones. YNMA’s particular
priorities, goals, and metrics are guided by these overarching strategic pri-
orities for the CRCNA. YNMA supports and actively participates in the
CRCNA’s five emphases of Our Calling: Faith Formation, Global Mission,
Gospel Proclamation and Worship, Mercy and Justice, and Servant Lead-
ership. As we engage with and accompany congregations, YNMA leans
into these ministry priorities by encouraging and equipping congregations
to live faithfully and holistically in their particular contexts. While atten-
tive to all five emphases, YNMA plays a supportive role to Resonate
Global Mission, ReFrame Ministries, and World Renew in the area of
Global Mission.
In a similar way, YNMA is committed to the milestones of Our Journey
2025: cultivate practices of prayer and spiritual discipline; listen to the
voices of every generation; grow in diversity and unity; and share the gos-

pel. By design, YNMA gives more of its attention to the first three mile-
stones while recognizing its supportive role to Resonate, ReFrame, and
World Renew in relation to sharing the gospel.
APPENDIX E
“One Family Conversation” Report

I. Background
The general secretary was tasked by the COD with facilitating a “One
Family Conversation” related to the topic of diversity and its key place in
the CRCNA both now and in the future (CMC 22-19: Repositioning the
CRC for Sustainability through Listening and Supporting). The conversa-
tion was to include discussion of the following:
• How the gifts and challenges of living in a diverse community can
be fully included in our classes
• How to structure listening sessions, facilitated by an outside group,
at classis in order to find out what is really happening with regard
to diversity and inclusion of ethnic leaders
• How to structure the sharing of resources with [ethnic] fledgling
churches
• Review of the historical perspective and synodical reports
The general secretary delegated the preplanning for this conversation to
the following team:
Rev. Susan LaClear, director of Candidacy
Rev. Reggie Smith, director for Diversity
Rev. Pablo Kim Sun, senior leader for Antiracism and Intercultural
Conciliation
Rev. Marco Avila, Resonate Eastern U.S. regional leader
Rev. Clarence Presley, Resonate Western U.S. regional leader
Deibi Lapian, Indonesian Christian Reformed Fellowship
The team met on September 26, November 9, and December 9 to pray and
to discuss the following questions:
• What are the specific goals we hope to achieve through this “One
Family Conversation”?
• What is the best process for having conversations about the chal-
lenges our ethnic minority groups face?
• Who should be at the table for these conversations (ethnic leaders,
classis)?
• What should be the scope of the conversations? (For example, there
are 49 classes, and the work needs to be manageable.)

• How can we hold these conversations in a healthy way and manage
expectations on all sides?
• How can we assure that ministry leaders buy into and lead this
process instead of making it just the work of denominational staff?
• How can we hold each other accountable to change?
The team reported that it had some very fruitful conversations around
these questions, leading to the development of the following plan, submit-
ted to the COD for review and input.
II. "One Family Conversation" Plan
A. Identified goals
1. To acknowledge and identify what our common identity is (true bibli-
cal theological identity—in Christ) and to re-envision who we are as a
denomination (and what it means to be Reformed) seeking to be inclu-
sive of multiple ethnicities
2. To create a space where everyone is celebrated and to build a level
platform for everyone to share what Jesus is doing in their lives
through storytelling, particularly from our unheard ethnic-minority
leaders
3. To identify gifts and resources that haven’t been opened up, learning
from ethnic-minority perspectives on what it means to follow Christ
and what it means to be Reformed
4. To bring healing from trauma through practices of celebrating our
God-given kingdom diversity
5. To provide opportunities for the majority culture to engage in the criti-
cal self-reflection needed to understand and remove obstacles we have
created and to build different habits of interaction
6. To facilitate engagement with a historical perspective on issues of di-
versity in the CRCNA (The team noted that the Diversity staff of the
CRCNA have already compiled documents containing a scope of his-
torical perspective on these issues, so this work can be referenced.)
B. Scope of the conversation
The goal is for this conversation to start between ethnic-group connectors
and stated clerks and then spread as widely as possible.
We envision the starting and spreading as follows: Stated clerks → Other
classis leadership teams → Classis leadership teams/ethnic leaders → Ethnic lead-
ers/bodies of classis (then hopefully councils → congregations).
C. Plan
Step 1: Inform and equip stated clerks and invite them to be the promoters
and catalysts for this conversation within their classes.

• Stated clerks can be key players and catalysts for this conversation
within classes.
• At the Stated Clerk Conference (Jan. 11-13), the general secretary
can cast the vision for this “One Family Conversation” and facili-
tate a listening session for the stated clerks to hear from some local
ethnic-minority ministers who represent three different ethnic
groups within the CRC. The clerks will also be given time to share
their thoughts, questions, and insights.
• The clerks will be equipped with training in cultural competency.
Step 2: Stated clerks (with the help of regional catalyzers) will be asked to
facilitate the equipping of all majority-culture classis leaders (including
classis interim committees, classis ministry leadership teams, regional
pastors, former leaders, etc.) in cross-cultural competence and aware-
ness of key issues that were identified by ethnic-minority leaders (in
step 1 above).
Step 3: Classis leaders initiate listening conversations with the ethnic-mi-
nority leaders within their classis to understand their experience
(clerks to identify leaders who should be in the room and invite them
to these meetings). Note: Ethnic-minority leaders will very likely first
need “safe spaces” in which they can process issues with other minor-
ity leaders. If it is determined that they haven’t already had these op-
portunities, classis leaders should encourage and facilitate those con-
nections as a first step. (Reggie Smith and Pablo Kim could advise and
direct them to where these conversations are happening.)
Step 4: Once a "safe space" of open conversation has been created between
ethnic-minority leaders and classis leadership team members, classes
are encouraged to invite ethnic-minority leaders to share with the clas-
sis.
Sharing should include the following:
• Stories of what God is doing/testimonies of faith (food, celebration!)
• Insights about what it means to be Reformed from the perspective
of the minority community
• Insights about the minority culture and how it reflects the image of
Christ
• Insights about the minority culture’s struggles to navigate amid the
majority culture
Step 5: Collect the stories and insights learned in classes and share them
widely.

APPENDIX F
Condensed Financial Statements of the Agencies and

Institutions
Schedule 1
THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: Calvin Theological Seminary
Balance Sheet (000s)
Fiscal Fiscal
20-21 21-22
Actual Actual
Assets
Cash $ 6,643 $ 2,349
Investments $ 63,546 $ 58,491
Other $ 12,256 $ 18,067
Total Assets $ 82,445 $ 78,907
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
Total Liabilites and Net Assets $ 82,445 $ 78,907

Schedule 2
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: Calvin Theological Seminary
Operating Budget (000s)
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22
Actual Actual Actual Actual
INCOME:
Ministry Share $ 2,277 $ 2,143 $ 2,208 $ 1,920
% of Total Income 30.6% 27.5% 27.4% 28.7%
Other Gift Income:

Gifts & Offerings $ 1,365 $ 1,330 $ 1,386 1,848
Disaster Gifts $ - $ - $ -
Estate Gifts $ 171 $ 198 $ 300 $ -
Total Gift Income 1,536 $ 1,528 $ 1,686 $ 1,848
% of Total Income 20.7% 19.6% 20.9% 27.6%
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%
TOTAL INCOME 7,430 $ 7,783 $ 8,051 $ 6,688
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%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 6,689 $ 7,152 $ 7,080 $ 7,177
NET INCOME / (EXPENSE) $ 741 $ 631 $ 971 $ (489)
Total Program Service FTE's 32 32 32 32

Total Support Service FTE's 16 16 16 16
TOTAL FTE's 48 48 48 48
FTE= Full time equivalent employees

Schedule 1
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: Calvin University
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

Schedule 2
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: Calvin University
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
18-19 19-20 20-21 20-21 21-22
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
INCOME:
Ministry Share $ 2,221 $ 2,075 $ 2,436 $ 2,102 1,801
% of Total Income 2.1% 2.1% 2.3% 2.4% 2.0%
Other Gift Income:

Gifts & Offerings $ 3,451 $ 3,678 $ 3,481 $ 5,825 7,052
Disaster Gifts $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Estate Gifts $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Gift Income 3,451 $ 3,678 $ 3,481 $ 5,825 $ 7,052
% of Total Income 3.3% 3.8% 3.4% 6.6% 8.0%
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%
TOTAL INCOME 103,650 $ 97,051 $ 103,799 $ 88,577 $ 88,056
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%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 103,110 $ 97,629 $ 103,119 $ 82,340 $ 83,277
NET INCOME / (EXPENSE) $ 540 $ (578) $ 680 $ 6,237 $ 4,779
Total Program Service FTE's 528 528 520 517 479

Total Support Service FTE's 143 143 135 132 120
TOTAL FTE's 671 671 655 649 599

Schedule 2
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: Central Services

18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22
@.7511 @.7426 @ .7697 @ .7760
INCOME:
Ministry Share $ - $ - $ - $ -
% of Total Income 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Gift Income:

Gifts & Offerings $ - $ - $ - $ -
Disaster Gifts $ - $ - $ - $ -
Estate Gifts $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Gift Income - $ - $ - $ -
% of Total Income 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
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%
TOTAL INCOME 6,989 $ 7,143 $ 8,219 $ 7,142
EXPENSES:
Program Services:
Education $ - $ - $ -
International $ - $ - $ -
Domestic Ministries $ - $ - $ -
Other $ 5,569 $ 5,662 $ 7,112 $ 6,038
Total Program Service $ 5,569 $ 5,662 $ 7,112 $ 6,038
Support Services:
Management & General $ - $ - $ -
Plant Operations/Debt Serv. $ 1,420 $ 1,496 $ 1,107 1,104
Fund-raising $ - $ - $ -
Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ -
NET INCOME / (EXPENSE) $ - $ (15) $ - $ -

TOTAL FTE's 48 47 43 49

Schedule 1
Year: 2022
Agency: Employee's Retirement Plan - Canada (Canadian dollars)
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 $ - $ -

Schedule 2
Year: 2022
Agency: Employee's Retirement Plan - Canada (Canadian dollars)
2019 2020 2021 2022

ADDITIONS:
Employer Contributions $ 501 $ 505 $ 525 502
Participant Contributions $ 83 $ 103 $ 128 122
Investment Earnings $ 788 $ 620 $ 490 $ 222
TOTAL ADDITIONS $ 1,372 $ 1,228 $ 1,143 $ 846
DEDUCTIONS:
Distributions $ 714 $ 524 $ 969 1,292
Loss on investments $ - $ - $ - 937
Management & General $ 24 $ 29 $ 29 $ 26
TOTAL DEDUCTIONS $ 738 $ 553 $ 998 $ 2,255
NET ADDITIONS / (DEDUCTIONS) $ 634 $ 675 $ 145 $ (1,409)
TOTAL FTE's

Schedule 1
Year: 2022
Agency: Employee's Savings Plan - (US)
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

Schedule 2
Year: 2022
Agency: Employee's Savings Plan - (US)
2019 2020 2021 2022

ADDITIONS:
Employer Contributions $ 2,536 $ 2,242 $ 2,243 $ 2,283
Participant Contributions $ - $ - $ - $ -
Investment Earnings $ 7,166 $ 5,356 $ 6,053 $ (7,531)
TOTAL ADDITIONS 9,702 7,598 8,296 (5,248)
DEDUCTIONS
Distributions $ 4,529 $ 4,701 $ 3,126 $ 3,871
Management & General $ 131 $ 136 $ 139 $ 70
TOTAL DEDUCTIONS $ 4,660 $ 4,837 $ 3,265 $ 3,941
NET ADDITIONS / (DEDUCTIONS $ 5,042 $ 2,761 $ 5,031 $ (9,189)
TOTAL FTE's - - -

Schedule 1
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: Grants
Fiscal
20-21
Actual
Assets
Cash $ 2,254
Investments $ -
Other $ -
Total Assets $ 2,254
Liabilities
Trade Payables
Other Payables
Total Payables $ -
Net Assets
Donor Designated $ 2,254
Unrestricted
Total Net Assets $ 2,254
Total Liabilites and Net Assets $ 2,254

Schedule 2
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: Grants
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal

19-20 20-21 21-22
Actual Actual Actual
@.7426 @ .7697 @ .7760
INCOME:
Ministry Share $ - $ -
% of Total Income 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Gift Income:

Gifts & Offerings $ - $ 3 43
Disaster Gifts $ - $ -
Estate Gifts $ - $ - $ -
Total Gift Income $ - $ 3.00 $ 43.00
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%
TOTAL INCOME $ 1,677 $ 1,320 $ 682
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%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,798 $ 1,644 $ 2,000
NET INCOME / (EXPENSE) $ (121) $ (324) $ (1,318)
Total Program Service FTEs 2 2 2

Total Support Service FTEs - - -
TOTAL FTEs 2 2 2

Schedule 1
Year: 2022
Agency: Ministers Pension Plan - Canada (Canadian dollars)
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
Net Assets
Donor Designated

Schedule 2
Year: 2022
Agency: Ministers Pension Plan - Canada (Canadian dollars)
MPF MPF MPF MPF
2019 2020 2021 2022
ADDITIONS:
Employer Contributions $ 2,582 $ 2,592 $ 2,547 $ 597
TOTAL ADDITIONS 13,707 11,256 15,967 (7,846)
DEDUCTIONS:
Distributions $ 2,943 $ 3,018 $ 3,098 $ 3,186
Management & General $ 891 $ 952 $ 1,086 $ 895
NET ADDITIONS / (DEDUCTION $ 9,873 $ 7,286 $ 11,783 $ (11,927)
TOTAL FTE's 1 1 1 1

Schedule 1
Year: 2022
Agency: Ministers Pension Plan - (US)
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
Net Assets
Donor Designated
Unrestricted $ 142,422 $ 117,269
Total Net Assets $ 142,422 $ 117,269

Schedule 2
Year: 2022
Agency: Ministers Pension Plan - (US)
MPF MPF MPF MPF
2019 2020 2021 2022
ADDITIONS:
Employer Contributions $ 5,117 $ 5,037 $ 4,914 4,701
Participant Contributions $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL ADDITIONS 26,239 20,047 28,909 (13,345)
DEDUCTIONS:
Distributions $ 10,271 $ 10,570 $ 10,636 10,718
Management & General $ 1,176 $ 1,223 $ 1,545 $ 1,090
NET ADDITIONS / (DEDUCTION $ 14,792 $ 8,254 $ 16,728 $ (25,153)
TOTAL FTE's 2 3 3 3

Schedule 1
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: Raise Up Global Ministries
Fiscal Fiscal
20-21 21-22
Actual Actual
Assets
Cash $ 75 $ 41
Investments $ - $ -
Other $ 85 $ (256)
Total Assets $ 160 $ (215)
Liabilities
Net Assets
Donor Designated $ 73 $ 442
Unrestricted $ (715) $ (1,378)
Total Net Assets $ (642) $ (936)
Total Liabilites and Net Assets $ 160 $ (215)
*This ministry has been rolled into Resonate Global Mission

as of January 1, 2023

Schedule 2
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: Raise Up Global Ministries
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
19-20 20-21 21-22
Actual Actual Actual
@.7426 @ .7697 @ .7760
INCOME:
Ministry Share $ - $ - $ -
Other Gift Income:

Gifts & Offerings $ 223 $ 446 788
Disaster Gifts $ - $ - -
Estate Gifts $ - $ 77 $ -
Total Gift Income $ 223 $ 523 $ 788
% of Total Income 28.1% 48.9% 67.0%
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%
TOTAL INCOME $ 793 $ 1,070 $ 1,176
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
Total Support Service $ 359 $ 319 $ 378
% of Total Expenditures 28.2% 27.9% 30.6%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,274 $ 1,144 $ 1,236
NET INCOME / (EXPENSE) $ (481) $ (74) $ (60)
Total Program Service FTE's 8 6 7

Total Support Service FTE's 2 1 1
TOTAL FTE's 10 7 8
*This ministry has been rolled into Resonate Global Mission

as of January 1, 2023

Schedule 1
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: ReFrame Ministries
Fiscal Fiscal
20-21 21-22
Actual Actual
Assets
Cash $ 2,750 $ 4,170
Investments $ 8,350 $ 8,563
Other $ 663 $ 727
Total Assets $ 11,763 $ 13,460
Liabilities
Net Assets
Total Net Assets 11,130 12,762

Schedule 2
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: ReFrame Ministries

18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22
@.7511 @.7426 @.7697 @.7760
INCOME:
Ministry Share $ 2,795 $ 2,611 $ 2,709 2,182
% of Total Income 28.8% 29.8% 26.7% 30.4%
Other Gift Income:

Gifts & Offerings $ 3,259 $ 3,365 $ 3,598 3,422
Disaster Gifts $ - $ - $ - -
Estate Gifts $ 3,280 $ 2,035 $ 2,188 $ 2,246
% of Total Income 67.5% 61.6% 57.0% 78.9%
Other Income:
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%
TOTAL INCOME 9,691 8,761 10,159 7,181
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 $ - $ - $ - -
Support Services:
Management & General $ 880 $ 990 $ 887 906
Plant Operations $ - $ - $ - -
Fund-raising $ 1,538 $ 1,545 $ 1,246 1,404
Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ -
NET INCOME / (EXPENSE) $ 1,758 $ 576 $ 2,878 $ (744)

TOTAL FTE's 31 30 30 30

Schedule 1
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: Resonate Global Mission
Fiscal Fiscal
20-21 21-22
Actual Actual
Assets
Cash $ 6,415 $ 6,024
Investments $ 18,376 $ 16,822
Other $ 556 $ 414
Total Assets $ 25,347 $ 23,260
Liabilities
Trade Payables $ 1,388 $ 644
Other Payables $ 773 $ 1,688
Net Assets
Total Liabilites and Ne $ 25,347 $ 23,260

Schedule 2
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: Resonate Global Mission

18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22
@.7511 @.7426 @.7697 @.7760
INCOME:
Ministry Share $ 6,792 $ 6,343 $ 6,606 5,229
% of Total Income 32.9% 30.3% 30.1% 32.5%
Other Gift Income:

Gifts & Offerings $ 9,923 $ 10,196 $ 10,183 $ 11,071
Estate Gifts $ 3,135 $ 2,701 $ 1,727 $ 1,124
Total Gift Income $ 13,058 $ 12,897 $ 11,910 $ 12,195
% of Total Income 63.3% 61.6% 54.2% 75.7%
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%
TOTAL INCOME $ 20,640 $ 20,929 $ 21,970 $ 16,110
EXPENSES (FTE = Full Time Employee):

Program Services:
Education $ 846 $ 770 $ 636 $ -
International $ 10,119 $ 9,459 $ 8,902 $ 9,908
Domestic Ministries $ 4,262 $ 4,122 $ 2,331 $ 4,180
Other $ - $ - $ 1,528 $ -
% of Total Expenditures 79% 77% 78% 76%
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%
NET INCOME / (EXPENSE) $ 1,434 $ 2,343 $ 4,781 $ (2,393)
Total Program Service FTEs 77 81 81 72

Total Support Service FTEs 25 23 23 27
102 104 104 99

Schedule 1
Year: 2022
Agency: Special Assistance Fund - Canada (Canadian dollars)
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 Liabilites and Net Assets $ 418 $ 396

Schedule 2
Year: 2022
Agency: Special Assistance Fund - Canada (Canadian dollars)
SAF SAF SAF SAF
2019 2020 2021 2022
ADDITIONS:
Employer Contributions $ 85 $ 87 $ 63 $ 6
Investment Earnings $ 6 $ 5 $ 4 $ 16
TOTAL ADDITIONS 91 92 67 22
DEDUCTIONS:
Distributions $ 23 $ 28 $ 107 $ 34
Management & General $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL DEDUCTIONS $ 23 $ 28 $ 107 $ 34
NET ADDITIONS / (DEDUCTION $ 68 $ 64 $ (40) $ (12)
TOTAL FTE's - - - -

Schedule 1
Year: 2022
Agency: Special Assistance Fund - (US)
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
Total Liabilites and Net Assets $ 327 $ 222

Schedule 2
Year: 2022
Agency: Special Assistance Fund - (US)
SAF SAF SAF SAF
2019 2020 2021 2022
ADDITIONS:
Employer Contributions $ 162 $ 159 $ 137 9
Participant Contributions $ - $ - $ -
Investment Earnings $ 2 $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL ADDITIONS 164 159 137 9
DEDUCTIONS:
Distributions $ 105 $ 92 $ 74 87
Management & General $ - $ - $ 1 $ 1
TOTAL DEDUCTIONS $ 105 $ 92 $ 75 $ 88
NET ADDITIONS / (DEDUCTION $ 59 $ 67 $ 62 $ (79)
TOTAL FTE's - - - -

Schedule 1
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: Office of General Secretary/Cong Min
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
Other Payables $ 2,722 $ 2,363
Net Assets
Donor Designated $ 377 $ 215

Schedule 2
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: Office of General Secretary

18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22
@.7511 @.7426 @ .7697 @ .7760
INCOME:
Ministry Share $ 2,300 $ 2,283 $ 2,694 $ 2,658
% of Total Income 54.5% 34.1% 44.7% 69.0%
Other Gift Income:

Gifts & Offerings $ 306 $ - $ 150 $ 595
Estate Gifts $ - $ - $ 3 $ -
Total Gift Income $ 306 $ - $ 153 $ 595
% of Total Income 7.2% 0.0% 2.5% 15.5%
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%
TOTAL INCOME $ 4,223 $ 6,694 $ 6,028 $ 3,850
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
Support Services:
Plant Operations/Debt Serv. $ - $ 1,822 $ - $ -
Fund-raising $ 224 $ 293 $ - $ -
Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Support Service $ 1,528 $ 5,883 $ 4,236 $ 3,113
NET INCOME / (EXPENSE) $ 990 $ (358) $ 1,593 $ (666)

Total Support Service FTE's - - - 18
TOTAL FTE's 11 11 9 25

Schedule 1
Fiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: World Renew
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
Net Assets

Schedule 2
pFiscal Year: 22-23
Agency: World Renew

18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22
@.7511 @.7426 @.7697 @.7760
INCOME:
Ministry Share $ - $ - $ -
% of Total Income - - -
Other Gift Income:

Gifts & Offerings $ 12,093 $ 12,226 $ 13,588 $ 15,941
Disaster Gifts $ 12,318 $ 13,897 $ 13,918 $ 20,122
Estate Gifts $ 5,397 $ 2,877 $ 3,480 $ 5,650
% of Total Income 90.8% 88.9% 84.1% 101.5%
Other Income:
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%
TOTAL INCOME $ 32,843 $ 32,625 $ 36,848 $ 41,077
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 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Support Services:
Plant Operations $ - $ - $ -
Fund-raising $ 2,974 $ 3,710 $ 4,083 $ 4,170
Total Support Service $ 4,866 $ 5,692 $ 6,131 $ 6,554
NET INCOME / (EXPENSE) $ 975 $ (2,811) $ 2,416 $ 3,637
Total Program Service FTEs 69 78 56 89

Total Support Service FTEs 36 37 19 31
TOTAL FTEs 105 115 75 120

REPORTS OF AGENCIES,
INSTITUTIONS,
AND MINISTRIES
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.
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Calvin University 115

Finally, the Ministry Leadership Cohort, an initiative of the Calvin Insti-
tute of Christian Worship (CICW), is a two-year program open to incom-
ing Calvin students from any major who show potential for all kinds of
leadership in the local church. Further, through the work of the CICW,
Calvin serves churches within the denomination and beyond.
III. Commitments of Calvin University
In summer 2022 a presidential transition took place: Dr. Michael Le Roy
completed his tenth and final season as Calvin University president, and
Dr. Wiebe Boer began his tenure as the university’s twelfth president in its
147-year history.
President Boer, a lifelong CRC member and son of CRC missionaries,
brings a deep faith perspective; a Ph.D. from Yale University in history;
wide professional experience ranging from management consultant to im-
pact investing and from philanthropy to alternative energy; and an inno-
vative approach to the field of higher education.
President Boer’s vision for Calvin focuses on renewing the university’s
call to global good. This includes the university’s deep commitments in
the following areas, which have already seen forward progress:
A. Diversity
Calvin takes seriously our commitment to diversity, esteeming the many
cultures we represent as a community and the many ways we embody the
gospel.
The 2022 first-year class hails from 42 U.S. states and 38 countries, both
five-year highs for Calvin. The 173 students who enrolled from outside the
United States represent more than 17 percent of the class, a record for the
university. A large number of these students are the children of missionar-
ies serving in countries across the globe. In addition, Calvin’s 2022 first-
year class shows domestic diversity. The 182 BIPOC students (Black, In-
digenous, and People of Color) in the Calvin community represent 18 per-
cent of the incoming class, an institutional high. Calvin has also experi-
enced growth in first-generation students with more than a 20-percent in-
crease year-over-year, reaching the institution’s highest mark since 2018.
We are strategically working to increase the diversity of our staff and fac-
ulty as we strive to match the diversity of our student body and of the
populations of the United States and Canada. Eventually we hope that our
faculty and staff demographics are representative of worldwide diversity
and reflect the global church. All five of our confirmed new faculty mem-
bers for the 2023–24 academic year are from outside of the U.S.
In October, Michelle Loyd-Paige, associate to the president for diversity
and inclusion, founded the Leadership Development Program for Under-
represented Faculty and Staff. Designed as a year-long program for early-
to mid-career faculty and staff of color, the LDPU is intended to increase
staff engagement and visibility as well as confidence, knowledge, and
skills appropriate for current roles and other leadership opportunities.
116 Faith Formation AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

Loyd-Paige also recently received the Dante Venegas Award, a prestigious
honor given by the Office of Race Relations recognizing distinguished
leadership in diversity and racial justice in the Christian Reformed
Church.
B. Sustainability
Calvin has continued to demonstrate its Christian commitment to creation
care and sustainability.
Calvin has accelerated its energy transition by starting the investigative
stages of a campus-wide energy plan for carbon reduction, with benefits
to God’s natural world first and foremost. Calvin is also considering the
potential cost-saving benefits that this emerging alternative energy plan
can have for our Knollcrest campus through recent federal legislation.
In the fall, engineering students discovered a path for Calvin to eliminate
its natural-gas-related net CO2 emissions from its heating system.
In December, Calvin University was designated an arboretum—the entire
campus—a rarity in higher education.
C. Deeper engagement with local and global communities
Calvin is reaching out to pursue deeper engagement with our local and
global neighbors for mutual flourishing. Our vision explicitly states that
we want to come alongside groups of all different Christian traditions
from across the world and to ask how we can best partner with them to
promote flourishing. In many ways, this starts in our Grand Rapids, Mich-
igan, location, and we have been reaching out to connect with many com-
munities in the area in order to form relational bridges and new partner-
ships.
In June 2022 accomplished scholar Adejoke Ayoola was appointed as the
inaugural dean of the Calvin University School of Health. An accom-
plished and well-connected advisory board is leading alongside her. New
partnerships such as the Pine Rest Academy are already being established.
In September the School of Business officially opened its doors with a
groundbreaking ceremony. The school is set to be a hub connecting Chris-
tian leaders in business from around the globe. New connections are also
being formed through program updates since 2022, including a new oper-
ations and supply chain management major. Students are even able to
make their business ideas a reality with the launch of an entrepreneurial
incubator, the Startup Garage.
The university recently sent a team to Indonesia to deepen Calvin’s rela-
tionships with alumni, families, schools, and institutional partners. Calvin
signed a memorandum of understanding with a global partner there to
help provide a pathway to Calvin for Indonesian high school students.
D. A thriving and excellent experience for students, faculty, and staff
Calvin is investing in the people that make our community who we are,
valuing their imagebearing nature and God-given gifts.

Calvin continues its data collection regarding workplace satisfaction and
aims to improve in the metrics evaluated. These efforts are led by the
Workplace Quality Task Force, a subcommittee of the Planning and Priori-
ties Committee.
Student experience continues to be a top priority, with student life efforts
prioritizing mental health, faith formation, and safety; the academic divi-
sion is also continuously improving the high-caliber student experience.
New first-year cohorts are also being added each year.
In July a residential master plan was announced for expanding and invig-
orating living spaces around the Calvin University campus. The new plan,
rooted in ecological considerations, provides a roadmap toward updating
all residence halls, including adding connecting lounges on each residen-
tial floor, increasing accessibility through elevators, open-air staircases
connecting lobbies and residence hall basements, and updated kitchen
and community spaces.
In October the board of trustees approved the university’s athletics strate-
gic plan, which adds women’s acrobatics and tumbling, men’s volleyball,
and men’s football to its portfolio of NCAA Division III athletic offerings.
The plan also includes major upgrades to the university’s outdoor athletic
facilities that are already under way.
Finally, our students in the Calvin Prison Initiative (CPI) had a historic
year in 2022. In May, Calvin University awarded degrees to 76 inmates in
a grand celebration in Ionia, Michigan. It marked the first time in the state
of Michigan that bachelor’s degrees were awarded behind bars. In August
the undersecretary from the U.S. Department of Education paid a visit to
CPI and determined that what was happening there should be a national
model for prison education.
IV. Finances
Calvin University is committed to excellent stewardship of resources, in-
cluding finances. Calvin’s strategic vision (calvin.edu/vision2030) helps us
to focus our growth as a university, while the denomination, donors, and
grants continue to support our mission in remarkable ways.
The 2021–22 fiscal year was strong for the university’s advancement, with
the second-best fundraising total in Calvin’s history: $39.7 million, includ-
ing $3.3 million for the Calvin Annual Fund. The Named Scholarship Pro-
gram surpassed its $3.5 million goal by raising $3,922,517. This academic
year $5 million was awarded to students through the Named Scholarship
Program, with 1,170 students receiving 1,475 individual awards. A total of
23 new scholarships were established. Finally, the Calvin Institute for
Christian Worship recently received $21.5 million in Lilly Endowment Inc.
grants: $15 million for Shalom Worship and $6.5 million for the Compel-
ling Preaching Initiative.

For the future, $32 million has now been committed to the forthcoming
Commons Union project, a state-of-the art community space set to en-
hance the on-campus experience through collaboration between students,
staff, faculty, and the community.
V. Board matters
A. Board officers
Board officers for the 2022–23 year are Bruce Los, chair; Mary Tuuk Kuras,
vice-chair; Rhonda Roorda, secretary; and Dirk Pruis, treasurer (vice presi-
dent for finance and chief financial officer).
B. Board membership
The following nomination for a new delegate is presented to the Calvin
University Board of Trustees.
1. Region 1
Richard Mast will be completing his second term. The board presents
the following slate of nominees to the classes in region 1 to be voted on
at their spring classis meetings:
Jack Beeksma is a 1978 graduate of Calvin University with a bachelor of
arts degree in education. He received his master’s degree in teaching in
1992 while teaching in Nigeria with Christian Reformed World
Missions. He spent 35 years teaching in Christian schools in Calgary,
Alberta; Nigeria; and Prince George, British Columbia. He has a love
for the Reformed faith and has been a lifetime member of the Christian
Reformed Church. He served on councils in Calgary and Prince
George. He has a deep gratitude to Calvin for shaping his faith and
giving direction to his life. He is currently a member of the Christian
Reformed Church of Prince George.
Rev. Edward Gerber is a 1999 graduate of Calvin University (bachelor of
arts) and a 2004 graduate of Calvin Theological Seminary (master of
divinity). He completed graduate theological education at Regent Col-
lege in Vancouver, British Columbia, and earned a Ph.D. in biblical
studies from the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David. He is cur-
rently one-third of the way through a master of arts program in clinical
counseling. Rev. Gerber has served in professional pastoral ministry in
Canada and the United States. He has served on church councils in
Mount Vernon, Washington (Faith Community Fellowship); Cedar
Rapids, Iowa (Peace CRC); Webster, New York (Webster CRC); and
Langley, British Columbia (Willoughby CRC) over the past fifteen
years. He also served a six-year term on the board of Surrey Christian
Schools. Rev. Gerber served the Willoughby CRC from 2014-2021 and
was released from ministry at Willoughby at his request last year. He
has a keen interest in higher education and a love for students, faculty,
and academics. He is currently the university chaplain and director of

student ministries at Trinity Western University and attends
Willoughby CRC.
2. Additional board membership updates will be included in the Calvin
University supplemental report to synod.
VI. Recommendation
That synod by way of the ballot elect new members, reappoint members
for subsequent terms, and ratify the results of the classis elections for
membership on the Calvin University Board of Trustees.
Note: Recommendations on financial matters are included in the report of
the denominational Council of Delegates and will be presented to synod
by way of the Finance Advisory Committee.
VII. A message from the president
As I began my leadership at Calvin University and in the CRCNA in 2022,
I want to include my sincere thanks to synod and the denomination for
steadfastly supporting Calvin’s mission. I am excited about the future of
Calvin and the ways in which we can continue to serve students from the
CRCNA and other faith traditions with excellence. In welcoming students
from outside the Reformed tradition, we can introduce a Reformed way of
thinking and living to students from around the globe.
With only six percent of college-age CRCNA members attending Calvin,
down from eight percent five years ago, we need to partner across minis-
tries to promote Calvin as the official university of our denomination.
Likewise, we are grateful to use our resources to benefit the mission of the
larger denomination.
Calvin University
Wiebe K. Boer, president

Faith Formation
I. Introduction
Congregational Ministries’ Faith Formation efforts join with and continue
“God’s mission of transforming lives and communities worldwide by en-
couraging and equipping local CRC congregations and their leaders in
their calling to practice intentional, lifelong, intergenerational, holistic,
missional discipleship and faith formation with an emphasis upon chil-
dren, teens, and young adults” (Acts of Synod 2015, pp. 467, 589). With a
deliberate presence in the various regions of the CRCNA, Faith Formation
engages Christian Reformed congregations through three main sets of ac-
tivities: consultations and workshops for churches and classes, coaching
and network facilitation for ministry leaders, and resource curation and
creation.
II. Reflecting on Our Calling
One way we have engaged in the ministry priority of faith formation is
through our work with the Reformed Church in America's Next Genera-
tion Ministry team, focusing on intergenerational mentoring through Gen-
eration Spark. This joint initiative equips CRC and RCA churches to nur-
ture a sustainable mentoring culture that increases the engagement of
young people (15-25 years old) within the church and more broadly in
God’s kingdom.
In October 2022, participants representing more than 15 CRCNA and RCA
churches across North America gathered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, as
part of a launch event for Generation Spark. A core component of the
gathering featured a panel of adults ages 30 and younger sharing their ex-
periences with intergenerational mentoring. Intergenerational mentoring
“has been a huge part of my [experience of] feeling like I belong in a
church,” said Kylie Kalmbach, a university student from Covenant CRC in
Edmonton, Alberta. “It’s meant that I know someone there; I know some-
one who will talk to me; I know someone I can ask questions of and who
helps me feel that I can ask questions most of the time; and I know that
I’m an adult who’s allowed to be at church and have opinions about our
church and our whole belief system.” Listening opportunities like this
continue to inform the ways we equip churches specific to their unique
contexts and members.
III. Connecting with churches
Our work with churches this past year has particularly contributed to the
Our Journey 2025 ministry plan milestone of cultivating practices of prayer
and spiritual discipline. In partnership with Worship staff, we expanded
the Faith Practices Project to include resources for exploring the faith prac-
tices (spiritual disciplines) in intergenerational gatherings and worship
services.
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Faith Formation 121

Drawing from these new resources, members at Bethel CRC in Brockville,
Ontario, created a “wonder wall” during a Sunday-morning worship ser-
vice. On paper “thought bubbles” that were made available in their pews,
church members wrote or drew how they were experiencing wonder.
Then they pinned the “thought bubbles” to a colorful board at the front of
the sanctuary with the words “I WONDER” in big letters at the top. “It
was encouraging to see so many participating,” said Pastor Jack Van de
Hoef. The service was part of a sermon series using starting points from
the booklet Faith Practices: Holy Habits That Help Us Love God and Our
Neighbor, Listen to the Spirit, and Become More Like Jesus. This is one example
of the many churches across North America and beyond who are using
and adapting resources from the Faith Practices Project to fit their church
context and to help members of all ages grow in faith together.
In the past year Faith Formation also engaged churches through the fol-
lowing activities:
• released season 2 of Open to Wonder, a podcast exploring faith in
day-to-day life. Guests from across North America and beyond
shared about the faith practices they include in their daily lives
• facilitated 55 workshops and equipping events on topics including
faith practices, children’s ministry curriculum, young adult leader-
ship, and more
• continued to meet (after originally gathering in 2020) with a group
of emerging adult leaders in the CRCNA across North America to
offer insight on faith formation in emerging adults
• led 12 workshops and set up interactive experiences on the faith
practices of wondering, engaging Scripture, and remembering at
the Inspire 2022 conference to demonstrate ways to use available
resources
• facilitated Facebook groups for children’s ministry and Dwell lead-
ers
• partnered with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada in the Parent-
ing Faith research project exploring family-based faith formation
practices in Canada (to be released in spring 2023)
Faith Formation
Christopher J. Schoon

SERVANT LEADERSHIP
Chaplaincy and Care

I. Introduction
Since 1942 the CRC has actively approved and supported chaplains as
they extend the ministry of Christ to people in institutional and special-
ized settings (Acts of Synod 2003, pp. 685-87). Coming alongside congrega-
tions to encourage and equip chaplains, Chaplaincy and Care facilitates
credentialing, support with calling processes, and the care of over 150
CRC chaplains serving throughout North America and around the world.
The Chaplaincy and Care support provided by the CRC includes efforts
such as the following:
• overseeing the denominational endorsement process for chaplains
• providing pastoral support and advocacy for endorsed chaplains
• facilitating shared supervision with chaplains’ calling churches
• informing and educating the CRCNA on chaplaincy and related
ministries
• administering training grants
• recruiting chaplains
• conducting training
• promoting the development of chaplaincy
• participating in national endorsement-related organizations
In addition to the minimum of 800 hours of specialized training in clinical
pastoral education and master’s level theological training, chaplain serv-
ant leaders gather annually to further their pastoral care skills, which in-
clude providing leadership within the various institutes they serve on be-
half of their calling churches.
Over 80 chaplain servant leaders met in person for three days in Septem-
ber 2022 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This was the first in-person gather-
ing for our chaplains since 2019. Dr. Danjuma Gibson, Calvin Theological
Seminary professor of pastoral theology, care, and counseling, served as
the plenary speaker and addressed the theme “Returning, Rebuilding, Re-
storing.” One recently endorsed chaplain commented, “This was my first
chaplain's conference. I valued the chance to be with other chaplains,
make connections, and meet new people.” Another chaplain said, “It was
very good to be together in person, and the mix between curriculum, wor-
ship, and conversation time was just right. I also appreciated Dr. Gibson’s
material.”
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Chaplaincy and Care 123

Chaplaincy and Care works to extend the mission of the local congrega-
tion through the support of chaplains. While engaging in all four mile-
stones, the ministry's primary focus is on equipping chaplains to proclaim
the good news of Jesus Christ as they minister to a diverse group of peo-
ple in crisis, bringing the peace, healing, and grace of Christ to those often
outside the church. Chaplaincy and Care routinely works with profes-
sional chaplaincy organizations in the U.S. and Canada to advocate for re-
ligious liberty, expression of religion, and the training of chaplains to meet
the spiritual needs of diverse populations. The Chaplaincy Ministry Advi-
sory Council (CMAC), in addition to advising Chaplaincy and Care on
chaplaincy related issues, provides many hours throughout the endorse-
ment process to chaplaincy candidates. From conducting interviews and
reviewing applications, they provide invaluable service utilizing their
years of experience. The council selects members for their expertise and to
reflect the growing diversity in chaplaincy.
Chaplaincy and Care notes the following statistics for 2022:
• Total CRCNA-endorsed chaplains: 151 (128 in the U.S.; 23 in Can-
ada).
• 9 chaplains newly endorsed in 2022: Eric Boer, Tricia Bosma, King
Choi, Aleke Dekker, Paul Hannemann, Chadd Huizenga, Hannah
Lee, Nathaniel Schmidt, and Klass Walhout.
• 24 military chaplains supported by the CRCNA: 13 active duty in
the United States; 1 active duty in Canada; 6 in the U.S. National
Guard and Reserves; 1 in the Canadian Reserves; 3 additional mili-
tary chaplain candidates.
• 8 military chaplains served, or currently serve, overseas: Jon Aver-
ill, Kyu Hahn, Richard Hill, Peter Hofman, Joseph Kamphuis,
Raidel Leon Martinez, Cornelius Muasa, and Lloyd Wicker.
Chaplaincy and Care

Timothy Rietkerk
124 Servant Leadership AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

Christian Reformed Church Loan Fund, Inc., U.S.
I. Introduction
The CRC Loan Fund was established by Synod 1983 with a directive to as-
sist organized member churches in the financing of capital improvements.
The Loan Fund operates exclusively in the United States. The board of di-
rectors of the Loan Fund oversees the loan approval process, the determi-
nation of loan interest rates, and the setting of Loan Fund policies. The
board also establishes interest rates for Investment Certificates sold—pri-
marily to members, churches, classes, and agencies of the CRCNA in the
United States.
II. Board of Directors
Loan Fund board members are eligible to serve for two three-year terms.
Current members of the board of directors are Jeffrey Feikens (2025/2),
Carl Kromminga (2025/1), Layla Kuhl (2024/1), Jack Meyer (2023/2),
Howard Van Den Heuvel (2024/2), and Nancy Wiesman (2023/1).
Jack Meyer is concluding his second term on the board and is not eligible
for reappointment. Nancy Wiesman is concluding her first term on the
board and has decided not to serve a second term.
The board requests that synod appoint two board members. At this time,
the board presents one of two slates of nominees to serve a term of three
years with eligibility for reappointment to a second term; the board will
present the second slate of nominees for appointment by way of a supple-
mental report to synod.
Position 1
Rev. Ken Krause is the pastor of Fellowship CRC in Big Rapids, Michigan.
He has served as classis chair and as classis regional pastor and on the de-
nominational Safe Church Advisory Committee. He also served as a dele-
gate to Synod 2018 (Candidacy Committee) and to Synod 2022 (Finance
Committee). In addition, he has served as a hospice chaplain, camp chap-
lain, Red Cross Disaster Action Team leader, president of the Newton
Area Ministerial Association, and in the U.S. Navy. Before becoming a
minister of the Word, he worked in security at Pine Rest Christian Services
and in information technology at Old Kent Bank.
Wayne Postma is a member of Lombard (Ill.) Christian Reformed Church,
where he has served as a youth leader, deacon, elder, catechism teacher,
cadet counselor, and more. He has served as a board member for the Rose-
land Christian School Foundation, Partners Worldwide, and the Ignite
Fund grant review team. He is a graduate of Calvin University and is em-
ployed as an executive vice president, senior lending officer, at Providence
Bank and Trust.
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 CRC Loan Fund 125

III. Financial operations
The Loan Fund is eligible to sell Investment Certificates to investors in
twenty-three states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illi-
nois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minne-
sota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio,
South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. More states could be
added as needed to benefit the fund.
At the close of the 2022 fiscal year (June 30, 2022) a total of $14,391,628 in
interest-bearing Investment Certificates and accrued interest held by in-
vestors was outstanding. Interest rates vary from 1.00 percent to 2.00 per-
cent. The variances in interest rates reflect the terms of the certificates and
market conditions at the times the certificates were issued.
Since its inception in 1983, the Loan Fund has originated more than two
hundred loans totaling nearly $75 million to churches across the United
States. As of June 30, 2022, the Loan Fund had $10,806,504 in gross loans
and accrued interest outstanding. Loan delinquencies do occur from time
to time, but they are closely monitored and are very low. The Loan Fund
maintains a loan loss reserve to help cover potential losses. The fund is
blessed to have experienced only minimal loan losses throughout its his-
tory.
Financial operations are also reflected in the following data:
2022 2021 2020
Cash and equivalents $9,263,219 $5,199,045 $6,346,923
Net loans and interest receivable 10,806,504 6,140,937 15,893,278
Other assets 0 1,659 6,635
Total assets $20,069,723 $21,341,641 $22,246,836
Certificates and interest payable $14,391,628 $15,653,694 $16,569,556
Net assets 5,678,095 5,687,947 5,677,280
Total liabilities and net assets $20,069,723 $21,341,641 $22,246,836
A summary of the audited financial report as of June 30, 2022, appears in
the Agenda for Synod Financial and Business Supplement.
IV. Sources of funding
Funds for the Loan Fund’s operations are derived from the following
sources:
• the sale of Investment Certificates in those states where legal ap-
proval to offer them has been obtained
• gifts and bequests made to the Loan Fund
V. Staff
The Loan Fund is staffed by Alice M. Damsteegt, program coordinator,
and Brian Van Doeselaar, interim director.

VI. Recommendations
A. That synod grant the privilege of the floor to the Loan Fund’s director
or any members of the board of directors of the CRC Loan Fund when
matters pertaining to the fund are discussed.
B. That synod appoint a board member from the slate of nominees pro-
vided to a first term of three years, effective July 1, 2023.
Christian Reformed Church Loan Fund, Inc., U.S.
Brian Van Doeselaar, interim director
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 CRC Loan Fund 127

Diversity
I. Introduction
The Congregational Ministries’ Diversity initiative provides leadership to
the Christian Reformed Church’s globalized leaders and ministries as they
engage in contextual congregational ministry in North America. The aim
is to encourage, support, and resource the CRC’s globalized leaders
through crucial partnerships with denominational ministries to increase
collaboration and integration in the CRC. To this end, the Diversity minis-
try serves as a bridge builder between many of the global majority com-
munities in the CRC and its denominational ministries, including African
American, Chinese, Indigenous/Native American, Latino, Korean, and
Southeast Asian/Pacific Islander (SEAPI) congregations.
Most of the leaders we are connected with are servant leaders. Ethnic min-
istry leaders, for example, gather in safe places for fellowship, encourage-
ment, and mission to discuss strategies and advice, funding, and other re-
sources that can extend their effectiveness toward developing second-gen-
eration young leaders, growing into denominational leadership, and navi-
gating denominational and classical terrain.
What do servant leaders look like among these leaders? The Diversity and
Ethnic Ministries team leaders met in November 2022 in Los Angeles, Cal-
ifornia, to discuss goals for the upcoming ministry year. Five of the six leg-
acy groups (African American, Korean, Chinese, Latino, and SEAPI) all
came with plans to grow second-generation leaders, plant new churches,
and create safe spaces for gatherings. But God had other plans. As we
shared struggles and joys over fun, food, and fellowship, something unex-
pected happened—our empathy expanded beyond our own issues, and
we realized that sacrificing our own projects for the sake of fellow broth-
ers and sisters would be the right thing to do. We agreed to support sev-
eral projects, including the launching of Black and Reformed Leadership
Network efforts in bringing Black leaders together. We also agreed to sup-
port the second-generation leaders in the SEAPI group. This is what can
happen when diverse leaders pray, have fun, and listen to each other for
the sake of the full flourishing of the Christian Reformed Church.
In our Diversity efforts we have been focusing on the second milestone of
Our Journey 2025: listening to the voices of every generation. One of the
challenges among a few of the legacy groups has been to develop young
leaders. Several groups have struggled to secure new leadership under 30
years of age. Though sometimes the challenges relate to generational mis-
understandings and language barriers, one positive way forward has been
to begin mentoring ethnic leaders such as Tyrell Natewa and David Shin
as an example of how we can listen to and shape the lives of 21st-century
leaders for the CRC.

Tyrell Natewa is a Native American student from Arizona attending Calvin
Theological Seminary. Rather than taking the traditional route into minis-
try work, he is interested in possibly running a ministry with young peo-
ple, and we have encouraged him to pursue that goal.
David Shin has been involved in some Race Relations work, and he has led
several cross-cultural young people’s groups. We have met with David
several times over the past few years while he led a youth ministry in
Pittsburgh and as he currently leads a children’s ministry in the San Fran-
cisco area. Our conversations have been deep and fun at the same time.
The work of Diversity this year has included the following:
• raising nearly $50,000 for Race Relations college and graduate
scholarships
• beginning the Our Family Conversation task force to make recom-
mendations to senior leadership on improving the classical experi-
ences of diaspora leaders
• holding our first Healing Hearts/Transforming Nations workshop
with a binational team in January and February 2023
Diversity
Reginald Smith
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Diversity 129

Pastor Church Resources
I. Introduction
Pastor Church Resources (PCR) serves pastors, churches, and classes as
they seek to promote healthy relationships, encourage one another in min-
istry, and discern next steps in seasons of growth, transition, or challenge.
These efforts aim toward the well-being of pastors and churches and in-
clude consultations, support for a variety of continuing education and
peer-to-peer learning opportunities, resources for pastor search teams,
and guidance for regional pastors and those involved in Specialized Tran-
sitional Ministry. Our desire to resource pastors, churches, and classes is
an attempt to reflect God’s work to provide the church with all the gifts
necessary for flourishing (Eph. 4; 1 Cor. 12).
Many of Pastor Church Resources’ efforts focus on the Servant Leadership
area. For example, Elaine May (Women’s Leadership developer) has been
coaching a congregation’s executive pastor after the retirement of its be-
loved, longtime senior pastor. Division over COVID-19 protocols and grief
over the retirement of the senior pastor caused significant disruptions. The
council, recognizing the gifts and experience of the executive pastor, pro-
posed (and the congregation affirmed) a new copastor structure going for-
ward, with the executive pastor moving into an equal-ministry partner-
ship with a second pastor. While the executive pastor, who is a woman,
had been preaching in and serving the congregation for 20 years, some in
the church became vocal about their disagreement with women’s ordina-
tion in the CRC.
Through coaching, the pastor has worked to maintain a nonanxious pres-
ence in the midst of feeling hurt and betrayed. She has initiated conversa-
tions and pursued reconciliation with those who disagree with her serving
in the copastor role. Through the use of the pastoral vocational assessment
tool and a personal timeline exercise, the pastor has gained clarity and
confidence in her calling to the church. She has led the staff, officiated
weddings and baptisms and funerals, and welcomed with the hospitality
of Jesus all members to the Lord’s Supper. While she is uniquely posi-
tioned to provide leadership to the congregation as they search for a co-
pastor, she has been able to clearly communicate her calling to the council
and to assure them that she does not feel called to be the sole pastor of the
congregation. The work of PCR has enabled her to love the people she is
called to lead in spite of their disagreements.
Pastor Church Resources engages all four of the CRC’s Our Journey 2025
milestones in its work. The following example highlights how PCR’s work
in northern British Columbia engaged the third milestone: growing in di-
versity and unity as we build relationships. In November 2022, Sean Baker
(PCR) and Liz Tolkamp (Faith Formation Ministries and B.C. Restorative

Task Force) hosted a two-day seminar in Telkwa, B.C., on “Becoming a
Restorative Congregation.” The previous two years had been challenging
in northern B.C., where COVID-19 restrictions were particularly difficult
and where three of the area’s five fairly isolated congregations were with-
out pastors. The seminar, with participants drawn from four northern B.C.
congregations, became a place for leaders to learn together, pray together,
and encourage one another. The group took to calling themselves “Team
North” as they practiced and imagined better ways to make decisions, ap-
proach conflict, and discern together. Rev. Joe Ellis and Rev. Joel Ringma,
pastors from two of the churches, mentioned that they could not remem-
ber the last time leaders from all of the northern B.C. churches got to-
gether for something like this training.
Ministry highlights from 2022:
• PCR staff connected with 335 churches and 678 ministry leaders, re-
sulting in almost 950 personal engagements.
• 140 pastors participated in a pastoral vocational assessment and
follow-up consultation.
• The PastorSearch webpage, available for churches searching for a
pastor, had nearly 3,000 pageviews.
• PCR celebrated 40 years of walking alongside congregations and
ministry leaders in ways that nurture their well-being.
Pastor Church Resources

Lis Van Harten
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Pastor Church Resources 131

Pensions and Insurance
I. Introduction
The Christian Reformed Church in North America maintains employee
benefit programs that provide retirement, health, life, and disability bene-
fits for employees of the denomination in its ministries, agencies, local
churches, and other CRC organizations.
II. Board matters
The ministers’ pension plans, special-assistance funds, and the employees’
retirement plans are governed by the U.S. Pension Trustees and the Cana-
dian Pension Trustees. These boards meet several times per year, usually
in joint session. Separate meetings of the boards are held as needed.
Lloyd Bierma is completing his second term on the U.S. Pension Trustees
board in 2023 and is eligible and recommended for a third three-year
term.
III. Benefit-program activities
A. Ministers’ pension plans
The ministers’ pension plans are defined-benefit plans. Benefits paid by
the plans are defined by formula, and the required funding of the plans is
determined by actuarial calculations. The primary purpose of the plans is
to provide retirement benefits to plan participants. The plans also provide
benefits to the surviving spouses of participants as well as to any depend-
ent children who are orphaned. In addition, long-term disability benefits
are provided through an insurance product to all full-time, active partici-
pants in the plans who have furnished the information concerning com-
pensation and housing as required by the insurance carrier.
The following is a summary of participant counts as of December 31, 2022,
for each plan and in total. Participants having an interest in both plans
(generally the result of having served churches in both the United States
and Canada) appear in the column where they have residence.
United States Canada Total
Active ministers 648 263 911
Ministers receiving benefit payments 616 160 776
Spouses and dependents 192 50 242
Withdrawn participants with vested benefits 104 27 131
Total 1,560 500 2,060
Independent actuarial firms are employed to prepare valuations of the
plans. These actuarial valuations furnish the information needed to deter-
mine church and participant assessment amounts. Both plans are required
to have a valuation every three years. Information regarding church and
participant assessment amounts will be presented later in this report.

1. Portfolio balances and performance
Plan assets are invested in diversified portfolios under the management of
professional investment-management firms. These firms are required to
adhere to the denomination’s investment guidelines, and their perfor-
mance is measured against established benchmarks and regularly re-
viewed by the trustees.
The plans’ actuaries have informed us that as of the date of the plans’ last
valuation, on a going concern basis, the actuarial liability totaled approxi-
mately $134.7 million for the U.S. plan (as of Dec. 31, 2019) and approxi-
mately $48.2 million for the Canadian plan (as of Dec. 31, 2019). These
amounts reflect the present value of the plans’ future obligations to all
participants including active, disabled, and retired pastors, widows, and
dependents.
Market value of the portfolios is summarized as follows:
December 31, 2022 December 31, 2021
United States (U.S. $) $117,364,000 $141,110,000
Canada (Can. $) 74,548,000 86,654,000
Dividends, interest, and appreciation in the value of the plans’ holdings
along with contributions to the plans provide a significant portion of the
resources needed to meet the plans’ obligations to the active participants
and to fund payments to retirees and beneficiaries.
2. Plan review
The pension plan has undergone several changes since separate plans for
the United States and Canada were established in 1983. While the basic
defined benefit form of the plan was not altered, changes were made to
benefits provided by the plan, to clarify how the plan is administered, and
to improve the protocols used to obtain funds needed to pay costs.
3. Funding
All organized churches are plan sponsors and thus are expected to pay
church assessments determined by an amount per active professing mem-
ber age 18 and older or, if greater, the direct costs of their first or only pas-
tor’s participation in the plan. The amount of the assessment for 2023 (in
local currency) is $37.20 per member in both Canada and the United
States, and direct costs have been set at $7,704 for both countries as well.
These amounts are collected by means of monthly billings to each orga-
nized church, based on reported membership statistics.
All emerging churches and other denominational ministries that employ a
minister as a missionary, professor, teacher, or in any other capacity, in-
cluding organizations that employ endorsed chaplains (with the exception
of chaplains serving in the military who are not yet entitled to receive any
military pension benefits) are required to pay the annual cost of participa-
tion in the plan. All pension assessments, however determined, are billed
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Pensions and Insurance 133

monthly, and the grant of credited service for pastors is contingent on
timely payment of amounts billed.
B. Employees’ retirement plans
The employees’ retirement plans are defined-contribution plans covering
most employees of participating denominational agencies and ministries
who are not ordained as ministers of the Word. In the United States, con-
tributions are paid into the two available defined-contribution plans by
participating denominational agencies and ministries in an amount up to
6 percent of compensation. An additional employer contribution of up to 4
percent of compensation is made to match employee contributions of a
similar amount. U.S. churches with staff participating in the 403(b)(9) plan
set the contribution rates independently. In Canada, contributions of up to
9 percent are paid to the plan by participating employers. In Canada, there
are no contributions made to the plan relative to matching employee con-
tributions. In these defined-contribution plans, participants may make ad-
ditional contributions up to the limits determined by federal or provincial
regulation. Participants receive periodic statements indicating the dollar
amount credited to their accounts, the value of their accounts, and the
vested percentage.
Individual participants direct the investment of their account balances
among several investment alternatives, including fixed-income and equity
funds. The investment alternatives are currently managed for U.S. partici-
pants by Empower Retirement and Envoy Financial, while Great-West
Trust serves as custodian of the plan’s assets. For Canadian participants,
Sun Life Financial Group manages and serves as custodian of the plan’s
assets.
As of December 31, 2022, the balances in these plans totaled approxi-
mately $38,616,000 in the United States and $5,360,000 in Canada. As of
that date, there were 357 participants in the U.S. plans and 102 in the Ca-
nadian plan, categorized as follows:
United States Canada
Active 219 85
Inactive 138 17
C. Nonretirement employee benefit programs
Oversight of the denomination’s nonretirement employee benefit pro-
grams is provided by the Council of Delegates.
Consolidated Group Insurance is a denominational plan that offers health,
dental, and life coverage in Canada to ministers and employees of local
congregations and denominational agencies and ministries. Currently
there are 314 participants in the program. The most significant categories
of participants include 224 pastors and employees of local churches, 90
employees of denominational ministries and agencies, and no retirees. The
plan in Canada is a fully insured plan with coverage purchased through a

major health-insurance provider and is supplemental to health benefits
available through government health programs.
In the United States, the denomination offers health, dental, and life cover-
age to ministers and employees of local congregations and denomina-
tional agencies and ministries. Currently there are 370 participants in the
program. The most significant categories of participants include 144 pas-
tors and employees of local churches, 122 employees of denominational
ministries and agencies, and 104 retirees. The plans are provided by the
Reformed Benefits Association (RBA) through a trust established to fund
benefits and expenses of the plan. RBA was established in July 2013 by the
Board of Trustees of the CRCNA and the Board of Benefit Services of the
Reformed Church in America to provide nonretirement benefit programs
for both denominations.
Premiums charged by the plan in Canada are set by the insurance carrier.
The premiums for the U.S. plan are set by RBA based on overall expecta-
tions of claims and administrative expenses for the coming year.
D. Financial disclosures
Audited or reviewed financial statements of the retirement plans and of
all of the agencies and institutions are made available each year to the
treasurer of each classis with the request that they be made available to
any interested party. In addition, summary financial statements are in-
cluded in the Acts of Synod. Individualized statements are furnished to ac-
tive members of the ministers’ pension plans and the employees’ retire-
ment plans.
IV. Recommendations
A. That synod grant the privilege of the floor to members of the Canadian
Pension Trustees and the U.S. Pension Trustees when insurance matters
and matters pertaining to insurance and retirement plans for ministers
and employees are discussed.
B. That synod designate up to 100 percent of a minister’s early or normal
retirement pension or disability pension for 2023 as housing allowance for
United States income-tax purposes (IRS Ruling 1.107-1), but only to the ex-
tent that the pension is used to rent or provide a home.
C. That synod designate up to 100 percent of an ordained pastor’s distri-
butions from their CRC 403(b)(9) Retirement Income Plan in 2023 as hous-
ing allowance for United States income-tax purposes (IRS Ruling 1.107-1),
but only to the extent that those funds are used to rent or provide a home.
D. That synod by way of the ballot reappoint Lloyd Bierma to a third
three-year term on the U.S. Pension Trustees beginning July 1, 2023.
Pensions and Insurance

Shirley DeVries, chief administrative officer
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Pensions and Insurance 135

GLOBAL MISSION
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.
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.
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 ReFrame Ministries 137

1. ReFrame works with about 160 indigenous staff members around the
world. Through its partnerships, ReFrame has a ministry presence in
55 countries through production and discipleship centers, broadcast lo-
cations, and resource distribution. ReFrame and its partners reach peo-
ple in nearly every country through Internet and mobile application re-
sources.
2. ReFrame’s international partnership ministry teams have developed 27
ministry websites in 10 languages supported by 69 social media pages.
ReFrame produces 50 audio programs, about half of which are aired
on the radio, and 45 TV/video programs.
3. Together with our partners, ReFrame distributes nearly 2 million
printed devotional booklets each year in six languages. In general, the
number of printed daily devotions has decreased as we are able to
reach more people in more places digitally through email, Facebook,
and smartphone apps. We send more than 600,000 devotional emails
every day—and this number keeps increasing.
B. Faith formation on the global mission field
ReFrame provides faith formation resources in the English language, pri-
marily for North American audiences. To learn more about those re-
sources, see section III of this report or visit ReFrameMinistries.org/Eng-
lish.
Culturally relevant discipleship resources are also available in the other
nine major languages in which ReFrame works with media ministry part-
ners. Produced and distributed in print and online, on social media chan-
nels, and through smartphone apps, devotions and faith formation re-
sources are bringing God’s Word to people around the world.
1. Audio programs apply God’s Word directly to people’s lives through
Bible teaching programs, offering Reformed and biblical perspectives
on current cultural issues within the context of the nations where we
do ministry.
For example, in western Africa, as many internally displaced people
from Burkina Faso began fleeing to the city of Kaya, ReFrame’s French
ministry partners responded by producing a new radio series specifi-
cally for those who were fleeing violence and needed to hear the hope-
ful words that the gospel offers to oppressed people.
2. ReFrame and its partners offer print resources including devotional
guides in nearly every language ministry. In total, ReFrame and its
partners mail or hand out about 2.1 million devotional guides and
other gospel-centered material every year. Much of this content is also
available online. In all ten language ministries, we regularly hear from
people who are grateful to have a meaningful reflection on God’s
Word.
For example, Charleen, a reader of our Today devotions, recently
shared how the daily readings encouraged her in her faith. “I want to
138 Global Mission AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

tell you how much I have enjoyed your devotions this month,”
Charleen wrote. “I truly receive joy, encouragement, peace, and more
than words can say from the Today devotions. God bless you.”
3. As video-based programs become increasingly popular and accessible,
ReFrame and our partners now have 56 different video programs
around the world. These programs range from daily, two-minute de-
votional reflections to hour-long church services for people who tune
in remotely. No matter the length, each video program offers the hope
of God’s truth in an easily accessible format. Most of the programs are
available on social media sites such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and
YouTube.
After watching a video from our Hindi ministry partners, Kumar
wrote, “Through your video programs on Facebook, I get real joy and
peace from the Word of God—something the world could not give
me.”
C. Servant leadership on the global mission field
ReFrame Ministries is blessed to work with Indigenous leaders gifted in
both ministry and media. These leaders and their teams provide culturally
relevant outreach in each of the ten language ministries in which ReFrame
works.
1. International ministry leaders include Rev. Youssef Adel Hanna (Ara-
bic); Pastor Jerry An (Chinese); Robin Basselin and Justin Sterenberg
(English codirectors); Rev. Marc Nabie (French); Rev. Arliyanus Larosa
(Indonesian); Rev. Masao Yamashita (Japanese); Rev. Hernandes Dias
Lopes (Portuguese); Rev. Sergei Sosedkin (Russian); Rev. Huascar de la
Cruz (Spanish); and a Hindi ministry leader whose name is withheld
for security reasons.
We praise God for these leaders and for the partnerships they repre-
sent—with on-the-ground media ministry workers, denominations,
and organizations.
2. The goal of all ReFrame-related training events is to equip leaders for
sharing the gospel in the context to which God has called them.
a. French ministry leader Rev. Marc Nabie hosted Timothy Leader-
ship Training events in several West African nations.
b. In India and nearby countries, ReFrame’s Hindi ministry leader fa-
cilitated leadership training events for pastors, church leaders, me-
dia producers, and VBS teachers.
c. Rev. Sergei Sosedkin and his team provided leadership seminars
for Russian-speaking students and for future church leaders who
are attending universities in Russia and Ukraine.
d. Rev. Hernandes Dias Lopes leads online courses for church leaders
and pastors in Brazil and other Portuguese-speaking countries.

e. Pastor Jerry An facilitates symposia for church leaders in both Asia
and North America to promote the use of media for gospel out-
reach. In 2022, he led an event for Chinese speakers to address new
laws in China and their effects on sharing the gospel on the inter-
net.
D. Mercy and justice on the global mission field
While the mission of ReFrame is primarily global media missions, minis-
try teams and partners have opportunities to provide comfort and assis-
tance to people who are oppressed, brokenhearted, and disadvantaged.
Many programs ReFrame and its partners produce are messages of hope
for people who are living in incredibly difficult circumstances—question-
ing their beliefs in places where it could be dangerous to do so, living in
physical poverty, or suffering from sickness. In these ways we also ad-
dress issues of social justice through our various programs in several lan-
guages.
1. Our ministry partners in India practice a holistic approach, providing
for physical as well as spiritual needs. The team made a special effort
to distribute food and sanitary equipment because many of their listen-
ers are in the society’s lowest castes.
2. Our English ministry’s Family Fire staff has been producing materials
for people who are experiencing pain and brokenness in their lives.
3. With the goal of teaching and encouraging Christ-followers to live out
their faith, ReFrame also produces the Think Christian online blog and
the Groundwork audio program, which regularly offers discussions on
issues related to biblical justice.
For example, in December 2022, Think Christian’s blog offered a review
of the Star Wars: Andor series by comparing scenes from the show to
scenes of oppression that we see in our own world. “Andor deals with
the slow but constant, suffocating chokehold of the Galactic Empire. It
considers what drives people under oppression to radicalize and retali-
ate with rebellious and immoral acts in the name of justice,” the article
reads.
E. Gospel proclamation and worship
The core mission of ReFrame and its partners is gospel proclamation
through a variety of media, sharing the gospel with people wherever they
are in the world. ReFrame continually seeks out culturally relevant and ef-
fective ways to proclaim the gospel and to call people into relationship
with God.
1. We have increasingly moved to a model of partnership with local de-
nominations and organizations in our international ministries. This
provides a greater opportunity for local ownership and sustainability.
In Brazil, for example, we partner closely with congregations in the
Presbyterian Church of Brazil to distribute biblical content for church

members and the communities they serve in missions, including com-
munities as far away as Angola in southern Africa.
2. As our world moves to a more paperless society, a trend that increased
during the pandemic, ReFrame expands the CRC’s use of digital out-
reach for sharing the gospel: developing new apps, growing email and
social-media audiences, and sharing almost all content online, even if
it's also available offline.
III. Connecting with Churches: Our Journey 2025 (Ministry Plan)
ReFrame offers a variety of programs and resources to help congregations
and individuals work toward the milestones named in our denomina-
tional ministry plan, Our Journey 2025.
A. Cultivating practices of prayer and spiritual discipline
1. Our English ministry team has grown a network of more than 8,400
prayer partners in North America and throughout the world who pray
for people responding to our media outreach programs.
2. Our Today devotions, produced since 1950, are available in print, at To-
dayDevotional.com, by email subscription, on podcast websites, and
through mobile applications. We print and distribute about 210,000 To-
day booklets six times each year, and more than 350,000 people have
signed up to access the Today emails. In addition, about 75,000 people
use the Today devotional app on their mobile devices.
3. Groundwork is a 30-minute audio program and podcast that builds bib-
lical foundations for life. Groundwork guides listeners in casual but
thoughtful conversations about practical applications of God’s Word in
today’s world. You can listen on the air or online at Groundwor-
kOnline.com.
4. Think Christian is a collaborative online magazine that invites readers
to practice seeing God in all things—particularly popular music, mov-
ies, television, and other forms of pop culture. Rooted in the Reformed
tradition, Think Christian recognizes that all of culture falls within
God's sovereignty and that by his common grace believers and unbe-
lievers alike are capable of creating beautiful things.
5. Family Fire is an online community (through Facebook and the website
FamilyFire.com) that provides resources to spiritually strengthen fami-
lies through articles, devotions, email and social-media interaction,
and live retreat events.
B. Listening to the voices of every generation
1. Kids Corner is a program especially geared toward children ages 6-12.
This program has transitioned from a single audio program to a grow-
ing collection of online resources for children’s spiritual growth across
North America. Kids Corner launched a new website in 2022, making
all of these new features, as well as an accompanying parent blog,
more readily available and accessible.

2. People of all ages respond to messages in our Today devotions. A class
of high school students responds to a new set of devotions each year
by taking photos and writing reflections that relate to the topic pre-
sented that month. Students read the devotions, look for daily remind-
ers of the message topics, and snap photos of them.
C. Growing in diversity and unity as we build relationships
1. ReFrame’s global outreach is strengthened through crucial networks of
North American and international partners. Strong collaborations cre-
ate effective partnerships for mission and allow resources to be in-
vested wisely. In addition to our sister ministries within the CRCNA,
ReFrame works cooperatively with the following Reformed denomina-
tions worldwide: the Reformed Church in America, the Reformed
Church in Japan, the Presbyterian Church of Brazil, the National Pres-
byterian Church in Mexico, the Indonesian Christian Church, and the
Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Egypt, Synod of the Nile. In addi-
tion, we partner with evangelical congregations in Eastern Europe, in
Africa, in India and surrounding countries, and with house churches
and Christian ministries in China.
2. ReFrame Ministries has also partnered with the CRC’s Korean Council
since 2008 to publish a bilingual Korean-English version of the Today
devotions.
D. Sharing the gospel, living it missionally, and planting new churches as we
connect with our local and global ministry contexts
1. Church Juice helps churches be intentional about how to use the wide
variety of media tools available to them in order to communicate effec-
tively with their congregations and communities. Church Juice offers
virtual and in-person opportunities for church communicators to come
together (both online and through occasional in-person events), learn,
and encourage one another. If you have questions about how your
church can improve its communications, start a conversation with
Church Juice producer Bryan Haley. Email him anytime at
[email protected].
2. ReFrame’s English language ministry produces ebooks as down-
loadable pdfs. Several are also available in print for group discussion
or personal growth. Topics from the newest resources include princi-
ples of biblical parenting (Family Fire), bullying (Kids Corner), seeking
God in suffering (Today), and prayers of comfort (ReFrame’s prayer
ministry).
3. ReFrame’s Japanese ministry partners offer videos to churches that are
part of the Reformed Church of Japan. These videos help to introduce
the church to prospective visitors and seekers in the area and offer a
glimpse of what a Sunday is like in a typical church. In this way Re-
Frame helps to grow the global church in Japan using media resources.

4. ReFrame’s Hindi ministry team supports the work of church planters
in northern India. The team hosts radio-program listener gatherings
and offers resources to communities of believers. These gatherings of-
ten take place at house churches that are growing into church plants.
IV. Recommendations
A. That Rev. Kurt Selles, director of ReFrame Ministries, be given the priv-
ilege of the floor when ReFrame matters are discussed.
B. That synod encourage congregations to use ReFrame’s materials to sup-
port their own local ministries and outreach.
ReFrame Ministries
Kurt Selles, director

Resonate Global Mission
I. Introduction
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.
As a denomination, we stand together on prioritizing God’s call to live

and share the gospel! Joining God’s mission together has been a privilege
throughout more than a century of deep-running tradition and commit-
ment. Right now, Resonate Global Mission is at a crossroads—our work is
focused on looking toward the future to be able to respond to God’s lead-
ing and to share the gospel both at home and around the world. And we
look forward soon to be able to present a candidate to be recommended as
the new Resonate director who will continue to lead this agency into this
future.
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.
Synod has mandated Resonate to lead the denomination in its task of

bringing the gospel holistically to the people of North America and the
world. In all that we do together—sending missionaries, planting
churches, supporting campus ministries, and more—our key strategy is
to mobilize our missional leaders. Through Resonate, you come along-
side those whom God is calling to mission-focused ministry to equip and
send them to be Christ’s witnesses. That’s how we are investing your sup-
port and working toward a sustainable future.
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!

As part of our effort to sharpen our focus on mission, we are working to
strengthen Resonate’s ministry in three important areas that connect with

Global Mission and flow from the milestones of the Our Journey 2025 min-
istry plan: church planting, mobilizing congregations, and sending mis-
sionaries. We also are increasing our programming and curriculum devel-
opment to strengthen these areas of ministry, now enhanced through the
consolidation of Raise Up Global Ministries.
These broad categories are essential to the mission work of this denomina-
tion—work that spans the globe and stretches across more than a century
of passion for God’s mission.
A. Church planting
Resonate partners with classes and established churches to plant new
churches in places where the love of Jesus is not yet known or experi-
enced. Mission work using this strategy includes the following:
1. Parent churches: We partner with established churches to identify
church planting opportunities and the operational systems necessary
to establish and sustain their ministry.
2. Partner church plants: We come alongside church planters with net-
working, coaching, continuing education, and funding.
3. New expressions of church: Church plants are one of the most effective
ways we have for reaching new groups of people, so we are develop-
ing new methods like microchurch plants, church planter training
hubs, and multisite church plants.
Example and Story: A Church Plant for People of All Abilities
Read more at resonateglobalmission.org/cityhope.
B. Mobilizing congregations
Resonate helps congregations live out a biblical and holistic gospel mis-
sion in their own communities. Your partnership with Resonate is work-
ing to deepen our passion for mission, strengthen our capacity to follow
God on mission, and amplify the impact churches have. Mission work us-
ing this strategy includes the following:
1. Leadership development: We are all missionaries, and our mission
field is all around us! Resonate is investing in identifying and equip-
ping individual leaders and teachers worldwide through initiatives
like seminary education and training leaders to work alongside others
in their communities—whether in North America or overseas.
2. Regional and local teams: Our staff walks alongside congregations to
encourage them in fulfilling God’s mission. Through our teams of re-
gional mission leaders and local mission leaders, Resonate is investing
in training mission committees, forging partnerships, and working
with young adults whom God is calling into mission work.
3. Campus ministry: Resonate connects churches with universities and
colleges in ministry on more than 40 campuses across North America.
Resonate invests in training and supporting campus ministers to be a
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Resonate Global Mission 145

faithful presence on campuses and to help students discover God’s
will for their lives.
Example and Story: You Helped Equip a Student for Her Calling
Read more at resonateglobalmission.org/mickeelie.
C. Sending missionaries
Jesus sends all of his followers into the world as his witnesses. Your part-
nership with Resonate is working to see an increasing number of diverse,
locally rooted, and globally connected congregations and ministries sent
to faithfully proclaim and live out the good news of Jesus. Mission work
using this strategy includes the following:
1. Identify, prepare, and send mission workers on long-term career mis-
sion assignments and short-term volunteer opportunities.
2. Establish and coordinate ministry partnerships with congregations
that guide missionary ministry and provide financial support.
3. Offer a full suite of support for missionaries and volunteers, including
training, visas, travel, housing, spiritual care, fundraising, etc.
Example and Story: “I Need Jesus”—A Journey of Faith
Read more at resonateglobalmission.org/abraham.
D. Programming to support the ministry
Resonate develops and deploys many different methods to support the
three core initiatives of our ministry. Over the past year we have worked
to bring a fresh focus to this work. With the recent consolidation with
Raise Up Global Ministries, effective January 1, 2023, mission work in this
area includes the following:
1. Developing ministry curricula such as Timothy Leadership Training,
Educational Care, and Global Coffee Break to be used by ministry staff
across Resonate.
2. Providing processes and tools that support and evaluate Resonate’s
core initiatives.
3. Continuing innovation, education, and training.
The CRCNA chose to consolidate the programming of Raise Up Global
Ministries with Resonate because of its close connection and value to Res-
onate staff worldwide. The programs of Raise Up equip global church
leaders by developing biblically based interactive materials and training
leaders to facilitate learning and to support change in their lives and com-
munities.
III. Connecting with churches: Our Journey 2025 (Ministry Plan)
Resonate exists to serve our congregations as they share the gospel, live it
missionally, and plant churches. Our Christian Reformed congregations
are our most important ministry partners, and Resonate can help CRCNA

congregations in equipping young people, supporting diaspora ministry,
and engaging in ministry with ethnic minorities.
Our churches and society are struggling with critical issues of diversity
and justice. As CRCNA churches increasingly have opportunities to share
the life-giving gospel of Christ with people in their communities who may
come from diverse backgrounds, we can work together toward God's vi-
sion for his church as a unified body of people "from every nation, tribe,
people and language" (Rev. 7:9).
A. Listening to the voices of every generation
Together we can open space for diverse groups of young adults and lay
leaders, equipping, mentoring, and discipling them so that we may share
the good news and live out the gospel in all areas of life.
Resonate provides opportunities and encouragement to young Christians
in a variety of areas, including campus ministry, cohorts, leadership de-
velopment, and more. The future leaders of the Christian Reformed
Church of ten, twenty, and fifty years from now are already in our
churches, and together we can equip them to live out their faith and lead
others.
Example and Story: Four Young Leaders Living Like Jesus
Read more at resonateglobalmission.org/4youngleaders.
B. Grow in diversity and unity
Resonate ministers with diaspora and ethnic communities. Working in
partnership with our regional teams and established churches, we mobi-
lize believers inside and outside communities of immigrants, migrants,
refugees, and international students in a way that welcomes and embraces
them, communicates God’s love, and calls them to faith in Christ.
One of the biggest opportunities for the CRCNA is to help churches work
cross-culturally. Resonate has a variety of programs that specifically re-
source churches as they build relationships with their communities, such
as Journeys into Friendship, Go Local, Church Planting, and others.
Example and Story: A Church Home in Artesia
Read more at resonateglobalmission.org/artesia.
IV. Recommendations
A. That synod grant Joel Huyser, interim director of Resonate Global Mis-
sion, the privilege of the floor when matters pertaining to Resonate Global
Mission are addressed.
B. That synod, along with the Council of Delegates, encourage all Chris-
tian Reformed congregations to recognize the following Sundays as signif-
icant opportunities to pray for and to receive an offering for Resonate
Global Mission: Easter, Pentecost, and the second and third Sundays in
September.
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Resonate Global Mission 147

the Council of Delegates and will be presented to synod by way of the Fi-
nance Advisory Committee.
Resonate Global Mission

Joel Huyser, interim director

MERCY AND JUSTICE
Committee for Contact with the Government

Centre for Public Dialogue
I. Introduction
The Committee for Contact with the Government (CCG), operating as the
Christian Reformed Centre for Public Dialogue, is a justice and reconcilia-
tion ministry of the Christian Reformed churches in Canada. The Centre
for Public Dialogue works to encourage active Christian citizenship, stud-
ies critical issues facing Canadian society from a Reformed perspective,
and interacts with policy makers and shapers in a constructive manner.
Our focus issues are currently refugee rights and resettlement, Indigenous
justice and reconciliation, and climate justice. We also strive to be nimble
and responsive on critical issues that come up.
A. Faith formation
We seek to work with local churches in an effort to live into the call to
seek God’s justice and peace in every area of life. We do this in the follow-
ing ways:
1. Providing liturgical and devotional resources connected to Indigenous
justice, refugee rights, and climate care via our website and social me-
dia. We support binational efforts like the CRCNA Day of Justice (Au-
gust) and provide devotional resources in connection with our Lenten
challenge and offering Sunday.
2. Gathering local church members to tell stories and think together
about Christ’s call to justice through our Do Justice blog (dojus-
tice.crcna.org). Through our Do Justice columnists initiative, CRC and
RCA writers from across North America have regularly shared the
ways they are wrestling with the call to do justice in their own local
contexts. Our fifteen regular columnists (including eight people of
color) focus on specific issues from poverty to climate change to Re-
formed theological reflections to refugee sponsorship. Do Justice has
further expanded into a podcast format. This year two seasons were
produced. One focused on the intersection of charity and advocacy,
and the second considered how worship shapes our approach to jus-
tice.
3. Working closely with the Canadian Ministries justice mobilizer to de-
velop and animate learning opportunities on justice and reconciliation.
We continue to respond to church requests for virtual and in-person
sessions and recorded materials. We are also engaged in longer-term
projects with groups like Act Five at Redeemer University.
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.
150 Mercy and Justice AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

A. Engaging younger members
Young people make up the largest portion of our Do Justice blog audience:
just under 38 percent of our readers are under age 34, and more than 50
percent are under age 44. Additionally, over a quarter of our social-media
followers are under age 44. We continue to cultivate younger members,
including through the Do Justice podcast, with 43 percent of listeners un-
der age 34.
B. Assisting churches within their local contexts
We regularly connect with churches across the country to help them seek
justice. We offered an online session of the Our Faith in Action workshop
alongside opportunities for people to participate at their own pace. We
continue to connect with churches on climate change through partnership
with the Climate Witness Project—for example, hosting Christian climate
scientist Katherine Hayhoe and subsequent Zoom discussion groups. We
regularly respond to requests for workshops and email inquiries.
Committee for Contact with the Government/

Centre for Public Dialogue
Mike Hogeterp, research and communications manager
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.
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

make changes that communicate the worth and value of each person. At a
meeting with other disability advocates organized by Disability Concerns,
Kathy Dempsey-Glegloff, a church disability advocate, shared that her
church is just now starting to think about disability. Last fall their Social
Justice book club read Sitting Pretty by Rebekah Taussig, who uses a
wheelchair. As a church, they have been building awareness in their con-
gregation by sharing the testimonies from Everybody Belongs, Serving To-
gether, published by Disability Concerns in 2022. They also have estab-
lished an accessibility working group, written and passed an accessibility
policy, worked to reduce ableist language, and completed a congrega-
tional accessibility survey. Kathy and her group are energetic and excited
about what is happening. This is one story about a church that is begin-
ning to make headway so that everybody belongs and everybody serves.
Disability Concerns helps the CRCNA work toward growing in diversity
and unity as we build relationships, in alignment with the third milestone
of the Our Journey 2025 ministry plan. People with disabilities are the larg-
est minority group in North America, and yet they are often left out of the
diversity conversation. Disability is an important form of diversity that
deserves the same kind of intentionality as other types of diversity.
In August 2022, Disability Concerns hosted a two-day training called
“Let’s End Ableism at Church.” One of our keynote speakers, Rev.
Melinda Baber, shared how she has experienced ableism:
“As a young child, I was first exposed to television by watching Sesame
Street when I was six. And I remember that at the time on Sesame Street
they were teaching young kids about categories and differences—and
there was a song that played, saying, ‘One of these things is not like
the others; one of these things just doesn’t belong. Can you tell which
one is not like the others before we finish our song?’ I internalized that
message because I was very different from most other kids I knew. The
ableist message that because I was different, I didn’t belong, is some-
thing that I have encountered from individuals and from the culture in
the United States—and in particular from the church culture. I didn’t
belong, I was told, in a regular classroom; I didn’t belong in ministry
and leadership; I didn’t belong in public spaces. And, to their credit,
Sesame Street has changed that song.”
God’s people have diverse bodies, diverse ways of thinking, diverse ways
of getting around, diverse ways of sensing the world, and diverse ways of
communicating. Disability Concerns helps churches approach God’s di-
verse people with openness and adaptability, celebrating the gifts that
each person brings.
IV. Disability Concerns by the numbers (2022)
• 1,583 recipients (on average) of the Disability Concerns e-newsletter
• 1,234 video views on the Disability Concerns YouTube channel
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Disability Concerns 153

• 365 church disability advocates in the CRCNA
• 199 churches that honored Disability Awareness Sunday in the
CRCNA
• 149 attendees (a record number!) at our two-day training “Let’s
End Ableism at Church”
• 28 regional disability advocates in the CRCNA
• 20 (and counting) churches hosting book clubs on the Disability
Concerns book of the year My Body Is Not a Prayer Request
• 9 young adults participating in our year-long Disability Advocacy
Journey
• 9 modules in the new Disability Concerns Ministry Advocate Train-
ing Program
Disability Concerns
Lindsay Wieland Capel

Indigenous Ministry (Canada)
I. Introduction
The Indigenous Ministry is made up of a national committee (Canadian
Indigenous Ministry Committee), three Urban Indigenous Ministries, and
a senior leader for Indigenous justice and reconciliation, each using their
strengths to support healing and reconciliation between Indigenous peo-
ples and non-Indigenous people in Canada.
A. Faith formation
1. Hearts Exchanged is a learning and action journey designed to equip
Reformed Christians to engage with Indigenous people as neighbors
and fellow imagebearers. This colearning setting models the sacred
journey of reconciliation, preparing us as Christians to build relation-
ships with Indigenous communities that are marked by mutual respect
and reciprocity. Participants are transformed in their minds and hearts
as they are invited into honest dialogue about the harms of colonialism
and as they encounter “hearts broken” stories and experiences. A sea-
sonal cycle of cohorts has continued this year, with thirteen groups
meeting across the country.
2. The Urban Indigenous Ministries continue to support growth in their
local communities. For example, the Indigenous Family Centre in Win-
nipeg, Manitoba, engaged families in Circle of Security parenting train-
ing.
B. Mercy and justice
1. Resources, studies, and other tools are available as reconciliation be-
comes a stronger theme in CRC churches—not just reconciliation with
God through Christ but also with people in Canada. Given the history
of the church in Canada, the process of reconciliation with our Indige-
nous peoples is an important part of the way the Canadian CRC has
made real the work toward shalom. This year we featured several In-
digenous voices regularly on the Do Justice blog and podcast to equip
congregations for further justice conversations.
2. Together with the Centre for Public Dialogue and KAIROS, the
KAIROS Blanket Exercise is a workshop we continue to share through-
out Canada. It has provided many people with an opportunity to un-
derstand the injustices faced by Indigenous people in the history of
Canada, especially with regard to land claims.
3. Advocacy for Indigenous rights is another important component of In-
digenous ministry in Canada. The work on Indigenous education re-
form carried out by the Committee for Contact with the Govern-
ment/Centre for Public Dialogue (crcna.org/publicdialogue) involves
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Indigenous Ministry (Canada) 155

working with a broad coalition of churches and Indigenous organiza-
tions to encourage public awareness and action in Indigenous educa-
tion.
4. Creative and winsome programs continue at each of the Urban Indige-
nous Ministries. The Indigenous Christian Fellowship in Regina, Sas-
katchewan, and the Native Healing Centre in Edmonton, Alberta,
served meals in the thousands and offered other opportunities such as
beading circles and exercise classes.
C. Gospel proclamation and worship
1. Resources were created for Indigenous Ministry Sunday. The bulletin
insert this year featured materials on welcome through music. We cre-
ated a call to worship and collaborated with Cree musician Don
Amero to provide a special song for Indigenous Ministry Sunday. We
continue to hear feedback of appreciation like this from local churches:
“Yesterday our congregation marked Indigenous Peoples Day. We did
so by using the prayer prepared by CIMC, which was a great assist,
and very helpful in our speaking to the Lord in this regard. The con-
gregation really appreciated it, and many told me it was a great way to
learn and hear the Word of God.”
2. The Urban Indigenous Ministries in Winnipeg, Regina, and Edmonton
help to meet the spiritual and social needs of Indigenous Canadians.
These ministries are highly regarded by the communities they serve.
Ministry participants value the dignity and respect they experience as
they attend and participate in the programs and community activities.
A. Cultivating practices of prayer and spiritual discipline
The Indigenous Ministry regularly offers prayers and devotions for
churches. These are available in print form and on our growing YouTube
channel. This year a prayer reflection for National Truth and Reconcilia-
tion Day was widely used. Each of the urban ministries regularly hosts
culturally appropriate prayer.
The Canadian Indigenous Ministry Committee currently has a mix of ages
and backgrounds serving on the committee, including two members un-
der the age of 30. Resources are shared to engage kids in Indigenous jus-
tice, and the urban ministries offer programming for kids such as music
classes and bike exchanges.
C. Growing in diversity and unity
The senior leader for Indigenous justice and reconciliation regularly re-
sponds to community requests asking for regional support for reconcilia-
tion. This included speaking at events such as “Place, Home, and Land:

An Evening of Storytelling,” hosted in collaboration with Redeemer Uni-
versity, Meadowlands CRC, and the Act Five program.
D. Sharing the gospel
We echo the words of our justice and reconciliation partners at the Centre
for Public Dialogue: “Doing justice and reconciliation is gospel proclama-
tion—we know and celebrate that Christ is renewing all things and that he
calls us to be colaborers in this task. When the church does justice, our
witness is stronger and has more integrity. As such, the work and partner-
ships mentioned above are an element of gospel proclamation and are mo-
tivated by a conviction that justice and worship are integrated.”
Indigenous Ministry (Canada)

Adrian Jacobs, senior leader for Indigenous justice and reconciliation
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Indigenous Ministry (Canada) 157

Race Relations
I. Introduction
Race Relations has been an important ministry within the CRC for over 50
years. In the past two years, as contextualized ministry conversations have
continued to develop across the denomination, distinct efforts have
emerged in Canada and the U.S. in relation to the work of antiracism, di-
versity, and race relations. This report focuses on the efforts of U.S.-based
staff.
In 2021 the Council of Delegates approved a temporary mandate for the
U.S. Race Relations staff while a broader review and vision for Race Rela-
tions is being developed. The current operational mandate is as follows:
CRC Race Relations staff will create and provide effective and collabo-
rative training programs and organize actions with congregational,
classis, synod, and agency leaders to increase their commitment and
competence in addressing racism. Staff will seek opportunities to
• engage leadership and field inquiries for collaborative learning pro-
grams and organizing actions that envision intercultural concilia-
tion throughout the CRCNA.
• mobilize congregants and staff members to help lead them into
greater awareness of racialized injustice.
• engage CRC members and staff to stand against racism in their per-
sonal lives, work to dismantle racism in all its forms, and experi-
ence true biblical reconciliation as a diverse and unified people of
God.
Race Relations expresses God’s love by living into mercy and justice goals
through creating resources, leading workshops, training facilitators, and
consulting with church leaders. By working alongside the body of believ-
ers, Race Relations seeks to dismantle the causes and effects of racism. In
this reconciliation work, churches are called to express God’s love through
living justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with our God.
Ivanrest CRC (Grandville, Mich.) reached out to the Race Relations team
in November 2022 (Native American Heritage month) and invited us to
make a presentation and help build their cultural intelligence. We brought
two of our facilitators, Harry Descheene and Darlene Silversmith from the
Dine’ Nation, to talk about the history of Indigenous people with the
church. They shared personal stories of interactions in the past and of the
results occurring today. Because of this encounter, the Ivanrest congrega-
tion felt the need to participate in the Blanket Exercise workshop, which
delves into U.S. history from the Native American perspective. After the
workshop one participant said, “I feel betrayed by the [school] education I
received. My experience today completely changes my concept toward

Native Americans.” The congregation invited Race Relations staff to con-
tinue in conversation with them about racism and about further steps they
can take to become active agents of change.
Our Race Relations team has prioritized the third milestone in the Our
Journey 2025 ministry plan: growing in diversity and unity as we build re-
lationships. Through the Multiracial Student Scholarship Fund, for exam-
ple, Race Relations works to develop multiracial congregational leader-
ship in the CRCNA. In 2022, Race Relations awarded six scholarships to
students attending institutions of higher learning affiliated with the de-
nomination. HoonJae Lee, a scholarship recipient and student at Calvin
Theological Seminary, commented: “The scholarship has allowed me to
enter this seminary year knowing that finances will not get in the way of
my studies.”
Along with providing economic assistance, our staff meets with scholar-
ship recipients throughout the school year to mentor, encourage, and
build relationships. These relationships are reciprocal. As students share
their personal stories and contexts, their diverse narratives expand our
awareness of the ongoing need to build unity through racial reconcilia-
tion.
Race Relations staff engaged with congregations through several other ini-
tiatives this year, including the following:
• Outreach events: We bring churches and community members to-
gether to learn about moving themselves and mobilizing their peers
toward healing the wounds and racial divide caused by hundreds
of years of racial injustice in the United States. These experiential
events such as our 50th-anniversary celebration, MLK celebration,
and Sankofa Journey immerse people and lead toward transfor-
mation and restoration.
• Relationally-focused engagement: Through training, mentoring,
and caring, Race Relations facilitators go out to congregations,
share their knowledge, and engage people with impactful stories
and experiences, building new relationships in the process.
• Creating resources: By consulting with church leaders and training
facilitators, Race Relations staff discern churches’ needs and de-
velop new resources to help congregations dismantle racism. They
promote and make the materials widely available through social
media, newsletters, webinars, and special training.
• Promoting education: Through collaborative efforts with the
CRCNA Antiracism and Reconciliation Team, Race Relations pro-
vided antiracism training for core leadership, including CRCNA
staff, the Council of Delegates, and local churches.
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Race Relations 159

• Workshop opportunities: Race Relations facilitated a variety of
workshops, including Cultural Intelligence Building; Leadership
and Race; the Blanket Exercise; Ideology of Whiteness; Racism:
Looking Back, Moving Forward; and sessions at Inspire 2022.
Race Relations
Sarah Roelofs

Safe Church
I. Introduction
Congregational Ministries’ Safe Church team equips congregations in
abuse prevention, awareness, and response to help build communities
where the value of each person is protected, where people are free to wor-
ship and grow in their faith free from abuse, and where the response to
abuse is compassion and justice, which foster healing.
Synod formed Safe Church as a response to the cries of people who have
experienced the tragic and traumatic wounding of sexual, physical, emo-
tional, and/or spiritual abuse. Recent statistics suggest that 1 in 4 women
and 1 in 6 men in North America experience abuse in their lifetime. Unfor-
tunately studies of church populations suggest that the statistics within
the body of Christ are no different. The work of Safe Church continues,
then, to be a response to this grievous reality and a testimony to the de-
nomination’s commitment to do all it can to come alongside people who
are vulnerable to protect and care for them.
This year’s abuse awareness theme, Safe Church Basics: Five Steps to a
Safer Church, helped churches to live more fully into this commitment to
protect and care for people who are vulnerable. The second of the five
steps, making/revising a safe church policy, gained a significant amount of
traction this year as churches began assembling more freely in person af-
ter the lifting of pandemic cautions and restrictions. To help churches get
started in making or revising their policies, Safe Church launched a safe
church policy template, which includes guidelines for safe pastoral care,
policies regarding safe use of social media and technology, and a list of
guidelines and expectations for all ministry leaders around conduct and
faithful use of power. A growing number of churches have decided to take
advantage of this resource and have invited Safe Church staff to consult
with them on developing or revising their policies in ways that attend to
the specific contours of their ministries. It is exciting to see churches take
this initiative, and we hope this year to work with more churches on creat-
ing safe environments in our congregations and ministries.
Safe Church contributes to Our Journey 2025 by working with churches to
cultivate the necessary conditions and culture that enhance the church’s
effectiveness in all of its ministry plan milestones. When a church is not
safe, when abuse, misconduct, or mistreatment of others goes unchecked,
those who attend are not able to participate freely in prayer and other
spiritual disciplines. Youth and children feel too vulnerable to raise their
voices. People outside the majority culture do not feel welcome. And our
very witness to the gospel is compromised. In other words, our milestones
of cultivating spiritual practices, listening to the voices of every genera-
tion, growing in diversity, and sharing the gospel can only be realized
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Safe Church 161

when our churches attend to protecting the value of each person and put-
ting in place policies and practices that prevent abuse.
One focus of Safe Church in connecting with congregations this year was
on the use and misuse of power by ministry leaders. Since 2021, all candi-
dates for ministry in the CRC have received training in the use and misuse
of power through an online course titled The Power to Do Good. This year,
however, more and more churches and classes have invited Safe Church
to lead this training for current pastors, elders, deacons, ministry staff, and
volunteers.
In fall 2022, for instance, Classis Hamilton set aside time during their clas-
sis meeting to provide training on abuse of power to all present. Partici-
pants were introduced to the basic concepts of what constitutes abuse of
power and were given a scenario to engage with in order to discuss it
more fully. A similar workshop was hosted by Classis Niagara earlier in
the year. In evaluations conducted after the trainings, participants com-
mented that they learned a lot and that they appreciated the different op-
portunities to engage the topic through Bible study, small group conversa-
tions, personal reflection, exercises and worksheets, and case studies. One
thing that became evident throughout the training events was that even if
a leader is not prone to misusing power, gaining a better understanding of
the use and misuse of power is critical toward cultivating a safe and
healthy culture within a congregation and toward being attentive to why
some feel welcome and safe while others do not. Safe Church believes that
training all ministry leaders on how to steward their power intentionally
in ways that serve the ministry and mission of God is a key step to making
our churches and ministries safer and more hospitable places for all.
In 2022, Safe Church also connected with Christian Reformed congrega-
tions through the following ministry activities:
• 61 persons received training to facilitate restorative listening circles.
• 82 people completed abuse of power training.
• Safe Church had over 120 interactions with churches and individu-
als about distinct situations regarding abuse prevention and re-
sponse.
• 6 webinars provided Safe Church training to safe church coordina-
tors, teams, and individuals.
Safe Church protocols in churches across the CRCNA
Synod 2018 asked Safe Church to keep track of and report on the efforts of
churches throughout the CRCNA to implement Safe Church protocols.
The data below is based on the responses of 772 congregations to the an-
nual Yearbook survey in 2022 (659 responded in 2021).
• 83.7% have a written safe church or abuse prevention policy (88.5%
reported in 2021).
• 62.1% have protocols in place for responding to church leader mis-
conduct (65.4% in 2021).

• 39.1% have a safe church team or committee (42.5% in 2021).
• 35.5% require training for pastors, elders, and deacons regarding
the use and potential abuse of power associated with their position
(32.6% in 2021).
• 15.8% use a prevention program with children and youth (16.5% in
2021).
Classical safe church coordinators and teams in the CRCNA
Synod 2018 also requested annual reporting on the names and number of
classes that have safe church teams. According to data received from the
Yearbook questionnaire and input from our coordinators, we can report the
following:
• 35 of 49 classes have a safe church team and/or a safe church coor-
dinator (10 of 11 Canadian classes; 25 of 38 U.S. classes).
• 14 classes do not appear to have either a coordinator or a safe
church team (1 of 11 Canadian classes; 13 of 38 U.S. classes).
Following are lists of the classes that have or do not have a safe church
team:
Classes that have a safe church coordinator or team:
Alberta North Grand Rapids South Lake Erie
Alberta South/ Grandville Minnkota
Saskatchewan Greater Los Angeles Muskegon
Arizona Hackensack Niagara
Atlantic Northeast Hamilton Northcentral Iowa
B.C. North-West Heartland Ontario Southwest
B.C. South-East Holland Pacific Northwest
California South Hudson Rocky Mountain
Columbia Huron Southeast U.S.
Eastern Canada Iakota Toronto
Georgetown Illiana Wisconsin
Grand Rapids East Kalamazoo Zeeland
Classes that do not have a safe church team or coordinator:

Central California Hanmi Northern Michigan
Central Plains Ko-Am Quinte
Chicago South Lake Superior Red Mesa
Grand Rapids North Cascades Thornapple Valley
North Northern Illinois Yellowstone
Safe Church
Amanda Benckhuysen
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Safe Church 163

Social Justice
I. Introduction
The CRC’s Social Justice efforts help Christian Reformed people put
Christ’s love into action around the world and in their own communities.
The mandate for these efforts is
to encourage and assist the CRCNA—its leaders, agencies, institutions,
and members—to better ‘live justly, love mercy, and walk humbly
with God’ (Mic. 6:8). It focuses primarily on the systemic causes of
poverty, hunger, and powerlessness, as well as those social injustices
to which synod or the [Council of Delegates] has directed it.
(Agenda for Synod 2011, p. 75)
Working with churches and individuals, Social Justice team members as-
sist the CRC in responding to social justice issues identified by synod—
primarily climate change, immigration and refugees, sanctity of human
life, religious persecution, hunger and poverty, and restorative justice. The
Committee for Guidance and Support of Social Justice assists in
effectively addressing all relevant levels of U.S. government on signifi-
cant and pressing issues of the day from an integrally biblical, theolog-
ical, and confessional perspective, expressed in terms of a Reformed
worldview, emphasizing whenever possible the official positions of
the CRCNA as adopted by synod. (Agenda for Synod 2019, p. 45)
One of the ways in which we engage in the work of mercy and justice is
through equipping churches and individuals to work for their neighbors'
good at a systemic level. In equipping congregants to understand advo-
cacy as a spiritual discipline, we support people to contact their legislators
on synodically mandated topics. This year we celebrated the passage of
the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
Laura Jen with Princeton CRC in Kentwood, Michigan, shared how she
has lived out the church’s calling to mercy and justice through advocacy:
“In the past I have found the OSJ/CWP pre-scripted emails helpful, with
the contact info to the correct legislator available with the click of a button.
Personally, I trust info that comes from your office. Your work and re-
search make it easy to take action, giving me no excuse not to contact my
legislator.”
The work of Social Justice supports growing in diversity and unity as we
build relationships, especially through workshops, webinars, and public-
policy advocacy work. Our most popular workshops, developed at
synod’s request and regularly offered throughout the denomination, con-
tinue to be helpful to congregations seeking to take steps to engage in jus-
tice and advocacy.

We offered our Church between Borders workshops to U.S. congrega-
tions—providing an opportunity for educating members about the pro-
cess for immigrating, the history of immigration policy, scriptural guid-
ance in considering the issue of immigration, and how to raise a collective
voice for justice. In response, we continue to hear stories like this from
church members: “Just wanted to note that the resources listed on your
website for immigration conversations were INCREDIBLY helpful to me
in putting together a talk on immigration at the southern border for some
high school students earlier this week. . . . It's work like yours that keeps
us focused (and sometimes—on the hard days—keeps us serving within
the CRC). Thank you!!”
Social Justice staff engaged with congregations in a variety of other ways
this past year, including the following:
• Our Climate Witness Project, conducted in partnership with World
Renew, worked with more than 200 congregational members in
more than 40 Christian Reformed churches across the U.S. and Can-
ada to respond to the biblical call to love others and be good stew-
ards of creation through a variety of events and communications.
• We also provide focused training and leadership development
through the Faith in Action workshop, Justice 101 workshops, and
restorative justice consultations and trainings.
• Engagement with the Do Justice blog and podcast continues to be
strong. The podcast has over 7,000 listeners. And this year more
than 25 percent of writers were people of color.
• We continue to connect with a wide range of people. This includes
a Facebook audience of over 5,000 people and email lists of over
7,000 subscribers. Advent devotions went out to over 4,100 people
this year.
Social Justice
Sarah Roelofs
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Social Justice 165

World Renew
I. Introduction
A. Mandate
In 1962, twelve years after the synod of the Christian Reformed Church in
North America was formally asked to “consider the advisability of ap-
pointing a Synodical Diaconal Committee” (Acts of Synod 1950, p. 63),
synod approved the formation of the denomination’s diaconal agency. Its
mandate was “to minister in the name of our Lord to those distressed by
reason of the violence of nature, the carnage of war, or other calamities of
life, and to relieve the suffering of the needy in the world.”
For 60 years World Renew has fulfilled this mandate, reaching out in
Christ’s name to support vulnerable people around the world. In its es-
sence and existence, World Renew works to respond to God’s call to live
justly and to love mercy as the global community faces extreme poverty,
hunger, displacement, and disaster. Because we serve a God whose heart
is most concerned with people who are oppressed, we seek to help renew
hope where there is despair, contributing to a world where every one of
God’s people can flourish.
B. Mission and ministry
Over the past year World Renew has recognized the particular urgency
around hunger as it threatens more and more people. According to the
World Food Programme, “a record 349 million people across 79 countries
are facing acute food insecurity—up from 287 million in 2021. This consti-
tutes a staggering rise of 200 million people compared to pre-COVID-19
pandemic levels. More than 900,000 people worldwide are fighting to sur-
vive in famine-like conditions.” And while the pandemic has contributed
dramatically, we recognize the compounding effects of conflict and cli-
mate change as all three of these factors contribute to a “perfect storm”
causing so many people to struggle to survive.
With your prayers, involvement, and support World Renew was able to
partner globally with 57 Christian churches and outreach partners, help-
ing 649,667 participants change their stories of fear, despair, and trauma to
stories of new-found strength and hope in 2022. Walking alongside partic-
ipants as they begin to flourish the way God intended is an honor for our
team.
World Renew strives to be an instrument of peace to be used for God’s
glory—all the more so as we work to shift power to the partners and com-
munities in the 30 countries where we have programs. Through the
church worldwide and the servants called to ministry, lives are trans-
formed, and all glory goes to God.
In 2022, World Renew had the great joy of celebrating its 60-year anniver-
sary with supporting communities across the United States and Canada.
Looking back on the faithfulness God has shown, we were also able to

look forward as we imagine what God may have in store. To continue ful-
filling our mandate, we believe that working with communities in the ar-
eas of food security, economic opportunity, disaster response, community
health, and peace and justice is the key to opening doors for the Spirit to
change lives in amazing ways.
Through community development programs in 1,339 communities,
261,033 participants were reached in the key areas of food security, eco-
nomic opportunity, community health, and peace and justice. They were
able to build new health, agriculture, livelihood, and leadership skills that
improved their lives for the long term. Additionally, 388,634 survivors of
violence, drought, flooding, storm, and COVID-19 benefited from World
Renew’s disaster response programs in 2022.
World Renew has never received CRC ministry shares. Instead it depends
primarily on the generous donations and offerings of God’s people to sup-
port its work in communities of poverty. In 2022 in the face of remarkable
economic uncertainty, World Renew received more than $16.5 million
(USD) in gifts from individuals and churches who understand that the
neighbors Jesus calls us to love live not only next door but on the other
side of the world as well. This work was supported by 604 volunteers who
donated their time and gifts to people in need, totaling 48,009 hours of
time, or the equivalent of over 20 full-time employees. Seventeen interna-
tional relief managers volunteered their time to serve in places of greatest
need, able once again to travel after waiting patiently and working re-
motely during the pandemic.
For a more detailed account of our work over the last year, please refer to
the World Renew 2022 Ministry Report at worldrenew.net (U.S.) and
worldrenew.ca (Canada).
Compelled by God’s deep passion for justice and mercy, World Renew
works alongside partners and communities, building programs that focus
on every area of need and that allow participants to tap into God-given re-
sources and talents to find renewed hope for the future. Because of its in-
tegrated nature in addressing the whole person, World Renew’s work not
only touches all five of the CRC’s ministry priorities but makes a focused
contribution to the church’s mercy and justice ministry and servant lead-
ership development. World Renew’s work is not only integrated; it is a
fully fledged collaboration by the church of Jesus Christ with Christian
partners who help people in need, advocate for justice, train local leaders,
and develop biblically based community values that strengthen the mes-
sage of the local church around the world.
In 2022, World Renew continued to fulfill its mission to “engage God’s
people in redeeming resources and developing gifts in collaborative activ-
ities of love, mercy, justice, and compassion.” But the true mission leaders
in our work are the project participants who decide that in faith they will
imagine more for their lives and who God created them to be. “They will
not labor in vain, nor will they bear children doomed to misfortune; for
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 World Renew 167

they will be a people blessed by the LORD, they and their descendants
with them” (Isa. 65:23).
A. Faith formation
At World Renew faith formation serves as a foundation for keeping our
motivation for justice and mercy front and center. Our staff participate in
prayer times, devotions, small groups, book studies, and educational ex-
periences that develop their faith. There are ongoing conversations
around how we can ensure that our faith in God guides every step.
In North America, World Renew’s faith formation resources include devo-
tions, videos, webinars, and in-person educational conversations and cur-
riculum for churches. Our Justice team (U.S.) and our Church and Com-
munity Engagement Team (Canada) focus on how churches and Christian
leaders can align their work with God’s heart for people on the margins of
society. Our team offers instruction and interaction at schools and univer-
sities to challenge young people to consider how their faith and deeds can
be aligned with God’s purposes for the body of Christ. Meanwhile, our
Southern Africa team is developing an app that offers a biblical basis for
conservation agriculture, healthy families, good stewardship, and more so
that community leaders can be inspired and led by the Holy Spirit to par-
ticipate in activities that support the physical, emotional, mental, and spir-
itual health of their neighbors. And in Latin America our partnerships
with local diaconal ministries inspire action and advocacy that flow from
deep faith building and thoughtful engagement with the Word. Across all
of our ministry teams our 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Vio-
lence have encouraged thought about how our faith should inform
healthy relationships, particularly through the use of a devotional guide
throughout the campaign. The Do Justice podcast hosted by World Renew,
the Office of Social Justice, and the Centre for Public Dialogue is a conver-
sation starter for people wishing to pursue justice in and through the
Christian church, finding new ideas and perspectives, sharing better ways
to engage in justice work, and growing in faith. For example, addressing
gender roles in Tanzania let to some positive results:
• In places like Tanzania, faith formation takes place through a local
church that has been leading community dialogues and gender-in-
clusive interventions in partnership with World Renew. That has
led to an evolution in the role of the church in the community.
“People have been going to church to learn only to be saved and to
stop sinning,” says Mary Onyango, a member of the church. “But it
has come to the point that a Christian has to be different, has to
take positive steps.”
• One of the steps bringing the greatest impact in Mary’s community
has been in reviewing marriage and family roles, specifically the
treatment of women and children. In one memorable intervention,
the church held a “children’s party” in which kids were the first

served. This was a radical change. “According to local traditions
and customs, children and women should not be the first at all
when items are being received,” Mary explains. “But because we
are in the church, there should be changes. What does Jesus state
about women? What does he state about children as family mem-
bers? Our Lord Jesus valued them and used them greatly.”
• The result of these trainings? Remarkable change. Church members
now see ideas like respecting girls and treating them fairly with
new eyes. “When they are taught or empowered,” Mary says,
“their minds open up to see that everyone is created in the image of
God.”
Jesus said, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and,
‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” (Luke 10:27).
B. Servant leadership
Recruiting and training servant leaders is one of the great joys of the
World Renew team. Across the world, building leadership capacity is a
fundamental part of our calling. This can mean training birth attendants to
help serve women in labor, hiring interns to contribute to and learn from
our teams, or supporting program participants as they pursue new skills
to build income for their families.
Another significant way that World Renew nurtures servant leadership is
through our volunteer programs. For instance, participants in our Global
Volunteers Program take time and resources to come and learn from
God’s people in different contexts. World Renew’s amazing international
relief managers put their expertise to work for no personal gain except the
experience of living and working with people in the most dire circum-
stances. And our Refugee Sponsorship and Resettlement program is run
almost entirely by volunteers who raise support for newcomers to Can-
ada, except for a small team to make World Renew’s tremendous respon-
sibilities as a Sponsorship Agreement Holder happen.
The majority of those who have volunteered with World Renew, though,
may be our “Green Shirts”—the Disaster Response Services (DRS) volun-
teers. These dedicated and hardworking individuals make our efforts to
assist with long-term recovery after a disaster in North America possible.
In 2022 in Canada, recovery efforts from Hurricane Fiona were supported
through partnerships rather than direct volunteers. The majority of DRS
projects take place in the United States, where flooding and severe storms
are so commonplace in many regions that residents can’t get insurance
and can lose their homes. Following Hurricane Ian, teams are working in
Fort Myers and Daytona, Florida. Many disaster-recovery efforts are long-
term and remain ongoing for years. The following account describes a
part of the recovery from Hurricane Hanna, which made landfall south of
Corpus Christi, Texas, in July 2020:

• In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, Texans like Umbelina,
who is disabled and elderly, faced Hurricane Hanna and the dam-
age it did in their communities. Coming from the Gulf of Mexico
with sustained winds of 93 m.p.h. and 12 inches of rainfall, Hanna
wrecked homes, tore through roofs and walls, and downed tree
limbs and power poles.
• When Hurricane Hanna made landfall, Umbelina fearfully shel-
tered in her home with her caregiver. The strength of the wind
made holes in the walls, and water that came in stood for months
afterward, resulting in mold. Several places in the ceiling and walls
needed repairs, and one hallway was left without sheetrock or a
ceiling. Elderly and unable to take on rebuilding projects on her
own, Umbelina lived in her bedroom while the rest of her home
was filled with construction materials waiting to be used in a re-
build project. Umbelina felt stuck, unsure of how to solve the prob-
lems Hurricane Hanna had left behind.
• Disaster Response Services volunteers spent two weeks transform-
ing Umbelina’s house while she stayed with her caregiver. The vol-
unteers rebuilt the main bedrooms and closets. They installed new
lighting, patched concrete walls, painted the concrete floor, and re-
paired and painted the walls and ceilings. When the assignment
was completed, they led Umbelina in a “last-nail ceremony,” cele-
brating her new rebuild by tapping in the last nail and gifting her a
quilt and a Spanish Bible.
“Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also
should wash one another’s feet” (John 13:14).
C. Global mission
At World Renew we believe our call to be witnesses of Christ’s kingdom
to the ends of the earth starts and ends with local churches and denomina-
tions. Our expertise is in building strong partnerships with churches from
Grand Rapids to Guatemala, from Bangladesh to Burlington, and so many
in between.
We view church partnerships as long-term relationships. We plan and
dream together, taking our lead from a community and then building a
bridge with them and with another party whose passions align with
theirs. Some might call this fundraising, but at World Renew this part of
our work often feels more like matchmaking as we seek to align kingdom
purposes across the world. Some of these partnerships have been continu-
ing for years, with congregations in Alberta or California connecting regu-
larly with their counterparts in Kenya or Laos.
World Renew both depends on and supports the church worldwide in
times of crisis. When disasters occur, whether because of climate or con-
flict, we look for local denominations, congregations, and other organiza-
tions who are already responding, and we ask them what they want in or-

der to be able to do their God-honoring work of compassion more effec-
tively. Consider the following story of our work with a partner in Leba-
non:
• Nearly one in three people in Lebanon is a refugee, the majority of
whom fled from Syria’s civil war. Many have no homes to return to
and remain in limbo, hoping to be resettled elsewhere. For several
years, World Renew has been working through MERATH, a relia-
ble partner organization, to mobilize local churches to respond to
the many needs of these displaced people. But new pressures are
complicating the situation.
• Lebanon is a country that relies most heavily on grain exports from
Ukraine for its food supply, but that supply has been affected by
conflict in Ukraine. The lack of access to food is compounded by
political unrest within Lebanon, high inflation, a financial crisis that
paralyzed banking transactions, and, of course, the Beirut explosion
of 2020 that destroyed several months’ worth of grain reserves held
in siloes. MERATH communications manager Sophie Nasrallah
said, “People don’t know where their next meal is going to come
from. It reminds me of God’s people in the wilderness, when they
had to rely on God’s manna every day.”
• Shortages of medicine and fuel are a tremendous concern right now
in Lebanon, and even residents who can access money are finding
prices impossible. “Many of our qualified people are leaving be-
cause they can’t earn a decent income anymore,” Nasrallah said.
For everyone else, she explains, “It’s hard to even ask how they’re
doing. Everyone is burnt out.”
• Because funding has been decreasing for supporting churches as
they respond to needs, MERATH has had to make some very diffi-
cult decisions about whom they can assist. The same church mem-
bers who made the difficult choice to serve their Syrian neighbors
despite a fraught history are now struggling to make ends meet
themselves.
• “Funding is decreasing as compared to previous years, so we are
not only making tough decisions about whom we can assist, but we
are making even tougher decisions about whom we will stop help-
ing, although everyone still needs it so badly and our partner
churches have established meaningful relationships with them.
This means we’re scaling down when we should be scaling up,” ex-
plained Nasrallah.
• World Renew’s Global Food Crisis fund is helping to support our
partners in Lebanon and other countries as they imagine more for
those experiencing food insecurity at extremely high risk of hunger.
“Our comfort is in believing that God is in control and that even
though we might not be able to keep on supporting all families, we
trust God will provide, and we know that our local partner

churches who have established meaningful relationships with vul-
nerable families will continue to check up on them and help in any
way they are able to,” Nasrallah said.
“Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or im-
agine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in
the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and
ever! Amen” (Eph. 3:20-21).
D. Mercy and justice
The CRCNA formally acknowledges mercy and justice as integral to its
mission, vision, and calling. In World Renew’s global ministry of commu-
nity development and disaster response, mercy and justice are inseparable
in experiencing the wholeness that God intends for all people, particularly
for those who face extreme poverty, hunger, and the effects of disaster.
As an agency that firmly believes we are all imagebearers of God (Gen.
1:26), we emphasize gender justice through our programs. In 2022 we con-
tinued to implement our global gender strategy in all our programs by en-
couraging staff and partners to see gender justice connecting with the ex-
clusion of other marginalized groups such as young people, seniors, and
disabled persons. A gender justice manual was developed for World Re-
new, and we continued to build capacity and awareness of gender-based
violence as a wrongdoing that has been escalated by the COVID-19 pan-
demic, economic hardships, and humanitarian crises. World Renew also
began preparing for showcasing our work and proactively advocating for
gender justice and the rights of other vulnerable groups within the United
Nations.
The Refugee Sponsorship and Resettlement program in Canada embodies
our justice work as it equips churches in and beyond the Christian Re-
formed Church to welcome newcomers who have fled their countries of
origin in fear of their safety. Across North America the Climate Witness
Program directs church communities wishing to steward the earth in
thoughtful and creative ways. Our Community and Justice Team col-
leagues inform and inspire advocacy.
Prayer is an essential part of the work of mercy and justice as well, so we
offer devotional and prayer resources alongside our annual campaigns
and designated Sunday offerings. When we bring these overwhelming is-
sues of injustice before the Lord, our work can be blessed in incredible
ways. A situation in Kenya provides an example:
• In Turkana, Kenya, there has been a long history of young men
raiding their neighbors’ cattle. The raiders, called warriors, have
been known to return from raids with thousands of cattle. Raids
not only ended in the loss of cattle for farmers but also often in the
loss of human life. And raided communities have often sought re-
venge and tried to recapture their stolen cattle—furthering the vio-
lence.

• For over a century the culture of the Turkana and neighboring com-
munities has revolved around livestock keeping and cattle raiding.
But in the past decade, through collaborative efforts by the Kenyan
government and humanitarian organizations, the longstanding pat-
tern of theft and violence has become less prevalent as these two
entities implemented initiatives toward achieving peace and nor-
mality and restoring dignity to human life in the region. These initi-
atives have included setting up alternative livelihood projects, con-
ducting disarmament exercises in all conflicting communities, and
more. World Renew has been part of the effort.
• Since 2013, World Renew has been implementing a number of proj-
ects in the area—particularly in Katilu Ward—including livelihood
and peacekeeping programs and drought responses. Through vil-
lage savings and loans (VSL) groups, people with similar livelihood
skills and interests are brought together to learn new skills and to
save for the future. In the Katilu Ward, the Nachacha Young Farm-
ers VSL group has over 50 reformed warriors. Established over
seven years ago, the group has had opportunities to learn new
farming skills that have helped equip them to earn a living by farm-
ing instead of cattle raiding. The members farm over 50 acres of
cultivated land on a former cattle-raiding battleground. Through
World Renew, they have been trained and supported to set up
farming plots, with each farmer owning an average of one acre.
• The young farmers have grown a variety of grains and vegetables
to sell at a nearby market, including maize, millet, kale, spinach,
and more. From the income they have earned from farming, many
of them have been able to help their children achieve their aca-
demic dreams; over ten of the members have children in high
school, and three have children at university.
• Benson Nachodo, the Nachacha VSL group chairperson, says, “We
are not going back to fighting with our neighbors! We have decided
to use this land to make our living. We have manpower, and all we
need is skills and someone to show us the way out of poverty. We
are glad to work with World Renew, who have shown us the way
and walked with us in every step.”
“The LORD longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to
show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice. Blessed are all
who wait for him!” (Isa. 30:18).
E. Gospel proclamation and worship
We proclaim the saving message of Jesus Christ and seek to worship him
in all that we do. Jesus tells us John 10:10: “I have come that they may
have life, and have it to the full.” Our life in Christ is now and for eternity,
so our worship offering is to contribute to flourishing and fullness of life
on earth, waiting for the day when Christ will return and complete the
story of salvation. When our neighbors around the world are experiencing

barriers to their well-being, how can they believe that God loves them and
wants that fullness of life for them? As one of our colleagues working in
West Africa explains, “We come with the gospel in one hand and develop-
ment tools in the other.”
Our work consists of many conversations, webinars, collaboration with
deacons and Diaconal Ministries Canada, and events to explore together
what God’s great plan of justice involves—and then going out and doing
it. When justice comes, the body of Christ praises God. A story from Haiti
illustrates:
• In June 2021, bullets flew, and some bystanders were killed as
gangs clashed in Martissant, Haiti. Monique Guerrier, 46, and her
four children, like many other families, abandoned their home to
escape the violence. The family spent some time in an evacuation
facility and finally made their way to Morcou, in southern Haiti.
The journey to Morcou was not an easy one. Monique shared, “I
spent days looking for food and other essential items for my chil-
dren.”
• On August 14, a magnitude 7.2 earthquake rocked Haiti, and
Monique again found herself homeless; her house was one of about
130,000 buildings destroyed or damaged in the earthquake. She la-
mented, “No house in Martissant, no house in Morcou now, and no
livelihood to provide at least for our daily bread. I am 100 percent
depending on God’s mercies.” Monique wrote worriedly, “Morcou
is hardly accessible; organizations won’t reach here. It will require
difficult trudging—no one will distribute aid to affected families.”
• But Monique held to her faith in God, praying that he would pro-
vide for her and her children. World Renew has been on the
ground in Haiti and has distributed emergency food, tarps for shel-
ter, seeds, and water purification tablets to 3,110 families displaced
by the earthquake, including families in Morcou. Monique said, “I
never expected World Renew staff to come to Morcou. We are so
grateful.”
“He provided redemption for his people; he ordained his covenant for-
ever—holy and awesome is his name” (Ps. 111:9).
III. Connecting with churches: Our Journey 2025 (Ministry Plan)
A. Cultivating practices of spiritual discipline
World Renew contributes to this milestone by providing resources to
churches such as devotions, prayer guides, and worship resources in con-
nection with our designated Sundays and special-offering resources.
Throughout the world we integrate prayer and spiritual development into
our work in communities. And we model prayer through resources and
reminders to our supporters so that they can lift up the prayers and
praises of our ministry teams.

Through visits, videos, podcasts, and webinars, World Renew offers peer-
to-peer learning opportunities. We collaborate with ministries such as Di-
aconal Ministries Canada, Social Justice, and the Centre for Public Dia-
logue to contribute to meaningful dialogue around living out our faith.
Our volunteer opportunities have the exciting characteristic of often con-
sisting of intergenerational groups who can come together to learn, experi-
ence, and reflect. In many of our communities elders are highly esteemed,
but youth are often overlooked. Our youth-engagement programming
helps to motivate young people to pursue education, make healthy
choices around sex and substances, and overcome trauma.
C. Growing in diversity and unity
World Renew is deeply committed to diversity, mandating that staff pur-
sue gender and antiracism training each year. A staff member was re-
cently licensed to facilitate Intercultural Development Inventory assess-
ments, allowing staff the opportunity to consider their own understanding
of diversity and unity. Group sessions provide time to process and learn
from each other. In our programs, peacebuilding and trauma healing al-
low participants to overcome differences and become unified in their vi-
sions for their communities. Through our communications, every effort is
made to represent diversity and dignity in our participants and to high-
light their own voices as much as possible.
D. Sharing the gospel and living missionally
Contributing to the flourishing of all people as imagebearers of God is
central to the good news that Christ came to bring us life in all its fullness,
both in this world and the next. World Renew’s global partnerships with
churches give room for missional living in a remarkable way as communi-
ties across the world share with each other, pray for each other, and build
each other up.
IV. Board matters
The World Renew Board of Delegates is a key support of World Renew’s
ministry. The board’s primary function is to set the vision and mission of
World Renew and to encourage and track the accomplishment of that vi-
sion.
World Renew’s governance structure is made up of delegates from each
CRC classis, in addition to as many as sixteen members-at-large, who to-
gether constitute the Board of Delegates of World Renew.
The delegates are a vital communication link with CRC classes and
churches. They select member national governing boards, with up to
seven members on the U.S. board and up to nine members on the Cana-
dian board. The two boards together form the Joint Ministry Council,
which provides governance for World Renew as a whole.

Board of Directors of World Renew-Canada
Andrew Geisterfer, president; Edmonton, Alberta
Dennis DeGroot, vice president; Langley, British Columbia
Darryl Beck, treasurer; Grimsby, Ontario
Margaret Van Oord, secretary; Jewetts Mills, New Brunswick
Rev. Joseph Hamilton, pastoral advisor; Sarnia, Ontario
Jane VanderVelden, member at large; Kitchener, Ontario
Ray Anema, member at large; Simcoe, Ontario
Echo MacLeod, member at large; Ottawa, Ontario
Board of Directors of World Renew-U.S.
Rebekah Vanderzee, president; Bellflower, California
Shanti Jost, vice president; North Haledon, New Jersey
Jeff Banaszak, treasurer; Holland, Michigan
Monika Grasley, secretary; Merced, California
Bonny Mulder-Behnia, pastoral advisor; Bellflower, California
Charles Udeh, member at large; Kentwood, Michigan
Thomas Christian, member at large; Grandville, Michigan
Charles Adams, board member emeritus; Sheboygan, Wisconsin
In January 2023 the World Renew-Canada Board of Directors approved Ja-
mie McIntosh for appointment as executive codirector (Canada). McIntosh
will be introduced to the Council of Delegates in May for their recommen-
dation that the appointment be ratified by synod.
A. Board nominations, reappointments, and term completions
1. Classical delegate appointment - Canada
The board requests that synod approve the appointment of Nell
Vrolyk to serve a first term of three years as a classical delegate for
Classis Ontario Southwest.
2. Reappointment of Canada members
The following Canadian delegates are completing their first term on
the board and are recommended for reappointment to a second three-
year term: Margaret Hoogland (Classis Alberta North), John Batterink
(Classis Quinte), Jane VanderVelden (member at large).
3. Canada members completing terms
World Renew would like to recognize and thank the following board
member on completing a second term of service: Joseph Hamilton
(pastoral advisor).
Cindy Bendictus, classical delegate for Classis Ontario Southwest, re-
signed from service on the board mid-year (nominee for this position
noted above). The board also received the resignations of Daniel Mack
mid-year as the classical delegate for Classis Lake Superior (Canada)
and Lisa Kuipers (member at large). Gerda Kits (member at large) has
chosen not to serve a second term and will conclude service to the
board on June 30. Efforts are under way to identify nominees for these
new vacancies.

4. U.S. delegate appointments
The Nomination Committee is in the process of actively recruiting for
current and upcoming vacancies.
5. Reappointment of U.S. members
The following U.S. delegates are completing their first term on the
board and are recommended for reappointment to a second three-year
term: Jim Groen (Classis Illiana), Gerald Van Wyke (Classis Lake Erie),
Linda German (Classis North Cascades), Rev. Bonny Mulder-Behnia
(pastoral adviser), Jeff Banaszak (member at large), Charles Udeh
(member at large), James Zwier (member at large).
6. U.S. members completing terms
World Renew would like to recognize and thank the following board
members completing their service on the board: Monika Grasley (Clas-
sis Central California), Abbie Schrotenboer (Classis Chicago South),
Lynrae Frens (Classis Georgetown), Marc Faasse (Classis Grandville),
Rebekah Vanderzee (Classis Greater Los Angeles), Rod De Boer (Clas-
sis Heartland), Clifford Hoekstra (Classis Iakota), Linda German
(North Cascades), Jay DeBoer (Classis Pacific Northwest), Debra Chee
(Classis Red Mesa), Dale Compagner (Classis Zeeland), LaVonne
Koedam (member at large).
B. Financial matters
1. Salary disclosure
In accord with synod’s mandate to report executive salary levels, World
Renew reports the following:
Job level Number of positions Number below target Number at target

E2 2 2 0
E3 1 1 0
H 11 10 1
2. Detailed financial information
Detailed financial information and budgets will be submitted to synod by
way of the Agenda for Synod 2023—Business and Financial Supplement,
which will be made available at the time synod convenes.
C. Human Resources management
World Renew continually evaluates the excellence of its programs and re-
lies on its human resource (HR) systems to provide support to its teams.
World Renew’s diverse, professional, skilled staff is expected to meet
goals set around its vision and mission.
World Renew has a rigorous recruiting process and successfully hired six-
teen highly skilled staff last year. We continually expand our recruitment

activities to ensure that we meet our diversity and professional learning
goals. To that end, we promote professional development and learning
and continue to develop competencies across the organization.
Annual performance reviews are routine for all World Renew staff. This
practice gives staff an opportunity to celebrate their accomplishments and
to critically review their growth areas. World Renew is thankful for all of
its human resources, who are essential to providing program excellence in
communities in need around the globe.
D. Resource Development report
For the 2021-22 fiscal year, World Renew was blessed to receive over $40
million (USD) from all sources in the United States and Canada. These
funds were then leveraged into greater ministry dollars through grants,
partnerships, and collaborations. In 2022, 83 percent of each gift World Re-
new received benefited people in need. The other 17 percent supported
World Renew’s core mission through administration and fundraising. Six
percent helped to administer our programs effectively, and 11 cents of
each dollar provided donors with communication and accountability
about how their gifts were used.
World Renew directed approximately $12 million (USD) of its 2022 finan-
cial resources toward core international development programs, and $16.5
million (USD) went to disaster response. Over $282,426 (USD) was used
for community development in North America, and just over $1.9 million
(USD) was directed to education and justice.
World Renew’s connections to international organizations such as Cana-
dian Foodgrains Bank, ACT and Integral alliances, and Growing Hope
Globally provided technical and financial resources that expanded our
reach to more people and communities. For example, in 2022, as a member
of Canadian Foodgrains Bank, World Renew committed $16.5 million in
resources to food-related programming in 20 countries, while Growing
Hope Globally supported World Renew with $483,00 (USD) for food secu-
rity programs in 10 countries.
In 2022, World Renew continued to receive accolades from nonprofit mon-
itoring organizations for its financial and management practices. The star
rating provided by Charity Intelligence for World Renew remains at five
stars, and the results reporting grade has improved to an A. Charity Intel-
ligence looks at how each charity spends the money they receive, and how
transparent they are in providing this information.
In the U.S., World Renew has achieved a Gold Star of Transparency from
GuideStar. We continue to maintain excellent standing with Christian
monitoring organizations—CCCC in Canada and ECFA in the United
States. World Renew is committed to its mission and to carefully steward-
ing with absolute integrity the financial gifts we receive, and we thank
God for these recognitions of its values: faith, people flourishing, effective-
ness, and stewardship.

V. Recommendations
A. That synod grant the privilege of the floor to Rebekah Vanderzee, pres-
ident of World Renew-U.S.; Andrew Geisterfer, president of World Re-
new-Canada; Carol Bremer-Bennett, executive codirector of World Re-
new-U.S.; and Jamie McIntosh, executive codirector of World Renew-Can-
ada designee, when World Renew matters are discussed and need to be
addressed.
B. That synod commend the work of mercy carried on by World Renew
and urge the churches to take at least four offerings per year in lieu of
ministry-share support.
C. That synod, by way of the ballot, appoint and reappoint members to
the World Renew Board of Delegates.
World Renew
Carol Bremer-Bennett, executive codirector, World Renew-U.S.
Kenneth Kim, interim executive codirector, World Renew-Canada

GOSPEL PROCLAMATION AND WORSHIP
Calvin Theological Seminary

I. Introduction – Mission Statement
The Calvin Theological Seminary Board of Trustees presents this report to
Synod 2023 with gratitude to God for his provision in the past year. The
seminary has experienced God’s faithfulness and looks toward the future
with hope and anticipation.
Calvin Theological Seminary (CTS) has been involved in the training and
teaching of students for ministry for 147 years since 1876 and was the first
agency or institution developed by the Christian Reformed Church. As
God so leads, we look forward to a 150th anniversary celebration of God’s
faithfulness and for affirming the tie between church and seminary.
Mission statement: As a learning community in the Reformed Christian tra-
dition that forms church leaders who cultivate communities of disciples of
Jesus Christ, Calvin Theological Seminary exists to serve the Christian Re-
formed Church in North America and wider constituencies by preparing
individuals for biblically faithful and contextually effective ministry of the
Word and by offering Reformed theological scholarship and counsel.
II. Highlights from the past ministry year
The global COVID-19 pandemic affected us all, including Calvin Theolog-
ical Seminary. Thankfully this past year has been marked by a full return
to residential instruction, enhanced by the use of a fully remodeled facility
featuring updated technology and collaborative learning spaces. We are
grateful as well for the investment made many years ago in an online de-
livery system of education, which became necessary as we moved back
and forth from offering in-person classes to online options—all in addition
to our usual online distance-learning classes.
May 21, 2022, marked the first in-person CTS commencement since 2019
because of the pandemic. We were able to celebrate the completion of pro-
grams of study for 61 graduates, who attended CTS from ten nations: Bra-
zil, Canada, China, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Singapore, South Africa, South
Korea, and the United States.
Another highlight was the presentation and approval of two faculty can-
didates at Synod 2022: Dr. Wilson Cunha, now serving as professor of Old
Testament; and Dr. Yudha Thianto, now serving as professor of the his-
tory of Christianity and Reformed theology. Dr. Cunha is originally from
Brazil, and Dr. Thianto is originally from Indonesia. Their journey to Cal-
vin Theological Seminary illustrates the impact and reach of Reformed
theology throughout the world. For more information on these new fac-
ulty members, see the following articles published in The Banner:
• thebanner.org/news/2022/06/synod-2022-appoints-professor-of-old-
testament-to-seminary
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Calvin Theological Seminary 181

• thebanner.org/news/2022/06/synod-welcomes-yudha-thianto-as-
seminary-professor
At the time of this writing, the CTS Board of Trustees approved faculty
openings for a director of Latino/a Ministry and for teaching the New Tes-
tament. We anticipate an update on these searches to be presented by way
of our supplemental report to Synod 2023.
We are glad to report that at the time of this writing in the academic year
2022-23, we have been able to maintain in-person instruction along with
our online educational delivery system. We have also been able to offer an
intensive period of face-to-face instruction for our online students as is a
key component of our educational ministry.
We also want to acknowledge and give thanks for ongoing, faithful sup-
port from the Christian Reformed Church as a denomination and from in-
dividuals, churches, and classes. We are blessed by this community that
continues to care for and encourage us—board members, faculty, staff,
and students.
III. Reflecting on Our Calling
Over the past number of years, Calvin Theological Seminary faculty, with
input and final approval from the seminary’s Board of Trustees, produced
a “Vision Frame” document that includes our mission statement (What are
we doing?) and continues as follows:
Values—Why are we doing it?
• Reformed theology—All our teaching and formation grow from a
shared understanding of God’s Word as articulated in the Re-
formed confessions.
• The church—We are formed by and serve the church, God’s agent
of hope for the world.
• Cultural context—We give our students tools to sow the gospel in a
multicultural world. We challenge one another to have hearts that
engage the broader world God so loves.
• The whole person—We cultivate meaningful relationships with our
students to foster personal and spiritual growth throughout our
learning community.
Strategy—How are we doing it?
Through the power of the Holy Spirit,
• we are known for academic excellence and scholarship.
• we provide innovative learning environments.
• we pursue synergy with our graduates and other ministry leaders.
• we nurture a community of hospitality.
• we enrich the student experience through vital partnership.
182 Gospel Proclamation and Worship AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

Measures—When are we successful?
When graduates of Calvin Theological Seminary
• preach and teach the Bible (message).
• grow in their pastoral identity (person).
• discern and engage ministry contexts (context).
• cultivate and lead communities of disciples (goal).
• equip the church to renew communities for the glory of God (pur-
pose).
A scan of this material shows significant convergence with the ministry
priorities of the Christian Reformed Church in North America:
Faith Formation—Calvin Theological Seminary seeks to train disciples
who become the trainers of disciples of Jesus Christ.
Servant Leadership—Calvin Theological Seminary is seeking to identify,
recruit, and train leaders to be servants in the kingdom of God. From
resident and online education programs followed by continuing edu-
cation programs and resources, Calvin Theological Seminary is train-
ing leaders.
Global Mission—The world is at our doorstep. Every year around 25
different nations (this past year nearly 40 percent of our degree-seek-
ing students came from outside the U.S. and Canada) are represented
in the student body of Calvin Theological Seminary. The training for
global mission takes place not just in classrooms but also over lunch in
the Student Center.
Mercy and Justice—Calvin Theological Seminary trains students
through cross-cultural internships and exposure to environments that
help form the hearts of Christian disciples. For example, experience
with prison ministry through Calvin Theological Seminary has led stu-
dents to witness the need for ministry to prisoners and to understand
the structures of society that need to be addressed.
Gospel Proclamation and Worship—Along with the priority of Servant
Leadership this is probably our leading edge within the CRC ministry
priorities. Our core degree is the master of divinity (M.Div.), which
helps to form preachers and teachers of the gospel. This past year we
were able to secure additional long-term funding for our Center for Ex-
cellence in Preaching and to continue our launch of a doctor of minis-
try (D.Min.) degree that continues this formation process for practi-
tioners in ministry.
IV. Connecting with churches: Our Journey 2025 (Ministry Plan)
Making and maintaining connections with churches is a foundational
component of education for Calvin Theological Seminary. Whether this in-
volves church-based internships or assignments related to the local church
environment, the local church is the key partner for nurturing, develop-
ing, and training students.

In fall 2017, Calvin Theological Seminary set up a new way for M.A. and
M.Div. students to fulfill a significant part of their contextual learning re-
quirements. From early on in their program, students are placed in a
church or ministry organization where they serve for two years, concur-
rent with their course work, through internship hours coordinated with
churches during the ministry year. The office of Vocational Formation—
led by Geoff Vandermolen, administrative coordinator Chris Wright, and
administrative assistant Jennifer Manders—continues to develop partner-
ships to help bridge the classroom and the church. The following organi-
zations and churches are part of this concurrent, contextual learning ap-
proach:
African Community Fellowship, Kentwood, Michigan
Caledonia CRC, Caledonia, Michigan
Church of the Servant, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Creston CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Eagle’s Wings Church, Holland, Michigan
Fuller Avenue CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Hahn-In CRC, Wyoming, Michigan
Heritage CRC, Byron Center, Michigan
LaGrave Avenue CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Lee Street CRC, Wyoming, Michigan
Long Beach CRC, Long Beach, California
Monroe Community Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan
New Hope Church, Hamilton, Ontario
Princeton CRC, Kentwood, Michigan
River Rock Church, Rockford, Michigan
Shawnee Park CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Sunlight Ministries, Port St. Lucie, Florida
Westview CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Woodlawn CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Because internship hours may now occur during concurrent internships
throughout the academic year, we have opened a new way of connecting
students to churches for summer service. We appreciate the number of
churches that have served as “additional” places of formation, including
these cross-cultural and international sites:
A Christian Ministry in the National Parks (Yellowstone)
Mel Trotter Ministries, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Sunrise Homeless Navigation Center, Austin, Texas
Mepkin Abbey Monastic Guest Program, Moncks Corner, South Caro-
lina
The Refuge, Oshawa, Ontario
Lethbridge Correctional Centre, Lethbridge, Alberta
Resonate Ministries, India
Al Amana Centre, Muscat, Oman

We also continue to welcome the opportunity to connect our students
with churches in need of summer ministry leadership as a result of pasto-
ral vacancy, sabbaticals, or new ministry initiatives. Please contact the Vo-
cational Formation office for more information about this process (voca-
[email protected] or calvinseminary.edu/church-re-
sources).
Calvin Theological Seminary also offers continuing education opportuni-
ties throughout the year that are open to pastors and lay leaders alike.
Many of these opportunities are presented through the Center for Excel-
lence in Preaching (CEP) led by director Rev. Scott Hoezee. CEP continues
to serve as one of the premier Reformed preaching sites in North America
(cep.calvinseminary.edu/).
Since 2005 the Center for Excellence in Preaching at Calvin Theological
Seminary has provided busy preachers with the resources they need to
create and deliver fresh, compelling, and vibrant sermons from God’s
Word. CEP strives to spark every pastor’s creativity in engaging God’s
Word, inspiring them to produce lively sermons of power and beauty.
CEP offers weekly, quarterly, and liturgical season resources. Following
the fall 2021 launch of a completely revamped website, the year 2022 saw
website traffic increase to record numbers. Whereas prior to the new site a
good month might have seen 15,000 different visitors, in 2022 new records
were set monthly until nearly 64,000 unique visitors came in one month in
the fall of 2022! A few years ago we set a goal to increase the visibility of
the CEP website via web impressions (people exposed to our content) to
1.6 million impressions per year. In 2022 we far exceeded that goal with
nearly 12 million impressions. Content on the website is now available in
English, Spanish, and Korean.
In November 2022 the Center for Excellence in Preaching learned it had
been approved to receive a grant from Lilly Endowment Inc. for nearly
$1 million as part of Lilly’s “Compelling Preaching Initiative.” CEP’s five-
year program will concentrate on peer learning groups, colloquia on the
Calvin campus, and summer seminars—all aimed to help pastors navigate
the changed preaching landscapes brought on by the pandemic and an ar-
ray of other new challenges in recent years.
In January 2020, Calvin Theological Seminary called Rev. Shawn Brix as
its first Canadian church relations liaison (CCRL), a “pastor-ambassador”
who builds and strengthens bridges between Calvin Theological Seminary
and Canadian churches and ministries. This position is a part of the semi-
nary's strong commitment to serving churches in Canada, and it reflects
our desire to imagine and build new partnerships and initiatives. This
connecting, listening, and serving role will help Calvin Theological Semi-
nary be more present and available to serve leaders and churches in Can-
ada. Rev. Brix has served congregations in Acton, Burlington, and Peter-
borough, Ontario.

Rev. Brix has been a key encourager and staff support, coming alongside
donors in the development of a new initiative whereby tuition for Cana-
dian students will be at par between Canadian and U.S. dollars. We are
grateful for this opportunity to remove one of the key barriers for Cana-
dian students in their discernment about attending Calvin Seminary.
V. Additional program and ministry highlights
Calvin Theological Seminary moved forward into the following new key
initiatives:
1. The seminary completed a major renovation/remodeling project that
was planned before the pandemic, focusing on classrooms, the Student
Center, and the chapel to upgrade technology, to provide flexibility in
use of space, and to develop collaborative learning environments.
This project resulted in updating parts of the building that had not
been changed since 1959. Our last major renovation of a part of the
building was in 2004. We give thanks for the support that has been re-
ceived above and beyond our annual operating fund.
2. Lilly Endowment recently opened a grant program called “Pathways
for Tomorrow Initiative” to aid seminaries as we look toward an un-
certain future. CTS is one of 234 schools to receive a planning grant
and one of 84 schools (out of the 234) to receive a million dollar grant
in response to our planning request. This affirmation of all we have
been developing at CTS is coupled with our vision and desire to see
our educational programs and ministry formation expand to meet the
needs of the church.
The purpose of the project is to serve adult learners who need innova-
tive educational support in order to take the next steps in their minis-
try leadership development. Specifically, the Next Steps Initiative will
• prepare and equip adult learners who might not desire to complete
a full seminary degree, such as commissioned pastors and ministry
leaders seeking continuing education.
• make ministry training more accessible to adult learners with di-
verse family situations, schedules, languages, and income levels.
• develop a network of “teaching congregations” with whom we will
collaborate to facilitate innovative and customizable learning op-
portunities for those congregations’ adult learners and ministry
leaders.
Calvin Theological Seminary still trains church pastors, but it is also
providing theological education for the church. Consistent with our
Reformed heritage, we will be able to do more for the "priesthood of
all believers." CTS is called to serve the church, and this Lilly Endow-
ment award helps us take more and even new steps in that service! A
press release listing funded proposals is available at lillyendow-
ment.org.

We invite you to follow the unfolding implementation of this grant.
Dr. Aaron Enfield (formerly CTS director of admissions) has taken up
responsibilities as director of lifelong learning and partnerships, which
includes his work as project director of the Lilly “Pathways for Tomor-
row – Next Steps” implementation. He holds a Ph.D. in higher, adult,
and life-long education from Michigan State University, and his doc-
toral research was on adult learning and development in online envi-
ronments.
3. CTS completed the master of arts and master of divinity curriculum re-
vision under the capable leadership of dean of academic services and
registrar Joan Beelen and dean of faculty and chief academic officer
David Rylaarsdam.
The curriculum revision has identified outcomes aligned with the un-
derstanding that Calvin Seminary seeks to form graduates who will
discern, together with those they serve, answers to the following ques-
tions:
• What is our ministry CONTEXT?
• How does the GOSPEL engage our context?
• What is God CALLING us to in this context?
• What is the PERSON and role of a servant leader in this context?
These program goals are intimately and necessarily connected because
every ministry situation occurs in a particular CONTEXT where the
GOSPEL of God’s redemptive activity is communicated, where God is
CALLING people to participate in his mission, and where God is form-
ing the PERSON and role of a servant leader.
4. During the fall 2023 semester, CTS launched a competency-based theo-
logical education (CBTE) program called Empower. This program of-
fers students the opportunity to earn a certificate or a master of arts in
Christian leadership by demonstrating competence in program out-
comes. This approach is designed to make ministry training more col-
laborative, flexible, accessible, and integrated.
During the pilot phase, enrollment is limited to students participating
through contextualized partnerships with Grand Valley State Univer-
sity Campus Ministry (Grand Rapids, Mich.) and Sunlight Ministries
(Port St. Lucie, Fla.). Students work with a CTS faculty mentor and two
partner mentors to complete learning experiences that develop compe-
tence—head, hands, and heart—for ministry. Our partners provide
contextualized learning experiences, localized mentoring, and regular
and substantive student support.
5. For 10 years CTS has offered residential programs in Spanish for min-
istry leaders in West Michigan. This effort, the Latino/a Ministry Pro-
gram, has been led by Dr. Mariano Avila, emeritus professor of New
Testament.

The Latino/a Ministry program at CTS is currently in a period of tran-
sition. As of June 2022, Dr. Avila retired from full-time teaching at the
seminary, and CTS has been conducting a search process for a new di-
rector of Latino/a Ministry. We aim to have a new director in place in
2023.
During this time of transition, CTS has continued a process of develop-
ing a master of arts degree to be offered in Spanish. The format for the
courses in this program will combine in-person cohort learning and
online learning. Students from around the world will enroll in the
same online course but will also gather as cohorts for in-person classes
at local partner seminaries and ministry organizations. CTS launched a
pilot version of this model in fall 2023, and 51 students at three partner
institutions participated in the pilot.
6. The doctor of ministry program at CTS continues to develop with pro-
gramming, coursework, and student research in service of effective
ministry praxis across a plurality of contexts. The expectation is that
the first program graduates be granted their degrees in spring 2024
(see calvinseminary.edu/academics/doctor-of-ministry).
7. On September 8, 2015, Calvin University and Calvin Theological Semi-
nary were blessed to open prison doors by beginning classes at Hand-
lon Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan, as part of the Calvin
Prison Initiative. Twenty new students from within the prison system
came together to begin a five-year bachelor’s degree program accred-
ited through Calvin University. A total of 93 students are now enrolled
in the program. This program began in response to a request from the
State of Michigan and is a coordinated effort of Calvin University and
Calvin Theological Seminary. It is our hope that this “seminary behind
bars program” will be used by God to transform not only the students
in the classroom but also the prison system as these students are de-
ployed within it. In addition, we testify that professors and students at
Calvin University and Calvin Theological Seminary are changed and
affected by their involvement in the lives of students at Handlon. To
date, 45 students have earned bachelor’s degrees, and 76 students have
earned associate degrees in faith and community leadership. Program
graduates serve prison communities across Michigan from Muskegon
to Jackson as peer mentors, providing leadership to faith communities
behind bars, supporting academic programs as tutors and teaching as-
sistants, and leading life skills and addiction recovery classes for fel-
low prisoners.
We are grateful for partnerships with congregations and pastors in the
training of our students. Ten of our sixteen formation group leaders are
pastors, and the other eight are seminary faculty/administration members.
They include Ruth Boven, Gloria Curry, Cara DeHaan, Samantha DeJong
McCarron, Dorothy Jenkins, Layne Kilbreath, Jessica Maddox, Sarah Roe-
lofs, David Rylaarsdam, Heather Stroobosscher, Albert Strydhorst, Lisa
Taylor, Corey Van Huizen, and Cory Willson.

We appreciate all the support of the church and alumni for their encour-
agement to expand our offerings for academic and ministry leadership for
local churches and the global church.
VI. Administration
The seminary administration includes Rev. Julius Medenblik, president;
Dr. Margaret Mwenda, chief operating officer; Dr. David Rylaarsdam,
dean of faculty and chief academic officer; Ms. Joan Beelen, dean of aca-
demic services and registrar; Rev. Geoff Vandermolen, director of voca-
tional formation; Mr. Robert Knoor, director of development; Rev. Jeff
Sajdak, dean of students; and Ms. Sarah Chun, dean of international
students and scholar services.
VII. Faculty
The seminary faculty continues to serve the church in numerous ways.
Although preparing students for various forms of ministry continues to be
central to their work, members of the faculty also provide education and
counsel to many local congregations and broader assemblies, preach regu-
larly, publish scholarly books and articles, participate in significant confer-
ences, and in various ways seek to stay attuned to developments in minis-
tries in the Christian Reformed Church and the church of Christ world-
wide.
VIII. Board of Trustees
The board met in plenary session online in October 2022 and via confer-
ence call in February 2023. It plans to hold an in-person/flex plenary ses-
sion in May 2023.
The board officers are Dave Morren, chair; Scott Greenway, vice-chair;
and Susan Keesen, secretary.
Trustee Scott Greenway (Region 11) is completing his first term on the
board and is eligible for reappointment to a second, three-year term. The
board recommends that synod reappoint him to an additional three-year
term.
Completing a second term on the board are Frank Zee (Region 2) and Su-
san Strikwerda (Region 10 at-large). We are very grateful for their service
and wise counsel to the seminary and to the church.
The following single nominee has been submitted to the classes in Region
2 for a vote. The results of the election will be presented to Synod 2023 for
ratification.
Region 2 – clergy
Rev. Cecil Van Niejenhuis is a retired minister of the Word who served
churches in Ancaster, Ontario (1981-85); Lacombe, Alberta (1985-91);
Kitchener, Ontario (1991-93); and Edmonton, Alberta (1993-2009), after
which he served with Pastor Church Resources in Grand Rapids,
Michigan, till 2020. He graduated from Calvin Theological Seminary in

1981 (M.Div.) and earned a Th.M. degree from Newman Seminary and
a D.Min. degree from Bethel Seminary. Pastor Cecil is known for his
support and counsel for pastors and churches and continues in this ca-
pacity as part of Classis Alberta North’s Healthy Church Task Force.
Regional at-large nominees are presented by the CTS Board of Trustees
to synod for appointment.
Region 10 – nonclergy – at-large
Synod has approved that Calvin Theological Seminary is allowed a
single nomination where a region has multiple trustee positions. The
CTS Board of Trustees hopes to present the nominee for this position
for election by way of the supplemental report to Synod 2023.
IX. Students 2022-2023
The composition of the seminary’s student body indicates a growing na-
tional and ethnic diversity. The following statistics from fall 2022 indicate
the impact the seminary is having beyond the Christian Reformed Church:
A. Denominational affiliation
Christian Reformed: 112 (46%)
Presbyterian: 48
RCA: 6
Other Reformed: 10
Pentecostal: 4
Other/None listed: 46
(23+ total denominations)
B. Geographical information
U.S. students: 115 (48%)
Canadian students: 29 (12%)
Korean: 46 (16%)
Chinese: 10 (4%)
Other: 27 (11%)
Total countries represented: 23
C. Student body
Male students: 166 (69%)
Female students: 71 (31%)
D. Programs and students enrolled
M.Div.: 84
Ecclesiastical Program for Ministerial Candidacy: 22
M.A. (English): 22
M.A. (Spanish): 6
M.T.S.: 10
Th.M.: 25
Ph.D.: 32

D.Min.: 18
Hybrid/Distance Learning: 76 (this number does not reflect residential
students who also take a hybrid/distance class)
English Certificate: 2
Spanish Certificates: 8
Non-degree seeking: 10
E. Prison initiative
In addition, we have 94 students who are part of the joint Calvin Uni-
versity and Calvin Theological Seminary program known as the Calvin
Prison Initiative.
F. Pilot courses
In addition to these programs and opportunities for learning, we are
working on pilot courses in worship and preaching (taught in Spanish
to an additional 51 students in fall 2022) and in competency-based the-
ological education (CBTE—involving another 20 students).
X. Recommendations
A. That synod grant the privilege of the floor to Dave Morren, chair, and
Julius Medenblik, president, when seminary matters are presented.
B. That synod, by way of the ballot, ratify the election and reappointment
of trustees from the slates of nominees presented.
Calvin Theological Seminary Board of Trustees

Susan Keesen, secretary

Worship
I. Introduction
Congregational Ministries’ Worship efforts aim for every worshiping com-
munity to experience Spirit-filled worship and preaching—being called
each week to worship that is biblical, Reformed, creative, and inspired;
that helps to form faith in all generations; and that equips us to be sent
into God’s world to worship in spirit and in truth. Within this vision, we
seek to support the work of worship leaders and pastors by strengthening
networks of learning and encouragement and by equipping them for their
priestly task. In collaboration with the Calvin Institute of Christian Wor-
ship, Worship staff have also facilitated the development and distribution
of Reformed Worship, a quarterly journal and collection of online resources
that continue to make a global impact.
Every congregation is a worshiping congregation. As we engage with
churches, we gain glimpses of the beautiful diversity, steadfast faithful-
ness, and contextual creativity in the weekly gathering for worship and
Word. At first glance, much of our work in Worship is not immediately
obvious. Churches predictably gather—marking milestones and seasons,
celebrating and grieving, volunteering and evangelizing. It might even ap-
pear that it takes little effort to plan weekly worship—choosing songs and
readings, searching out participants, and hanging banners. But in the
weekly rituals of corporate worship, the slow and steady work of faith for-
mation takes root, and the relationship between God and God’s people
grows and flourishes. We recognize that this faithful work happens when
leaders are healthy, feeling supported and encouraged, and are also ener-
gized with fresh ideas and new resources. We are mindful that this work
takes place in worshipers who deeply love and appreciate what it means
to participate in “the work of the people” as they gather each week. We
are hopeful that as this work happens in congregations of every size, eth-
nic background, and geographical location, we might find joyful unity in
our shared worship of the one, true God.
Much of our work in the past year has been twofold: building up healthy
systems where worship leaders experience a network of support, and
providing resources in the form of both the practical and the possible. We
have done this through roundtable discussions and collaborative worship
planning opportunities in online gatherings. Our team of endorsed wor-
ship coaches has grown to sixteen, and they worked with twelve congre-
gations this year on topics ranging from mentoring youth in music, the
theology of worship planning, running a praise team rehearsal, and lead-
ing worship well in times of conflict. There are currently eleven CRC wor-
ship leaders enrolled in a worship leader certificate course through Sam-
ford University, studying the biblical and theological foundations for wor-
ship, practical skills and musicianship, and how to strengthen their soul

for their particular calling in the church. We have worked this year to re-
source leaders, making use of the Network, our e-newsletter, and the
quarterly publication Reformed Worship. We have also left ample space to
welcome one-on-one conversations with churches and church leaders who
come with particular burdens or questions. We have seen the Spirit’s work
in CRC worship, and we rejoice. We have seen tender spots and hurts, and
we lament. We remain ever hopeful in God’s faithfulness to God’s church
from generation to generation, and we give thanks.
At the start of 2022, CRC Worship began using the tagline #ThisIs-
CRCWorship around much of our content. Our goal was to both highlight
the diversity in the denomination’s worship practices while also empha-
sizing our unity in shared faith and shared commitment to weekly wor-
ship. Through this campaign, we framed many of our resources and much
of what we continue to offer to churches as we network with ministry
leaders. From the outset, we recognized the importance of listening and
learning from congregations. However, we were surprised by the joy in
the stories we heard.
We began hosting Zoom gatherings by classis clusters specifically for wor-
ship leaders with the goal of reaching every classis in two years. Pastors
have the support of fellow pastors several times a year through their clas-
sis, but worship leaders are often more transient and disconnected from
one another. In these gatherings, leaders not only meet each other but also
are encouraged to think about ways to organically foster connections and
relationships with one another regionally. In one meeting, two worship
coordinators less than five miles apart met for the first time and thought
of a way to share musicians during vacation-filled summer months to pre-
vent burnout. In another meeting, three churches began brainstorming
what a joint worship service might look like, highlighting their diversity
and unique worship styles. In one particularly heartfelt meeting, a closing
church offered up their physical resources to the group in hopes that noth-
ing would go to waste. These gatherings not only connect leaders but also
provide a time for sharing joys and sorrows, strengths, and areas for
growth. There is great value in listening to one another’s stories as a way
to build up the body of Christ in small and faithful ways. It is our hope
that as these gatherings continue, we will strengthen leaders who will
strengthen congregations in their Spirit-filled, God-honoring worship.
Our efforts to encourage and equip people involved in worship leadership
this past year also included the following:
• #ThisIsCRC worship videos: We released four videos highlighting
the diversity and emphasizing the unity in worship in the CRC;
these videos are available on our YouTube channel
(youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtqNVBgcsQAfnS_j6GVL5b-
Vt10kkr9om).
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Worship 193

• We released a January 1, 2023, sermon and service package with
full liturgy and prerecorded video from Rev. Matt Ackerman (Cam-
pus Chapel, Ann Arbor, Mich.)—55 downloads.
• We teamed up with the DoJustice podcast for a season on “worship
and justice.” We released study guide questions in hopes that wor-
ship teams and small groups would engage more deeply.
• We published four issues of Reformed Worship, including our theme
issue on children and youth in worship. Conversations around this
issue led to the formation of a small group of pastors who meet to
talk about ways to be more intentionally intergenerational.
• We completed the “Faith Practices Summer Series,” offering wor-
ship services, take-home resources, and build-your-own ideas with
Faith Formation (see crcna.org/faithpracticesproject).
Worship
Katie Roelofs

STANDING COMMITTEES
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Standing Committees 195

STANDING COMMITTEES
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
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Candidacy Committee 197

church leaders for Native contexts—both CRC and RCA. Lora is currently
called to raise disciples in a CRC campus ministry at Iowa State Univer-
sity. She has served on the Council of Delegates and on several classical
and regional boards and committees. Lora is the daughter of CRC home
missionaries and is the mom of four children and married to educator/ad-
ministrator Joel.
III. Report on the implementation of candidacy requirement modifica-
tions reported to Synod 2022
In the Candidacy Committee Supplement report to Synod 2022 (Acts of
Synod 2022, pp. 792-94), the committee reported several modifications to
candidacy requirements that would take effect in fall 2022. These modifi-
cations came about through conversations with Calvin Theological Semi-
nary as they formed plans to revise their master of divinity (M.Div.) pro-
gram curriculum. The modifications to candidacy requirements were de-
signed for the benefit of potential candidates and for the purpose of keep-
ing candidacy requirements closely in sync with the seminary’s new cur-
riculum. These modifications were successfully implemented in fall 2022,
and the committee reports the following positive outcomes:
A. Modifications to the biblical language requirement
In fall 2022 the three-credit “Hebrew Grammar and Tools” and “Greek
Grammar and Tools” courses became the minimum requirement in Calvin
Theological Seminary’s M.Div. program. Each of these courses covers the
range of skills in vocabulary, grammar, and exegesis that are needed to
give students a solid proficiency in exegeting Scripture through a combi-
nation of learned knowledge and the use of digital tools. The Candidacy
Committee reported to Synod 2022 that they would adjust the candidacy
requirements to accommodate this change. Starting in fall 2022, comple-
tion of these two “Grammar and Tools” courses would be acceptable ful-
fillment of the biblical language requirement. However, for those transfer-
ring in biblical language credits from other seminaries, two semesters of
Hebrew and two semesters of Greek have continued to be required unless
the student has taken either the one-semester “Grammar and Tools”
courses at Calvin Seminary as part of their M.Div. program or equivalent
courses at their own seminary. Since first-semester language courses at
most seminaries span only grammar and vocabulary, not exegesis, the
committee did not deem such courses acceptable for completion of the
biblical language requirement. The committee deems the ability to exegete
Scripture in both languages as essential to a minister’s training.
B. Modifications to the preaching requirement
The candidacy requirement for preaching courses was expanded this year
in response to the opportunity created by Calvin Theological Seminary to
require not only a certain number of credits but also an assessment of
competency. All candidates from CTS were required to take the founda-
tional three-credit preaching course as well as any additional one-credit
courses that were assigned through evaluation of a student’s sermons.
198 Standing Committees AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

These one-credit courses are designed to hone specific skills in delivery,
structure, or other aspects of preaching. Ecclesiastical Program for Minis-
terial Candidacy participants from other seminaries were asked to submit
two sermons for evaluation by the preaching faculty at CTS within the
first few months of their program. The preaching courses required in their
individual learning plans will be based on the results of the assessments of
their sermons.
Because Calvin Seminary began providing this rigorous process of evalua-
tion of each student’s preaching, the Candidacy Committee deemed it un-
necessary to continue with the practice of also asking candidates to preach
four evaluated sermons in three different contexts. Thus the Candidacy
Committee requirement has been reduced to two evaluated sermons in
two contexts other than the student’s own.
IV. Report on the ongoing development of the Ecclesiastical Program
for Ministerial Candidacy
The Ecclesiastical Program for Ministerial Candidacy (EPMC) is a 24-
month program designed for potential candidates who earn their M.Div.
degree at an institution other than Calvin Theological Seminary. It is di-
rectly overseen by the recently established EPMC Facilitation Team, which
is a subcommittee of the Candidacy Committee. This team is composed of
Christian Reformed ministers of the Word and is assisted by strategic
partners from Calvin Theological Seminary who help facilitate the course-
work and vocational formation components of the program. The EPMC
Facilitation Team meets regularly (six times last year) to discuss elements
of the program and to report on work with participants. Team members
work in pairs to guide and support four to five participants who have
been assigned to them. The team’s work with participants includes con-
ducting an initial interview to determine the content of the individualized
learning plan, making recommendations regarding the vocational for-
mation process and denominational licensure for the participant, checking
in every six months throughout the person’s EPMC journey to help them
navigate the program’s requirements, conducting a final interview with
the participant, and then making a final recommendation to the Candi-
dacy Committee regarding the participant’s readiness for ministry.
When the team was first organized in 2020, it consisted of eight members.
But throughout that first year of implementation, it became apparent that
in order to provide close and ongoing support for all participants in the
EPMC program, more pastors would need to be added to the team. So
during 2021 the team expanded to include eighteen members, and they
have worked diligently to serve and support the EPMC participants as-
signed to them. The Candidacy Committee is deeply grateful for the excel-
lent work and servant-hearted devotion of the following members of the
EPMC Facilitation Team:
Rev. Al Gelder, general member for Classis Grand Rapids East
Rev. Steve Hull, general member from Classis Thornapple Valley

Rev. Shawn Brix, staff adviser from Calvin Theological Seminary and
Canadian church relations liaison for the seminary
Rev. Ernesto Hernandez, general member from Classis Arizona
Rev. Jose Rayas, general member from Classis Arizona
Rev. Daniel Mouw, general member from Classis Grandville
Rev. Maria Bowater, general member from Classis Kalamazoo
Rev. Anthony VanderSchaaf, general member from Classis Grand
Rapids South
Rev. Marg Rekman, general member from Classis Ontario Southwest
Rev. Charles Dillender, general member from Classis Central
California
Rev. Jack Van de Hoef, general member from Classis Eastern Canada
Pastor Debra Chee, general member from Classis Red Mesa
Rev. Timothy Kooiman, general member from Classis Wisconsin
Rev. Kelsi Jones, general member from Classis Chicago South
Rev. Susan LaClear, director of Candidacy
Joan Beelen, staff adviser from Calvin Theological Seminary
Rev. Geoff Vandermolen, staff advisor from Calvin Theological
Seminary
We are also deeply appreciative of the valuable contributions of the fol-
lowing members who completed their terms on the EPMC Facilitation
Team in February 2023: Rev. Ashley Bonnes, Rev. Emily VandenHeuvel,
Rev. Jen Rozema, and Rev. Kangwon Kim.
The desired outcomes of the EPMC program are for participants to
• develop a deep sense of call, commitment, and connection to the
CRC.
• embrace and apply a confessionally Reformed, biblical hermeneutic
that shapes their preaching and teaching ministry.
• exhibit spiritual and emotional readiness for pastoral ministry.
• demonstrate competency in a range of areas of pastoral ministry.
Note: Prior to Synod 2022 the EPMC program had a list of ten desired out-
comes, several of which were very similar to each other, and the commit-
tee felt that it would be beneficial to combine them into a more succinct
list (above) for the sake of clear and retainable communication. However,
the committee would like to emphasize that all ten desired outcomes are
still addressed specifically in each participant’s learning plan and that the
components of the EPMC program are still designed intentionally to cre-
ate opportunities for a participant’s growth in all of those previously
stated objectives.
In fall 2022 the EPMC Facilitation team began to implement the following
strategies envisioned by the team in 2021:
A. Toward the objective of helping participants establish deeper connections
Participants who attended their first connection trip were assigned to a
formation group of four to six persons with whom they met in-person

during the trip and then continued to meet online every other week
throughout the course of two semesters. Formation group leaders were
trained to lead their groups in discussions on the following eight topics:
calling, spiritual life, character, emotional health, identity, context, healthy
leadership, and understanding of power.
B. Toward the objective of helping participants demonstrate competency in minis-
try skills
The new process for helping participants achieve greater competency in
sermon writing and delivery, proposed in the committee’s report to Synod
2022, is now being implemented. Instead of evaluating incoming partici-
pants’ preaching competency on the basis of the number of credits they
have taken at another seminary, all new participants were asked to submit
two sermons (one based on the Old Testament and one based on the New
Testament) for evaluation by the preaching faculty at Calvin Theological
Seminary. Sermons were evaluated in the following areas: accurate exege-
sis, structure, life application, delivery, use of illustration. Then a recom-
mendation was made as to whether the participant should be required to
take the foundational “Gospel Preaching and Communication” course or
another one-credit course that would target a specific weakness in their
sermons. A participant whose sermons were assessed as demonstrating
strong competency would be exempt from the preaching requirement. It
was noted that only 20 percent of the participants displayed strong
enough sermon-writing skills to be exempt from any preaching course-
work in their individualized learning plan.
C. Toward the objective of developing spiritual and emotional readiness
Rev. Geoff Vandermolen, director of vocational formation at Calvin Theo-
logical Seminary, has joined the EPMC Facilitation Team meetings as an
advisor. Dr. Vandermolen also spends a full day leading EPMC partici-
pants in spiritually formative conversations and practices during their
CTS Connection Trip. Those who have participated in these conversations
and exercises have said they appreciated them and found them formative.
V. Conversations regarding theological education and leadership devel-
opment of Spanish-speaking pastors
The Candidacy Committee has been in conversation with both Consejo
Latino and Calvin Theological Seminary about the significant efforts they
are making to provide theological education and leadership training to as-
piring Latino leaders. With the leadership of Rev. Marco Avila of Reso-
nate, Consejo Latino has developed a program to train Latino leaders in
the required subjects for commissioned pastors. The program is called
“Luke 10” and is hosted by Revelation University in Miami, Florida. Reve-
lation University also provides associate- and bachelor-level theological
training. Calvin Theological Seminary is in the process of forming a com-
petency-based master’s program entirely in Spanish, which can be ac-
cessed through distance learning and combined with local mentorship.

A summit was held at Revelation University on January 18-19, 2022, to
discuss the possibilities for partnership between the two programs. The
Candidacy director attended this summit along with representatives from
Calvin Theological Seminary, Consejo Latino, Revelation University, and
Resonate. The two days of listening and conversation led to some signifi-
cant developments in the pathway to master’s-level theological education
for Spanish-speaking leaders, and we are deeply grateful to God for this
spirit of collaboration and partnership. The Candidacy Committee will
continue conversations with these parties in order to establish a pathway
for Spanish-speakers to acquire the training needed to become a minister
of the Word in the CRCNA.
VI. Recommendations
A. That synod grant the privilege of the floor to Susan LaClear, director of
Candidacy, and to an additional member of the Candidacy Committee, if
one is present, when the Candidacy Committee report is discussed.
B. That synod by way of the ballot appoint one new member to the Candi-
dacy Committee from the slate of nominees presented, and reappoint Rev.
Moon Kim to a second three-year term.
Candidacy Committee
Susan LaClear, director

Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee
I. Introduction
There are two distinct and important aspects to our work: ecumenical rela-
tionships with other Christian denominations and organizations and inter-
faith interactions between the CRC and non-Christian faith traditions. Ac-
cording to our Ecumenical Charter, “the CRC recognizes its ecumenical
responsibility to cooperate and seek unity with all churches of Christ in
obedience to the gospel.”
To guide the work of the EIRC relative to the ecumenical directive in bilat-
eral (denomination-to-denomination) relationships, we have continued to
use synodically approved categories. First is the category of churches in
communion—those with whom the CRC has a particular affinity or history.
Churches that are so designated may be engaged in joint ventures with
the CRC and/or its agencies, exchange delegates at synod, welcome each
other’s members at the Lord’s Supper and each other’s pastors into the
pulpit, and generally encourage each other in ministry and faithfulness.
Second is the category of churches in cooperation—a classification that rec-
ognizes all the other varied bilateral relationships the CRC has with Chris-
tian churches. Some of these relationships have originated through corre-
spondence around mutual interests, others from historic ties, and still oth-
ers through mutual ministry, whether by way of ecclesiastical connection,
the work of CRC agencies, or a specific memorandum of understanding.
In addition to bilateral relationships, we pursue our ecumenical work with
organizations that allow for numbers of denominations to come together
in unity (sometimes known as multilateral relationships).
Interfaith efforts between the CRC and non-Christian faith traditions are
led by a subcommittee of the EIRC. As a result of decisions by the Re-
formed Church in America’s General Synod 2019 and the CRCNA’s
Synod 2019, we have continued to work together to spur on this work,
particularly as it relates locally between and among Reformed congrega-
tions and those whose house of worship may be a synagogue, mosque, or
temple.
II. Membership and meetings
The members of the EIRC for the current year ending June 30, 2023, are
Jake Bentum (2025/1); Lyle Bierma (2025/2); Joy Engelsman (2024/1);
InSoon Hoagland (2023/2); Ruth Hofman (2024/1); James Joosse (2024/2);
William Koopmans, chair (2024/2); Ruth Palma (2023/2); Shirley Roels
(2025/1), and Yvonne Schenk (2023/1). The general secretary and the tran-
sitional executive director-Canada serve as ex officio members of the
EIRC.
The EIRC met in person in October 2022 and virtually in January 2023.
Another virtual meeting is scheduled to be held in April 2023.
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

Network met in January 2023 to discuss potential next steps. The King-
dom Network has indicated that they are content with the current ecu-
menical relationship. They welcome project partnerships with World
Renew and Resonate Global Mission.
3. Christian Reformed Church in Cuba
Pastor Yordanys Díaz, former president of the CRC in Cuba, met with
CRCNA staff and EIRC representatives in November 2022 for a time of
prayer and sharing.
4. Christian Church of Sumba
Rev. Ivan Santoso, assistant professor of systematic theology and theol-
ogy of worship at the Reformed Theological Seminary of Indonesia,
has indicated his willingness to promote an ecumenical presence in In-
donesia with the Christian Church of Sumba. The EIRC will continue
to work with Rev. Santoso to best represent the CRCNA in various
contexts within Indonesia and throughout Asia.
B. Formal exchanges
Throughout the past year formal exchanges remained curtailed due to
COVID-19 restrictions or concerns. Still, many letters and communications
with denominations were received and sent. Lyle Bierma was able to at-
tend the general synod of the Reformed Church in America in June 2022.
An invitation was received to attend a celebration with the Reformed
Church in Africa to celebrate 60 years of ministry. As of the writing of this
report, the EIRC is looking at the possibility of sending a representative to
this celebration in August 2023.
V. Multilateral relationships – ecumenical organizations and dialogues
We belong to a number of ecumenical organizations, including the Cana-
dian Council of Churches, Christian Churches Together in the U.S.A., the
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Global Christian Forum, the Na-
tional Association of Evangelicals, the World Communion of Reformed
Churches, and the World Reformed Fellowship. We also participate in im-
portant dialogues among those of various Christian faiths. The organiza-
tions and dialogues with which we have made specific connection this
past year are highlighted in the following:
A. World Communion of Reformed Churches (WCRC)
The WCRC is divided into nine regions, six of which are represented by
regional councils. One such group is the Caribbean and North American
Area Council (CANAAC). As executive director emeritus of the CRCNA,
Colin P. Watson, Sr., continues to serve on the steering committee of
CANAAC.
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).

5. The CRCNA does not have a representative currently serving on the
World Reformed Fellowship board. The EIRC is working to identify a
representative.
6. Ronald Feenstra is the ecumenical staff officer representative of the
CRCNA to the United States Roman Catholic-Reformed Dialogue. Two
additional representatives include Matthew Lundberg and Clair Me-
sick.
7. Christian Churches Together in the U.S.A. has extended an invitation
for a CRCNA representative to engage in learning projects. The EIRC
is working to identify a representative.
8. Matthew Lundberg indicated his desire to step down as representative
on a commission of the National Council of Churches in the U.S.A. Af-
ter further discussion, it was decided that the EIRC will not actively
seek a replacement for the Faith and Order group. This matter will be
revisited in two years.
VI. Interfaith activities
The Interfaith subcommittee of the EIRC continues its work. Membership
includes Bernard Ayoola, Zachary DeBruyne, Michael Kooy, Greg Sin-
clair, Frans van Liere, Eric Verhulst, Cory Willson, and the general secre-
tary. The subcommittee met in September 2022 and January 2023. Another
meeting is scheduled for March 2023.
The Ecumenical Charter that guides the EIRC states that our “responsibil-
ity is expressed locally (between and among neighboring congregations),
regionally (among churches in a given geographical area), and denomina-
tionally (among churches nationally and internationally).” For interfaith
efforts, the EIRC and its Interfaith subcommittee emphasize regional and
local engagement. To that end, they seek to highlight regional groups that
are open to CRC members and to publicize local efforts.
Members of the Interfaith subcommittee met with the EIRC in January
2023 to begin discussions around the Interfaith subcommittee mandate
(crcna.org/EIRC). Due to effects of COVID-19, interfaith dialogues and en-
counters have stopped, and churches are no longer reaching out to other
faiths to participate in dialogues. Because of this, it has been suggested to
update the Interfaith subcommittee mandate to include more interaction
with churches.
The RCA Interreligious group and the CRC’s Interfaith subcommittee met
on June 27, 2022, and November 1, 2022. Another meeting is scheduled for
March 2023. Members of the RCA Interreligious group are drawn from
many different ministries and regions of their denomination. Collabora-
tion between CRC and RCA leaders continues with the Peer to Peer Inter-
faith Network and Journeys into Friendship. Possible new joint activities
continue to be discussed.
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

had been canceled once due to COVID-19 concerns and was almost can-
celed a second time because of COVID disruptions and the war in
Ukraine. However, organizers decided that despite these challenges it was
important for the event to proceed. The presence of representatives from
both the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and the Orthodox Church of Russia
created a context of considerable emotional challenge and some awkward
and tense moments for the Russian delegation, but it also set a context for
urgent and prayerful pleas for peace and unity in the world as well as in
the church.
1. Observations regarding the 11th Assembly
a. This assembly, despite ongoing challenges from COVID-related
concerns, brought together approximately 4,000 people from 350
denominations representing 130 countries.
b. The greatest addition of new members to the WCC over the past
couple of decades reportedly has come from evangelical, Pentecos-
tal, and independent churches (for comparison, see comments by
George Vandervelde in 1999 reported in Appendix A below, noting
trends to monitor regarding membership in the WCC in years to
come).
c. At this assembly there was a very conspicuous presence of observ-
ers from Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches around the
world.
d. The establishment of the Global Christian Forum, while not directly
under the auspices of WCC, occurred to afford opportunity for
churches such as the CRCNA to participate with other churches in
initiatives that intersect with the mission of the WCC.
e. The appointment of Dr. Jerry Pillay as general secretary of the
WCC entails that one of the key leaders of the WCC has familiarity
and some connections with the CRCNA by virtue of previous roles
in the World Council of Reformed Churches (WCRC).
f. The 11th Assembly focused on key issues involving world peace,
reconciliation, justice, unity, global stewardship, and the church’s
witness and action in such areas.
g. The setting of the 11th Assembly, hosted in the Rhineland area of
Germany, provided a context for the observation of the church’s ef-
forts and achievements in the realm of reconciliation following
World War II.
h. The worship times at the assembly were celebratory, varied, trini-
tarian-focused, often evangelical in flavor, and generally widely ap-
preciated by assembly participants.
i. Participants engaged in a great variety of formats, including
themed workshops, committee meetings, key speakers and panel
discussions, plenary presentations (including topical Bible studies),
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.

q. There was an intentional focus on youth, though some participants
suggested that the inclusion of youth and young adults did not go
far enough. A very large group of youth were present as stewards.
r. The presence of many, many Christian organizations from all
around the world, set up with displays in booths at the assembly
site, created something of a “trade fair” environment and the op-
portunity to be informed about or to network with countless other
institutions, schools, and ministry groups.
2. Reconsidering the issue of CRCNA membership in the WCC
a. Background considerations
In 1950 and following, membership by the CRCNA in the WCC
was discouraged and rejected by our synods. This was due largely
to the understanding of the goal and mandate of our ecumenical
engagement when compared to the makeup and function of the
WCC. In the seven decades that have elapsed since 1950, the char-
ter of the EIRC and the actual ecumenical engagement of our de-
nomination have evolved considerably. The EIRC, which for dec-
ades was titled the Interchurch Relations Committee (IRC) initially
focused on establishing and maintaining relationships with other
denominations that were theologically and historically closely
aligned with the CRCNA. A primary goal of such relationships was
mutual accountability in maintaining a biblically true Reformed
theology and practice.
Over the decades, the mandate and vision of the committee broad-
ened—to a large extent due to evolving ecumenical movements in
the world. A key consideration in these developments can be iden-
tified with the Lund Principle, which “affirms that churches should
act together in all matters except those in which deep differences of
conviction compel them to act separately.” This Lund Principle was
agreed to by the 1952 Faith and Order Conference of the WCC held
at Lund, Sweden. The adoption of this principle had immediate re-
sults in the worldwide ecumenical movement and eventually also
influenced perspectives and practices of ecumenicity in the
CRCNA.
At around the turn of the millennium the IRC did send observers
from the committee to WCC meetings for the purpose of evaluating
the advisability of becoming more involved with the WCC. At
around the same time, the CRCNA was expelled from the North
American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) and had
recently joined the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC)
while continuing a longer standing membership in the Reformed
Ecumenical Council (REC) (formerly Reformed Ecumenical Synod).
The conclusion was to have the secretary of the REC—who at the
time was a CRCNA member, Richard van Houten—monitor what
was happening with WCC. However, in 2010 the REC and WARC
merged into the World Communion of Reformed Churches
(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.

B. Christian Reformed Church in Liberia
Requests have been received from within the denomination to explore for-
mal relations with the Christian Reformed Church in Liberia. Throughout
the past months, the EIRC has researched and begun the process of draft-
ing a memorandum of understanding. This will be recommended to a
subsequent synod.
C. Request from the Alliance of Reformed Churches
The Alliance of Reformed Churches is the largest segment of churches that
have left the Reformed Church in America as part of its plan for gracious
separation. The Alliance would like to develop an ecumenical relationship
with the CRCNA because of the exchange of pastors and shared ministry
initiatives. To ensure transparency with the RCA, a communication was
sent to the general secretary of the RCA for feedback. The general secre-
tary responded and indicated that he had no concerns about the CRCNA’s
establishing ecumenical relationships with newly formed networks in-
cluding the Alliance of Reformed Churches.
The EIRC recommends that synod recognize the Alliance of Reformed
Churches as a church in cooperation for the purpose of continued pursuit to-
ward designation as a church in communion, and, by way of exception, that
while designated as a church in cooperation, congregations or officebearers
with previous CRCNA/RCA dual-affiliation credentials maintain their af-
filiation with the CRCNA. The EIRC also recommends that synod appoint
a task force to work with the Alliance of Reformed Churches to address
matters related to church in communion status, Church Order matters re-
garding “orderly exchange” of officebearers (Church Order Supplement,
Art. 8), and other matters related to benefits of CRC officebearers.
IX. Recommendations
A. That synod grant the privilege of the floor to William T. Koopmans,
chair, and Zachary J. King (ex officio) when matters relating to the Ecu-
menical and Interfaith Relations Committee are discussed.
B. That synod express its gratitude to InSoon Hoagland and Ruth Palma
for serving the cause of ecumenicity for the CRC.
C. That synod reappoint Yvonne Schenk to a second three-year term.
D. That synod receive the report on the World Council of Churches as in-
formation, noting that a formal recommendation regarding membership
will come to a subsequent synod.
E. That synod recognize the Alliance of Reformed Churches as a church in
cooperation for the purpose of continued pursuit toward designation as a
church in communion, and, by way of exception, that while designated as
a church in cooperation, congregations or officebearers with previous
CRCNA/RCA dual-affiliation credentials maintain their affiliation with
the CRCNA.
F. That synod appoint a task force to work with the Alliance of Reformed
Churches to address matters related to church in communion status, Church
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
World Council of Churches background references from Agendas and

Acts of Synod
The following references to the WCC in previous Agendas and Acts of
Synod provide some background on the treatment of this topic in our de-
nominational history.
I. Index of references prior to 2000
World Council of Churches (see also National Council of Churches; Inter-
national Council of Christian Churches; Interchurch relations)
1950 Membership discouraged by RES, 432
1954 Observers, 40; Report, 549
1955 Publication of 1953 RES position on WCC, 29ff.; Report, 269ff.
1956 Communication, 64; Report, 250
1957 Request of New Zealand churches, 102; Report, 301ff.
1959 Re membership in both RES and World Council, 262
1962 Report, 392, 397, 592
1966 Position of Gereformeerde Kerken, 59; Report, 228
1967 Reaction to decision of Gereformeerde Kerken, 87ff.; Observers, 91
1969 Report of observers, 35, 144ff.
1970 Report of observers, 36, 320
1974 Observer to 1975 meeting, 57, 348
1975 Observer, 24; Report, 351
1976 Observer, 321
1983 Observers to be appointed, 157, 682
1984 Report of observers, 183-86
1985 No contact with, 205; History of our contact with, 219-20; Rela-
tionship to WARC, 226-27

1987 IRC report, 175
1990 Report, 198-99
1991 Report, 168
1993 IRC investigation toward contact with, 209
1998 IRC report, 293; Observer to, 176
1999 IRC report, 490; Observer to, 188, 490; New document re structure
of WCC, 490
2000 IRC report, 196-97; Forum for nonmembers to be held in Septem-
ber 2000 at Fuller Theological Seminary, 196-97
II. Specific excerpts presented for ease of reference
A. Dr. George Vandervelde was an observer at the WCC assembly in Ha-
rare in 1998 (Acts of Synod 1999, p. 490):
Dr. Vandervelde reported that the WCC adopted Forum of Christian
Churches and Ecumenical Organizations, a document which explains a new
structure for the WCC as proposed by the committee mandated in 1989
to study “the common understanding and vision of the WCC” (CUV).
According to Dr. Vandervelde, “. . . this new structure is intended to
reach beyond WCC’s present constituency to churches and organiza-
tions that for various reasons are not now members of the WCC. Chief
among these is, of course, the Roman Catholic Church. But the CUV
document mentions specifically Pentecostal and Evangelical churches, as
well as world communions and regional ecumenical organizations.”
This provides an opportunity for the IRC to monitor carefully the pres-
ent direction and future shape of the WCC. The IRC intends to study the
requirements for and implications of participation in the WCC forum.
B. IRC report in Agenda for Synod 2000, pp. 196-97:
As reported in the Acts of Synod 1999 (p. 490), the WCC is creating a fo-
rum to be held September 5-10, 2000, at Fuller Theological Seminary, to
which a representation from the CRCNA is invited. The forum will in-
clude churches and organizations that for various reasons are not now
members of the WCC. Invitees to the forum include a broad spectrum of
churches, including Pentecostals, Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and a
variety of others, who will come together to discuss concerns that are
common to all of them. The forum carries no mandate from any particu-
lar agency and is answerable to no particular organization. It will be
made up of a group of individuals who are concerned “to explore ways
to facilitate greater cooperation between Christian churches and organi-
zations, so that our witness to Jesus Christ will be clear and compelling”
(Feb. 7, 2000, letter of invitation). The IRC is considering participation in
the consultation.
C. IRC report in Agenda for Synod 2001, p. 219:
In the Agenda for Synod 2000, the IRC reported that plans were being
made for a consultation to be held at Fuller Theological Seminary in Sep-
tember 2000 and that IRC was considering participation in that meeting.
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
I. Introduction
Synod 1934 established the Historical Committee as a standing committee
of the Christian Reformed Church, and the committee’s revised mandate,
approved by Synod 2022, states the following (Agenda for Synod 2022,
p. 81; Acts of Synod 2022, p. 853):
The Historical Committee and the [general secretary] of the CRCNA
are responsible for the official Archives of the Christian Reformed
Church and its agencies, while administrative oversight is provided by
the Hekman Library of Calvin University and Calvin Theological
Seminary. The Historical Committee ordinarily communicates with
the Hekman Library through the Hekman Library Archives Advisory
Council. The Historical Committee also cultivates within the Christian
Reformed Church, the wider church, and the academic world, knowl-
edge of and appreciation for the CRCNA’s history, heritage, and leg-
acy by, among other things, identifying and assisting in accumulation
of resources.
Synod 2022 also approved expanding the membership of the committee.
Current administrative committee members are Wiebe Boer (ex officio, as
president of Calvin University), William Katerberg (ex officio, without
vote, as curator of Heritage Hall), Zachary King (ex officio, without vote,
as general secretary of the CRCNA), and Jul Medenblik (ex officio, as pres-
ident of Calvin Theological Seminary). Current synodically elected mem-
bers are John Bolt, chair (2023/2); James A. De Jong, secretary (2024/2);
Herman De Vries (2025/2); and Tony Maan (2025/2). Synod 2022 also ap-
proved adding two additional synodically elected members by virtue of
expertise; nominations for these two new positions are presented in sec-
tion II, B below.
Since its 2022 report to synod, the committee met in person and via Zoom
on October 26, 2022; November 15, 2022; and January 31, 2023.
II. Committee activities
A. Organizational matters
At its October meeting the committee reviewed and set the schedule and
focus of its meetings as follows: to hold its first meeting of the year in Sep-
tember to review synodical actions, determine projects for the year, and
make assignments; to hold its second meeting in November to consider
assigned reports or proposals; and to hold its third meeting in January to
take follow-up actions and finalize its report for the forthcoming synod re-
port. A meeting will be held in early April only if necessary to present a
supplementary report to synod.
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Historical Committee 217

The committee also reviewed the expectations and requirements of elected
committee members as being (1) expertise in CRCNA history and the Re-
formed legacy, or some aspect thereof, and (2) availability and making a
commitment to be creatively involved in the committee’s work.
The committee has also decided that it will designate someone to com-
municate with its network of classical representatives once a year with in-
formation, reminders, and suggestions.
In implementing Synod 2022’s decisions concerning the expanded and in-
tegrated nature of the committee (cf. Acts of Synod 2022, pp. 853-54), the
committee clarified the respective roles of the general secretary and the
committee itself regarding oversight of the archives. In doing so, it ap-
proved the following delineation:
The responsibilities of the general secretary shall be as follows:
1. To oversee and ensure that all CRC agencies comply with synodical
rules concerning their archives.
2. To serve as the final authority with respect to security, confidential-
ity protocols, and usage.
3. To oversee and facilitate the denomination’s financial obligation to
Heritage Hall.
4. To ensure the collaborative functioning of the three stakeholders to
promote the mandate of the Historical Committee.
5. To participate in the meetings and work of the Historical Commit-
tee ex officio.
The responsibilities of the Historical Committee shall be as follows:
1. To participate in the work of the Archives Advisory Council
(AAC).
2. To consult with and advise the AAC on matters such as these:
• annual budget and major budget expenditures
• major strategic policy initiatives
• key staff positions
3. In cooperation with Heritage Hall staff, to maintain contact with re-
gional (classical) representatives.
4. To encourage and support the use of the CRC archives.
5. To encourage and solicit gifts to the Origins endowment fund.
6. To cultivate, maintain contact with, and actively participate in net-
works of people interested in the content of the denominational ar-
chives.
The committee recommends that synod endorse the delineation of the re-
spective duties of the general secretary and the Historical Committee re-
garding oversight of the denominational archives. This provides the nec-
essary clarification lacking in the past.

B. Nominations for new synodically elected positions
At its October meeting, the committee decided that the new positions ap-
proved by synod should reflect the growing diversity of the denomina-
tion. Our nomination slates this year reflect both gender and ethnic diver-
sity. These are not meant to be exclusive but represent a place to begin in
promoting more diversity on the Historical Committee. These slates of
nominees reflect the ethnic Korean membership of the church and the Na-
tive American membership of the church. Each of these groups has con-
tributed significantly to the CRCNA’s spirituality and has broadened its
expression of Reformed faith and life. Their contributions deserve to be
captured and preserved in our archives.
Korean nominees
Rev. Christian Oh was raised in a devout Christian family in South Korea.
He earned a B.A. in theology and philosophy from Chongshin University
(1980), an M.Div. from Calvin Theological Seminary, and a doctor of inter-
cultural studies degree from Grace Theological Seminary, focusing on syn-
cretism in Korean churches (2016). He was ordained as a minister of the
Word in the Christian Reformed Church in 1988 and planted the Han Bit
CRC in greater Detroit, serving there until his retirement in 2020. He has
served in numerous CRCNA capacities, including on several study com-
mittees and implementation teams, the CRCNA Board of Trustees, and
the Calvin Theological Seminary Board of Trustees (1996-2002 and again
at present). He has been an ethnic advisor at synods, is an advisor to Ko-
rean pastors and churches, has been an instructor in the CRCNA Korean
Institute for Ministry (2011 to the present), and is a frequent lecturer,
speaker, and translator in Korean churches and seminaries.
Rev. Jay Shim is a professor of theology at Dordt University. He was born
in Seoul, South Korea, baptized as a Roman Catholic, and came to the
United States to study graphic design. He worshiped with the Korean
CRC in southern California and explored Pentecostalism before finding
and committing to the Reformed faith at Calvin College (B.A.) and Calvin
Theological Seminary (M.Div., Ph.D.). Ordained as a minister of the Word
in 1993, he has served two terms on the CRCNA Candidacy Committee,
helped found the CRCNA Korean Institute for Ministry, served as its di-
rector for five years, and completed two terms on the Ecumenical and In-
terfaith Relations Committee. He has translated the three forms of unity
into Korean. He has assisted the CRCNA executive director by gathering
information on Korean churches and assisting that office in collaborating
with those churches. He works with Chongshin and Kosin universities in
various ways, including their exchange programs with Dordt University.
He has lectured and published on Reformed theology in both North
American and Korean churches and academic venues.
Native American nominees
Pastor Evelyn Bennally serves Sanostee (N.Mex.) Christian Reformed
Church. She is the first Navajo woman to be ordained as a commissioned

pastor in the CRC. She came to faith through vacation Bible school as a
child, and as a young adult she led religious instruction classes. She is a
graduate of Reformed Bible College and Calvin College. She served as a
schoolteacher for forty years, and after retiring, she heard God’s call to be
a pastor. During the pandemic she completed a three-year training pro-
gram in biblical/theological knowledge, ministry skills, and spiritual for-
mation with Classis Red Mesa’s Leadership Development Network. She
has served on the denomination’s committees on race relations and faith
formation. She is currently a member of Classis Red Mesa’s interim com-
mittee, its missions committee, and its nominations committee. She served
as a delegate to Synod 2022.
Rev. Stanley Jim is a member of the Navajo tribe and pastor of the Window
Rock (Ariz.) Christian Reformed Church. He is a graduate of Reformed Bi-
ble College and Calvin Theological Seminary. He has served the Christian
Reformed Church as a member of the synodical committees on “The Offi-
cial Acts of Ministry” and “The Planning Team for the Sesquicentennial
Celebration” and as one of the first ethnic advisors to synod. He also
served as the Native American/First Nations ministry leader with Chris-
tian Reformed Home Missions, as the second clerk of Synod 2015, and as a
member of the Council of Delegates. For Classis Red Mesa he has served
on the classical interim committee and the classical home missions com-
mittee, and he currently serves the classis as its regional pastor and as
chair of its theological education and ministry skills committee.
While reflecting on the denomination’s growing diversity, the committee
also discussed the importance of collecting and archiving perspectives
from overseas churches planted and supported by CRCNA missions.
Their reflections on Reformed faith and life constitute part of the CRCNA
legacy. Accordingly, the committee has invited Dr. Tersur Aben of Nigeria
to be a ministry partner to offer advice on archival and historical matters
that reflect on Nigerian-CRCNA relations. He has graciously accepted to
serve in an advisory capacity for three years, and this will not require syn-
odical approval. Anticipating that this experimental partnership will
prove fruitful, the committee may invite others to participate in a similar
way.
C. Nomination to fill an existing vacancy
John Bolt is completing his second term on the committee and is not eligi-
ble for reappointment. The committee submits the following slate of nomi-
nees for a first term of three years.
Henk Aay was born and lived in the Netherlands until he was twelve years
old, when his family immigrated to Canada and settled in Kitchener, On-
tario. He earned a B.A. (with honors) from Waterloo Lutheran University
(now Wilfrid Laurier University) in 1969 and a Ph.D. in geography from
Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, in 1978. He taught at Wilfrid
Laurier University and at the University of Toronto, and he served as a
professor at Calvin University from 1982 until retiring in 2012. His aca-
demic fields are geography and environmental studies, in which he has

frequently lectured and is widely published. From 2006-2012 he held the
Meijer Chair of Dutch Language and Culture at Calvin University, in
which capacity he has lectured, published, and facilitated tours for stu-
dents and others. Since 2013 he has been a senior research fellow at the
Van Raalte Institute, Hope College. He has also served on the board of the
Association for the Advancement of Dutch American Studies (including
as president).
Janet Sheeres was born in the Netherlands and immigrated to Canada at
age eleven. She attended business college and has experience in office
work and administration. She has lived in both Michigan and Washing-
ton, where her husband has served as a CRCNA pastor. She has served
two terms on the Historical Committee (2001-2007), including as commit-
tee chair. She is a published specialist in genealogical studies, has served
as editor and annotator of the English translation of CRCNA synodical
minutes from 1857 through 1880, has taught in Calvin’s CALL program,
and has lectured elsewhere on Dutch-American topics. She has published
a biography on D.J. Vander Werp, a leading pastor and first theological
educator of the CRCNA; a study of A.C. Van Raalte’s attempt to found a
Dutch colony in Virginia; and a collection of ten biographies of the wives
of early CRCNA pastors. She has also served as interim editor of Origins,
as a volunteer in the Heritage Hall archives, and as a president of both the
Zeeland Historical Society and the Association for the Advancement of
Dutch American Studies.
III. Report of the curator, William Katerberg
A. Archives staff
The past year was marked by noteworthy transitions in staff. Will
Katerberg continued his work as curator of Heritage Hall during the
winter, spring, and summer of 2022 and spent the fall on sabbatical.
Laurie Haan continued her work as archival assistant, focusing on
material related to the seminary and university. Emily Koelzer moved on
to a full-time position at Aquinas College. And, as we noted last year,
Hendrina Van Spronsen retired in June 2021 from her work as office
manager, production assistant for Origins: Historical Magazine of the
Archives, and archival assistant after serving in Heritage Hall for over
three decades.
Heritage Hall combined the two vacated part-time positions into a full-
time position of assistant archivist and digitization specialist. Serving in
that position is Jen Vos, a graduate of Calvin University and the Cooper-
stown Graduate Program at the State University of New York, Oneonta.
She worked most recently at the Tri-Cities Historical Museum in Grand
Haven, Michigan.
Volunteers and student workers have long been essential to the work of
Heritage Hall. Heritage Hall had two volunteers in 2022. Phil Erffmeyer
collects and processes minutes from congregations and classes. Congrega-
tions and classes with questions can contact him and the archives staff

most easily by emailing [email protected]. He also processed new
material, mostly related to the denomination. Clarice Newhof worked on
cataloging our extensive photo collection into subcollections labeled Peo-
ple, Calvin Theological Seminary, Calvin University, Christian Reformed
Church, and General.
Student employees worked on our online collections index (archives.cal-
vin.edu/) and organized oversized photos and a digitization program re-
lated to Reverend Albertus C. Van Raalte, founder of the first Dutch immi-
grant colony in Michigan in 1846-1847.
B. Archival activity during 2022
1. Collections
The archives accessioned a variety of material related to its three fund-
ing organizations (denomination, university, and seminary), along
with manuscript collections mostly related to the history of Reformed
Christianity and Dutch immigration and ethnic communities in North
America. These accessions included the following:
• Records of a CRC pastor who led worship services for German
POWs housed in Michigan during World War II
• Files from retired university and seminary faculty members, in-
cluding Joel Carpenter, Richard Mouw, Quentin Schultze, John
Stek, and Davis Young
• Photographs
• Records from congregations that closed in 2022
• World Missions material from the CRCNA
• Material from the Tract League, which is associated with the
CRCNA
• Records related to the Dutch American Historical Commission
• A rich collection of letters between former Calvin College professor
Walter Lagerwey and his wife, Wilma Lagerwey, when he was sta-
tioned overseas during World War II
• Records from the Christian Association of Psychological Studies
• Papers and manuscripts from the poet James Den Boer
2. Research
Heritage Hall received regular “walk in” visitors eager to use its collec-
tions during 2022. As in recent years, however, most of the patrons
were virtual, making requests via email or phone and hoping to access
material digitally or as photocopies. Requests came from local congre-
gations, clerks of classes, and staff from CRCNA, Calvin University,
and Calvin Theological Seminary offices. Whether walking in, calling,
or emailing, several hundred patrons a year make requests for material
and research help.

The most requested material in 2022 was related to immigrant letters
and memoirs, genealogy and family history, photo collections, congre-
gational and classical minutes, the history of the CRCNA with respect
to various topics, and rare books. Specific requests involved research
being done on Geerhardus Vos, immigration, Christian Reformed mis-
sions among the Navajo and Zuni peoples, Bill Fyfe and the architec-
ture of the seminary and university buildings, William Henry Jellema,
Meindert De Jong, Dutch immigrants in Nova Scotia, missionaries in
China, and the Calvin-Hope basketball rivalry.
The curator, William Katerberg, posted articles on Origins Online (ori-
gins.calvin.edu) on history related to the CRCNA, the seminary, the
university, and Dutch North American immigration and enclaves. He
also contributed an article in the spring 2021 issue of the Origins print
version on his maternal grandfather, the family’s immigration to Can-
ada, and the founding of a Christian Reformed congregation in Dray-
ton, Ontario. With Donald Bruggink and Dennis Voskuil, he also ed-
ited and published Dutch Immigrant Stories (Van Raalte Press, 2022), a
collection of essays from the 2021 biennial conference of the Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Dutch American Studies. The conference
was the first meeting of this organization conducted online, due to on-
going COVID-19 concerns.
3. Digitization and indexing
Digitization continued in a variety of areas: building a database of
Heritage Hall’s photograph collections; finishing the compilation of an
online catalog of our collections; focusing on Calvin University
records, the largest of the archive’s collections (archives.calvin.edu/).
The most noteworthy digital project of 2022 (begun in 2020) continued;
it is being done in cooperation with the Van Raalte Institute at Hope
College (VRI) and is supported by the Dutch Consulate in New York
City. It involves digitizing and making publicly available the A.C. van
Raalte and Dirk van Raalte collections in the two institutions. Doing so
will aid scholars and local history researchers. The two collections will
be available on the Digital Commons of Hope College and Calvin
University (see digitalcommons.calvin.edu). Heritage Hall and the VRI
also hope to create a website for general audiences interested in this
history. Scholars can navigate the larger collection of Dutch-language,
translated, and English-language material in the Van Raalte collec-
tions. But the volume of material is intimidating for nonscholars. The
website will introduce Van Raalte and the creation and evolution of
the colony he founded, putting them in the broader context of North
American history. It also will provide links to material from the
Heritage Hall and VRI Van Raalte collections that will most interest
local history enthusiasts, middle and high school teachers and stu-
dents, and those interested in Reformed Christianity and Dutch
immigration to North America.

The work of indexing The Banner and various other magazines related
to Reformed Christianity continued. We hope to digitize The Banner in
the next few years, and we have had discussions with staff at The Ban-
ner about this idea. The project will depend on securing funding, since
digitization is expensive. We also hope to digitize several publications
related to the university and seminary, such as Chimes, the student
newspaper. Heritage Hall expects to pursue a variety of digitization
projects in the next few years related to the 150th anniversary of the
seminary and university in 2026.
4. Promotion and outreach
Staff presentations were made to Calvin University and Calvin Theo-
logical Seminary classes via Zoom or Microsoft Teams.
Origins: Historical Magazine of the Archives and Origins Online (ori-
gins.calvin.edu) continue to be vibrant forms of outreach to a variety of
audiences. The spring 2021 issue of the print magazine had a variety of
stories; the fall 2021 issue focused on the history of women, Dutch im-
migration, and Reformed Christianity. The spring 2023 issue will in-
clude a variety of material on A.C. van Raalte and nineteenth-century
Dutch immigrant colonies in the midwestern United States. Back is-
sues of the print magazine can be found on the blog website. There
also is a Heritage Hall Facebook page, which enables the blog to reach
out to local audiences for some stories. Heritage Hall will continue to
assess its social media presence and find ways to connect with denomi-
national, university, and seminary related audiences and people inter-
ested in the history of Dutch North Americans.
IV. Regional classical representatives and significant anniversaries
A. Classical representatives—revised procedure
In the mid-1960s, when the congregational and denominational agency ar-
chives were being consolidated with those of the college and seminary
and being centralized in Heritage Hall, Egbert Post was appointed as the
archival field agent. His assignment was to establish and work with a net-
work of classical field agents in highlighting the importance of archiving
and collecting important material, especially congregational records. In
the early years of that effort, synod funded Post’s travel to classical meet-
ings to promote this effort. One dimension of that work was to compile for
synod an annual list of forthcoming congregational anniversaries and key
anniversaries of ministerial ordination and service.
The position and work of field agent continued through the service of
Robert Bolt, which concluded several years ago. Subsequently, the Herit-
age Hall staff and the Historical Committee have carried on that activity.
On reassessing the position and in the interests of efficiency, the commit-
tee and curator have concluded that the network of representatives should
in fact be the stated clerks of classes, augmented in several instances by

others who wish to continue being involved in promoting archival inter-
ests. The archives staff and volunteers will do the work rather than an in-
dividual field agent. Congregations and classes can conveniently contact
the archives at [email protected] and 616-526-6313, to which all ar-
chives staff can respond.
Under the revised arrangement, staff will compile the anniversary lists
that will continue to be published annually in the committee’s report to
synod. This year we have added a new feature: campus ministry anniver-
saries. Stated clerks and others will be contacted annually with important
information and specific requests to be communicated to the churches.
Classical representatives specifically involved besides stated clerks in en-
hancing our denominational archives are as follows:
Arizona – Rodney Hugen
B.C. North-West – Anne Kwantes
Eastern Canada – Jean Lauziere
Iakota – Garry Zonnefeld
Pacific Northwest – Matthew Borst
Southeast U.S. – Stan Workman
B. Ordained ministers—anniversaries of service
Names are listed according to years of ordained service in the CRCNA,
with dates of prior ordination in another denomination indicated in pa-
rentheses.
50 years (1974-2024) Fisher, Ronald G.
Begay, Anthony Gebben, Nelson J.
Belanus, Donald G. Gelder, Alvern
Bultman, Roger D. Gray, Jack M.
Cok, Ronald H. Heyboer, Marvin W.
De Vries, Albert J. Hiemstra, Harold
De Young, Maurice Hogeterp, Peter C.
Genzink, Terry L. Hommes, Raymond
Helleman, Adrian A. Hutt, Gary P.
Huttinga, Jack Jansen, John K.
Kamper, Dennis A. Machiela, Alvin J.
Kuperus, Harry Mulder, Dennis M.
Nydam, Ronald Natelborg, John D.
Ritsema, Robert D.
55 years (1969-2024) Rozeboom, John A
Bergsma, Paul J. Salomons, C. Harry
Brink, Harvey Allen Stadt, Paul D.
Buwalda, Jerry D. Stroo, William A.
Buwalda, Merlin N. Van De Griend, Kenneth D.
De Jong, Wieger Vander Ley, Rodney
De Young, Hendrik Vander Veen, Dale
Dirksen, Willem D. Van Essen, Larry
Dykstra, William Workman, Stanley J.

60 years (1964-2024) 65 years (1959-2024)
De Vries, James Edward Groen, John G.
Geurkink, Vernon F. Hugen, Melvin D.
Hertel, Richard A. Swets, Walter
Hoytema, Jerry J. Vanden Ende, Anthonie
Salomons, Herman (1954, GKN)
Vanden Einde, Harlan G. 70 years (1954 – 2024)
Van Til, John Arkema, Alan
Yang, Peter S. Beelen, Marvin
Rooy, Sidney
C. Church anniversaries—at 25-year intervals
25th anniversary (1999-2024)
Courtice, Ontario – Hope Fellowship (Oshawa, Ont.)
Grand Rapids, Michigan – Korean Grace
Holland, Michigan – Maple Avenue
Lincoln, California – Granite Springs
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – Spirit and Truth Fellowship
Savage, Minnesota – Bridgewood
Chicago, Illinois – Hyde Park
Sioux Center, Iowa – Covenant
Sparta, Michigan – Trinity
Alymer, Ontario – Alymer
Bloomfield, Ontario – Bethany
Caledon, Ontario – Immanuel (Brampton)
Clinton, Ontario – Clinton
Elmhurst, Illinois – Elmhurst
Escalon, California – Escalon
Grandville, Michigan – Trinity (Jenison)
Iron Springs, Alberta – Iron Springs
Trenton, Ontario – Ebenezer
Woodstock, Ontario – Maranatha
Alameda, California – Alameda
D. Campus ministry anniversaries—at 25-year intervals
25th-anniversary campus ministries (1999-2024)
Ypsilanti, Michigan – Eastern Michigan University
50th-anniversary campus ministries (1974-2024)
Iowa City, Iowa – Geneva Campus Ministry at University of Iowa
Kingston, Ontario – Momentum Campus Ministries (Geneva Fellow-
ship)

V. Recommendations
A. That synod grant the privilege of the floor to John Bolt, chair, and to
James A. De Jong, secretary, when matters pertaining to the mandate and
work of the Historical Committee come before synod.
B. That synod endorse the delineation of the respective duties of the gen-
eral secretary and the Historical Committee regarding oversight of the de-
nominational archives.
Ground: This provides necessary clarification.
C. That synod by way of the ballot appoint new members to the Historical
Committee from the slates of nominees presented to a first term of three
years.
D. That synod recognize with appreciation the service of retiring member
John Bolt, who has served as committee chair for his two terms on the
committee, and of curator William Katerberg and the Heritage Hall staff
and volunteers.
Historical Committee
Wiebe Boer
John Bolt, chair
James A. De Jong, secretary
Herman De Vries
William Katerberg
Zachary J. King
Tony Maan
Jul Medenblik

DENOMINATIONALLY
RELATED EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Denominationally Related Educational Institutions 229

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
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
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Dordt University 231

for its students.” It is encouraging that they recognized that every person
they interacted with—students, faculty, staff, and others—were exceed-
ingly clear and in alignment with Dordt’s Christ-centered mission.
At Dordt we strive for excellence in both a curricular and cocurricular
manner. This is evident through our academic achievements—for exam-
ple, 100 percent of nursing graduates from the class of 2022 passed the Na-
tional Council Licensure Examination on their first attempt, which is im-
pressive. Over the past ten years, 83 percent of Dordt students who ap-
plied to medical school were accepted; according to the national average,
only about 10 percent of medical school applicants are typically accepted.
Also, of the Dordt engineering majors who took the fundamentals of engi-
neering exam in 2021, 90 percent passed; the national pass rate is 64 per-
cent. From a cocurricular standpoint, our men’s cross-country team in No-
vember claimed the 67th Annual NAIA Men’s Cross-Country National
Championship—the team’s first cross-country national title and the first
team from the Great Plains Athletics Conference to win nationals. Head
coach Nate Wolf was named the 2022 NAIA Men’s Cross-Country Coach
of the Year. In addition to athletics, our on-campus clubs are having a
global impact. The Gaming Guild provides a community for gamers who
are committed followers of Jesus to think more broadly about their calling
as gamers and to develop their own gaming-related gifts to serve God’s
kingdom. The Gaming Guild is one of a kind in its Reformed Christian ap-
proach to gaming, and it has caught the attention of the Gospel Coalition,
EA Sports, and many others this past year.
Our alumni embody Christ-centered renewal in the work they do and are
being recognized for it. Wendy Gomez Matamoros, a 2012 graduate, re-
ceived the Young Alumni Award this year from the Council for Christian
Colleges and Universities, which includes over 185 Christian institutions
and tens of thousands of alumni eligible for this award. Wendy is trans-
forming special education in Nicaragua through her work as director of
Tesoros de Dios, a Christian nonprofit that seeks to help children with dis-
abilities achieve their full potential. The seriousness with which Wendy
takes Jesus’ call to serve his imagebearers with disabilities is inspiring.
A Dordt education is a valuable investment for students who want to be
equipped as effective kingdom citizens. One hundred percent of students
who graduated in the class of 2021 were employed or in graduate school
within six months of graduation, allowing them to go out and be salt and
light in their respective career paths. In addition, our graduates are dili-
gent about repaying their student loans, with Dordt’s historic repayment
rate above 99 percent.
Dordt is also making an impact on the broader community. Article 71 of
the CRCNA’s Church Order says, “The council shall diligently encourage
the members of the congregation to establish and maintain good Christian
schools in which the biblical, Reformed vision of Christ’s lordship over all
creation is clearly taught.” The Center for the Advancement of Christian
Education has sought to live this out by walking alongside Christian
232 Denominationally Related Educational Institutions AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

schools committed to teaching from a biblical perspective, aiding in the
sustainability, improvement, innovation, advocacy, and promotion of
Christian education at all levels of learning. The Thrive Center is making a
difference in Iowa by providing resources for persons on the autism spec-
trum or with other learning challenges who are looking for behavior ther-
apy, skills acquisition, and more. Also, the K&K Dooyema Center for En-
trepreneurship and Innovation provides students and alumni with busi-
ness practices and guidance rooted in a Reformed Christian context, con-
necting them to businesses and other entities both regionally and around
the globe.
Dordt has been blessed immensely, and we are grateful for the continued
support of the Christian Reformed Church in our shared work of “ex-
pressing the good news of God’s kingdom that transforms lives and com-
munities worldwide.” We look forward to maintaining this shared vision
for years to come as Dordt fulfills its mission to work effectively toward
Christ-centered renewal in all aspects of life.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Dordt University
Erik Hoekstra, president
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Dordt University 233

Institute for Christian Studies
I. Overview
Coming out of the global pandemic, the Institute for Christian Studies
(ICS) has learned much from our pivot to online course delivery. During
this time, several students have enrolled in our programs who are not
otherwise able to relocate to Toronto. For this reason, and because our
smaller seminar sizes translate well to a videoconferencing format, we
have decided to continue to offer our courses online in the near term and
are considering making this change permanent. Strategically speaking,
removing a geographic barrier to program access creates the potential for
ICS to reach more students and increase its global impact. Moving
forward, we plan to combine this form of online program delivery with
shorter-term residency requirements through which the ICS academic
community can meet and get to know one another in person.
At the time of writing this report, we have recorded 75 course enrollments
for the 2022-23 academic year. When we combine this figure with the
number of full-time students in the post-coursework stage of their pro-
grams, our full-time-equivalency (FTE) student enrollment is roughly 19
students. The final FTE number will be slightly higher than that because
we do not yet have enrollment figures for courses we are offering in April-
June 2023. In addition, because ICS has one faculty member on sabbatical
this year, we have offered fewer courses than we would in a regular year.
This enrollment level is lower than the previous academic year, where our
FTE was 31 students, and it indicates that ICS has not been immune to de-
clining enrollment trends taking place in social sciences and humanities
programs throughout North America.
Eighteen students are currently registered in ICS’s M.A. (Philosophy) pro-
gram (11 of which are enrolled in the “Educational Leadership” stream, or
M.A.-E.L., a unique professional development program for Christian
school teachers and administrators), seven students registered in ICS’s
Ph.D. program, and three in our Master of Worldview Studies program,
for a total of 25 enrolled program students (both full-time and part-time).
Forty-three individual students took at least one course at ICS this year.
Finally, our convocation ceremony takes place on May 26, when we hope
to celebrate the graduation of six junior members (students), including
three students in the M.A.-E.L. program.
II. Faculty transition
After 32 years of faith-filled academic service to ICS, this year also marked
the final year of Prof. Robert Sweetman’s full-time tenure as professor in
the history of philosophy. As part of several farewell events to mark his
retirement, Bob will deliver this year’s convocation address. We thank and
praise God for the gifts Bob has shared over these years, and for the bless-
ing his service has been to the many students and colleagues who for over
three decades have benefited from his wisdom and discernment.

In light of Prof. Sweetman’s retirement, this year ICS undertook a search
for a new faculty member in philosophy, and we are pleased to announce
that Prof. Neal DeRoo will be joining the ICS faculty as professor of phi-
losophy on July 1, 2023. Prof. DeRoo completed his B.A. at Calvin Univer-
sity, his M.A. at ICS, and his Ph.D. at Boston College. He has previously
served as a philosophy professor at both Dordt and The King’s Universi-
ties. At Dordt he also served as the director of the Andreas Center for Re-
formed Scholarship and Service, and at King’s as the Canada research
chair in phenomenology and the philosophy of religion. We pray for
God’s blessing on Dr. DeRoo as he takes up this new position, that he may
continue to be a strong voice for faithful Christian scholarship and that he
will play a formative and redemptive role in the lives of the graduate stu-
dents he will teach and supervise at ICS.
III. Some highlights
This year ICS entered a collaboration with Calvin University’s master of
education program, drafting an agreement that will allow Calvin M.Ed.
students to take ICS M.A.-E.L. courses for credit in their program while
also giving ICS students the opportunity to take Calvin’s M.Ed. courses
for credit toward their M.A. (Philosophy) in educational leadership at ICS.
This collaboration allows ICS to offer two new concentrations to its M.A.-
E.L. program, literacy and inclusion, to the existing educational leadership
and administrative leadership concentrations. We pray that this collabora-
tion will benefit the programs and students of both schools and that to-
gether both programs can continue to produce innovative and visionary
leaders for Christian education in North America and beyond.
For the upcoming 2023-24 year, I am happy to report that we have re-
ceived significant pre-registrations to once again offer the “Art in Orvieto”
study abroad program taking place in Orvieto, Italy, July 9-29, 2023. Led
by Dr. Rebekah Smick, ICS associate professor of arts and culture, “Art in
Orvieto” is an advanced summer studies program in art, religion, and the-
ology. The program offers an ecumenical exploration of Christian under-
standings of the arts, including artists and writers workshops.
IV. Public outreach through the Centre for Philosophy, Religion, and
Social Ethics (CPRSE)
During the 2022-23 academic year, ICS’s Centre for Philosophy, Religion,
and Social Ethics (CPRSE) embarked on an exploration of diverse under-
standings of the notion of “tradition” aimed at identifying ways in which
the traditions we inhabit as scholars and people of faith can foster justice
and human flourishing for all. Some of the reflections of our community
members and institutional partners on this thematic focus can be found in
the fall 2022 issue of our institutional magazine Perspective in the article
“On Tradition and Generation,” and in our most recent Critical Faith pod-
cast episode, “Inhabiting Tradition with Bob Sweetman.” In addition to
these publications, the CPRSE continued to cultivate and foster public out-
reach collaborations with key institutional partners such as Citizens for
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Institute for Christian Studies 235

Public Justice, Shalem Mental Health Network, Canadian Interfaith Con-
versation, Emmanuel College, Trinity-St. Paul’s United Church, and Mar-
tin Luther University College. Our partnerships also helped to respond to
our thematic focus on tradition while strengthening ICS’s public outreach
and academic profile.
The following is a summary of CPRSE activities in 2022-23:
In May 2022 the CPRSE helped to sponsor the conference “Seeking Justice
in our Institutions,” hosted by Citizens for Public Justice (CPJ). This virtual
conference offered participants a space to reflect and dialogue about the
pursuit of equity and inclusion in institutional and congregational set-
tings. In addition to providing financial support to the conference, the
CPRSE team led the workshop “Decolonizing Faith as Individuals and In-
stitutions,” thus contributing to CPJ’s ongoing dialogue on antioppression
scholarship and practice.
In June 2022 the CPRSE presented the summer community conference
“Difficult Conversations, Difficult Journeys, Difficult Justice,” which
served to launch a year of reflection on the role of tradition in contempo-
rary Christian scholarship and pedagogy. This conference included work-
shops by CPJ and Shalem Mental Health Network and keynote presenta-
tions by four of ICS’s faculty.
On August 5-6, 2022, and in collaboration with the Centre for Religion and
Its Contexts (Emmanuel College), Trinity-St. Paul's United Church, and
the Toronto Mennonite Theological Centre, the CPRSE hosted the third
annual Christian Left Conference “Creation, Land, and Indigeneity: Re-
sistance on Turtle Island and Beyond.” The conference explored the struggles
for justice among Indigenous peoples across the globe, and how Christian
narratives can provide tools to achieve reconciliation between nations.
On October 27, 2022, the CPRSE hosted its first hybrid-mode academic
event, as we celebrated the publication of Seeking Stillness or The Sound of
Wings: Scholarly and Artistic Comment on Art, Truth, and Society in Honour of
Lambert Zuidervaart (Wipf & Stock, 2021). Volume contributors Michael
DeMoor, Allyson Carr, Shannon Hoff, and ICS alumni Dean Dettloff and
Joseph Kirby participated in a panel discussion on some of the central
themes of Dr. Zuidervaart’s scholarly work. You may view the panel dis-
cussion at ICS’s YouTube channel.
On March 31, 2023, the CPRSE welcomed Dr. Amber Bowen, assistant
professor of philosophy and core studies at Redeemer University, to lead
our winter 2023 Scripture Faith and Scholarship Symposium. Dr. Bowen’s
keynote, “On Seeing Further than the Present: A Kierkegaardian Herme-
neutic of Hope,” featured her research on the philosophy of Søren Kierke-
gaard and her scripturally grounded understanding of time.
On May 7-9, 2023, the CPRSE joined the Canadian Interfaith Conversation
and Martin Luther University College in presenting the biannual confer-
ence “Our Whole Society.” This edition of the conference, titled “Finding

Common Ground in a Time of Polarization,” explored the potential contri-
butions of people of faith and faith communities in addressing North
America’s increasing polarization. This conference featured Kathleen
Wynne (former premier of Ontario) and Prof. Miroslav Volf (founding di-
rector of the Yale Center for Faith and Culture) as keynote speakers.
Following the “Our Whole Society” conference, the CPRSE hosted a sepa-
rate keynote presentation by Prof. Volf, in which he discussed with the
ICS community the research that concluded with the publication of his
most recent book, The Home of God: A Brief Story of Everything (Brazos
Press, 2022).
V. Conclusion
On behalf of everyone who participates in and benefits from the academic
ministry of ICS, I wish to thank the CRCNA for supporting ICS’s efforts to
serve God faithfully in the realm of Christian education. Support from
Christian Reformed churches allows ICS to offer several unique graduate
academic programs, all of which encourage students to bring their Chris-
tian faith to wider discussions of leading questions of life and society,
thereby shaping future educational leaders in both Christian and public
universities as well as primary (K-12) Christian schools. This support also
helps ICS sustain a program of community outreach for lifelong learners
in the Christian community and beyond. We thank God for his provision
to ICS in 2022-23, and we pray that God grant you wisdom and discern-
ment as you undertake the important work of synod this year.
Institute for Christian Studies

Ronald A. Kuipers, president
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Institute for Christian Studies 237

The King’s University
Many universities experienced decreased enrollment in fall 2022 as some
of the longer effects of the pandemic, like student preparedness, came into
view. King’s faces these realities too. We experienced a slight decline in
our student enrollment this past fall but are very encouraged by the
strong application numbers for fall 2023. We are confident that our enroll-
ment will bounce back from the disruption we experienced over the past
couple of years. Despite the challenges we face, we are a people of hope
and have seen, time and time again, the faithfulness of our God and his
people.
King’s is currently in the process of developing two micro-credential pro-
grams—in financial accounting and sustainable agriculture. Both pro-
grams will consist of six parts, with a credential awarded to those who
complete all six components of the program. These micro-credentials will
provide a unique opportunity to access King’s education in a bite-sized
format and will equip participants with specific skills. We anticipate that
the financial accounting program will be available by summer 2023 and
will be delivered online. The sustainable agriculture credential is in earlier
stages of development and will include both online and hands-on learning
opportunities.
Our education faculty have been approved to deliver courses that meet
the requirements for Leadership Quality Standard (LQS) certification. This
program has been designed for Alberta-certified teachers who aspire to be
school principals in the Alberta education system. We are working to offer
this two-course (80-hour) certificate program in the summer and fall of
2023.
Two King’s professors were recently awarded research grants from the
Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
and Parks Canada. Dr. Ben Cameron received a highly competitive
NSERC Discovery grant of $90,000, and Dr. Darcy Visscher received a
$30,000 NSERC Discovery grant as well as a Parks Canada grant of
$73,000. These grants will be used mainly to provide undergraduate
research opportunities for King’s students, which sets them apart when
applying for graduate or professional programs. Dr. Cameron’s research
is on network modeling theory, a mathematical study of the structure of
networks. Dr. Visscher’s research includes the study of (1) a zoonotic
parasite, (2) the impacts of the Roosevelt elk population on Vancouver
Island and their conflict with farmers and local agricultural interests, and
(3) Edmonton’s rabbit population.
With the generous support provided by one of our donors and in conjunc-
tion with the Northern Alberta Diaconal Conference, local church part-
ners, and our university community, we have established the
Pakitinâsowin Reciprocity Fund at King’s. This Indigenous-led fund ex-
presses a vision for reconciliation by church communities in Edmonton
and central Alberta and will typically disburse three grants each year to

an Indigenous-led children’s initiative, women’s initiative, and broader
community initiative.
A new multiuse trail has been constructed along the southern perimeter of
campus. The 710-meter loop builds on the planting of hundreds of trees
and newly established naturalized areas. This initiative serves as the only
naturalized parkland within a 40-minute walk of campus and an excellent
example of the benefits of naturalization initiatives. It also provides new
recreational opportunities on our campus for students, employees, and the
local community.
While the shift in the structure of ministry shares in relation to support of
area colleges has had a financial impact on King’s, we are thankful for the
churches in western Canada who have continued to demonstrate the
value they put in Christian higher education through maintaining their
support. We are incredibly thankful for the faithful and generous support
that King’s continues to receive from various churches that are a part of
the Christian Reformed Church in North America. Their investment in our
university is equipping students with university education that is under-
pinned by our Christian faith and preparing them for lives of service in
their communities. Together we are ensuring that Christian university ed-
ucation is available and accessible to all students. Thank you for your con-
tinued partnership!
The King’s University

Melanie Humphreys, president
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 The King’s University 239

Kuyper College
I. Introduction
Welcoming. Christ-centered. Relational. Biblical. Community. Intentional.
These were the most-suggested words shared in a Google survey this fall
by our students, staff, and faculty when asked to describe Kuyper Col-
lege’s campus culture in one word. These words express the qualities we
value and share as we purposefully learn, work, and serve together.
As a spiritual formation initiative this year, we are focusing on, and even
memorizing, Romans 12. The six words above fit the living-sacrifice life-
style that Paul calls us to. A lifestyle shaped by serving, encouraging, giv-
ing, leading, teaching, and caring. A lifestyle committed to being trans-
formed by God’s grace and truth rather than being conformed to culture.
A lifestyle in which we recognize our gifts and strengths and work to-
gether as we love God and our neighbor and fulfill our mission, a mission
we have been living out since 1939.
Recently I came across the 50th-anniversary publication of the Reformed
Bible Institute (RBI, now Kuyper College), “Born in Faith, Nurtured in
Prayer” (1989). In it, Rev. John Schaal, long-serving CRCNA pastor and
RBI academic dean, reflects on the missional impact of RBI. He writes,
“The foundations laid in RBI’s early years in the teaching of Reformed
truth have marked the school through all the years. We never lost sight of
the goal to train students to be more effective lay witnesses, full-time mis-
sion workers, and Reformed Christians, trained to be capable and dedi-
cated witnesses for the Lord and every kingdom endeavor. Graduates
have continued to carry on those truths in the many areas of service they
entered. As one meets graduates today, the remark is often heard that
their years at RBI were the best years of their lives.”
A Kuyper alumnus and CRCNA pastor echoed these very words in a
chapel service this past year. Because of the significant impact of his expe-
rience at Kuyper, he is intent on helping to raise up the next generation of
Christian leaders for the church and the world. The church and the world
need such leaders, and we are committed to preparing more and more
students toward our end goal of education—“to live faithfully for Jesus
Christ in God’s good world.”
As we build on the past and envision the future, we are going forward
with an increased awareness of the changing needs and expectations
within higher education and the workplace. We are committed to provid-
ing our undergraduate and graduate students with a robust Bible and the-
ology foundation; quality, affordable programs; workplace-ready skills
and experiences; and well-fitted student services within an innovative,
caring, and applied learning environment.
II. Highlights to share
Here are some highlights we’d like to share from this past year, shaped
around the three themes from our new strategic plan.

A. Integrate purposeful learning, work, and service
As a federally recognized Work College through our KuyperWorks pro-
gram (see Kuyper’s report to Synod 2022 for more details), we are provid-
ing our students with purposeful learning, work, and service in order to
assist affordability and to prepare them well for their areas of vocation.
• The faculty and Student Development staff are working together to
integrate KuyperWorks competencies into curricular programs and
to develop a theology of work.
• We are engaging with a new communications firm to help us tell
the story of being a Work College and how this aligns with our
mission.
• We continue to explore and expand opportunities to engage our
students within the broader community, particularly through our
new additional location at the Center for Community Transfor-
mation in the Madison Square area of Grand Rapids, Michigan.
B. Innovate for the future
We are planning and implementing innovative and relevant programs
and partnerships that fit our mission in order to effectively prepare a
growing and diverse demographic of students.
• We are developing our master of ministry program to be fully
online, having recently received approval from the Higher Learn-
ing Commission. We welcomed Dr. Tim Howerzyl, a former
CRCNA pastor, as the new graduate program director and assis-
tant professor of theological studies.
• We joined the National Christian Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCCAA) and are preparing to launch an intercollegiate athletic
program in fall 2023 to deepen our engagement as a college com-
munity as we celebrate God’s gift of play and sport. Our new ath-
letic director, Gary Bailey, is widely known as someone dedicated
to building and maintaining a vibrant Christian culture in athletics.
• We are exploring opportunities to offer microcredentials as a way
of serving a broader audience (pastors, business leaders, social
workers, etc.) with our biblical and praxis-based programs.
C. Inspire people
We are earnestly working to encourage and embolden our students, staff,
faculty, board, donors, churches, and other organizations to join us in ad-
vancing the gospel.
• We significantly extended our dual enrolled programs with area
Christian high schools and the area homeschool network, offering
a variety of courses and a pathway to study at Kuyper.
• We are growing partnerships with churches and parachurch or-
ganizations to expand our community engagement and provide
external placements for our KuyperWorks program.
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Kuyper College 241

• We are building institutional self-esteem, supported by a culture
of diversity, belonging, and trust. In fall 2022 our board approved
a Statement on Racism, written by a group of faculty, staff, and
students, which serves as a guidance document for our commu-
nity as we love God and our neighbor and earnestly pursue our
mission, vision, and values.
• Most importantly, we celebrated another year of graduates who
are serving the church and the world as pastors, teachers, social
workers, business leaders, writers, and so much more.
In the past year the Kuyper College community has vividly demonstrated
its ability to draw together to prepare students to become the next genera-
tion of Christian leaders, leaders who are fulfilling our end goal of educa-
tion—“to live faithfully for Jesus Christ in God’s good world”—as our
alumni are doing throughout the world.
We give thanks for our continued partnership with the CRCNA, its
churches, pastors, and members, and we look forward to more tangible
ways to serve Christ’s church and his world together.
Kuyper College
Patricia R. Harris, president

Redeemer University
Greetings from Redeemer University! Thank you for allowing us this op-
portunity to share an update on how we have experienced God’s guid-
ance, provision, and grace over this past year.
In September 2022, 40 years after Redeemer’s doors opened on September
6, 1982, we welcomed nearly 1,100 students, offering over 100 scholarships
and awards to support them. A record number of students (500) came to
live in residence, a key feature of Redeemer’s unique community experi-
ence. Almost all Redeemer students are learning on-site, with a few excep-
tions for distance learning. We endeavor continually to meet students’
needs with the best possible options for an optimal learning environment.
Investment in students—practically, spiritually, emotionally, and intellec-
tually—continues to be Redeemer’s highest priority. After a major tuition
reduction in 2019 and a four-year freeze—thanks to generous donor sup-
port—Redeemer has committed to affordable tuition for the long term.
Costs will remain comparable with other universities in Ontario, which is
truly remarkable in the wider context of higher education. For more de-
tails, visit redeemer.ca/resound/affordable-christian-university-education.
In 2022 the bachelor of kinesiology (B.Kin.) degree launched along with a
new Innovation Centre to support design thinking and entrepreneurship
across all undergraduate programs. Two new music programs—music in
worship and church music ministry, honors—as well as a new law and
public policy minor program were introduced. With program investments
such as these, Redeemer is ensuring that students have access to relevant
programs that address the challenges of today and tomorrow from an in-
tegrated Christian perspective.
Redeemer is also ensuring that students have access to crucial mental
health support. We recently launched the Mental Health Support Action
Plan, which includes increased mental health care support, a new student
health clinic, additional crisis support, and the creation of a mental health
task force.
On January 26, Dr. Daniel Lee Hill, Redeemer's 2022 Emerging Public In-
tellectual, officially received his award and spoke on the lessons and inspi-
ration that can be found in the life of 19th-century Christian abolitionist
William Still. It was an honor to have Dr. Hill speak on campus as part of
the annual lecture series The World and Our Calling.
Redeemer is excited and privileged to host the Kuyper Conference on May
9-11, 2023. The conference was founded in 1998 at Princeton Theological
Seminary, and this year Makoto Fujimura will be speaking on the theme
“Kuyper and Kintsugi: Public Theology for Repair, Reconciliation, and
Restoration.”
We remain mindful and thankful for the dedicated financial and prayer
support that the CRCNA denomination continues to provide to Redeemer
University. The importance of Christian university education in discipling
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Redeemer University 243

the next generation of faithful Christian leaders for the sake of the gospel
remains the focus of our work—and may God be glorified in all things.
Redeemer University
David Zietsma, president

Trinity Christian College
Thank you for the opportunity to provide an update to synod on behalf of
Trinity Christian College. We are grateful for this partnership with the
CRCNA in our mission of providing a distinctive Christian higher educa-
tion experience at Trinity. Our prayer is that Trinity continues to be a re-
source for the denomination, classes, congregations, and families of the
CRCNA.
Trinity Christian College educates students in the light of the resurrection
of Jesus Christ and its resounding yes to God’s healing, restoring, and sav-
ing work in the world. In every field of study, whether for 18-year-old tra-
ditional undergraduates, 28-year-old graduate students, or 48-year-old
adult undergraduate students, we seek to shape students for meaningful
and wise participation in the life-bringing work of God for the sake of
their neighborhoods, churches, families, and wider society. This gospel
calling orients all that we undertake at Trinity.
Trinity undertakes this mission during a time in which higher education
in general, and Christian higher education in particular, faces significant
challenges that limit the flourishing of students and of institutions. The
ever-escalating costs of higher education, the epidemic of student debt
that results from those costs, and the challenges that complex financial aid
processes create for families are proving to limit access to Christian higher
education. Trinity has taken bold and transformational steps, trusting in
God’s care, to pursue new pathways that solve some of the most signifi-
cant challenges in higher education—all so that the doors can be opened
wide for any who seek Christian higher education. We do not believe that
cost or challenging aid processes should limit access to our Christian edu-
cational mission—and we are taking steps to ensure that those barriers are
lowered or removed.
During the past year, Trinity has transformed significant aspects of its ap-
proach to the economics of higher education, to student well-being, and to
mutually beneficial partnerships. All of this has been rooted in the deep
conviction that institutions can create structures that align with God’s
economy of gift, connection, and mutuality and are aimed at opening the
door as wide as possible to Christian higher education. This has occurred
through a transformed approach to time, money, and partnerships.
We have seen the impact that a scarcity mindset around time has on stu-
dents. In response, we radically shifted our academic schedule, creating a
class-free day that we call Well-being Wednesdays. We create structures
for our Wednesdays to encourage students to pursue academic, spiritual,
social, emotional, financial, and professional well-being on those days. All
of this was done by simply rethinking taken-for-granted assumptions
about college scheduling. It allowed us to create a more efficient schedule,
with no reduction in courses, in ways that create ample time for students
to pursue a holistic Christian vision of human flourishing. The early re-
turns have been promising. We saw a 50 percent improvement in fall to
spring retention. We have seen a 50 percent reduction in counseling
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Trinity Christian College 245

needs. Anecdotally, students are expressing deep gratitude for this new
rhythm. We know that—as is the case for all of us—when our students are
well, they can do well. This transformed approach to time is helping our
students thrive.
We have seen the adverse impact that ever-increasing college tuition—and
the student debt resulting from that tuition—has on our families. The pre-
dominant economic model in higher education, which features high tui-
tion with high discounts, is confusing to families and particularly disad-
vantages families without long histories of college education. In response,
we have transformed our approach to tuition by reducing our tuition by
40 percent (from $33,800 to $19,800) and simplifying our aid process. We
want our process to be accessible, realistic, and transparent. We know that
two-thirds of first-generation college students do not explore a college
based on sticker price alone. We know that tuition is typically set far
above the actual cost of educating a student. We are aiming at a different
pathway that simplifies the process for families and puts Christian higher
education within the reach of anyone who desires it.
We have seen how the economic risk of higher education falls almost com-
pletely on students in ways that benefit colleges (through tuition) and em-
ployers (through the training and formation colleges provide). We have
also seen rich opportunities for mutual collaboration with partners in the
greater Chicago region and beyond who are both seeking to do good work
and seeking quality employees. In response, we are building a web of paid
internship opportunities that are allowing students to use the revised class
schedule to participate in internships paying up to $5,000 per semester.
Combined with our new tuition model, this helps students begin to ap-
proach debt-free tuition. Significantly, this also provides professional for-
mation and powerful mutual benefits to employer partners. In just our pi-
lot months, we have reduced the student debt load by more than $100,000
for our participating students.
All of this is an effort to open our eyes wide to the abundant gifts with
which God has surrounded us and to open our doors wide to all who seek
Christian higher education. God has blessed us richly with a student body
whose racial and ethnic diversity exceeds that of almost all other Christian
institutions (nearly 40 percent students of color) and a faculty whose racial
and ethnic diversity (25 percent faculty of color) far exceeds the average
for Christian institutions (14 percent). We are blessed to be growing into a
community that reflects God’s kingdom, and we are working hard to be a
place where all can feel at home. We have a powerful opportunity to help
all who encounter Trinity to learn what it means to live—united in Jesus
Christ—across lines of difference. We give thanks to God, and we see the
work that is before us, which seeks to ensure that every student can flour-
ish at Trinity.
All of this, of course, is designed to open wide the doors of access and be-
longing so that we can keep on educating students with excellence in light

of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our academic and job placement out-
comes remain excellent, with top-rated nursing and education programs,
an over 98 percent graduate school or employment rate for graduates, and
powerful anecdotes from employers and churches about the impact of
Trinity students. We gather weekly for worship, formation, and the hard
and good work of learning in community.
We recognize deeply that this work takes a community of support. We are
humbled and give thanks to God for the support and partnership of the
CRCNA, which has been invaluable in supporting Trinity’s pursuit of its
Christian mission. We are particularly eager to deepen partnerships for in-
novation and mutual good, and we invite any who desire that conversa-
tion to connect with us. Our institutions need collaboration now more
than ever—and we look forward to learning new ways to walk together in
the service of our triune God.
Thank you for your steadfast support and for helping Trinity continue to
grow toward its calling. May God bless all of our communities and insti-
tutions with the life that is truly life, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Trinity Christian College

Aaron Kuecker, interim president
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Trinity Christian College 247

TASK FORCES
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Task Forces 249

Ecclesiastical Marriage Task Force
I. Background, mandate, and methodology

A. Background
Mandating a committee to study some aspect of marriage is not new to
the Christian Reformed Church in North America. Several study committees
have been appointed in the past in order to articulate the essence, nature,
and purpose of marriage as well to grapple with questions related to divorce,
remarriage, and the distinctive character of Christian marriage. Recently,
though, churches across the denomination are being confronted with ques-
tions that the CRC’s previous statements and studies on marriage address
only indirectly or not at all. The new questions are being driven by com-
plexities involved in an increasing number of late-in-life second marriages,
other unique life situations such as increased immigration, and a growing
divide between civil and religious definitions of marriage. In brief, the new
questions concern the advisability and legality of performing ecclesiastical
(non-civil) marriages and how pastors and elders should respond to situa-
tions in which a couple specifically requests an ecclesiastical marriage only,
apart from any civil obligation. Synod 2019, in response to an overture from
Classis Georgetown, mandated an “Ecclesiastical Marriage Task Force” to
address these questions and to articulate a biblically grounded, theologically
informed, and pastorally nuanced response. Acceding to the overture, synod
identified the need to study the advisability, legality, and morality of ecclesi-
astical marriage on the following grounds:
a. Churches are being confronted with questions and situations related to
specifically ecclesiastical (non-civil) marriages.
b. Pastors and elders need guidance on how to respond to these questions.
c. The current CRCNA position on marriage does not specifically address the
relationship between civil and ecclesiastical marriage.
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.
Ecclesiastical Marriage 251
38573 Agenda 2021_text_shaded.indd 281 5/10/21 8:00 AM

C. Methodology
To fulfill this mandate, the task force undertook the following approach.
First and foremost, the task force listened to the stories of people seeking or
raising questions about ecclesiastical (non-civil) marriages so that we could
understand their stories and identify the kinds of situations that pastors and
elders are facing. Second, having listened to some of the stories and having
read through the mandate, the task force developed a working definition of
ecclesiastical marriage. The task force recognized that the definition of ecclesi-
astical marriage was often assumed, and thus remained implicit rather than
explicit, in the synodical mandate and in people’s minds. As a result, the task
force sought to develop a clear and concise definition of ecclesiastical marriage
that would help provide clarity and coherence to the questions surrounding
ecclesiastical marriage. The task force also realized that their conclusions
and pastoral recommendations would depend on what is and is not con-
sidered an ecclesiastical marriage. Third, the task force studied the biblical,
theological, and legal aspects of ecclesiastical marriage with an emphasis
on understanding the feasibility or nonfeasibility of ecclesiastical marriage
from a scriptural and up-to-date legal perspective. Fourth, the task force ap-
proached other denominations to see if they have grappled with the issues
and might have some wisdom to share. In its consultation, the task force
found that other denominations had not addressed the question and were
interested in the CRC’s study. Finally, the task force thought through recom-
mendations concerning the advisability of ecclesiastical marriage as well as
how to provide pastoral care to those seeking such a marriage because of
unique or challenging situations.
II. Hearing the stories: Listening to couples in unique and challenging

situations1
As the task force listened to stories, it realized that there were many situ-
ations in which couples considered entering into an ecclesiastical marriage
or thought they had obtained one. The following is a sample of the kinds of
stories the task force heard. Each story here raises certain questions about
marriage pertinent to the work of the task force.
A. Late-in-life couple finding love after each lost their spouse
Denise and John are lifelong friends in their late sixties who have each
lost their spouse to a serious illness. Sometime after grieving their spouses’
deaths, Denise and John begin to spend significant time together and to bond
with one another in surprising and unexpected ways—so much so that they
begin to talk seriously about getting married to one another. Eventually they
get engaged. But as they begin to plan their wedding, they start to ask ques-
tions about whether or not it is possible to get married in the church and by
the church. This will be their second marriage, and civil marriage comes with
all sorts of implications—especially with regard to financial matters. John
and Denise both have adult children and are concerned about the implica-
tions for their children if they enter into a civil marriage. So they go to meet
with Denise’s pastor to ask about the possibility of an ecclesiastical marriage.
In their conversation they mention how they do not want the entanglement
1
The names of the individuals in these stories are pseudonyms.
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

of a civil marriage and that they just need the blessing of the church, which
they believe would be the simpler solution in their situation. They want
to care for each other and be the companions that they both now feel they
need. They also raise the point that if civil authorities allow for common-law
marriage, how would an ecclesiastical marriage be any different? Beyond
the matter of similarities and differences in civil and ecclesiastical marriages,
Denise and John’s story raises several questions: Can an ecclesiastical mar-
riage be a way to avoid the legal entanglements of a civil marriage? Should
the church perform a marriage that is never going to be solemnized by the
state (civil government)? How should the pastor of the church approach
Denise and John in terms of pastoral care?
B. Immigrant couple straddling two cultures
Joseph and Ruth are a Sudanese couple who have been married for ten
years. They met in a refugee camp in Kenya prior to immigrating to the
United States. After coming to the United States, Joseph and Ruth decided
that they wanted to get married. Desiring to maintain and honor their cul-
tural customs, the couple began the process of getting married according to
their tradition in Sudan. This meant that even while Joseph and Ruth were
far away in the United States, their families in Sudan participated in the pro-
cess and enacted the marriage customs, after which Joseph and Ruth were
pronounced married—and they moved into an apartment together. Today,
Joseph and Ruth still have not completed one important part of the mar-
riage custom, however: according to their local tradition, Joseph’s father and
Ruth’s father are to give their blessing to the couple in person. But expenses
and difficulties with visas have prohibited them from doing so.
After 10 years of marriage and living in the United States, Ruth and
Joseph have not obtained a civil marriage in the state in which they live,
and they have no intention of doing so—for two reasons. First, they want to
honor their customs and family by saying that what their family did is suf-
ficient for them and should be sufficient for anybody else. Though they have
been accused by some in their church as not being married but simply living
together, they vigorously contest that accusation. The second reason is that
they see no value in a license to help them stay together. They argue that the
divorce rate is exceedingly high among couples who have marriage licenses,
but separation is almost unheard in their tribe. The entire family has a stake
in their marriage, and their honor of their culture gives them great strength
in keeping their marriage intact.
Joseph and Ruth’s story raises legal and pastoral issues. How should the
church embrace and celebrate the marriage customs of Joseph and Ruth’s
culture? Should a pastor offer legal advice about getting married or rec-
ommend that Joseph and Ruth get legally married in the United States? If
Joseph and Ruth do not desire to get legally married in the United States,
does that make a difference in how the church should engage them as a
couple? What can the church learn from Joseph and Ruth’s cultural under-
standing of marriage and its relationship to the community?
C. Young couple worried about debt
Tim and Angie are recent college graduates and are engaged. Tim, how-
ever, has significant school debt. As they learn that getting married means
that the couple will bear the burden of Tim’s debt together, they begin to

wonder if there is a way to get married without Angie accruing and bear-
ing Tim’s debt. They seek advice and hear their grandparents talking about
something called an ecclesiastical marriage, which could help them avoid the
implications of a civil marriage. Tim and Angie bring it up to their pastor at
their next marriage counseling session. Tim and Angie’s story is raising con-
cerns similar to those in Denise and John’s story, showing that these kinds
of questions are not just related to late-in-life second marriages. Is marriage
intended to be a full joining of lives with its joys and responsibilities?
D. Couple kept apart by COVID-19 restrictions
Peter and Kate are both anxiously awaiting their wedding. They found
each other late in life after each had lost their spouse to illness. Their wed-
ding plans, however, have been postponed because of the coronavirus
pandemic. They are unable to get a marriage license due to the closure of
government offices, and they are not sure when the offices will reopen. Peter
and Kate both live alone at their own residences in a senior-living complex,
and they were planning to move in together as soon as they got married.
With the onset of a strict quarantine in their residential complex, they want
to get married as soon as possible so as not to be apart for months. They
approach their pastor to see if she is willing to perform a wedding ceremony
even though they do not have a marriage license. They tell their pastor that
they are going to obtain a license as soon as they are able, but they would
like to get married as soon as possible so that they can live together during
quarantine.
Should the pastor perform an ecclesial ceremony for Peter and Kate so
that they can live together during quarantine? When are they really married?
Who needs to be involved in the marriage for a couple to be fully married?
Must all the parties (state, couple, witnesses, church community) be present
at only one ceremony for the marriage to be considered valid? Or is it accept-
able to perform separate ceremonies in extenuating circumstances, provided
the intent is to have both a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony?
E. Couple with cross-border connections
Jennifer and Jared meet at Dordt University, date, and eventually become
engaged. Jennifer is a Canadian citizen, and Jared is a United States citizen.
Since Jared has a job lined up in the U.S. and Jennifer has already been ac-
cepted into a graduate program near his job location, the couple are plan-
ning to settle there, and it would make the most sense for them to get legally
married in the U.S. However, Jennifer’s extended family members all live in
Alberta, where she grew up, so she and Jared decide to have a large church
wedding and reception in Alberta several weeks before they move to settle
in the U.S. together. Jennifer then crosses the border into the U.S. with her
student visa. They also have a small commitment ceremony and get legally
married before a judge in the U.S. several weeks after their church wedding
date, thus separating the civil and ecclesiastical marriage ceremonies. When
are they really married? Again, is this acceptable because the intent is to have
both a religious ceremony and a civil ceremony, even if the two events can-
not take place at the same time and location?
Listening to these and other stories, the task force recognized that there
are many questions to be answered. The task force also recognized that the

stories they heard are not exhaustive and that many other possible stories
include scenarios that these accounts do not capture.
III. Definition of ecclesiastical marriage
For the content of this study we are particularly interested in knowing (1)
what “makes” a marriage, (2) what the life implications of such a relationship
are in terms of its purposes and mutual responsibilities by the parties, and (3)
what the church’s obligations are toward the state (civil government) in our
North American context.2 Knowing the reasons why people may want to by-
pass state involvement, both intentionally and perhaps unintentionally, is also
an important consideration. Since the CRC has considered the matters of mar-
riage and divorce in some depth previously in several reports and has dealt
with individual cases, it seems unnecessary to cover all of that ground again.
Instead, the main focus of this task force is on delineating, as far as possible,
the relationship between the church and the state in the matter of marriage.
In determining the first point—what “makes” a marriage—the task force
is concerned particularly with what parties are required to solemnize a
Christian marriage. More specifically, the questions under consideration deal
with what the respective roles are of both church leadership and the state,
considering our current North American context.
Some might argue that marriage is simply a commitment rite between
two people, with God as their witness. In their view, such a private ceremo-
ny of covenant vows should be enough to be considered married in the eyes
of God.
Some might argue that for a marriage to be Christian, these commitments
need to be solemnized and validated by a pastor or other certified officiant.
Some would add that, in addition, these vows or commitments need to be
witnessed by others. In this view, there needs to be a public rite of commit-
ment. As with baptism, the public nature of the ceremony invites witnesses
to support and pray for the couple making commitments, and the witnesses
can participate in holding the marriage partners accountable to their vows.
Finally, in recent centuries it has also become the norm to cooperate with
the state in solemnizing such a marriage commitment. Marriages are regis-
tered with the state, and certain obligations are followed in order for a mar-
riage to be considered legal. In fact, in North America ministers are licensed
to formalize marriage on behalf of the state.3
One of the primary questions before this task force is this: Must the mar-
riage ceremony be approved and cemented by the state, or can a Christian
marriage be considered solemnized without that? Behind this lie questions
about what joining one’s life with that of another means concretely in terms
of shared relationships, goods, income, pension, property, duty of care, and
so on. Does the state have the authority and right to regulate these matters
if the need arises? Further, our denomination asserts that, aside from being
a personal commitment, marriage is also “a structure that enriches society
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.

and contributes to its orderly function.”4 How does that assertion affect our
understanding of the state’s role in solemnizing marriage?
As this task force considered these questions, it developed a definition
of ecclesiastical marriage in order to provide clarity and consistency in its
responses to these questions and pastoral care issues. It is hard to respond to
a question about whether a pastor should perform an ecclesiastical marriage
when the definition of ecclesiastical marriage is unclear. Using the synodical
mandate and the original overture, the task force developed a definition of
ecclesiastical marriage. For the purposes of this report, an ecclesiastical mar-
riage, therefore, is a marriage sanctioned and solemnized solely by the church
to the exclusion of the state (civil government) whereby a couple is consid-
ered “married in the eyes of the church but not in the eyes of the state.”5 By
this definition, then, ecclesiastical marriage should be differentiated from
religious marriage or even from a religious service/ceremony/celebration
because ecclesiastical marriage intentionally excludes the state as a sanction-
ing or governing authority.
For many, as evidenced in the stories in section II of this report, ecclesiasti-
cal marriage seems like a plausible solution to a myriad of distinct problems.
It could be seen as a way to avoid the legal and financial implications of civil
marriage, particularly in late-in-life second marriages like Denise and John’s.
Similarly, ecclesiastical marriage could be a way to help or aid immigrant
couples who were married ceremonially in their home countries—and yet
for one reason or another their marriage is not recognized or they cannot
obtain a civil marriage in their new country. Alternatively, ecclesiastical
marriage could serve as a way to protest against the state’s redefinition of
marriage insofar as an ecclesial marriage refuses to participate in or seek a
marriage sanctioned by the state. Further, as definitions of civil and reli-
gious marriage diverge, many proponents of ecclesiastical marriage seem to
argue that if a couple can get legally married without the church, should the
reverse not also be the case? Why can’t a couple receive a Christian marriage
without the state? And, if that is the case, then why not allow the church to
perform ecclesiastical marriages? These are the kinds of situations and ques-
tions that pastors and elders are facing in their local contexts.
The answers to these questions, as our task force discovered, are not
simple, and they require addressing complex issues about the legality of
ecclesiastical marriages in Canada and the United States. They also require
thoughtful reflection within a larger scriptural and theological framework
concerning the relationship between the church and the state with regard
to marriage. The complexity extends to considering any unintentional legal
consequences to the parties, the officiant, and the church as a result of enter-
ing into or performing an ecclesiastical marriage.
A. Biblical background 6
Within our denominational context, any discussion of marriage will
necessarily begin with a biblical consideration of the topic. As previous
CRC studies have covered the nature, essence, and purpose of marriage
in Scripture, our task force focused on biblical material pertinent to the
4
CRC Form for the Solemnization of Marriage (1979).
5
Agenda for Synod 2019, Overture 14, p. 518.
6
Unless otherwise noted, all scriptural references are from the New International Version (2011).

uestion of ecclesiastical marriage. While no biblical accounts explicitly spell
q
out stipulations about marriage ceremonies and relative obligations, we can
nonetheless glean answers and implications from various texts and accounts.
Consideration of Christian marriage begins, of course, in the opening chap-
ters of Genesis. Relying simply on that narrative, it would seem that what
happens is only between the marriage partners and God. There is only one
man and one woman. God created them to be fitting complements to each
other, and that is God’s design. The man rejoices that he has found a suitable
partner. Genesis 2:24 then adds, “That is why a man leaves his father and
mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” There is no
state license needed; no publication of banns; no cleric; no witnesses; and no
signing of forms. Yet we understand this to be a marriage in which “a man
and a woman covenant to live together in a lifelong, exclusive partnership
of love and fidelity.”7 However, the “leaving” part also indicates that there
is something public and formal about this relationship, with a shifting of al-
legiances and responsibility from one household to another relationship that
is publicly acknowledged and recognized.
Information about Old Testament marriage customs, ceremonies, and
obligations has been deduced from some of the biblical narratives and the
Mosaic legal code concerning betrothal, marriage, and divorce, as well as
from material recorded about other civilizations in the ancient Near East.8
Although these texts do not provide a full picture of what is involved in ar-
ranging a marriage, it “seems likely that there was a formal set of rites and
procedures that accompanied the arrangement of a marriage alliance.”9 Mar-
riage in the Old Testament was not without its rules and protocols: intentions
were declared, parents were asked for permission, a bride price was paid, a
sort of contract was entered into, and there would be a brief ceremony before
the couple would live together.10 David W. Chapman asserts that during
the Second Temple period (roughly 516 B.C. to 70 A.D.) the formal union of
marriage “was generally preceded by a betrothal and often vouchsafed by a
marriage contract obligating certain financial arrangements.”11 The woman
might also be given a significant gift by her father with the understanding
that it could provide for her if the marriage was dissolved. In addition, in the
case of Rebekah leaving her parental household to “marry” Isaac, her f amily
also formalized matters by sending her off with a blessing (Gen. 24:60).
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.

Indeed, phrases referring to parents “giving” sons and daughters in mar-
riage (cf. Deut. 7:3) “suggests that the institution itself involved more than
the mere union of one man and one woman; this was a momentous occasion
uniting families.”12
Another consideration is that throughout the Old Testament we see
God’s care for vulnerable people, especially in a patriarchal society in which
women had few rights and could be economically destitute without a male
(father, husband, brother, or son) who would provide and care for them. As
Daniel Block explains,
Practically, in the ancient context, unless a woman was taken in by her father
or brothers, divorce put her in extremely vulnerable economic protection. Like
the widow or the orphan, she would be without male provision and protection,
and in many instances would turn to prostitution simply to earn a living.13
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.

gave no additional juridical or liturgical form. . . . It is only from the fourth
century onwards that we begin to see the clergy participating in marriage
festivities.”17 Rordorf summarizes his findings about early Christian mar-
riage conventions in a manner that is worth quoting at length:
First, we have to admit that the Early Church did not conceive a new form
of marriage; it simply took over and conventionalized those local rites which
it found. Secondly, we see that it is not an ecclesiastical act of blessing which
makes a valid Christian marriage, but each marriage, contracted by either
Christian or non-Christian according to the ordinary civil laws of a given time
and place, is recognized as valid by the Church. In reality, during long centu-
ries, the religious ceremony of marriage was considered optional rather than
obligatory.18
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.

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to
the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him
to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is
God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish
people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil;
live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believ-
ers, fear God, honor the emperor.
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.

1. The CRC’s forms and statement on marriage guidelines
While the institutional shape and practices of marriage have differed
throughout history and throughout many cultures, in the Reformed tradi-
tion both the church and the state are considered to have a God-given,
relative authority with respect to marriage. In most cases this means that
the state is considered to have authority over the governance, regulation,
and registration of marriages, and that the church has authority over the
spiritual and moral aspects of marriage. These exist side by side, with
each having its own role to play on the basis of its sphere of authority.
Such an approach of granting dual yet relative authority to church and
state is rooted in the tradition’s theology of marriage, particularly its
identification of marriage as a divinely ordained institution established
at creation, its conception of marriage as a covenant, and its commitment
to marriage as a good because it serves as a foundation for society. These
aspects of marriage are evidenced in the CRC’s forms for the solemniza-
tion of marriage as well as its 1980 statement on marriage guidelines. In
the 1912 Form for the Solemnization of Marriage, marriage is described as
“instituted by God himself at the very dawn of history,” “a divine ordi-
nance intended to be a source of happiness,” and “an institution of the
highest significance to the human race.” The 1979 Form for the Solemniza-
tion of Marriage explicitly describes marriage as a covenant “instituted by
God” in creation and “a structure that enriches society and contributes to
its orderly function.” In addition, synod’s study and statement on mar-
riage in 1980 affirms marriage as a foundational creational structure,21 a
covenant, and a vital relational and societal reality.22
While affirming marriage as a creational reality, covenant, and societal
good, the forms and the 1980 statement often assume or allude to a par-
ticular understanding of the authority of the church and state in relation
to marriage. The 1912 and 1979 forms recognize the minister as an agent
of the church who is at the same time vested by the authority of the state.
Thus the minister serves as an agent of the church and the state in the
solemnization of a marriage, and marriage is presented as both an eccle-
sial and civil institution. The forms also clearly identify that in the case of
marriage, the pastor’s authority to solemnize the marriage is tied to the
state and the church. The pastor’s authority from the church is granted by
virtue of his or her ordination, while the capacity to solemnize the mar-
riage is granted to the pastor by the state. As the 1979 form states:
As a minister of the church of Christ and by the authority which the state
has vested in me, I now pronounce you, (name) and (name), husband and
wife, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen. “Therefore
what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matt. 19:6).
The Synod 1980 statement similarly reaffirms the essence, purpose,

and obligations of marriage as it identifies changing societal norms and
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.

iscusses divorce and remarriage. While the 1980 statement does not
d
specify the roles or authority of the church and the state in relation to
marriage, it does not respond to changes in societal norms by resituating
marriage within the jurisdiction and authority of the church alone.
2. Church Order Article 69 (formerly Art. 70)
A similar approach is evident earlier in the CRC’s history, when soci-
etal norms regarding marriage and divorce were changing. Between 1947
and 1955 the CRC debated whether or not Church Order Article 70 (now
Art. 69),23 regarding marriage, should be removed or changed. Article 70
at that time read, “Since it is proper that the matrimonial state be con-
firmed in the presence of Christ’s Church, according to the Form for that
purpose, the consistories shall attend to it.”24
The question of whether this article belonged in the Church Order
arose for discussion in 1947 when Peter Van Dyken submitted an overture
to synod requesting that Article 70 be removed. While recapitulating the
entire overture is unnecessary, some of Van Dyken’s grounds in the over-
ture are pertinent. First, Van Dyken argued that
there is . . . nothing spiritual or ecclesiastical in a marriage. The married state
as such and its consummation are matters in the realm of common grace.
Whereas God solemnized the first marriage, it is proper, that God’s repre-
sentative in the territory of common grace, which is our civil government,
now performs this rite.25
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.

it will be helpful to highlight some of the arguments given by the Church
Order Revision Committee to Synod 1955 for retaining but changing the
Church Order article. First, they acknowledged the authority of the state
in marriage. They wrote, “Ministers of the Gospel, when they solemnize
marriages, act upon a prerogative attributed to them by the civil govern-
ment.”27 However, the Church Order Revision Committee also high-
lighted that pastors “have received this prerogative because the churches
ordained them.”28 Drawing a balance between the role of the state and the
church, the committee argued that the church should retain an article on
marriage and recommended that it be rewritten as follows:
Consistories shall instruct and admonish those under their spiritual care
to marry only in the Lord. Christian marriages should be solemnized with
appropriate admonitions, promises, and prayers, as provided for in the
official Form. Marriages may be solemnized either in a worship service or
in private gatherings of relatives and friends. Ministers shall not solemnize
marriages which would be in conflict with the Word of God.29
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.

Concerned with the medieval Catholic Church’s practices and abuse of
marriage, the Reformers accepted the traditional church’s teaching of
marriage as a divinely ordained institution rooted in creation, but they
rejected the sacramental model of marriage and the Catholic Church’s
jurisdiction over marriage. John Witte, Jr., articulates in his book From
Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition
that the Reformers saw the “Catholic Church’s jurisdiction over marriage
[as] . . . a particularly flagrant example of the church’s usurpation of the
magistrate’s authority.”31 For the Reformers, marriage was a creational,
God-ordained, human institution and as such could not fall under the ju-
risdiction of the church alone. In fact, for Luther, marriage was an institu-
tion of the earthly kingdom alone, meaning that the proper jurisdiction of
marriage belonged to the magistrates (the state). The church, according to
Luther, should not have formal legal authority over marriage but should
serve the Christian magistrate as a pastoral aid. While following Luther’s
early theology of marriage, Calvin developed his mature theology of mar-
riage around the idea of marriage as a covenant. For Calvin, the covenant
of marriage was grounded in the order of creation and was a public and
God-ordained human institution whose formation involved the whole
community. As Witte articulates,
Marriage . . . was . . . a covenantal association of the entire community. A
variety of parties participated in the formation of this covenant. The marital
parties themselves confirmed their engagement promises and marital vows
before each other and God—rendering all marriages triparty agreements,
with God as a third-party witness, participant, and judge. The couple’s
parents, as God’s lieutenants for children, gave their consent to the union.
Two witnesses, as God’s priests to their peers, served as witnesses to the
marriage. The minister, holding God’s spiritual power of the Word, blessed
the couple and admonished them in their spiritual duties. The magistrate,
holding God’s temporal power of the sword, registered the couple and
protected them in their person and property. Each of these parties was con-
sidered essential to the legitimacy of the marriage, for they each represented
a different dimension of God’s involvement with the covenant. To omit any
such party was, in effect, to omit God from the marriage covenant.32
According to Calvin, the formation of the God-ordained covenant of

marriage involved the minister, the magistrate, the couple, and the com-
munity. As all of these parties participated in the formation of the mar-
riage covenant, the marriage itself was both private and public, a civil
and ecclesial reality. The magistrate’s role was to register the couple and
protect their person and property. The minister’s role was to bless the
couple and remind them of their spiritual duties as a married couple. The
magistrate and the pastor served different roles, pointing to different as-
pects of marriage—the spiritual and the social. Therefore, by highlighting
the different parties, Calvin affirmed that marriage was under the dual yet
relative authority of both the church and the state.
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.

While the working out of Calvin’s covenantal theology of marriage
in Geneva represents a unique practical example of his theology that the
church today need not nor should not try to emulate, his teaching about
marriage as both civil and ecclesial has shaped the Reformed tradition
and the Western legal tradition. The state or civil government is con-
sidered to have rightful authority and governance over the registration
of marriage. It is also called on to protect the persons entering into the
marriage relationship. The church is considered to have authority not as
the body that registers or protects the persons and property in marriage
but in the spiritual health and care of the marriage partners, admonishing
and encouraging the couple to embody the biblical conception of mar-
riage. Calvin’s teachings were carried forward by other Reformed think-
ers, such as Herman Bavinck, and Calvin’s understanding of marriage can
be found in the CRC’s teachings about marriage and its marriage forms.
Thus, while the CRC’s forms are representative of their North American
context, their affirmation of marriage as an institution of the state and of
the church—each with its own respective and God-given authority—is
rooted in the CRC’s Reformed theological heritage.
4. The relationship between the church and the state in other CRC reports
Interestingly, the CRC’s affirmation of marriage as civil and ecclesial
is evidenced by Appendix C in the majority report to Synod 2016 by the
Committee to Provide Pastoral Guidance re Same-Sex Marriage.33 While
the whole report was only received as information, Appendix C grappled
with the relationship between the church and state regarding marriage,
identifying four different options that it had earlier asked delegates to
Synod 2015 (in a listening session) to consider regarding the church-state
relationship:
a. Marriage is fundamentally a religious institution. The state should rec-
ognize the religious nature of marriage and only authorize marriage as
understood by religious authority.
b. Marriage as the covenantal union of a man and a woman is grounded
both religiously and by proper recognition of the created order. The
state, even if it attempts to be religiously neutral, makes a profound er-
ror when it ignores what nature itself teaches. . . .34
c. Both the state (civil government) and the church have a direct interest
in family structure and well-being, but these interests are not identi-
cal. Both the state and the church have latitude (within limits) to define
marriage to pursue their legitimate interests, even though those interests
may not be the same. The state and the church may end up with differ-
ent definitions of marriage.
d. The church does not tell civil authority what to do. The church simply
defines marriage as it finds itself compelled by Scripture and orders its
internal life as Scripture and the gospel requires. What the state does is
the state’s business.
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.

Appendix C identifies the first option (marriage as fundamentally a
religious institution) as corresponding to the medieval Roman Catholic
view and the fourth option (separation of church and state) as “expressive
of an Anabaptist approach.”35 Appendix C also reports that the majority of
delegates to Synod 2015 identified the second and third options as fitting
within a Reformed framework. The study committee’s minority report—
received for information as well—also affirmed the second and third
options as two different ways of applying a Reformed understanding of
the relationship between the church and the state. However, the minor-
ity report implicitly argued that option 2, wherein marriage is described
as a covenantal union grounded religiously and by proper recognition of
the created order, is closer to the historic Reformed position. Thus, while
option 3, wherein marriage is a concern and a legitimate but distinct
interest of the state and the church, may represent some voices within
contemporary Reformed theology, option 2 is closer to the historic posi-
tion developed by Calvin and his followers. Further, the minority report
highlighted the role of the state as a God-ordained yet relative authority
that is called to discern the patterns of creation with regard to marriage.
What is important here is not to rehash the debate surrounding the 2016
report or to enter into a discussion on the redefinition of civil marriage
and its attendant issues. What is important is that both options 2 and 3
point toward the role of the church and the state in the Reformed tradi-
tion’s theology of marriage.
To reiterate, it would be impossible to address all the attendant issues
related to our current context regarding the societal redefinition of mar-
riage. However, it is important to note that when considering the defini-
tion of ecclesiastical marriage, one could identify it with either option 1
(medieval Roman Catholic) or option 4 (Anabaptist) but not option 2 or 3
(Reformed), both of which can be considered variations of the Reformed
approach to the relationship between the church and the state in relation
to marriage.
Recognizing options 2 and 3 as Reformed does not mean that a couple
who has been married by a civil magistrate must have a religious ceremo-
ny upon coming to faith in Christ. This is an essential point that highlights
the central role the Reformed tradition grants to the civil government in
authorizing, solemnizing, and legally registering marriages. As long as
the marriage in question is in line with the Word of God as articulated in
the CRC’s forms and synodical decisions, Christian churches recognize a
couple as married even if they have had only a civil ceremony.36 Rather,
upon coming to faith in Christ, the couple enters into the rich theological
conception of marriage that the CRC teaches.
Further, the CRC’s understanding of the relative relationship between
the church and the state means that even though the church has a vested
interest in the health and vitality of the marriage and has some measure of
ecclesial authority over the marriage, it does not have the power to grant a
35
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.”

divorce. That power belongs to the state. This is one of the challenges pre-
sented by the idea of ecclesiastical marriage. If there were such a thing as
an ecclesiastical marriage regulated only by the church, would the church
then also have to regulate an ecclesiastical divorce? The church continues
to deal with marriages that break down and end in divorce. This simply
begs the question, What will the church do with an ecclesiastical marriage that
breaks down? Not only does the idea of ecclesiastical marriage contradict the
CRC’s theological understanding of the relationship between the church
and state in relation to marriage, it also presents practical problems.
IV. Legal issues

Civil and legal implications of marriage and ecclesiastical marriage
We begin with two caveats. The first is that this report is absolutely not
intended as legal advice for any specific persons or situations. Across all of
the states of the U.S. and the provinces and territories of Canada, there is no
common approach to the set of questions raised by ecclesiastical marriage
that can be definitively spelled out.37 This is because so much is contextual,
and in both Canada and the U.S. each province and state has its own set of
regulations and laws. Further, the case law that has interpreted the legal code
in each jurisdiction is widely varied. It is therefore not possible or advisable
for this task force to gather legal advice from each different locale. Instead,
we looked at some broader issues and their consequences in terms of con-
sidering whether the denomination could bless ecclesiastical marriage. The
second caveat, therefore, is that this material, while pertinent, is decidedly
not exhaustive or even comprehensive. It is only intended to give a taste of
some of the possible implications.
As the task force began to research the implications of pursuing ecclesi-
astical marriage as a valid option, it became increasingly clear how complex
the issue is, and that a myriad of complications and possible consequences,
whether intended or unintentional, exist. This is partly because, despite
views to the contrary, governments in both of our nations take the marriage
relationship seriously. There is an expectation that certain commitments
and responsibilities are to be upheld in a marriage partnership, and in some
jurisdictions this applies even if it is a common-law relationship.38 Such com-
mitments and responsibilities are especially pertinent to matters of financial
support and have specific implications, even if the common-law marriage
breaks down or if one partner in the relationship dies.
There are some major differences between Canadian and American
law and practice that make the repercussions of this discussion even more
complicated. The most prominent difference is whether or not there is a legal
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).

recognition of common-law spouses and common-law partnerships with
some rights and duties afforded such spouses. Such official recognition of
common-law relationships is central to this discussion because the task force
assumes that ecclesiastical marriages (done outside of any civil contract)
would be considered common-law relationships or marriages wherever such
a designation would apply.
In Canada there is a widespread legal recognition of common-law part-
nerships, even if they are not officially recorded legal marriages; whereas less
than a dozen U.S. states presently recognize any aspect of such a common-
law relationship. A relationship is considered common-law in Canada when
someone is living with a person who is not his or her spouse but is having
a conjugal relationship with that person. In addition, at least one of the
following situations also needs to apply to that relationship—namely, that
(1) the parties have been living together in a conjugal relationship for at least
twelve continuous months, (2) the parties are the parent of a child by birth or
adoption, and/or (3) the parties have custody and control of a child (or had
custody and control immediately before the child turned 19 years of age) and
the child is wholly dependent on that person for support.
In the U.S. only seven states have legislation describing and accepting a
common-law marriage. They are Colorado,39 Iowa,40 Kansas,41 Montana,42
New Hampshire,43 Texas,44 and Utah.45 Two other states—Rhode Island46 and
Oklahoma47—and the District of Columbia48 have created common-law mar-
riage (and still recognize it) via case law only.49 Despite some recognition of
common-law marriage, most state courts do not favor it, preferring parties to
be “legally” married for cases of dividing property, settling estates, receiving
Social Security benefits, and so on. The elements that define a common-law
marriage can have slight variations from state to state, but the generally
recognized elements in the U.S. are these:
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.

– present agreement to be married;
– living together as husband and wife after the agreement; and
– representations to others that the couple is married.50
Additionally, though not explicitly stated in all the common-law states,
a fourth element should be included—that of competency/capacity. Courts
will not recognize a common-law marriage if one of the parties is not compe-
tent or does not have capacity to enter into the marriage (i.e., a minor at the
time of the marriage).51
We will now proceed to spell out some of the intended but also unin-
tended complications that may arise from an ecclesiastical marriage, par-
ticularly in jurisdictions that legally accept common-law marriages. As will
be explained, though, while a common-law partnership is excluded from
some marital obligations, many of these responsibilities still do apply to the
partners in case of death or a breakdown of the relationship. If, as the task
force surmises, those who enter an ecclesiastical marriage are considered as
having a common-law marriage, that does not nullify some of the legal and
financial responsibilities the parties would have to each other, some of which
the parties might think they could avoid.
Although many of the complicating issues surrounding ecclesiastical mar-
riage might only apply in situations where difficulties arise (incapacitation,
expensive care or financial obligations, death, or the dissolution of the relation-
ship), these nonetheless need to be taken seriously. In a legal marriage there
are certain rights and obligations that the partners have toward each other.
Laws guard matters such as the rights to spousal support, division of family
property, the right to benefit from increased property or business value, and
the right to occupy the family residence. The rights to these are prescribed in
law (depending on the circumstance), and some have also applied in cases of
common-law relationships. Thus ecclesiastical marriages would not be exempt
from some of these same responsibilities, even if the couple intended to bypass
them by means of a nonlegally compliant marriage.52
More serious, perhaps, are the many issues related to end-of-life situa-
tions. Late-in-life ecclesiastical marriages present parties and their families
with additional complications and concerns. Where persons fail to plan for
end-of-life issues, there are numerous instances when the law intervenes to
provide guidance in relation to a person’s estate. In the province of Ontario,
for example, a will is automatically revoked once a person gets married.
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.

This means that the entire will is canceled unless it was made with the new
marriage in mind. However, if parties engage in ecclesiastical marriage,
would their last will be revoked? What if the last will benefits persons other
than, or not including, the ecclesiastical marriage partner, such as a former
partner or their children, without accounting for the present partner? Or what
if the ecclesiastical marriage lasts for fifteen years with one partner bearing
a considerable burden of caring for the other? None of that would matter.
The ecclesiastical marriage would not revoke the previous will, whereas a
legally compliant marriage would. Thus the surviving ecclesiastical marriage
partner would have little recourse to access from the estate—no matter what
the couple might have lived through, or no matter what the surviving spouse
might have contributed through personal and financial support.
There are, however, also instances in which an estate can be challenged,
since some places have laws to ensure that an individual who provided
support for dependents while alive must continue to provide adequate and
proper support after death. Ecclesiastical marriage partners could meet the
definition of a spouse for purposes of a dependent’s relief claim in some
jurisdictions, since, in such a case, the definition of the spouse would include
a common-law spouse who had lived with the deceased continuously for
a period of at least three years, or a person with whom the deceased had a
relationship of some permanence and with whom the person had a child.
Thus, again, ecclesiastical marriages might in fact lead to some consequences
that a partner might think they could avoid.
Canadian law also provides another instance in which an ecclesiastical
marriage partner would be treated in the same manner as a legal marriage
partner. This would be in regard to being executor of a will if no executor has
been appointed or if the named executor is unable or unwilling to act. Cana-
dian succession law generally attributes the right to administer an estate to the
deceased’s spouse, legal or otherwise. In Ontario, for example, the Estates Act,
R.S.O. 1990, Chapter E.21, provides at section 29(1) that where a person dies
intestate or the executor named in the will refuses to prove the will, admin-
istration of the property of the deceased may be committed by the Superior
Court of Justice firstly to “the person to whom the deceased was married im-
mediately before the death of the deceased or person with whom the deceased
was living in a conjugal relationship outside marriage immediately before the
death.” In this regard, it appears that an ecclesiastical marriage partner would
have no different rights than a legal spouse, even if the partners entered an
ecclesiastical marriage thinking they might avoid this complication.
If a person dies without leaving a valid will (thus dying “intestate”),
Canadian provinces have different approaches to whether a common-law
partner could inherit (and thus be considered as a legal partner for the sake
of the inheritance). Eastern provinces (from Ontario to the east coast) do
not consider such partners to be eligible for the estate in cases of intestacy,
while western provinces (Manitoba to British Columbia and north) do. The
western provinces have a broad definition of the term spouse, which includes
common-law partners (as defined by each province). Thus common-law
partners in these provinces will have a statutory entitlement to the estate in
the event that their partner dies intestate.
Common-law marriage in the U.S., though recognized in some states, may
still be difficult to prove upon the death of one of the common-law partners

because courts are concerned about fraud when examining a claim for com-
mon-law marriage. Thus, when the first person in a common-law partnership
dies, the living party has the burden of proving that a common-law marriage
existed. The elements to establish the existence of a common-law marriage,
as defined by Iowa courts for example, are as follows: (1) intent and agree-
ment to marriage (by both parties) together with continuous cohabitation and
public declaration that the parties are husband and wife; (2) burden is on the
party asserting the claim; (3) all elements of relationship as to marriage must
be shown to exist; (4) claim of marriage is regarded with suspicion and will
be closely scrutinized; (5) when one party is deceased, the essential elements
must be shown by clear, consistent, and convincing evidence.53
Ecclesiastical marriages, as defined in the Classis Georgetown overture to
Synod 2019, which cites the example of a marital union officiated by clergy
and in which the process has been designed by the parties and the officiant
to be deliberately noncompliant with local marriage legislation, are not le-
gally valid. These would eventually be considered as any other common-law
relationship in locales that recognize such, but it is not lawful for a minister
to conduct them. In both the U.S. and Canada, officiants who solemnize mar-
riages in churches claim to do so, saying, for example (as in the CRC’s 1979
marriage form), “As a minister of the church of Christ and by the authority
which the state has vested in me, I now pronounce you . . . husband and
wife . . .”—thus clearly acknowledging that their state authority to do so is
dependent. Officiants are required by law to register marriage ceremonies
that they lead, just as couples must get official marriage licenses. The state
thereby assures that the people are not barred from legal marriage (by close
familial relationship or because they are still legally married to someone else,
for example). For a minister to perform an ecclesiastical marriage is, by this
very reason, quite simply against the stated law of the land.
In the U.S., state regulation of marriage is assumed, and very little case
law exists regarding state recognition of “ecclesiastical marriage.” How-
ever, Illinois tackled this exact issue, releasing an opinion in 1991 regarding
a marriage that had been conducted in a church and “without a marriage
license.”54 In that case, the state criminally prosecuted the defendant for con-
ducting a marriage ceremony “knowing that his performance was not autho-
rized by law, in that the celebrants had not obtained a marriage license. . . .”55
In Canada, likewise, officiants who lead ecclesiastical marriage ceremonies
stand open to penalization for abuse of relevant marriage legislations. In
addition, it is possible that churches might leave themselves open to legal
proceedings, as well, if a party of such a marriage might become aggrieved.
Where disputes have arisen between people who deliberately avoided
a legal marriage, the record shows a lack of legislative certainty as well as
inconsistent judicial interpretations of such situations. This is especially
so in contexts where it appears that the participants tried to manipulate or
avoid the application of law that would otherwise apply if they were legally
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.

arried. These examples should warn the church of the risks that ecclesi-
m
astical marriage participants and officiants would assume if they actively
engaged in such ceremonies without expert legal counsel regarding the im-
pact of the union. In light of the complexity and uncertainty of existing laws,
participants would be well advised to seek legal advice about entering into
future partnerships if they wish to have a more reliable understanding of the
legal impact such a relationship would have upon them and their estates.
The task force can foresee situations in which pastors or churches could be-
come liable if they enthusiastically supported and conducted an ecclesiastical
marriage but then the couple later became disgruntled at not having under-
stood all the legal implications and then held the pastor or church respon-
sible for not informing them properly. For these matters alone, we would
deem it ill-advised to pursue ecclesiastical marriage as a valid option.
In addition, the task force can foresee many possible scenarios in which
ecclesiastical marriage could make matters messy, particularly in the event of
a radical change in the relationship, such as the incapacitation or death of one
partner or the dissolution of the conjugal relationship.56 What if a partner from
an ecclesiastical marriage went into an expensive care home or medical facil-
ity—would their “spouse” then use their own savings to pay for that? What if
the spouse’s adult children protested such an arrangement, claiming that the
savings were their inheritance and were not to be used to support a partner
in a nonlegal marriage? The reality in late-in-life marriages in particular is
that children of the unions also have a vested interest in property rights and
distribution of assets, and that they may interfere and pursue legal action even
if the partners in the ecclesiastical marriage have intended something different.
Laws have been written to protect people from unjust situations, and it seems
exceedingly wise that any people entering a new relationship should seek le-
gal advice and clarify all such matters so as to avoid future possible litigation.
Finally, if people are entering an ecclesiastical marriage explicitly in order
to avoid certain obligations of a civil union (i.e., the requirement to give up
benefits from the pension or social security plan of a deceased spouse), is
the church not simply aiding in perpetuating fraud? Such action cannot be
condoned, since it would be deceptive and unlawful. If God’s intention is
for people to become “one” in marriage, then people must assume a new
relationship with new loyalties and responsibilities. The task force would
advise this high view of marriage, even if, as in some late-in-life marriages,
no conjugal relations are intended.
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?

First, we advise all couples thinking of marriage to consider seriously
not entering into an ecclesiastical marriage as defined in this report. Based
on the biblical and historical information as well as the legal matters men-
tioned here, we cannot condone an ecclesiastical marriage. Though the Bible
does not seem to clearly anticipate such a thing as an ecclesiastical marriage,
it does show that the early church submitted to the authority of the civil
government, even allowing it to regulate both marriage and divorce. Histori-
cally, the Reformed tradition has given a prominent place to the role of the
state regarding marriage. Additionally, if one considers the legal consider-
ations already noted, there could be serious legal implications for all parties
involved in conducting an ecclesiastical marriage.
As shown in the stories we told at the beginning of the report, people of
all ages might try to avoid certain financial complications and feel that an
ecclesiastical marriage is the answer. However, a deeper question needs to be
asked, and it has to do with the depth of commitment expected of a couple
entering into a Christian marriage. A Christian marriage has long been un-
derstood as a couple coming together and covenanting to live together, come
what may. Through tough and trying times they promise to stay with each
other and to care for each other with the help of the Lord. Married couples
face difficult times with confidence in the Lord’s provision. In fact, times of
difficulty can often strengthen a marriage. In contrast, an ecclesiastical mar-
riage could well begin with the assumption that the parties would not share
in life’s difficulties and trials with the same level of commitment.
B. Possible temporary exceptions
In defining ecclesiastical marriage here as intentionally excluding the
state as a sanctioning or governing authority, we want to allow for possible
temporary exceptions in which the state would not initially be involved but
would be involved later. Here are a couple of examples.
A young woman from the United States is engaged to be married to a man
from Canada. They intend to settle down and live in Canada, but they want
to get married in the U.S. at the woman’s home church. So instead of getting
a marriage license in a state in the U.S., they perform the wedding ceremony
at her church in the U.S. and, after moving to Canada, they proceed to get a
marriage license from the province in Canada where they go to reside. From
the time of the ceremony in the U.S. until they are married in Canada there
has been a lapse of two months. However, during that intervening time, they
and the church have considered the couple married.
Or let’s say a young couple has been planning their wedding day for over
a year. They have the details worked out, and the date is set. However, due
to the coronavirus pandemic, they are unable to follow through with their
plans. They, along with their church and pastor, decide to go ahead with a
simple wedding in the church with only immediate family. They have not
been able to obtain a marriage license because in their area the county clerk
office has been closed. However, they have gone through with the ceremony
with the intention of obtaining a marriage license and getting legally mar-
ried in their state when possible. In this case, the church has considered them
married ever since the wedding service took place in the church.
In both of these cases (and potentially others), the couples are not seeking an
ecclesiastical marriage because they are not intentionally excluding the state.

Their intentions include both the church and the state in “making” their mar-
riage. However, for one reason or another, they have stretched the process and
included a religious ceremony at a time different from that of the civil cer-
emony. A religious ceremony in such a situation is distinct from an ecclesiasti-
cal marriage insofar as it is not done to the exclusion of the state. In fact, most
religious ceremonies in the U.S. and Canada include the state as the minister
acts as an agent of both the state and the church. In these special circumstances,
the religious ceremony does not include the state, but the couple still intends to
obtain a legal marriage. The task force does recommend that if a couple wishes
to extend the process in a way like this or to have a separate religious ceremony
to celebrate the marriage with a particular community, it would be best to
obtain the civil marriage first. However, it may be that, as in circumstances such
as those described above, such a process may not be possible. The task force
also recommends that pastors seek legal advice from an expert before engaging
in an exclusively religious ceremony. We recommend this because of the legal
context of the U.S. and Canada in which the pastor is vested with the power of
the state to solemnize marriages. The pastor’s dual role as an agent of the state
and of the church in marriage is something that should not be overlooked even
in these types of circumstances in which there could be legitimate reasons to
extend the marriage process or have multiple ceremonies.
C. Special circumstances that seniors can face
People who have been widowed can become lonely for companionship
and may wish to enter into a marriage with someone with whom they have
developed a loving relationship. As previously mentioned, some people in
situations like this do not want the involvement of the civil authorities be-
cause of pension or social security issues. These couples do not want a situa-
tion in which they would lose significant financial benefits from the pension
or social security plan of a deceased spouse.
However, as our legal research has shown, if people want to be married
and still keep the financial benefits from a previous marriage, they could
be committing fraud, and the pastor and local church could be accomplices
in such cases. This is not something that the pastor and church should take
lightly. As we have noted above, the church has biblically and historically
been very careful about submitting and honoring our governing authori-
ties because they are seen to have been instituted by God. It would be very
unfortunate if churches in general and pastors in particular disregarded this
understanding by officiating at an ecclesiastical marriage that is designed to
exclude the authority of the state.
D. The value of maintaining a strong commitment to marriage
We have to acknowledge the need for companionship for people of all
ages, but we should not diminish what the church has determined to be
expected in a marriage bond. Marriage values the idea that we are totally
committed to each other and are willing to sacrifice for each other. We put it
all on the line together. An ecclesiastical marriage seems to amount instead
to a “marriage lite.” Sanctioning such a marriage, which is distinct from
the civil marriage recognized both by the church as well as the state, would
bring the church into a dangerous situation whereby we would be serving as
arbitrators of quasilegal relationships that could easily put us in legal conflict
with the states and provinces in which we reside.

Because of the possible legal consequences and the different types of leg-
islation in states and provinces, pastors should recommend that couples seek
independent legal advice—especially if there are estates and children from
previous marriages involved. Seeking such advice could allow for couples
to think through ways to care for children from a previous marriage and
for each other in the marital relationship. Pastors can walk couples through
spiritual and ethical questions that may arise as they work with independent
legal experts, but pastors should never consider themselves legal experts or
let their congregants presume that they are. Rather, pastors have the won-
derful role of working with a couple to enrich their relationship and to walk
with them as they ask spiritual and ethical questions.
E. Cultural considerations
Culture and context play a large role in shaping understandings and
traditions. While the CRC was first considered an immigrant church in
North America, it is now itself also continually welcoming a diversity of new
immigrants into its fellowship. Every different immigrant group brings new
life, color, culture, and customs, as do Indigenous peoples who were present
before European immigrants settled here. As there has been in the past, there
is now a great opportunity to learn from our immigrant sisters and brothers
with regard to marriage. After all, many aspects of the marriage ceremony
and the marriage itself are heavily steeped in cultural background.
An increasingly common situation today with many immigrants coming
to North America is that the persons have spent considerable time in refugee
camps. In such camps many immigrants have grown up and even married,
often without being able to obtain a state certificate of marriage. Others have
obtained certificates of marriage so as to be able to immigrate as a couple or as
a family at the same time and to the same place. Additionally, there are people
who have come to North America having a “common-law” marriage because
getting a marriage certificate is a hardship in their home country due to geo-
graphic isolation or cost. How is the church to respond to these situations and
others like it with people who have immigrated to North America?
Our advice is that the church recognize such marriages regardless of the
authorizing body. This approach respects the couple’s commitment to each
other and their intention to establish a family in their new homeland. Cer-
tainly care should be taken to evaluate and encourage their commitment to
each other and their desire to establish a Christian home. Additionally, care
should be taken in their assimilation process to meet the expectations of their
host country, state, or province with regard to marriage regulations. But this
should be done in a way that does not imply the immigrant couple has a defi-
cient marriage. However, at the same time, care should be given to help them
understand the marriage laws of their new home and, in the event that there
needs to be a recognition of their marriage by the state, to help them move in
that direction. Again it is advisable to gain legal advice as warranted.
We must also be mindful that there are immigrant couples who do not feel
a need to obtain any type of recognition by the state regarding their mar-
riage. For them to do so would almost serve as an insult to their families,
who sanctioned the marriage and gave them their blessing in the first place.
For them to think that their marriage was not complete would be to imply
that their family’s blessing was insufficient. They might even add that, as far

as they know, marriages from their culture end in divorce much less fre-
quently than marriages solemnized legally in churches in North America—
and they might be correct in that view. They might also know that the tribal/
familial/cultural marriage that they are privileged to be a part of might not
be something their children will participate in, at least not entirely. In such
situations we must use care and understand that, as the church helps immi-
grants assimilate into their new homeland, it would be a shame to lose their
culture, beauty, customs, and traditions that in so many ways can help us un-
derstand how the gospel has flowered in other contexts. We should look for
ways in which we can learn from the strong social and familial ties that have
brought immigrant couples together and have kept them together in loving
relationships. We can and should learn from our brothers and sisters who
have come to us as blessings from God to enrich us by demonstrating the
gospel as it has grown and flourished in their cultural context. It is important
to remember that we are not the proverbial melting pot in which any variety
is destroyed and blended into one metal. Instead it is better to see the church
as a stew pot in which each element adds its own unique flavor, color, and
texture to a meal that becomes more delicious with each addition.
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

Grounds:
1. It is not the case that in every country where immigrants have come
from that the civil authorities regulate marriage, so it might not have
been possible for a civil marriage to occur.
2. In the interest of grace and acceptance, we want to acknowledge the
beautiful Christian marriage traditions that have developed in various
cultures.
3. The law is permissive but not prescriptive in this regard.
E. That synod caution pastors against acting as legal experts or offering le-
gal advice, especially with regard to the issue of ecclesiastical marriage, and
that synod encourage pastors to advise couples to seek independent legal
counsel as necessary.
F. That synod accept this report as fulfilling the mandate of the Ecclesiasti-
cal Marriage Task Force and dismiss the task force.
Ecclesiastical Marriage Task Force
Bernard T. Ayoola
Joan DeVries (reporter)
Henry Doorn, Jr.
Gayle Doornbos (reporter)
Gerry Koning (chair)
Loren Veldhuizen
David van der Woerd
Lis Van Harten (staff adviser)
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

about performing ecclesiastical (non-civil) wedding ceremonies. This memo-
randum provides a Canadian legal perspective.
Among other things, this memorandum asks the basic question whether
ecclesiastical marriages are even recognized in Canadian law. On its face this
question may seem puzzling, because in this memorandum an ecclesiastical
marriage is a marriage that is deliberately not registered with the relevant
governing authorities. That, of course, is not the end of the analysis. In this
memorandum the term ecclesiastical marriage is sometimes also interchanged
with other terminology, such as non-civil marriage or non-compliant marriage.
These types of unions have found their way into the Canadian court system
on many occasions.
There are many instances in which couples have sought to unite with
one another in a marriage-type relationship that is established by a form of
a ceremony but have deliberately, inadvertently, or otherwise not registered
the union with the government. That may be to avoid the financial entangle-
ments of civil marriage, as Classis Georgetown points to in the rationale for
their overture. Such couples may seek to unite as couples in a committed
relationship in which all the attributes of a traditional marriage are pres-
ent, while not wishing to be encumbered by the legal implications that are
associated with civil marriage, such as the establishment of spousal sup-
port obligations or entitlement to a division of property. Some may do it for
religious reasons, such as wishing to be married to more than one person at
the same time, but are unable to do so in Canada, which does not recognize
polygamous marriages or polyamorous unions. Others may desire to marry
but for practical or other reasons have been unable to register with the gov-
erning authorities for the marriage. Some may have intended to marry civilly
but failed to complete the formal validity requirements to have their mar-
riage properly registered. Some religious beliefs collide with civil marriage
practices. Some unite for reasons of immigration. Some desire to enter into
polyamorous marriages. These are all examples of non-civil unions. Cana-
dian law has delved into some of them, not all, but in time it likely will.
The Canadian judiciary has been asked on many occasions to adjudicate
situations in which the parties have engaged in a non-civil marriage cer-
emony and to rule upon the legal implications of that union. In my research
I have been unable to find examples of how the law treats the myriad of
non-civil unions in Canada as described above, and there are likely other
examples of existing non-civil unions that I have not considered or found
legal authority on. This memorandum deals with the law of the courts
and statutes in Canada that I have uncovered. The common law is a living
organism that is prone to change, especially as societal norms evolve. This is
not necessarily an exhaustive summary, but it is instructive and elucidates
various principles that can be drawn from the Canadian cases that have
considered non-civil unions, and it can help us to forecast how non-civil
unions may legally affect people who engage in the process of them, either
as participants or as officiants.
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

do not apply to parties who are married only through ecclesiastical ceremo-
nies. However, marriage legislations across Canada do allow for ecclesiasti-
cal marriages to be recognized as valid marriages if parties solemnized the
marriage in good faith, intended to comply with legislation, are not legally
disqualified to marry, and cohabit as a married couple after the ecclesiasti-
cal ceremony. If a marriage is solemnized in good faith, parties who have
been married through an ecclesiastical ceremony will be considered to have
a valid marriage and afforded the same statutory rights and privileges as
traditional married couples. Furthermore, there may be a risk for a church
or officiant to perform ecclesiastical ceremonies for parties engaged in these
unions without registering such marriages, as provincial legislation across
Canada requires officiants of ceremonies to register marriages.
A. Instances in which ecclesiastical marriages have been recognized as valid marriages
Ecclesiastical marriages, as defined here, are non-civil unions in which
parties undergo a religious or cultural ceremony without obtaining a
provincial marriage license. These unions are generally not recognized as
traditional marriages because they do not comply with the relevant legisla-
tion. However, a principle that has been affirmed throughout Canada is
that legislatively non-compliant marriages formed in good faith may still be
recognized as valid (see the case of Dwyer v Bussey, 2017 NCLA 68). Many
provinces, such as Ontario, Alberta, and Newfoundland have saving provi-
sions in their marriage legislations that allow for the courts to recognize a
legislatively non-compliant marriage, such as an ecclesiastical marriage, as
valid if the parties intended to marry in good faith.
In Ontario, for example, section 4 of Ontario’s Marriage Act, RSO 1990, c
M-3, says that no marriage can be solemnized except under the authority of
a license. However, under section 31 there is a saving provision that allows
an ecclesiastical marriage to be recognized as a valid marriage under certain
conditions. That section says, “If the parties to a marriage solemnized in
good faith and intended to be in compliance with this Act, are not under a
legal disqualification to contract such marriage, and after such solemnization
have lived together and cohabited as a married couple, such marriage shall
be deemed a valid marriage.”
The case of Isse v Said, 2012 ONSC 1829 is an example in which the courts
recognized a religious marriage as a valid legal marriage, having been solem-
nized in good faith—and because of that, the legal implications of a validly
registered marriage were attributed to the couple. In Isse v Said the parties
had participated in an Islamic wedding ceremony with an officiant who had
the authority to perform civil marriages in Canada. After a breakdown of the
union, the respondent filed for equalization of marital property. The court
deemed the marriage to be valid under section 31 because the respondent
was found to have had an honest but mistaken belief that the marriage was
valid in Canada. The court found therefore that the parties were married in
good faith and, as such, recognized the respondent’s claim for a division of
marital property after the breakdown of the relationship.
In comparison, consider the case of Debora v Debora [1999] 116 ONCA
196, 167 DLR (4th) 759. In that case the parties engaged in an ecclesiastical
ceremony but deliberately failed to comply with provincial marriage laws
(in this case in Ontario). They participated in a Jewish religious ceremony in

1987. They later became married in a civil ceremony in 1994. The marriage
then broke down. They disputed over whether the equalization date for the
division of assets was to be 1987 or 1994. The husband had acquired significant
assets after the ecclesiastical marriage in 1987 and before the civil ceremony
in 1994. However, the parties wanted the husband to continue to receive his
widower’s pension under the Canada Pension Plan Act, so they deliberately
avoided the registration of their religious marriage with authorities in 1987.
The court concluded that the 1987 religious marriage was therefore not sol-
emnized in good faith and was found to be invalid. The equalization date for
the division of property was therefore set at 1994, when the parties entered
into legal marriage. With the benefit of 20-20 retrospect, it seems puzzling that
the court decided that where the parties together colluded to obtain pension
benefits and that during the same time frame one of the parties enjoyed a
disproportionate increase in wealth, that the determination of the religious
marriage’s validity was such to benefit only one of the colluding parties.
Nevertheless, a principle can be annunciated that a party that is seeking
relief from a court will likely bear the burden to prove that they intended to
comply with the relevant laws of the jurisdiction and were ignorant of any
non-compliance if they hope to succeed in upholding a legislatively non-
compliant marriage. This issue also arose in the case of Alspector v Alspec-
tor, [1957] 9 DLR (2d) 679, OR 454. This decision established the notion that
has been affirmed as a Canada-wide principle, that the burden of proof for a
party to prove an ecclesiastical marriage to be valid lies on the party seeking
relief on a balance of probabilities. In another case, Lin v Re, (1999) Carswell
Alta 200, [1993] AWLD 081, 99 DLR (4th) 280, the applicant attempted to
prove that his marriage to the respondent was valid although they had only
engaged in a traditional Chinese ceremony in Alberta and did not obtain
a marriage license. This is an Alberta case, and the Alberta Marriage Act,
similar to the Ontario statute, contains a saving provision at section 23 that
provides that a marriage will not be invalidated by reason of non-compliance
with that Act if the courts find the marriage to be lawful. In that case the
marriage was found not to be lawful due to the fact that both parties un-
derstood the requirements of the statute but made no effort to comply with
them and only completed their Chinese ceremony.
The previously referred to Newfoundland case of Dwyer v Bussey
established that Canadian courts have consistently followed the policy that
an invalid marriage was formed in good faith if parties thought it would be
legally valid, but any instance of fraud is not considered to be good faith.
There are many reasons that couples may avoid the legal consequences of
marriage, such as difference in ages, values, stages of life, or aspirations, so
“good faith” must be interpreted as an intention to be legally married. This
principle should resolve any confusion, clarifying that only couples who
believe they are legally married will be considered to be legal spouses when
they are found to have a valid marriage. Thus, ecclesiastical marriages will
generally only be found to be valid if it is proven on a balance of probabili-
ties that the parties intended to validly marry in good faith.
B. Statutes that are applicable to ecclesiastical marriages
When parties have engaged in an ecclesiastical marriage in good faith and
their marriage has been deemed valid by courts, then provincial l egislation

regarding the equalization of property, the treatment of the matrimonial
home, and support obligations will apply. In Ontario, the Debora case re-
ferred to above established that the definition of a spouse under the Ontario
Family Law Act does not extend to individuals that have only been married
through religious ceremonies in place of civil marriages. Spouses under On-
tario’s Family Law Act are defined parties that have been married under the
laws of Ontario; however, marriage under the Marriage Act gives purpose to
the definition of a spouse consistent with the Family Law Act. Where parties
recognized that their religious marriage ceremonies would not be recognized
in Ontario, then they would not be spouses within the Family Law Act.
C. The application of support obligation provisions to ecclesiastical marriages
When parties are found to be married in good faith, then they will also
be considered spouses under the federal Divorce Act (see Nafie v Badawy,
2015 ABCA 36). This principle is demonstrated in the case of Javed v Kaukab,
2010 ONCJ 606, in which the parties had been married in a Muslim religious
ceremony instead of a legal marriage. Upon a breakdown of the relation-
ship the applicant claimed in court for spousal support. The court found
that there was a genuine marriage between the parties even though it was
non-compliant with the statute. The marriage had been recognized in order
for the respondent to sponsor the applicant to enter into Canada, so the court
would not allow the respondent to argue that she was not his legal spouse to
avoid paying him spousal support. The respondent was therefore found to
have support obligations to the applicant.
By contrast, consider the case of Harris v Godkewitsch [1983] 41 OR (2d)
779, 20 ACWS (2d) 107. This case shows that parties may not always be
considered spouses for the purpose of support obligations. In this case the
parties chose not to be married under Ontario law but instead to be commit-
ted to each other spiritually through a Jewish ceremony. The court said that
extending the definition of spouse under the legislation to cover a person
who has participated in a religious ceremony in good faith in the non-legal
sense of a moral and religious commitment would create confusion, so in
that case good faith was defined as the intention to comply with the relevant
law. The support claim was denied.
D. Equalization of property, the matrimonial home, and ecclesiastical marriages
Parties that have been married though ecclesiastical ceremonies may still
be subjected to equalization depending on whether their marriage is deemed
valid and whether they are considered spouses. Courts will look to the evi-
dence, such as how the parties coexisted after their ecclesiastical ceremony or
where they lived or how they presented themselves to others, and whether
they had joint bank accounts and/or joint status on their tax returns, to de-
termine the validity of their ecclesiastic union.
As with support, in order for a property to qualify as matrimonial prop-
erty, both parties must be spouses as defined by the relevant legislation.
Once the parties separate, in the case of the matrimonial home, the property
must also have been occupied by both parties as a family residence prior to
separation (see Kanafani v Abdalla, 2010 ONSC 3651). In the Isse v Said case
already referenced above, the parties were found to have a valid marriage
although they were married under Sharia law and the marriage did not
comply with Ontario law. Nevertheless, the court observed that after their

religious ceremony they cohabitated, went on vacations together, maintained
joint bank accounts, and stated that they were married on their tax returns.
So the court concluded that they were spouses for the purpose of equaliza-
tion of assets, and their residence was declared to be a matrimonial home.
However, the case of Kanafani v Abdalla exemplifies an instance in which
a joint residence between parties who engaged in an ecclesiastical ceremony
was not to be considered a matrimonial home. In that case the respondent
asked the court to declare that the condominium the parties resided in was
not to be considered to be a matrimonial home. The parties had been married
in an unregistered religious ceremony in Toronto by a religious leader under
Sharia law. The judge observed that the parties made no attempt to comply
with Ontario law and therefore found that it was not a valid marriage, so the
property was not considered to be a matrimonial home.
Ultimately, it appears that when parties deliberately avoid the legal con-
sequences of marriage, it is unlikely that they will fall within matrimonial
property regimes. Nevertheless, this analysis demonstrates that there are
many conflicting cases in point. Cases are often fact driven, and one cannot
count upon any particular interpretation by the courts. In many cases the
determination of the validity of the marriage is not germane to the issues
between the parties or a stepping stone or link in a chain of logic that allows
the court to achieve a particular result. There is an inherent risk in relying
upon any principles that may become apparent from the case law.
E. Common-law principles and ecclesiastical marriages
Religious marriages that do not meet the civil requirements for marriage
are not generally sufficient to consider the parties legal spouses, but they are
likely sufficient for them to be considered to be common-law spouses. That is
especially so where the parties have cohabited or had children together.
In the aforementioned Dwyer v Bussey case, the judge, in finding that
no valid marriage existed, said, “There are only two categories of conjugal
relationships outside of marriage in compliance with the Ontario Marriage
Act, one where the parties intended to comply but for some technical reason
failed to comply with local legislation, and a common-law union.” In Dwyer,
the parties began cohabiting with one another in 2006 and separated in April
2014. Ms. Dwyer said that they had gone through a “form of marriage” in
July 2008 in a private ceremony in Mr. Bussey’s home, in which Mr. Bussey
quoted a passage from the Bible often used at weddings. The parties had
exchanged rings, and that had been blessed by their pastor. Thereafter they
referred to each other as husband and wife. Mr. Bussey, however, said that
he never intended to be married, they never applied for a marriage license,
there had been no officiant or witnesses present at the ceremony, and their
relationship was not subsequently registered at any church or public regis-
try. It was determined that there was no valid marriage for the purpose of
property division. The rules about dividing property, including the matrimo-
nial home, do not apply to common-law couples. The property the parties
bring into the relationship, plus any increase in its value, typically continues
to belong to the property owner. Upon separation there is no automatic right
to divide property or to share in its value. Ownership usually determines
entitlement to property.

Ultimately, the conclusion is that anything that does not reach the standard
of an intended legal marriage will likely lead to a common-law union. While
parties in common-law unions are not entitled to access the statutory property
equalization provisions, property of division can sometimes be addressed by
back-door means through use of equitable concepts such as constructive trusts
or compensation for unjust enrichment. Courts have been known to utilize
such principles to allocate an advantage realized by one party to another or for
recompense to a disadvantaged party relating to contributions during the rela-
tionship or inequities arising from it. The case of Chhokar v Bains, 2012 ONSC
6602, is an example of parties that underwent an ecclesiastical ceremony who
were not considered to have a valid marriage but instead were deemed to have
a common-law union. The parties had gone through a Sikh wedding ceremony
but never applied for a marriage license. Throughout their relationship, they
lived separately but stated that they were common-law on their tax returns.
After consideration of all the evidence, the court concluded that the parties
were not legally married but instead had a common-law relationship in which
common-law principles would be applicable.
F. Risks involved in solemnizing ecclesiastical marriages
There are typically three parties to an ecclesiastical marriage ceremony,
the two parties seeking to be married and the officiant. As shown above,
there are risks for the marrying parties if they seek an ecclesiastical marriage
to avoid legal responsibilities. There may also be risks for the officiant.
In British Columbia, when a marriage is solemnized, it must be regis-
tered by either the religious representative or the marriage commissioner. In
Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, every person who is authorized to
solemnize marriages is required to register marriages in accordance with the
provincial vital statistics legislation. More particularly, the Alberta Marriage
Act specifies that “no person shall solemnize a marriage except for under
the authority of a marriage license or within 3 months after the date that the
license is issued.” Furthermore, in Alberta and Saskatchewan, the church or
marriage commissioner is required to provide a certificate of marriage to the
parties. Likewise, in Ontario, after a person has solemnized a marriage, they
are required to make an entry in the appropriate registry and, if requested,
give a record of the marriage.
Since those who solemnize marriages are required to register the marriag-
es, it therefore stands to reason that officiants who participate in legislatively
non-compliant marriage ceremonies may create risks for themselves if they
do not comply with governing legislation. In the case of Upadyhaha v Sehgal,
[2000] OJ 3508, [2001] WDFL 71, 11 RFL (5th) 210, a priest performed a mar-
riage ceremony between the parties on the basis that they would later apply
for the necessary marriage license as soon as possible. However, the parties
did not apply for a marriage license, and performing the ceremony was re-
ferred to by the court as “an egregious breach of the Marriage Act.” The Lin v
Re case describes policy reasons for legislating the registration of marriage,
since the legislature has contemplated the issues in which an officiant may fail
to issue a license or comply with provincial legislation. In this scenario, if the
parties truly believe they have a valid marriage and the marriage is invalid by
error of the officiant, the marriage may still be declared lawful.

Performing such ecclesiastical ceremonies without registering the marriage
as a legal marriage carries penalties that can vary by province. In Alberta and
Saskatchewan, anyone who solemnizes a marriage in contravention with their
respective Marriage Act is guilty of an offense and liable to a fine. Similarly, in
Manitoba and Ontario anyone who violates the Marriage Act will be liable to a
fine. There are no other penalties provided. Ultimately, conducting ecclesiastical
ceremonies in contravention with the Marriage Act could carry the risk of a fine
and may compromise the officiant’s ability to perform future marriage ceremo-
nies. It would also seem that where an officiant has enabled a non-compliant
marriage ceremony, the legal effect of which later proves to disappoint one or
both of the participating parties, the officiant may be civilly liable for damages.
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.

I. Background and mandate
In January 2017 the CRC received a grant from the Lilly Endowment’s
National Initiative to address Economic Challenges Facing Pastoral Leaders.
The Financial Shalom Advisory Team was established in 2018 and gathered
information. On April 24-25, 2018, a group of bivocational pastors, church
planters, and other church leaders gathered to discuss “What Is the Future
of Bivocational Ministry in the CRCNA?” “One surprise discovery during
the gathering and in the report was that many pastors find that bivocational
arrangements fit in well with their ministry design and their Reformed
perspective. They are bivocational by choice rather than by need” (Council of
Delegates Bivocational Task Force Report, May 2019).
Following this initial conversation, the Council of Delegates (COD) in the
fall of 2018 put together a task force with the following mandate:
to explore the challenges and opportunities for bivocational pastors in the
CRC by listening to those within and beyond the CRC in bivocational situ-
ations (both pastors and congregational leaders), identifying the opportuni-
ties of such situations, and by addressing the challenges (to preparation, to
the individual, to the congregation, to the denomination). Areas of specific
focus could include reconsideration of items in our Church Order to facili-
tate normalization of bivocational ministry, improvements in denomination-
al databases related to ministerial status, and the like. As a result, a series of
recommendations would be provided to the Council of Delegates.
—Council of Delegates Supplement, Acts of Synod 2019, p. 545
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.
Study of Bivocationality 285

b. The report provides sufficient examples of issues needing review and of
possible options for remedies.
c. Addressing this issue will provide care for pastors in varying cultures
and contexts.
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).
III. Stories from the CRC

What do bivocational and other nontraditional ministry arrangements
look like in the CRC? Before we get into the details of our mandate, the task
force thought it would be helpful to hear some stories of the varied experi-
ences of our pastors. This small sampling gives us a glimpse of the much
broader and varied ministry arrangements present in the CRC today.
Rev. Jose Rayas – Socorro, Texas
“Prior to serving in ordained ministry, I studied engineering and worked
on defense contracts until 1997, when I retired from that work. In 1997 I
attended Westminster Seminary in California. I came to work for the CRC
in 2002.
“I am a bivocational pastor with the CRC. [Jose continues to do engineer-
ing consulting.] I originally came as a church planter to El Paso, Texas. At the
present time, the church is working toward moving from emerging status
to organized status. However, El Paso is an economically depressed area.
Because of this, the church does not pay my salary. The Borderplex is a local
organization that does the fundraising for my position. Samuel Estala, on
the other hand, is being paid by the church (Samuel was called from Monter-
rey, Mexico, to come to El Paso to help the church back in 2008, and he was
ordained associate pastor in 2014.) What I had done early on was to build
a ministry house where the pastor could stay. This would mean a one-time
investment, but the pastor would receive a smaller salary, considering that
all utilities and housing are provided for him. In my personal case, I built my
own home with my funds, but the Borderplex helped to find the lot and the
builder. Part of my call was to raise leaders. We have several other leaders in
training. But as Samuel moves up to a stronger leadership position, he will
eventually become the lead pastor, and I will step away to continue efforts in
raising leaders—and possibly starting new church plants with these leaders.”
Rev. Scott Van Voorst – Sergeant Bluff, Iowa
“I have been at an emerging church for nearly three years. While the
church is just under average size for a church in the U.S., it is small for a
CRC. The church has received outside support for many years. In addition to
needing outside financial support, the church has a shortage of individuals

who are qualified to lead. Making a switch to an intentional bivocational
team was seen as a way to increase our leadership while also getting us
closer to financial sustainability without outside help. I have taken on a
role as a reserve chaplain to make this possible. I want to be clear that I felt
called, not pressured, to add this second role. I am only just getting into the
role and haven’t worked out all the kinks. That said, by the end of the year
I will have my family’s insurance and a retirement plan secured through
a part-time job that increases my ministry connections. Getting off of RBA
insurance and onto military insurance will save my family and my church
enough money to cover most of the cost of bringing on a ministry intern or
a bivocational second pastor. There are challenges. It doesn’t appear that
our structures help us find bivocational candidates, and it seems like being
bivocational is seen exclusively as a negative in our denomination. I see it
as a positive that increases community impact, increases pastoral relational
capacity, and increases the gifts being leveraged for the ministry when it is
done specifically to build a team.”
Rev. Rick Abma – Lacombe, Alberta
“Having served as an associate pastor in four different churches, the need
to address discipleship on mission seemed to be hard to do. Basically, the
‘come and see’ had always seemed to trump or hijack the ‘go and be.’ So in
2015 I resigned from my pastoral position and embarked on a missionary
journey that primarily works through neighborhoods. Essentially the model
is to find people to train and disciple in hopes of reaching and loving their
neighbors. At the same time this started, my love for roasting coffee created a
direct relationship with CRC missionaries and farmers in Central Honduras
through a group called Carpenteros and Friends. This allowed for the coffee
roasting to become a business, which in turn started to create funds for the
missionary journey and also became a platform for the ministry. We use the
retail packages to publish true stories from local neighborhoods, and we
purchased an espresso bicycle (complete with umbrella), which serves a full
coffee-bar drink menu at no cost when the neighborhood has a leader who
has taken our training. Neighbors gather around the coffeebike with a mug
in hand as we tell them why it is important to hear the message of loving
one’s neighbors. We do not talk about the coffee roasting business, and we
remove all monetary transactions, which sets the stage for unique conversa-
tions. The training begins with a one-hour introduction and is followed by a
three-hour training course, which I lead via material published in book form
(Neighbouring for Life). We host 30 neighborhood initiatives per year, and with
each neighborhood having anywhere from 10 to 80 people, those events can
last a few hours. We are not trying to be literal about the term neighbors, but
we know that we have missed many opportunities by not ‘blooming where
we are planted.’”
Jennifer Burnett, Commissioned Pastor – Kelowna, British Columbia
“I am pastoring a small church plant where I am currently employed
for 20 hours a week. I began with an arrangement of 15 hours a week with
an administrator working 5-10 hours a week. After she left, my hours
increased because of the extra duties, which are not among my strengths.
This leaves me as the only staff person for the church. We have no building
for ourselves, so we rent a space for Sunday morning, and I do most of my

church work from my kitchen table. Along with this I am working toward
a doctorate and parenting four children ages 4-15. The positives include
having the flexibility to balance these roles, and my study and parenting
both give me resources from which to teach and lead the church. The church
receives fresh learning and deep reflection on the current moment—whether
that be political or health-related or otherwise. The difficulty is of course that
some weeks happen to be demanding in all three areas. Boundaries are con-
stantly being blurred, and it can be difficult to feel ‘successful’ on any front.”
Rev. Andrea Baas and Rev. Nicholas Baas – Truro, Nova Scotia
“I (Nick) and my wife, Andrea Baas, are copastors at John Calvin CRC.
Together we fill one full-time role. We both preach and do pastoral care. We
both came into this position new to pastoring. That presented some challeng-
es, as we each had to figure out our pastoral identity/role while at the same
time working at half-speed (part-time). Sharing everything in life, including
work, really requires a strong and healthy marital relationship. Council has
sometimes found the logistics of having two employees challenging. Having
come through the challenges of starting in ministry together, we now have
the benefit of a partner who knows us and our ministry life deeply. We have
had to grow up quickly in our marriage and have a very deep understand-
ing of how to encourage and empower one another. The church has been
blessed by our unique gifts and personalities and by having both sexes in
leadership.”
Regarding issues and concerns: “Our classis has tended to treat us as two
pastors when it comes to classical roles/tasks. For instance, they have
struggled with understanding that when they assign me, a male, to do
classical supply at a church that does not affirm women in office, they are
requiring me to spend even less time preaching at my own church than a
full-time pastor would in the same circumstance. Governing bodies struggle
to understand what it means for two people to split one role. Sometimes this
is understandable. At other times – like when your wife is the first female
minister in a classis – it comes off as hurtful.
“On a more practical note, we have found that the way disability in-
surance works for copastors is less than satisfactory. Disability insurance
requires more than part-time work, so technically neither of us qualify.”
IV. Biblical, theological, and historical support

A. Biblical support
As we begin exploring the topic of bivocational ministry, we should first
listen for God’s guidance through Scripture. Our biblical analysis starts with
a brief survey of the ministries that God’s covenant people are called to sup-
port through their tithing. Three categories of ministry are introduced in the
Old Testament and carried into the New Testament. We begin here because
it has direct relevance to the resource constraints causing some to engage
in bivocational ministry out of necessity as well as the strategic embrace of
bivocationality as a choice. After the topic of tithing, this section of the report
explores the apostle Paul’s tentmaking in the New Testament. Here we find
not only the clearest example of bivocational practice but also principles to
guide us today.

1. Three purposes of tithing
A survey of the main passages about tithing from the Pentateuch reveals
that Israel’s tithes were to be used for three purposes. First, tithes were
used for festive celebrations in God’s presence (Deut. 12:17-18; 14:22-29).
Second, tithes provided for the material needs of the priests and Levites
(Num. 18:8-24; Deut. 12:19; 14:27-29). Third, tithes generously assisted the
vulnerable and needy, mainly foreigners, orphans, and widows among the
people (Deut. 14:29; 26:12-13). In other words, the firstfruits of the products
and revenues of God’s people were to be set aside to facilitate worship and
fellowship, to support those who were ministers, and to provide tangible
goods to the needy. The Lord placed the priests in charge of administering
these resources (Num. 18:8; 2 Chron. 31:11-13; Neh. 13:5) and required that
they also tithe the best tenth of all they received (Num. 18:25-32).
Leviticus 27:30 says the tithe “belongs to the Lord” and calls it holy.
Devoting one’s best to the Lord entailed providing for those whom God
had designated to receive those resources. The practice of tithing was
integral to carrying out the divine commands Israel had received for its
religious practices and social morality. Micah 3:6-10 states on behalf of the
Lord that neglecting tithes and offerings is robbing God of what rightfully
belongs to him.
Two examples of how tithes were used for festive celebrations in God’s
presence are the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles, described
in Deuteronomy 16:9-17. In both cases, joy-filled worship was funded by
offerings from God’s people as they were called to give “in proportion to
the blessings the Lord has given you” (vv. 10, 17). These celebrations wel-
comed not only whole families to participate but also Levites, foreigners
in the land, orphans, and widows (vv. 11, 14).
As noted above, Israel’s tithe gave tangible provisions for people
whose vocation it was to minister in the Lord’s temple. Commenting
on Numbers 18, Peter J. Naylor writes that tithing was “practical in that
it ensured priests were able to serve full-time in their office, since they
would not be anxious about their food” (“Numbers,” New Bible Com-
mentary, p. 186). When the promised land was divided up among the
twelve tribes of Israel, the Levites were only given cities to live in and
pastures for their flocks, as they relied on God’s provisions in the form of
tithes from the people (Josh. 14:3-4; 18:7). The great reforms enacted by
Hezekiah included the reconstitution of the priests and Levites, and the
restoration of tithes to support them, according to 2 Chronicles 31:3-21. In
the account given in Nehemiah 13:4-5, the tithes of the people supported
several people who served in the house of God, including priests, Levites,
singers, and gatekeepers.
The three most common categories of people described as poor
and disadvantaged in the Old Testament were widows, orphans, and
foreigners. These categories of people, along with the Levites, were to
receive the tithe of food, according to Deuteronomy 14:28-29. The Old
Testament also made provisions for landowners to leave a portion of their
harvest for people who needed to glean (Lev. 19:9-10), as illustrated in
the story of Ruth gleaning the fields of Boaz (Ruth 2:2-3). Tithing for the
sake of the poor and vulnerable is a dimension of God’s call to love such
neighbors and should be taken alongside the imperatives to defend them

from injustices (Ps. 82:3; Prov. 31:9; Isa. 10:5; Amos 2:7). While the wisdom
literature of the Old Testament acknowledges that personal irresponsibil-
ity can also lead to poverty (Prov. 10:4; 13:18; 21:17), Scripture consistently
calls God’s people to use tithes to care for the poor and vulnerable in our
communities.
Our focus is on how the gifts of God’s people support those who are
ordained to gospel ministry. At the same time, we must not lose sight of
the other needs the Lord ordained tithing to serve. While churches are
called to support their ministers, they are also called to allocate resources
needed to hold meaningful worship as well as to address the needs of the
poor and vulnerable. These imperatives are carried over into the New
Testament and have guided the Christian church throughout its history.
It is important to factor these into our discussion about bivocational
ministry today.
The New Testament emphasizes voluntary generosity among followers
of Christ. Christians are to give with joy and confidence, knowing that the
Lord will use such gifts for their own blessings, to provide for others, and
to bring glory to God (2 Cor. 9:6-11). Being generous with the blessings
the Lord has given us is a dimension of Christian discipleship, because
“where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt. 6:21; Luke
12:34). Believers are instructed to give generously through church lead-
ers for proper distribution (Acts 4:34-37; 1 Cor. 16:1-3) and encouraged to
help people in need directly (Matt. 5:42; Luke 12:33; James 2:15-17). Jesus
criticizes tithing Pharisees and teachers of the law in Matthew 23:23 for
neglecting “the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and
faithfulness.”
The New Testament upholds the practice of providing for ministers
through the generosity of God’s people. When Jesus sent his twelve dis-
ciples throughout Judea to proclaim the kingdom of heaven, he said, “the
worker is worth his keep” (Matt. 10:10). When he sent out the seventy-
two, he included the following instructions: “Stay in that house, eating
and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages”
(Luke 10:7). The apostle Paul echoes this same conviction in 1 Corinthians
9:1-12; Galatians 6:6; and 1 Timothy 5:17-18. The most pointed passage
is 1 Corinthians 9:13-14, which states, “Don’t you know that those who
serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve
at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the
Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive
their living from the gospel.” In speaking to this issue in 1 Corinthians
9:9 and 2 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4: “Do not muzzle
an ox while it is treading out the grain.” As oxen trampled on the grain,
they were to eat some of it for sustenance as they worked. This is used
as a metaphor for those who devote their lives to ministry. The church
should provide for the needs of their pastors and teachers so that they can
continue working for the Lord.
2. Paul the tentmaker
The apostle Paul is our best biblical case study for bivocational min-
istry. While he asserted his right to material support for his work as
an apostle, he also worked as a tentmaker and did not always receive

nancial gifts from churches. For example, in 1 Corinthians, immediately
fi
after Paul mentions his right to compensation, he states, “But I have not
used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you
will do such things for me” (9:15). Elsewhere in this letter he mentions
working with his own hands (4:12), which enabled him to preach the
gospel “free of charge” (9:18). In 1 Thessalonians 2:9 and 2 Thessalonians
3:8, Paul states that he and his companions worked very hard to “not be
a burden to anyone.” Paul expressed his gratitude for financial support
from the church in Philippi (Phil. 4:10-20) and urged churches to take
up offerings for the impoverished believers in Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1-4;
2 Cor. 8:1-15).
Acts 18:3 mentions that Paul was a “tentmaker.” Paul met Priscilla
and Aquila, who worked in this trade. Paul likely worked in this trade
in the cities of Corinth, Thessalonica, and Ephesus, all urban centers of
trade where the opportunity for such work was available. In 1 Thessalo-
nians 2:9, Paul says, “We worked night and day . . . while we preached
the gospel of God to you.” Commenting on this passage in his article on
“Tentmaking,” Paul Barnett states, “This probably means that Paul talked
to people while he worked and also, almost certainly, that on some days,
or during part of the day, he laid aside his apron and tools and taught
the gospel. His lifestyle was characterized by both work and preaching”
(Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p. 926).
Why did Paul lay aside his right to earn a living from his gospel minis-
try and engage in tentmaking? A survey of the relevant passages reveals
three strategies behind the apostle’s decisions. Paul engaged in tentmak-
ing as a form of bivocational ministry to embrace missional opportunities,
to distinguish himself from other traveling philosophers, and to model
godliness and dignity of work. We will explore each of these strategies
and apply them to our contemporary situations.
a. Embrace missional opportunities
First, tentmaking allowed Paul to strategically embrace missional
opportunities. On his missionary journeys throughout Asia Minor,
where he set out to establish new churches, Paul engaged in tentmak-
ing because there was not yet a local body of disciples who could
support him. Paul was blessed with financial support from established
churches in Macedonia while laboring for the gospel in Corinth (2
Cor. 11:9), and he received financial gifts from the church in Philippi
while he labored in Thessalonica (Phil. 4:16). But Paul could not expect
support from the community where he ministered before a Christian
community was formed there. In this way, his tentmaking enabled him
to bring the gospel to new places.
In telling the Thessalonians he did not want to be a financial burden
to them (1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8), Paul engaged in tentmaking to em-
brace the opportunity to proclaim the gospel among people who were
not financially well off. Tentmaking allowed Paul to establish a church
among people who would find it difficult to support him financially.
We follow this same principle today when we fund a pastor, mis-
sionary, or church planter to serve a financially disadvantaged com-
munity with resources from other churches and donors. A bivocational

ministry arrangement is another way to apply Paul’s tentmaking
to contemporary missional endeavors. There is a biblical warrant
for some church planters to both lean on funding from established
churches and find work in the community to make ends meet finan-
cially. Bivocational ministry arrangements should not diminish the
importance of support from other churches; nor should the availability
of funds preclude pastors from pursuing bivocational opportunities.
Bivocational pastors serving small or financially challenged church-
es do so to not be a burden to those they serve. Such men and women
inhabit the spirit of the apostle Paul. They ought to be honored for their
sacrificial service rather than sidelined because their model of pastoral
ministry does not fit denominational norms or historic practices in the
Western church. Such pastors are embracing a missional opportunity
that would not be available if they were not engaging in bivocational
ministry.
b. Distinguish himself from other traveling philosophers
The second reason the apostle Paul purposefully engaged in tent-
making was to distinguish himself from other itinerant teachers and
philosophers of his day. This comes through clearly in 1 Thessalonians
2:3-6, where Paul contrasts himself with greedy people pleasers who
speak with flattery. He also draws a contrast between himself and
others who took advantage of the church as he defends his apostleship
throughout 2 Corinthians. Paul identifies his adversaries as those who
“peddle the word of God for profit” (2 Cor. 2:17) and who “use decep-
tion” and “distort the word of God” (2 Cor. 4:2). A false teacher is one
who “exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps
you in the face,” according to 2 Corinthians 11:20.
J.M. Everts summarizes the complicated historical background
in Greek culture to traveling philosophers and how they supported
themselves.
In contemporary Greek society there was much debate about how philoso-
phers and teachers should support themselves. Most philosophers either
charged fees or accepted the patronage of a wealthy individual. The major
criticism of this method of support was that it placed a philosopher under
obligation to a patron and therefore jeopardized the philosopher’s freedom
to teach the truth. In Hellenistic society the giving and receiving of benefac-
tions was an extremely important component of the social structure. The
wealthy expressed their power by becoming patrons, and since benefaction
was the basis of friendship, refusing a gift was an act of enmity. Philoso-
phers who wished to avoid this network of obligation could either beg,
as the Cynics chose to do, or work. However, since most of Greek society
looked down on those who worked at a trade or begged, not many philoso-
phers chose these methods of support. Those who did gained freedom at
the expense of social status.
(“Financial Support,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p. 295)
Given this background, it is reasonable to believe that the apostle

Paul was also careful about who funded him, because he understood
that patronage entailed influence on what he was to teach about. Gor-
don Fee sees this denial of patronage as the meaning of Paul’s “boast”
in 1 Corinthians 9:15 and goes on to explain that “in offering the ‘free’

gospel ‘free of charge’ his ministry becomes a living paradigm of the
gospel itself” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 417, 421).
Our world has grown increasingly suspicious of the church in recent
times. Like the traveling philosophers of Paul’s day, some churches are
inordinately focused on money and commission leaders who use reli-
gion as a means to financial gain (1 Tim. 6:5). Therefore it is wise to ask
what impression we are giving to our surrounding community. How
are we to distinguish ourselves from religious peddlers of our day?
Bivocational ministry can be an embodied apologetic for a ministry of
servanthood that is God-glorifying rather than one of financial gain.
c. Model the godliness and dignity of work
In contrast to the Hellenistic devaluation of physical labor, Paul up-
held the biblical perspective of work as God-given and God-glorifying.
He warned the church in Thessalonica against idleness (1 Thess. 5:14; 2
Thess. 3:6) and urged them to follow his example of work as an eco-
nomic and social responsibility (2 Thess. 3:7-10). Working with our own
hands helps us to avoid sin and enables us to be generous toward oth-
ers (Acts 20:35; Eph. 4:28). It is also clear that Paul conducted some of
his ministry in the marketplace and therefore modeled for others what
it meant to be followers of Jesus Christ in and through their daily work.
One can detect a resurgence of the old Hellenistic sentiments in our
current cultural climate. Many today aim their lives toward getting the
most money for the least amount of effort, viewing labor as a neces-
sary evil, and are captivated by a vision of the good life that entails
perpetual vacations with little productive contribution to society. Some
Christians are finding a growing disconnect between their daily work
and their life of discipleship. Bivocational ministry can help churches
recover a biblical perspective of work.
Pastors who gain credibility and influence in the marketplace are
given opportunities to communicate with people they would not know
otherwise, to lead as a model for people to be disciples of Jesus in the
workplace, and to provide an embodied apologetic for the goodness of
human labor that reflects God’s character.
B. Historical considerations
A cursory glance through church history reveals unity and diversity in
applying the biblical principles outlined above. While some have tried to
make sweeping statements about how tithing and ministers’ compensation
developed over the years, these usually do not hold up to further analysis.
Throughout all eras of Christian history, some churches have been able to
provide abundantly for ministers while others struggled to provide for their
needs. Some who have committed themselves to ministry gained wealth
and prestige while others’ entry into ministry involved a vow of poverty. In
some eras of church history, tithes have supported one cause to the neglect
of others, whether that be church facilities for worship and fellowship,
compensating clergy, or giving to the needy.
The Didache, one of the earliest writings about Christian teachings,
distinguishes between traveling prophets, to whom the church was to give
hospitality, and prophets who settled down to serve a particular community
and were to receive financial compensation. It warned the early church

against supporting itinerant prophets who only took advantage of Christian
hospitality (“The Didache,” Early Christian Writings, pp. 195-96).
It is helpful to remember that in the monastic movement, many who com-
mitted their lives to the full-time service of the church also worked gardens,
produced books, maintained the building and grounds, and incorporated
other productive labors into their daily rule. To this day many monasteries
contain nonprofit organizations that grow or build things to sell in order to
support their religious communities, which supplement any share of tithes
they might receive. Most monks throughout history have been essentially
bivocational.
In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin briefly surveys the
church’s practice of dividing the revenue from tithes into four categories:
“one for the clergy, another for the poor, a third for the repair of churches
and other buildings, a fourth for the poor, both foreign and indigenous”
(pp. 1074-75). This guideline served as an application of Scripture to prevent
leaders from being able to leverage their position to take more than their
share of resources for themselves. Imagine how different our congregations
would operate if our annual budget were divided into four equal parts this
way. While some might operate in this way, we know this is not the norm
across our denomination.
The Christian Reformed Church has historically been able to use its
tithes to support its pastors, build adequate church facilities, do the work of
benevolence in their congregation and community, and support denomina-
tional agencies, while its members establish and maintain Christian schools
and support other nonprofit organizations. Until fairly recently, bivocational
pastors have been rare in our 163-year history. The CRC’s letter of call tem-
plate for ministers of the Word notes that “laborers are worthy of their hire”
(see Luke 10:7 [KJV]; Matt. 10:10) before spelling out a compensation pack-
age. We do not believe we ought to change this value but adapt it to make
room for churches and ministers to live out new, diverse arrangements of
ministerial vocation.
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

nonprofit or parachurch organization, or another ministry. Being account-
able to multiple entities is an important factor for persons in bivocational
ministry.
Finally, bivocational ministry requires individuals to spend time and ener-
gy in multiple settings. The time and energy one uses ought to be significant
in order to be considered bivocational. Some ministers have activities “on
the side” that generate some income but do not interfere with their pastoral
duties. Bivocational ministry is distinct in that the nature and time-demands
of the work require mutual discernment between the pastor and the super-
vising council.
Given the importance of these factors, we suggest the following defini-
tion: “Bivocationality is the arrangement in which a pastor spends time and
energy working for compensation and is accountable to another in addition
to the setting in which s/he has been called to minister.” It is worth noting
that in this definition pastors are those ordained to the offices of minister of
the Word or commissioned pastor.
However, our task force observes that this definition does not cover all the
possible situations surrounding “what it means to be a bivocational pastor
today” per our mandate. Historically, the CRCNA has seen pastoral ministry
as a full-time profession. This is reflected in our Church Order as well as in
our denominational culture and administration. In today’s world creativity
and necessity have resulted in multiple nontraditional arrangements that
are furthering the work of God through the church and its pastors. Some of
these arrangements do not properly fit bivocationality as defined above. While
much of this report refers to bivocationality or bivocational ministry, it may
be better to view this report as reflecting nontraditional pastoral arrange-
ments rather than only bivocationality.
To help in providing this wider perspective, the task force here details
nontraditional arrangements as follows:
A. Bivocational – the arrangement in which a pastor spends time and energy
working for compensation and is accountable to another in addition to the
setting in which s/he has been called to minister. This may mean working in
a part-time or full-time capacity in a nonecclesial occupation while also lead-
ing a church or church plant and receiving financial support for that work
in ministry. It may also mean working in more than one ordainable ministry
position (e.g., as a local church pastor and as a hospital chaplain).
1. Bivocational by necessity – this arrangement describes a pastor whose
calling congregation cannot afford to support a full-time position. Thus
the pastor is required to find additional financial support through another
occupation.
2. Bivocational by choice – this arrangement describes a pastor who has
chosen to be bivocational, working by design both in vocational ministry
and in another occupation. Often this is done for missional reasons.
B. Covocational – in this arrangement the pastor’s calling and ministry occur
in a traditionally nonpastoral setting. In other words, the pastoral calling is
combined with a nonecclesial occupation. For example, a church planter may

open a coffee shop as a vehicle for ministry. The coffee shop is a business, yet
it also provides the setting for pastoral ministry and evangelism.
C. Other arrangements
1. Part-time position – this arrangement describes a pastor who for various
reasons works part-time hours. This may be dictated by the ministry posi-
tion (i.e., a small congregation or an interim position) or may be due to a
personal issue such as the pastor’s health or family situation.
2. Clergy couples in shared or part-time positions (a clergy couple is a hus-
band and wife who are both ordained pastors) – many different arrange-
ments may occur for clergy couples. For this report, we have focused on
arrangements in which neither spouse as an individual is in a full-time
position. This may include a clergy couple who are job sharing a single
full-time position or a clergy couple in which each spouse has a separate
part-time pastoral position.
3. Volunteer, unpaid ministry – this arrangement describes a pastor serv-
ing a ministry without financial compensation. A situation like this can
occur when the pastor’s family income is provided through their spouse
or when the pastor has sufficient income through other means. This kind
of arrangement can occur in congregations that have little or no financial
means.
It is worth observing that in the descriptions above we have referred only
to part-time positions or arrangements. We have not referred to part-time
pastors, because there is no such thing in our polity and understanding of
ordination. Any ordained person, whether a minister of the Word, commis-
sioned pastor, elder, or deacon, by God’s calling through the church and by
virtue of the ecclesiastical office, always bears that office regardless of the
activities they are engaged in at a given moment. Every pastor in a nontradi-
tional arrangement is fully and at all times the pastor of the community they
have been called to serve. Thus we discourage any reference in any context
to a part-time pastor.
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/

CRCNA churches that reach ethnic minorities and economically challenged
communities.
To gain some qualitative understanding of the blessings and challenges
of bivocational ministry among churches that reach ethnic minorities within
the denomination, an informal survey was conducted among seven leaders
of several ethnic subgroups within the CRC— namely, African American,
Korean, Chinese, and Hispanic leaders.3 The informal survey revealed that
the percentage of pastors who are doing ministry bivocationally is 70-75
percent among African American pastors, 40 percent among Chinese pastors,
and 65-70 percent among Hispanic pastors. Korean congregations had less
than 5 percent of lead pastors working bivocationally while the majority of
Korean associate pastors worked bivocationally.
Mixed in this informal survey were factors including the relative newness
of a church as well as the economic challenges within a supporting commu-
nity. Resonate Global Mission indicated that, as of April 2020, 48 percent of
new churches planted today are led by bivocational leaders. This percentage
would be higher if it included church planters who are paid part-time hours
but are not bivocational. For example, in some cases the planter does not
receive full-time pay, but their spouse provides the family’s primary income.
A third factor affecting the level of bivocational leadership has to do with
whether the churches served exist in economically challenged areas, such as
the inner city or in a remote rural community.
In short, congregational ethnicity, the newness of a church, and the level
of economic challenges facing the supporting community are key indicators
of increased levels of bivocational leadership within the CRCNA today.
B. What will be
The percentage of pastors working bivocationally in the CRCNA will
likely radically increase in the coming years for the following reasons.
Changing population trends in North America have spurred the conversa-
tion around bivocational ministry. When the CRC began, North America was
a largely rural country, and our churches were generally monoethnic, multi-
generational, and growing congregations. In the years following World War
II the CRC produced an influx of suburban daughter churches. We are now
a denomination with many struggling inner-city and rural congregations in
which supporting a full-time pastor position is a challenge.
The average CRC congregation size has been historically larger than that
of most non-CRCNA congregations in both Canada and the United States.
While the 2020 CRCNA Yearbook statistics show that our average congre-
gational attendance is 156 people, less than half of that number (70 regular
participants, including children4) are in attendance in the average congre-
gation in the United States. Our task force was unable to find comparable
gross numbers for Canadian church attendance averages since 2001. Our
denomination has not struggled with maintaining smaller congregations as
much as have many other denominations in North America. However, cur-
rent CRCNA statistics indicate that an average 2 percent annual decrease in
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

congregational size will put increasing pressure on congregational financial
sustainability based on full-time pastorate models. In other words, more of
our established and declining congregations who wish to continue as func-
tioning churches will be led by bivocational pastors as their budgets decline
below the capacity to pay a full-time pastor.
Positively, if we continue to plant new churches, then more of our new
and emerging congregations will be led by bivocational pastors. And they
will likely continue to be, as they are now, an important resource in growing
the church.
Also positively, we expect to see an increase in immigrant and ethnic-
minority congregations. These congregations are more likely to be led by
bivocational pastors. Bivocational pastorates or other nontraditional arrange-
ments will be an important tool for the CRCNA in pursuing the growth of
the church in new fields of harvest.
C. Why it matters: challenges and opportunities
The current experience of bivocational ministry and its expected increase
in the coming years present bivocational pastors and our denomination with
challenges and opportunities.
1. Bivocationality and proper care
In this context the importance of proper care for pastors and their
families will increase. Bivocational pastors face many challenges, as high-
lighted in the surveys we have reviewed. These challenges include the
following:
– Financial care: Because financial resources are low, a tension between
financially supporting a pastor versus financially supporting ministry
growth can arise. This tension can be difficult for both the pastor and
the church council to hold in balance in a healthy manner.
– Quality of life care: Various challenges exist for bivocational pastors,
such as
– health insurance choices (a top concern in completed surveys).
– life, ministry, family-time balance.
– anxiety about supporting one’s family.
– busy households with both parents working more than full-time.
– Call satisfaction: Many pastors can struggle with a sense of having
a divided mind between direct ministry work and their other job(s),
whereas some love and thrive on the diversity of their experiences.
Many may wish they had more time for ministry. Others may feel that
their other job is part of their ministry and part of their divine call. Oth-
ers may prefer full-time ministry and even feel that their work is not
honored when not fully compensated.
There is an intensity to the challenges that may be faced by pastors
working bivocationally. Beyond the anxieties of finance, life balance, and
foundational understanding of one’s call to ministry, there may also be
experiences of feeling defeated, emotional and relational breakdown, and
even ministry-ending trauma.
The following four suggestions highlight moves that the CRCNA
can make to help pastors discern their calling for bivocational ministry,

alance ongoing bivocational ministry, prevent breakdown, and learn
b
from breakdowns that occur.
a. Multivocational training
Multivocational training is the first step in bivocational leader care.
Various forms of training, such as leadership skills development, busi-
ness skills, and job application training can help future bivocational
leaders. Pastors who have developed a second collection of skills while
in college or university will be better prepared for the eventuality of
needing to work bivocationally.
While it’s not within the mandate of our task force, we encourage
Calvin Theological Seminary to consider ways to provide training
with the realities of bivocationality in mind. Future pastors need to be
prepared for challenges and opportunities that come from bivocational
and nontraditional ministry arrangements.
b. Balancing unique stressors and satisfiers
All pastors, including bivocational pastors, need a unique balance
in their vocations to sustain both their ministry and other aspects of
their lives. The Canadian Multivocational Ministry Project (canadian-
multivocationalministry.ca), a multidenominational and multiagency
research project, released their findings in May 2020. The project
was launched to learn about issues faced by multivocational pastors,
including both challenges and opportunities. The report provided our
task force with insight into the importance of balance for long-term,
healthy ministry and life.
Relying on the work of the Wellness Project @ Wycliffe, an online
questionnaire for assessing wellness in congregational ministry run by
Wycliffe Seminary at the University of Toronto, the report notes that
every pastor is wired differently in what tasks and responsibilities are
core satisfiers and core stressors. By knowing what these are, pas-
tors can minimize the potential for burnout. The report noted that 90
percent of multivocational participants identified time and workload
strain as a core stressor (p. 9). Positively, shared ministry and workload
among ministry partners, both vocational and volunteer, was noted as
essential (p. 10).
A challenge to bivocational leaders is that even moderately satisfy-
ing tasks can become a potential irritant when frequently required.
In the study, one example of a positive role becoming an irritant was
management responsibilities. One may enjoy doing these tasks in small
amounts, but as the demand for administrative work escalates, it can
become an irritant. The pastor perceives a lack of balance that, over
time, contributes to burnout. An inventory of stressors and satisfiers
shared within the context of team ministry can yield a greater chance of
bivocational longevity.
The report notes that perceived balance in bivocational ministry de-
pends on how one categorizes the interplay between ministry work and
other work—namely, is it integrated (“a synergistic relationship between
congregational leadership and other work”), complementary (in which
the arrangement provides a benefit beyond financial support to the
pastor that is not ministry related), lucrative (in which the arrangement

only provides financial benefit), or conflicted (making the arrangement
unsustainable)? “Asking questions which help the multivocational
leader clarify to what degree they fit with any of these categories . . . can
encourage reflection on how the different forms of work are perceived.
If other work is perceived to be a positive contributor to ministry, then
there are positive implications for sustainability. If other work is consid-
ered more important than the congregational ministry or detrimental,
something will need to change in the current situation” (p. 18).
In the CRC, the respondents to our ethnic-minority bivocational
leaders survey included people in each of these categories of bivoca-
tional balance. Intermixed with these perceptions of balance are unspo-
ken theologies of work, particular understandings of the division of or
mixing of sacred and secular, and the cultural importance of pastoral
honor and value being linked to a fully paid position.
The most significant challenge toward satisfying bivocational minis-
try is having a clear sense of call that fits the bivocational reality. If the
sense of call to bivocational ministry is absent, the leader will remain at
best seeing other jobs as lucrative and at worst conflicted.
We encourage pastors, especially bivocational pastors, to learn what
contributes to stress and satisfaction in their vocations. Such informa-
tion will help pastors and supervisory councils design and execute a
healthy ministry plan that contributes to long-term, healthy ministry
and life.
c. Ongoing wellness assessment
Because the challenges of care for bivocational pastors are ongoing,
our third suggestion is to initiate regular (and also by request) ministry
wellness assessment for pastors in bivocational ministry. A tool similar
to the Wellness Project @ Wycliffe questionnaire would be beneficial
to bivocational pastors and the congregations they serve. It generates
helpful feedback, including a burnout score. Such an assessment could
help anticipate challenges before they happen, guide plans to reverse
any decline, and return ministry to a positive direction.
The results of a regular ministry wellness assessment would foster
regular conversation between pastors and their supervisory council
regarding a shared understanding of financial support, hours at work,
responsibilities, and other expectations between the congregation and
the pastor.
d. Ministry postmortem
Our final suggestion assumes that some form of bivocational min-
istry burnout has already occurred. We recommend intentional exit
interviews for the pastor and the ministry as a means of both picking
up the pieces and providing healing and learning from what hap-
pened. Although this is an emotionally charged moment and would
seek voluntary participation by the participants, exit interviews can
yield healing while also teaching us how to avoid future burnout or
breakdown for churches and pastors.
We recommend that Pastor Church Resources create an exit inter-
view/ministry postmortem learning process for classes, churches,

l eaders, and their families to heal and for our denomination to learn
from the occurrence of burnout in bivocational ministry.
2. Bivocationality and opportunity
Alongside the challenges that call us to care for bivocational leaders,
there is also a transformative and creative opportunity for the CRCNA in
this conversation.
a. Incarnational witness
Our culture, as in Paul’s day, is more and more suspicious of the
motives of the church and church leaders. Churches and pastors are
often seen as financially motivated with self-preserving intent while
seeking to reach out with gospel ministry. Many pastors who use
bivocational ministry as a strategy testify that they are better able to
enter into a respectful relationship with others in the community. Thus
they are given better access to the lives and spiritual needs of persons
who need to encounter Jesus Christ.
b. Greater organic flourishing
As a thought experiment, if one assumes $80,000 USD or $100,000
CDN per year as the payroll cost of a full-time pastor position, this
creates two interconnected challenges for a 21st-century North Ameri-
can congregation. First, the congregation must have an approximate
minimum size to cover this full-time salary. Second, the congregation
and the community the congregation is reaching must have the finan-
cial capacity to support this full-time salary. In short, they need both
minimum numbers and minimum wealth.
Bivocational pastors, however, can help congregations flourish
regardless of their size or wealth. Bivocational pastors can help sustain
and sometimes grow small congregations. Bivocational pastors or pas-
tors in nontraditional arrangements are also instrumental for ministry
in low-income and socially disadvantaged locations. This provides
greater opportunity for organic flourishing in these otherwise challeng-
ing settings.
Larger congregations can also benefit. Rather than focusing on pas-
tors in only full-time positions, a large church with bivocational pastors
can provide ministry leadership that matches the organic growth of
the congregation. For example, a congregation may have one full-time
pastor and then add a bivocational pastor in a 1/3 FTE arrangement
as it grows. Some evidence of this type of arrangement surfaced in our
survey among ethnic-minority leaders in the CRCNA. It was noted that
most Korean churches have full-time senior pastors but that they also
have bivocational leaders in other positions in the church, positions
that would likely add to more continuous or organic growth.
c. Ecclesiological toughness
Bivocational leadership provides an ecclesiological toughness for
small or underfunded congregations. These congregations may not be
able to pay a pastor full-time. Thus they may feel forced to choose to
either limp along without pastoral leadership or to close. Bivocational-
ity could help those congregations maintain a greater ecclesiological
toughness to weather the storm and perhaps experience renewal.

d. Missiological flexibility
Bivocational leadership provides missiological flexibility. With
bivocational leadership, congregations can have the flexibility to target
specific towns or neighborhoods that have challenging demographics
for church growth.
Bivocational pastors also help small congregations fulfill their
distinct and important roles in the spread of the gospel. For example,
small congregations can have an attractive intimacy that larger congre-
gations are unable to provide. Small congregations provide a unique
and important setting for faith nurture and gospel proclamation that
are necessary for the health of the broader church. Bivocational pastors
help small congregations have the missional flexibility to continue their
important ministry.
VII. Council and classis oversight

A. Minister of the Word
At present, ministers of the Word do not receive the letter of call until
it is reviewed and signed by the classical counselor (Church Order Art. 9).
This ensures that all ecclesiastical regulations for the call (Art. 8) have been
followed and that the minister is provided with “proper support” (Art. 15.)
There may come a time when the minister’s job description changes into a
bivocational ministry, and at that time it will be essential that classis, perhaps
through church visitors, review and approve changes from that in the origi-
nal signed letter of call.
In our recommendations in this report (section XI) we encourage super-
vising councils to review bivocational ministry arrangements on an annual
basis to see if any changes need to be made. For example, they could con-
sider questions like these: Does the bivocational pastor have the support of
the council and congregation? Is the ministry of the church to the community
benefiting from bivocational ministry? These and other questions can help
to generate mutual reflection and discussion so that the work of the Lord
moves forward.
B. Commissioned pastor
Commissioned pastors, including those in bivocational or nontraditional
arrangements, are called by the council of their calling church. At present,
classis and synodical deputies must approve the job description of the com-
missioned pastor (Church Order Supplement, Art. 23-a). The Commissioned
Pastor Handbook gives guidelines regarding “proper support,” but there
is no requirement for approval by classis in the letter of call. We propose
that the job description for commissioned pastors include the calling con-
gregation’s support plan, including financial support, for classis review
and approval before the calling of the pastor. In section VIII of this report
we recommend such changes to Church Order Article 23. This will ensure a
healthy discussion.
For both ministers of the Word and commissioned pastors, we believe
there needs to be a healthy discussion among the parties before the call to
ensure a clear understanding about the conditions spelled out in the letter
of call. Is there a clear understanding regarding “proper support”? sab-
batical? personal time? self-care? time expectations? etc. In some cases, we

have heard of bivocational pastors agreeing to minimal or no salary because
the alternate work outside of the church was financially sufficient or the
spouse’s work supported the family. Not all scenarios can be spelled out, but
before the call there should be a clear and shared understanding that ensures
“proper support” for the pastor and the pastor’s family.
Classis also provides oversight through the annual church visit (Church
Order Art. 42). Church visitors are urged to ensure the health and welfare of
the church’s ministry and its pastors (i.e., that there is “proper support”). We
encourage all classes to ensure that its ministry of church visiting is healthy
for the sake of the churches and our pastors.
VIII. Financial considerations

Synod also mandated that our task force “address financial implications
and responsibilities (clearly defined ‘proper support’; see Church Order
Supplement, Art. 15) relative to church, classis, pastor, and the like.”
Much of this is addressed in section IX of this report in our proposed
changes to Church Order Article 15 and its Supplement, and in a proposed
addition to Article 23 and its Supplement. In that section of the report we
also clearly define the term “proper support” for both minister of the Word
and commissioned pastor.
It is the responsibility of the calling church and classis to ensure that the
pastor who enters into a bivocational, covocational, or other nontraditional
ministry arrangement has a plan that adequately addresses matters such as
income, medical insurance, disability insurance, housing provision, pension
or retirement plan, a continuing education stipend, and other employment-
related items. The majority of proper support may come from the calling
church or other employer(s) or entrepreneurial business. Unfortunately, there
are situations in which a pastor does not receive proper support and yet is
expected to provide full-time work. Before the calling of the pastor, there
needs to be a thorough discussion of and assurance of proper support. Not
every situation will be the same, so the calling church, classis, and pastor
must discuss proper support and where it is coming from.
In light of these concerns, we are proposing changes to the Church
Order Supplement for Articles 15 and 23 in order to provide “Guidelines
for Churches in Conversation with Pastors about ‘Proper Support.’” Specifi-
cally, the task force is recommending that a calling council provide a support
plan for the pastor. Included in the support plan should be a financial plan
that includes arrangements for income, medical insurance, disability insur-
ance, housing provision, pension or retirement plan, a continuing education
stipend, and other employment-related items. For ministers of the Word, the
support plan, including the financial plan, should be included in the letter of
call. Classis should provide its input by way of the classical counselor who
will approve the letter of call. For commissioned pastors, the support plan
should be approved by classis as part of approving the position description.
(During our work, denominational employees noted that other aspects of
Church Order Supplement, Art. 15 require revision. Current guideline 1 is no
longer valid because there is no longer a “synodically stated minimum sal-
ary” provided. Likewise, guideline 4 is no longer valid because ministers can
only be 100 percent in the pension plan, not credited “proportionate to the
percentage of time devoted to the duties of the church.” These matters have

been taken into account in the proposed Church Order changes in section IX
of this report.)
We encourage supervising councils to initiate annual discussions to review
existing financial plans. We also encourage supervising councils to initiate an-
nual discussions to review support plans, including areas such as emotional
health, self-care, any changes in support, and other factors relating to pastors’
well-being. This is also an area that church visitors are called to discuss dur-
ing the annual visit with the church council (Church Order Art. 42).
A. A living salary
For ministers of the Word, before 2019 the CRCNA published the Minis-
ters Compensation Survey, based on the outcome of a detailed survey mailed
to churches and pastors. Over the years the returned surveys continued to
drop. Since 2019 the CRCNA now publishes the “Average Total Base Salary
plus Housing by Classis” report. This information is updated after synod
and can be found in the Church Administration and Finance Guide on the
CRCNA website (crcna.org). This information, along with regional and
ministry contexts, can be used to guide the discussion of proper support for
pastors.
Regarding commissioned pastors in bivocational, covocational, or nontra-
ditional positions, proper support guidelines are found in the Commissioned
Pastor Handbook posted on the CRCNA website (crcna.org).
B. Health insurance, disability insurance, and other benefits
Health and disability insurance presents particular challenges to pas-
tors in bivocational or part-time arrangements. This is especially true in the
United States, where health insurance costs have skyrocketed while coverage
has decreased. Long-term disability insurance is provided as part of the min-
isters’ pension plan. However, the pension plan is only available to ministers
of the Word who pay as if they are full-time and requires a minimum of 30
hours of work per week as clergy. This excludes ministers of the Word whose
positions call for less than 30 hours per week, and it excludes all commis-
sioned pastors. The task force affirms that health insurance and disability in-
surance are required aspects of “proper support.” Supervisory councils need
to discern together with their pastors how health and disability insurance
and other benefits will be provided for the pastors and their dependents.
C. Pension and other retirement considerations
While the ministers’ pension plan has been a wonderful provision for min-
isters of the Word in full-time positions, it does require full premium payment
even if the minister is in bivocational or part-time ministry. Commissioned
pastors, on the other hand, have sought out other retirement-funding tools,
many of which have been after-tax savings options. In November 2019, the
CRCNA began rolling out a new 403(b)(9) retirement plan that supervising
councils in the United States can make available to commissioned pastors
and ministers of the Word (as well as church staff). This development has
been welcomed. Canadian pastors continue to rely on government retirement
programs such as registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs) and personal
savings plans such as tax-free savings accounts (TFSAs).
The ministers’ pension plan does not recognize the ordination of both
spouses who share ministry together as ministers of the Word, thus requiring

two full premium payments for two separate pension accounts at a sig-
nificant cost to the clergy couple and their congregation. This situation has
resulted in many couples choosing one spouse to receive the ministerial
recognition in the plan, while the other spouse, who is also ordained as a
minister of the Word and sharing the work, is simply registered as a spouse
and is limited to spousal benefits only. We urge synod to direct the U.S.
Board of Pensions and the Canadian Pension Trustees, in consultation with
clergy couples, to amend the pension plan to recognize the ordination of
both spouses who are ministers of the Word by providing the option of a
single, full membership and benefits to both spouses as a single entity who
contribute to a single pension plan. Thus, when one ordained spouse dies,
the surviving, ordained spouse will be recognized and honored as a minister
of the Word. While we recognize that there are challenges and difficulties
related to this request, we urge the boards to take this request seriously and
find a way to provide due recognition.
D. Classis student aid funds (cf. Church Order Article 21)
Church Order Article 21 states, “The churches shall encourage individu-
als to seek to become ministers of the Word and, in coordination with classis,
shall grant financial aid to those who are in need of it.” Each classis has its
own set of rules or guidelines regarding the financial aid it offers to students
in master of divinity programs who are seeking to be ordained as ministers
of the Word. The classis committees overseeing these funds may struggle
with how to respond to former students who then enter into bivocational
ministry or another nontraditional arrangement.
While specific decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, we offer
the following observations and encouragement to these committees. First,
as stated earlier in this report, there is no such thing as a part-time pastor;
there are only part-time arrangements. Second, we encourage these commit-
tees to view these individuals through their ordination, whether minister of
the Word or commissioned pastor. The goal of Church Order Article 21 is to
encourage persons to be and serve as ministers of the Word, not that they
serve in a particular way or context. Third, we ask student fund commit-
tees to remember the importance of bivocationality and other nontraditional
arrangements for church planting, small or impoverished congregations, and
immigrant congregations. These gospel activities are hindered when their
ministers are burdened with repaying financial aid. Fourth, we encourage
classis student fund committees to continue to be generous. While it is not
the role of our task force or synod to direct the forgiveness of aid that has
been granted, we encourage financial forgiveness for pastors who are bivoca-
tional or serving in other nontraditional arrangements.
IX. Church Order considerations

The Church Order currently states in Article 15 that
Each church through its council shall provide for the proper support of its
minister(s). By way of exception and with the approval of classis, a church and
minister may agree that a minister obtain primary or supplemental income by
means of other employment. Ordinarily, the foregoing exception shall be limited
to churches that cannot obtain assistance adequate to support their minister.

While well-intentioned, this and other sections of the Church Order treat
bivocational ministers, covocational ministers, and ministers in other minis-
terial situations as exceptions to the rule rather than as normal. The Church
Order also assumes in places that these arrangements are by financial neces-
sity only rather than driven by mission and vision or other important factors.
Article 15 has remained in place with its current wording since 1988 and
reflects the understanding of ministry at that time, but it needs to be updated
to include new trends in ministry that approach various forms of ministry as
a valid choice rather than as a result of financial need.
In response, our task force recommends the following changes to the
Church Order and Its Supplements (with additions indicated by underline
and deletions by strikethrough).
A. Article 14-d
Article 14 deals with the release of a minister of the Word from ordained
ministry. Article 14-d specifically deals with a minister who has forsaken the
office (see Art. 14-c) and has entered a vocation that is judged by their classis
to be nonministerial. In its current form, however, Article 14-d implies that a
nonministerial vocation conflicts with the work and ordination of a minister
of the Word. In other words, it assumes that bivocational ministry is not an
option. We believe that the addition noted below clarifies that forsaking the
work of the office is cause for a minister to be released, not simply having
another vocation in addition to the calling of a minister of the Word.
Current Article 14-d
d. A minister of the Word who has entered upon a vocation which clas-
sis judges to be nonministerial shall be released from office within one
year of that judgment. The concurring advice of the synodical deputies
shall be obtained at the time of the judgment.
Proposed Article 14-d
d. A minister of the Word who has entered upon a vocation which
classis judges to be nonministerial and forsakes the calling of a min-
ister of the Word shall be released from office within one year of that
judgment. The concurring advice of the synodical deputies shall be
obtained at the time of the judgment.
B. Article 15
Article 15 deals with the support the church provides for ministers of the
Word in their covenantal relationship together. This support includes, but is
not limited to, financial, physical, emotional, and spiritual support. While all
of these are important for all pastors, these aspects can be particularly com-
plex for pastors in bivocational or other nontraditional arrangements.
Our task force is proposing changes to Article 15 to allow flexibility of
local congregations in discerning “proper support.” The phrasing “attend
to” (in place of “provide for”) maintains the covenantal relationship be-
tween pastor and congregation while giving flexibility with regard to where
“proper support,” especially financial support, is coming from.
We are also proposing removal of the latter section of this article because
it discriminates against bivocational ministry. The resulting simplified Article
15 will provide the flexibility required while supporting the acceptance of

various forms of ministry and maintaining the covenantal relationship of ser-
vice and support between ministers and congregations.
Current Article 15
Each church through its council shall provide for the proper support
of its minister(s). By way of exception and with the approval of classis,
a church and minister may agree that a minister obtain primary or
supplemental income by means of other employment. Ordinarily the
foregoing exception shall be limited to churches that cannot obtain as-
sistance adequate to support their minister.
Proposed Article 15
Each church through its council shall provide for attend to the proper
support of its minister(s). By way of exception and with the approval of
classis, a church and minister may agree that a minister obtain primary
or supplemental income by means of other employment. Ordinarily
the foregoing exception shall be limited to churches that cannot obtain
assistance adequate to support their minister.
C. Supplement, Article 15
The supplement to Article 15 defines “proper support,” especially with
regard to financial considerations, and provides “Guidelines for Churches
Whose Ministers Receive Salary Support from Other Employment.”
It was noted to the task force that this supplement has been in need of
revision, and some matters in need of change are described in section VIII
of this report (“Financial Considerations”). The proposed changes below
address some of these issues, give further clarity to the proposed Article 15,
and support flexibility in the covenantal arrangement between the minister
and the calling church. We have also revised this supplement to include
nonfinancial support.
Proposed Supplement, Article 15
“Proper Support” Defined
Proper support of a church’s minister is to include an adequate
salary, medical insurance, disability insurance, a housing provision,
payment to the denomination’s ministers’ pension plan payment to
an appropriate pension or retirement plan, a continuing education
stipend, and other employment-related items.
To “attend to” proper support does not imply that the calling church
is responsible to provide all of these items of support. Rather, the call-
ing church is responsible to ensure that the minister has a plan that
addresses these items. In many traditional ministries the local church
itself accepts these responsibilities in order to facilitate full-time or
part-time ministerial service. In other settings—such as church plant-
ing, various forms of chaplaincy, bivocational arrangements, multi-
point ministries, and so on—the financial plan will include income and
benefits provided by a variety of potential sources. The financial plan
should be carefully reviewed and signed by the classical counselor
when a call to ministry is made or when a pastor and church decide to
change their financial arrangement.

Guidelines for Churches Whose Ministers Receive Salary Support from Other
Employment in Conversations with Pastors about “Proper Support”
1. The church is responsible for a total compensation package
proportionate to the time spent in ministry to the church (forty-
eight hours equals full time). The compensation package shall
ordinarily be based on synodically stated minimum salary,
fringe benefits, and housing costs.
2. Since the compensation package includes a percentage allow-
ance for health insurance, the minister is expected to secure
adequate health insurance for the minister and the minister’s
family.
31. The value of the parsonage provided by the congregation may
be used for part or all of the compensation package.
42. The minister shall receive pension credits in the Ministers’ Pen-
sion Fund proportionate to the percentage of time devoted to
the duties of the church. Eligibility for full pension credit may
be secured if full contribution to the Ministers’ Pension Plan is
made.
53. The nature and amount of time of the task(s) other than minis-
try shall be specifiedshall be mutually discerned by minister(s)
and the supervising council. The support plan in the letter of
call, including the financial plan, shall be specified in writing,
approved by the classical counselor, and normally reviewed an-
nually by the supervising council. The average amount of time
expended upon the total of the ministerial and nonministerial
tasks shall not normally exceed sixty hours per week.
4. The supervising council shall annually attend to nonfinancial
support of ministers, including but not limited to physical, emo-
tional, and spiritual support.
D. Article 23-d (new)
The task force proposes an addition to Article 23 that calls for the proper
support of commissioned pastors. This parallels the role of Article 15 for
ministers of the Word. The same purpose and phrasing choices that are men-
tioned regarding Article 15 apply here as well.
Proposed Article 23-d
d. Each church through its council shall attend to the proper support of
its commissioned pastor.
E. Supplement, Article 23-d (new)
The proposed supplement to proposed Article 23-d reflects similar
proposed changes to Supplement, Article 15, with some alterations bearing
distinctly on the nature and processes regarding the office of commissioned
pastor.
Proposed Supplement, Article 23-d
Proper support of a commissioned pastor is to include an adequate
payment to an appropriate pension or retirement plan, a continuing
education stipend, and other employment-related items.

ing church is responsible to ensure that the commissioned pastor has a
plan that addresses these items. In many traditional ministries the local
church itself accepts these responsibilities in order to facilitate full-time
or part-time ministry service. In other settings—such as church plant-
benefits provided by a variety of potential sources. The calling church’s
support of the financial plan should be carefully reviewed at the time
classis approves the commissioned pastor’s position. This includes a
call to bivocational ministry or when a pastor and church decide to
Guidelines for Churches in Conversations with Pastors about “Proper
Support”
1. The value of the parsonage provided by the congregation may be
used for part or all of the compensation package.
2. The nature and amount of time of the task(s) shall be mutually
discerned by the commissioned pastor(s) and the supervising
council. The support plan, including the financial plan, shall be
specified in writing, approved by classis along with the position
description, and normally reviewed annually by the supervising
council. The average amount of time expended upon the total
of the ministerial and nonministerial tasks shall not normally
exceed sixty hours per week.
support of commissioned pastors, including but not limited to
physical, emotional, and spiritual support.
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):

1. Proposed Article 14-d
d. A minister of the Word who has entered upon a vocation which
classis judges to be nonministerial and forsakes the calling of a min-
ister of the Word shall be released from office within one year of that
judgment. The concurring advice of the synodical deputies shall be
obtained at the time of the judgment.
Grounds:
a. Without this addition, Article 15 implies that a nonministerial voca-
tion is in conflict with the work and ordination of a minister of the
Word.
b. The addition clarifies that forsaking the office is cause for a minister
to be released.
2. Proposed Article 15
Each church through its council shall provide for attend to the proper
support of its minister(s). By way of exception and with the approval of
classis, a church and minister may agree that a minister obtain primary
or supplemental income by means of other employment. Ordinarily
the foregoing exception shall be limited to churches that cannot obtain
assistance adequate to support their minister.
Grounds:
a. The change in phrasing maintains the covenantal relationship be-
tween pastor and congregation while giving flexibility with regard
to where “proper support” is coming from.
b. The removed section discriminates against bivocational ministry
as an “exception” rather than recognizing it as a desired, missional
choice.
3. Proposed Supplement, Article 15
Proper support of a church’s minister is to include an adequate
payment to the denomination’s ministers’ pension plan payment to
an appropriate pension or retirement plan, a continuing education
stipend, and other employment-related items.
ing church is responsible to ensure that the minister has a plan that
addresses these items. In many traditional ministries the local church
itself accepts these responsibilities in order to facilitate full-time or
part-time ministerial service. In other settings—such as church plant-
benefits provided by a variety of potential sources. The financial plan
should be carefully reviewed and signed by the classical counselor
when a call to ministry is made or when a pastor and church decide to

Guidelines for Churches Whose Ministers Receive Salary Support from Other
Employment in Conversations with Pastors about “Proper Support”
1. The church is responsible for a total compensation package
proportionate to the time spent in ministry to the church (forty-
eight hours equals full time). The compensation package shall
ordinarily be based on synodically stated minimum salary,
fringe benefits, and housing costs.
2. Since the compensation package includes a percentage allow-
ance for health insurance, the minister is expected to secure
adequate health insurance for the minister and the minister’s
family.
31. The value of the parsonage provided by the congregation may
be used for part or all of the compensation package.
42. The minister shall receive pension credits in the Ministers’ Pen-
sion Fund proportionate to the percentage of time devoted to
the duties of the church. Eligibility for full pension credit may
be secured if full contribution to the Ministers’ Pension Plan is
made.
53. The nature and amount of time of the task(s) other than minis-
try shall be specifiedshall be mutually discerned by minister(s)
and the supervising council. The support plan in the letter of
call, including the financial plan, shall be specified in writing,
approved by the classical counselor, and normally reviewed an-
nually by the supervising council. The average amount of time
expended upon the total of the ministerial and nonministerial
tasks shall not normally exceed sixty hours per week.
support of ministers, including but not limited to physical, emo-
tional, and spiritual support.
Grounds:
a. These revisions address issues described in section VIII of this report
(“Financial Considerations”).
b. These revisions provide further clarity to the proposed Article 15.
c. These revisions promote flexibility while also promoting the cov-
enantal arrangement between the minister and the calling church.
4. Proposed Article 23-d
d. Each church through its council shall attend to the proper support of
its commissioned pastor.
Grounds:
a. The proposed addition calls for the proper support of commissioned
pastors.
b. The proposed addition parallels the proposal for Article 15.
5. Proposed Supplement, Article 23-d
Proper support of a commissioned pastor is to include an adequate
payment to an appropriate pension or retirement plan, a continuing
education stipend, and other employment-related items.

is responsible to provide all of these items of support. Rather, the
calling church is responsible to ensure that the commissioned pastor
has a plan that addresses these items. In many traditional ministries
the local church itself accepts these responsibilities in order to facili-
tate full-time or part-time ministry service. In other settings—such as
church planting, various forms of chaplaincy, bivocational arrange-
ments, multipoint ministries, and so on—the financial plan will include
income and benefits provided by a variety of potential sources. The
calling church’s support of the financial plan should be carefully
reviewed at the time classis approves the commissioned pastor’s posi-
tion. This includes a call to bivocational ministry or when a pastor and
church decide to change their financial arrangement.
Guidelines for Churches in Conversations with Pastors about “Proper Sup-
port”
1. The value of the parsonage provided by the congregation may be
used for part or all of the compensation package.
2. The nature and amount of time of the task(s) shall be mutually
discerned by the commissioned pastor(s) and the supervising
council. The support plan, including the financial plan, shall be
specified in writing, approved by classis along with the position
description, and normally reviewed annually by the supervising
council. The average amount of time expended upon the total
of the ministerial and nonministerial tasks shall not normally
exceed sixty hours per week.
support of commissioned pastors, including but not limited to
physical, emotional, and spiritual support.
Grounds:
a. This addition provides further clarity to the proposed Article 23-d.
b. This addition promotes flexibility while also promoting the cov-
enantal arrangement between the commissioned pastor and the
calling church.
c. The proposed supplement reflects similar proposed changes to
Supplement, Article 15.
C. That synod encourage classical student funding committees (providing
financial aid for seminary students—cf. Church Order Article 21) to treat
those who are in or anticipating bivocational or other nontraditional ministry
arrangements in the same manner as those who are in or anticipating full-
time arrangements.
Grounds:
1. Bivocational pastors and pastors in nontraditional arrangements retain
the honor of the office they have been ordained to and remain account-
able to the work to which they have been called.
2. Burdening bivocational pastors and pastors in nontraditional arrange-
ments with financial debts does not serve the church as a whole, nor
does it serve the cause of the gospel.

3. Article 21 states that “the churches . . . in coordination with classis,
shall grant financial aid to those who are in need of it” and thus make
their decisions based on their knowledge of specific situations.
D. That synod instruct the executive director to direct Pastor Church Re-
sources to create an exit interview/ministry postmortem learning process for
classes, churches, leaders, and their families to use when burnout occurs in
bivocational ministry.
Grounds:
1. Exit interviews/postmortems can provide healing to those involved.
2. Exit interviews/postmortems may help to teach us how to avoid future
burnout or breakdown situations between churches and pastors.
E. That synod instruct the executive director to direct Pastor Church
Resources to provide a ministry wellness assessment for pastors in bivoca-
tional ministry and their supervisory councils to use as part of their regular
conversations.
Grounds:
1. Such an assessment could provide helpful feedback regarding a bivoca-
tional pastor’s well-being.
2. Such an assessment could provide a helpful tool in the regular conver-
sations between a bivocational pastor and the supervisory council.
F. That synod direct the CRCNA’s U.S. Board of Pensions and Canadian
Pension Trustees, in consultation with clergy couples, to amend the pension
plan to recognize the ordination of both spouses who are ministers of the
Word by providing the option of a single, full membership and benefits to
both spouses as a single entity who contribute to a single pension plan.
Ground: The current rules of the pension plan do not equally recognize
and honor the ordinations of clergy couples who are both ministers of the
Word.
G. That synod encourage all pastors together with their supervisory coun-
cils to annually review the “proper support” required for pastors, including
the financial plan.
Grounds:
1. An annual review of “proper support” will help to encourage the on-
going health of pastors and their families.
2. Annual reviews that include a review of “proper support” will ful-
fill the requirements regarding the same in proposed Church Order
Articles 15 and 23-d and their Supplements.
H. That synod encourage church visitors to inquire about the health and
welfare of pastors, including whether they have “proper support.”
Grounds:
1. Inquiry about the health and welfare of pastors will encourage the
same.
2. Inquiry about whether pastors have “proper support” is included in
the church visitors’ mandate to ascertain whether a church’s office
bearers “observe the provisions of the Church Order” (see Art. 42-b).

I. That synod encourage the classes and congregations of the CRCNA to af-
firm the challenges of bivocational ministry, support the leaders of adaptive
changes that are happening in our current ministry settings, and celebrate
the dedicated and creative pastoral work many are doing and will do for the
sake of the gospel as led by the Holy Spirit.
Ground: Bivocational pastors, those in nontraditional ministry arrange-
ments, and their work require affirmation, support, and celebration by the
broader body of believers.
Study of Bivocationality Task Force
Bernard Bakker (chair)
John Bouwers
Beth Fellinger
Ernesto Hernandez
Sharon Jim
David Koll (staff)
Michael Vander Laan (reporter)
Phillip Westra
Robert Zoerman
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/

NELAND AVENUE CRC
IN LOCO COMMITTEE
REPORT
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 In Loco Committee Report 315

316 In Loco Committee Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023
NELAND AVENUE CRC IN LOCO COMMITTEE
REPORT
I. Background, mandate, and committee process

A. Background
The in loco committee mandated by Synod 2022 has been at work since
August 2022. As instructed by Synod 2022, our general secretary ap-
pointed a committee consisting of those willing to take on the task and fol-
low the mandate given by synod. Our committee consists of Greg DeMey
(Classis Northern Illinois), Paul De Vries (chair, Classis Thornapple Val-
ley), William Koopmans (Classis Hamilton), John Mondi (Classis Grand
Rapids North), Josh Van Drunen (Classis Grand Rapids South), and Bev-
erly Weeks (Classis Grand Rapids North). The general secretary, Zachary
King, served as an adviser.
One of our first items of business was to ensure that we properly under-
stood our mandate and authority. Since synod rarely appoints in loco com-
mittees (2005 was the most recent time such a committee was appointed,
while before that it was the 1970s), precedent is limited. Moreover, the
Church Order does not specifically mention in loco committees.
Despite the limited historical precedent, with our collective knowledge,
experience, and understanding, along with some good research and direc-
tion from Church Order experts, we discerned that an in loco committee has
no more (or less) authority than what synod has explicitly given it in their
mandate. As an in loco committee, we are authorized to carry out synod’s
specific mandate after synod adjourns. Synod, as the broadest assembly, is
responsible for denominational adherence to the confessions and for
bringing expression to the God-given unity of the church. If synod specifi-
cally assigns “oversight for compliance,” the in loco committee carries the
authority of synod as specified in its mandate. Our synodical mandate (as
quoted below) is very specific and has clear boundaries. We have not been
authorized to negotiate, expand, or in any way mitigate the decisions of
synod. Nor have we been directed to address matters related to the Hu-
man Sexuality Report and synod’s actions in that regard. We want to
acknowledge that we have heard the voices of those who suggest that we
should violate the mandate and do something different. We are free, some
have said, to find a “third way” beyond what synod decided and man-
dated. We, however, have agreed to serve on the committee and pursue
its mandate. Failing to do so would be disingenuous and a breaking of
covenant. All of these remarks bring us to synod’s actions and our specific
mandate.
B. Mandate
Synod 2022 adopted the following motions in regard to our work (Acts of
Synod 2022, pp. 926, 941-42):

1. That synod instruct Neland Avenue CRC to immediately rescind its
decision to ordain a deacon in a same-sex marriage, thus nullifying
this deacon’s current term.
2. That synod instruct Neland Avenue CRC to uphold our shared de-
nominational covenants and procedures as laid out in the Church
Order and the Covenant for Officebearers.
3. That synod instruct the executive director to appoint a committee in
loco with the following mandate:
a. Meet with Neland Avenue CRC to oversee its compliance to
synod’s rulings.
b. Meet with Classis Grand Rapids East to admonish them regard-
ing their responsibility to uphold our shared denominational
covenants and procedures as laid out in the Church Order and
the Covenant for Officebearers.
c. Report to Classis Grand Rapids East at the autumn meeting (Sep-
tember 15, 2022; classisgreast.org) and make pertinent recom-
mendations for its deliberations and action.
d. If necessary, invite three other classes to assist the committee in
dealing with the issues regarding Neland Avenue CRC.
e. Report to Synod 2023, by way of the published Agenda for Synod,
its own actions and any classical actions taken, and present its rec-
ommendations.
Grounds:
1) Neland Avenue CRC has taken action contradictory to the posi-
tion of the CRCNA. As per Report 47, section IV, B, 2 (Acts of
Synod 1975, p. 603): “Synodical pronouncements on doctrinal and
ethical matters . . . 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.”
2) Neland Avenue CRC willingly chose a path of noncompliance. It
did not use the proper means to enact change in the CRCNA or
to seek clarification.
3) Failing to take firm action has negative consequences on the
CRCNA. It sends a message to other churches that noncompli-
ance is acceptable in the CRCNA. It threatens our unity and un-
dermines our witness to the world. Failure to address a publicly
wayward church is to disregard the third mark of the true church
(Belgic Confession, Art. 29).
4) Synod can intervene in a lower assembly if the well-being of the
churches in common is at stake (Church Order Art. 27-b and 28-
b). According to the Rules for Synodical Procedure, section V, B,
12, “All other matters may be considered which synod by a ma-
jority vote declares acceptable.” Synod is free to deal with any

matter that it judges to be of importance for the well-being of the
denomination. Synod appointed a committee in loco for First
CRC of Toronto while the congregation intended to ordain an of-
ficebearer living in a same-sex relationship. Neland Avenue CRC
has already ordained such an officebearer, and thus a committee
in loco is all the more warranted.
C. Process and chronology of the in loco committee’s work
Note: Please see the appendix for exact meeting times and formal commu-
nications.
Our work began in earnest in the late summer and early fall of 2022. We
met multiple times as a committee and quickly determined the need to
carefully listen to Neland Avenue CRC and Classis Grand Rapids East.
We met both formally and informally with members of Neland Avenue
CRC and Classis Grand Rapids East. Our chairperson and general secre-
tary met with Neland Avenue CRC’s council in late August, and then the
full committee met with the council, some congregation members, and
visitors from the classis in September. We followed these meetings by in-
formally gathering with a collection of pastors from Classis Grand Rapids
East prior to the formal meeting of the classis on September 15. As these
in-person gatherings occurred, we continued corresponding back and
forth via email on a regular basis with members of Neland Avenue CRC
and Classis Grand Rapids East.
We prayed together and spoke together. There were tears and some
laughter. We were together as brothers and sisters in Christ.
In the early meetings with Neland Avenue CRC, two things became
quickly apparent. First, Neland Avenue CRC affirmed they had no inten-
tion to rescind their action in ordaining a deacon in a same-sex relation-
ship. Second, they affirmed their intention to appeal synod’s decision.
Moreover, during the brief oral report and exchange of questions at the
September 15 Classis Grand Rapids East meeting between the in loco com-
mittee and classis, the officers of classis made clear their belief that they
had been faithful in their work and responsibilities with regard to Neland
Avenue CRC and would await further action from the in loco committee.
Following the September classis meeting, our committee continued to
meet and exchange correspondence with Neland Avenue CRC regarding
their decisions and actions (see Appendix). As we moved toward Christ-
mas and the New Year, the in loco committee began to formulate its report
for the January meeting of Classis Grand Rapids East. In preparation for
that meeting we met with members of the executive committee of classis
to ensure proper processing of the report and to address its inclusion in
the January 2023 classis agenda. In December we met again with Neland
Avenue CRC’s council, some members of the congregation, and visitors
from classis. Throughout the course of all our communications we have
made it a priority to listen with care and love.

During these conversations with one another we have encountered a
number of misunderstandings, concerns, and misgivings. We have had
some opportunity to gently clarify and encourage each other when neces-
sary. We on the in loco committee have appreciated the opportunity to lis-
ten, hear stories, and experience some of the pain and wrestling done by
Neland Avenue CRC and Classis Grand Rapids East.
Our report to classis was duly submitted to Classis Grand Rapids East, in-
cluded in the agenda for the January 19, 2023, meeting, and brought to the
floor of classis. After a brief discussion of our report, classis moved on
with other business without taking any action on our recommendations.
They had a number of related items on their agenda that also needed con-
sideration, including an overture from Church of the Servant CRC, stating
that "Classis GRE will wait for the adjudication of Neland’s appeal by
Synod 2023 before discerning any further action to take about Neland Av-
enue CRC.” The Church of the Servant overture was adopted. As the
meeting was concluding, and upon the specific request of the in loco com-
mittee chair, Classis Grand Rapids East took formal action on the commit-
tee’s recommendations prior to adjourning. The minutes of that meeting
record the following: “Classis receives the work and the report of the com-
mittee with gratitude and in particular acknowledges the admonition in
the report,” and the classis “declares this action [adoption of the Church of
the Servant Overture] be our response to the report of the synodically ap-
pointed committee in loco” (Classis Grand Rapids East, 1-9-23, Minutes
123.2).
Following the January classis meeting, our committee met three more
times to process Classis Grand Rapid East’s action. While we appreciated
their noted gratitude and acknowledgment of the admonition, we were
disappointed that they did not approve our recommendations.
D. Completion of the mandate
Before we could finalize our report for synod, we had to determine if we
would invite three classes to assist us. Our mandate states that the synodi-
cal in loco committee may, “if necessary, invite three other classes to assist
the committee.” The synodical in loco committee did not find it necessary
to invite three classes to complete its work, as the committee was able to
fulfill the aspects of its mandate by doing the following:
• “meet[ing] with Neland Avenue CRC to oversee its compliance to
synod’s rulings”
• “meet[ing] with Classis Grand Rapids East to admonish them”
• “report[ing] to Classis Grand Rapids East at the autumn meeting”
While the synodical in loco committee did not oversee full compliance, as
Neland Avenue CRC did not comply with synod’s direction and is ap-
pealing synod’s decision, the in loco committee worked within the limits
and scope of its mandate to encourage Neland Avenue CRC to respond to
the directions of synod.

Moreover, as the synodical in loco committee considered a potential meet-
ing with three classes, several questions surfaced related to the process
and how possible outcomes from a three-classis meeting could best serve
synod. These concerns included, but were not limited to, which three clas-
ses might become involved and how they might be chosen; how many
members of each classis might participate in such a meeting; how many
meetings might be necessary to properly ensure that synod could be best
served by the outcomes; and what authority might be given to the conclu-
sions reached by the three classes. In addition, the committee recognized
that these concerns could introduce more debatable decisions and thus ul-
timately be unhelpful to the process. Finally, the synodical in loco commit-
tee is composed of members from several classes (see Background).
In light of all the realities mentioned above, the in loco committee decided
not to invite three other classes to assist the committee.
II. Observations
A. Neland Avenue CRC and Classis Grand Rapids East are important
parts of the denomination and are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
We have deeply appreciated their hospitality and welcoming spirit to-
ward us in our work as the in loco committee.
B. We understand that Neland Avenue CRC and Classis Grand Rapids
East have deliberated, studied, and pastorally cared for one another as
they have discussed LGBTQ+ issues through the years. They perceive
themselves, through the Spirit and through their study of the Word, to
have made decisions that are faithful to their unique congregational
identity and to the wider CRCNA community.
However, Neland Avenue CRC’s decision to ordain a same-sex mar-
ried deacon has demonstrated an unwillingness to appropriately ob-
serve and work within the Church Order and synodical decisions to
enact change. We observe that a foundational component of our cove-
nantal unity as a denomination rests on the patient humility to work
through processes and procedures of the CRCNA’s Church Order.
C. In the midst of our current challenges, it is essential that the member
congregations of the CRCNA keep covenant with one another when
there are sharp disagreements. It is not helpful to lash out at one an-
other and to assume the worst of the other party. Likewise, we note
that our synods are an important part of the denomination as a mecha-
nism of discernment and unity as brothers and sisters in Christ. Vari-
ous synods and their study committees have carefully deliberated,
studied, and pastorally cared for one another as they have discussed
LGBTQ+ issues through the years. They have done so imperfectly, but
they clearly state and believe, through the Spirit and through their
study of the Word, that their decisions have been and are faithful. We
believe that the actions of Neland Avenue CRC have disrespected and
disregarded the deliberation and decisions of our corporate body and
therefore are a breaking of covenant.

D. We observe that in our meetings with Neland Avenue CRC (and in
their materials provided to Synod 2022) great attention and weight
were given to “story” and the incontestable nature of “sharing one’s
story,” while comparatively little attention was given to how Neland
Avenue CRC has attempted to work within the Church Order or
CRCNA processes to implement its understanding of same-sex sexual
relationships within the denomination. We shared then, and share
now, our deep appreciation for the telling of these stories and espe-
cially for the people whose stories they are. We also note that while our
testimonies and experiences are an essential part of our spiritual jour-
neys, our personal stories are insufficient to bear the weight requisite
in the rigorous debates and communal discernment held over many
years and across the cultural differences even within a small denomi-
nation like the CRCNA.
E. We commend Neland Avenue CRC for striving toward a unified vi-
sion of Christ and community where all look to Christ as their uniting
principle. We observe that human sinfulness distorts our ability to see
Christ and his community perfectly (1 Cor. 13:12). Thus, any vision of
Christ and love of community ought to embrace the clarity and bound-
aries provided by historical Christian faith. In contrast, Neland Ave-
nue CRC’s vision and practices do not demonstrate humility toward
the boundaries provided by historical perspectives and broader de-
nominational deliberations and decisions.
F. We detected no proactive attempt by Neland Avenue CRC to listen to
the CRC’s rural, Korean, African, and Latino perspectives on human
sexuality. Nor has Neland Avenue CRC demonstrated an appreciation
of how its decisions and actions might deeply affect the wider
CRCNA.
G. We note that while Classis Grand Rapids East acknowledged the ad-
monishment of synod, it did not meaningfully engage with, or respond
to, the substance of the admonishment that calls out a failure to hold
Neland Avenue CRC accountable to the larger body, thereby disre-
specting our shared covenants and procedures for how to bring change
within the CRCNA.
H. We grieve the heightened polarization within our denomination. We
have observed that members of Classis Grand Rapids East and Neland
Avenue CRC, as well as other churches and classes in our denomina-
tion, often fail to engage and dialogue openly with those with whom
they disagree. There is a growing collective failure to dialogue through
the deliberative processes we have covenanted to in the Church Order.
Instead, we develop our own echo chambers where we hear and align
ourselves with those of our own chosen viewpoint. Moreover, the
growing development of advocacy groups for which church leaders
are expected to “sign on” in agreement with specific agendas and
viewpoints has a negative impact on how we relate to one another as

sisters and brothers in Christ. These groups function outside our inten-
tionally designed denominational processes for deliberating with one
another. Our ability to hear one another in our church assemblies and
to engage in issues of our shared sinfulness and kingdom work are
hampered when we have primarily aligned ourselves elsewhere.
I. We observe our struggle with a lack of clarity in all of our assemblies
to know how best to engage one another in appropriate intervention of
discipling and discipline.
For example, the minutes of Classis Toronto at its November 10, 2005,
meeting, state the adoption of this recommendation: “That Classis, not-
ing that First CRC has chosen a contrary position on a significant bibli-
cal/ethical guideline, one which the denomination has carefully consid-
ered and is ‘settled and binding,’ regretfully inform the Council of First
CRC that its action constitutes a breaking of the denominational cove-
nant,” with this ground: “As churches of the denomination we have
covenanted to abide by and uphold our commitments to Scripture, the
creeds, as well as synodical pronouncements on doctrine and ethics
which are considered ‘settled and binding, unless it is proved that they
are contrary to Scripture and the Church Order.’”
In contrast, at that very same meeting, Classis Toronto declined to
adopt the following recommendation: “That Classis Toronto regret-
fully inform the Council of First CRC that if it does not accept the cur-
rent position of the Christian Reformed denomination with respect to
guidelines pertaining to homosexuality, Council in effect removes the
congregation of First CRC from the denomination. We pray and trust
Council is aware of its awesome responsibility and plead that it not
choose to proceed on that route.”
Synod 2022 received a number of overtures and communications re-
lated to this matter, having a wide variety of recommendations—from
heavy-handed pronouncements to statements suggesting the giving of
more flexibility.
Over the years, classes have deposed officebearers and/or councils.
However, synod has not ever done so.
The current matter involving Neland Avenue CRC illustrates our
struggle of knowing how to move forward in calling ourselves to mu-
tual covenant-keeping with each other.
J. We observe the use of the phrase “we are in uncharted and unprece-
dented territory” in multiple applications, and we lament the broken-
ness that it reveals.
Neland Avenue CRC has entered unprecedented territory by rejecting
a "settled and binding" decision of synod regarding its ordination of a
same-sex married deacon and refusing the correction of synod and its
in loco committee. Classis Grand Rapids East has entered into un-
charted territory by refusing to take disciplinary action with Neland
Avenue CRC (both formally and informally) despite the admonition of

synod, its in loco committee, and many other bodies (councils, classes,
and the COD).
For these reasons, synod is also in uncharted territory, faced with the
decision of Neland Avenue CRC to ordain the same-sex married dea-
con in direct violation of synod's declarations on the matter in years
past and now including the decisions in 2022. This has resulted in un-
precedented actions from synod—and perhaps more in the summer of
2023.
Note: The in loco committee recognizes that there are multiple additional
overtures and communications that have been submitted to Synod 2023
related to this matter. Bearing that in mind, the following recommenda-
tions are presented.
A. That synod grant the privilege of the floor to the following members of
the in loco committee: Paul De Vries, chair; and Josh Van Drunen.
B. That synod instruct Neland Avenue CRC to immediately rescind any
and all decisions to ordain officebearers who are in a same-sex, sexual
marriage/relationship, thus nullifying any current or future terms of such
officebearers.
Grounds:
1. As of March 2023, Neland Avenue CRC has not complied with the
instruction of Synod 2022.
2. As of March 2023, Neland Avenue CRC has made clear its inten-
tions not to adhere to synod’s confessional declarations regarding
same-sex, sexual-relationship individuals serving in church office.
3. Even as Synod 2023 deliberates based on the recommendations of
this report and varied overtures and communications on the larger
issues of human sexuality and confessional status, it is important
for all congregations to comply with due process.
C. That synod instruct Neland Avenue CRC to uphold our shared denom-
inational covenants and procedures as laid out in the Church Order and
Grounds:
1. As of March 2023, Neland Avenue CRC has not complied with the
instruction of Synod 2022.
2. As of March 2023, Neland Avenue CRC has not made clear its in-
tentions to adhere to all of synod’s confessional declarations.
3. Even as Synod 2023 makes decisions based on the recommenda-
tions of this report and varied overtures and communications on
the larger issues of human sexuality and confessional status, it is
important for all congregations to comply with due process.

D. That synod instruct Classis Grand Rapids East to guide the Neland Av-
enue CRC congregation and leadership into alignment with the biblical
guidelines affirmed by Synod 2022 regarding same-sex, sexual relation-
ships.
Grounds:
1. Having heard the instructions of Synod 2022, Neland Avenue CRC
has determined not to comply.
2. While our shared Church Order states that “the discipline of church
members is the responsibility of the local council” (Acts of Synod
2015, p. 674), when this fails to occur, it falls to the classis to inter-
vene.
3. “Their [the church visitors of classis] task shall be to ascertain
whether the officebearers of the church faithfully perform their du-
ties, adhere to sound doctrine, observe the provisions of the Church
Order, and promote the building up of the body of Christ and the
extension of God’s kingdom” (Church Order Art. 42-b).
4. Rather than working within our shared covenants and practices,
Neland Avenue CRC, by its own admission, is “seeking the denom-
ination’s acknowledgment of differing interpretations” (Deferred
Agenda for Synods 2020-2021, p. 605, Q&A I).
5. Classis Grand Rapids East is in the best position to disciple its con-
gregations and officebearers, even when no formal appeal has come
from a member of the congregation and even as appeals to a
broader assembly are being adjudicated. The fact that this has not
happened is not promoting the spiritual well-being of Neland Ave-
nue CRC or the other churches.
6. As of March 2023, Classis Grand Rapids East has not complied with
the instruction of Synod 2022.
E. That synod adopt the recommendations from Overture 11 to Synod
2022 (deferred to Synod 2023): Appoint a Task Force to Develop Church
Order Procedures to Discipline Officebearers, Including Disaffiliation Ini-
tiated by a Major Assembly (Agenda for Synod 2022, pp. 516-17 [Classis
Hackensack]).
Grounds:
1. “Christ gave authority to the church as a whole and thereby en-
trusted authority to the occasions of its exercise in classis and
synod as gatherings of the churches to maintain the unity of the
congregations in both doctrine and discipline” (Acts of Synod 1980,
p. 28—regarding Goderich CRC in Classis Huron).
2. “The Synod of 1980 declared that it is indeed proper according to
Reformed church polity for either classis or synod to intervene in
the affairs of a local congregation, if the welfare of that congrega-
tion is at stake” (Acts of Synod 1982, p. 55—regarding Goderich CRC
in Classis Huron).

3. In previous iterations of in loco committees, councils have re-
sponded in humility to the authority and direction given by synod.
We are now in new territory, which should give all of us pause. It
should give pause to Neland Avenue CRC and Classis Grand Rap-
ids East that they are disregarding not only Synod 2022 and its in
loco committee but also 156 years of shared covenantal history. And
the unheard of nature and severity of Neland Avenue CRC and
Classis Grand Rapids East’s action should give pause to the
CRCNA as it considers its response.
F. That synod instruct the members of the denomination to recommit
themselves to the methods and processes that we have adopted in the
Covenant of Officebearers and the Church Order.
G. That synod declare the work of the Neland Avenue CRC In Loco Com-
mittee to be completed.
Neland Avenue CRC In Loco Committee
Greg DeMey (Classis Northern Illinois)
Paul De Vries (chair, Classis Thornapple Valley)
William Koopmans (Classis Hamilton)
John Mondi (Classis Grand Rapids North)
Josh Van Drunen (Classis Grand Rapids South)
Beverly Weeks (Classis Grand Rapids North)
Zachary King, general secretary (adviser)
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:

• Opening Devotions (in loco committee)
• Presentation and Sharing from Neland (1 hour)
• Questions for information from in loco committee (1 hour)
• Closing Prayer (Neland member)
Here are some questions that we might ask in the second segment:
• Please share Neland’s responses to the decisions of synod in their
immediate aftermath and over the past couple of months.
• We understand that you plan to appeal synod’s direction to remove
the deacon in the same-sex marriage. What are the grounds for this
appeal and is there any openness from Neland’s council to altering
its current position on same-sex sexual relationships?
• How does Neland understand its relationship to synod and its con-
fessional declarations?
• What were the most influential sources of information that led the
council to the position it holds now regarding same-sex sexual rela-
tionships?
• Neland Ave has interacted with its local sister congregations in
Classis Grand Rapids East. How has Neland considered the
broader church, the CRCNA as a whole and the worldwide church,
as it communicates and lives out its beliefs on human sexuality?
• Recognizing the clear difference the in loco committee and your
council hold on the presenting issue, how could the in loco commit-
tee show love and care to your congregation?
In Christ,
The In Loco Committee of Synod
B. Neland Avenue CRC’s responses to questions – September 29, 2022
1. Please share Neland’s responses to the decisions of synod in their im-
mediate aftermath and over the past couple of months.
A: We spent the days after synod in prayer and in small groups, using a
new COVID-era method of outdoor gathering—the “fire pit.” Various Ne-
landers offered their fire pits for members to meet, and we did so, sharing
our griefs and hopes. One poignant moment was the closing prayer at one
such fire pit by a saint of our congregation, Rev. John Van Ryn (retired
from his post as Executive Secretary of CRC Home Missions), lamenting
the tone of Synod 2022 and asking God to be with this faithful congrega-
tion and the entire denomination. John went to heaven just days later and
his funeral was both sad and a joyful testament to the long road of obedi-
ence.
For our first Sunday service after Synod, we planned a liturgy that gave
room for confession, lament, and plaintive petition. As we prayed and
sang – especially singing “O Lord, Hear My Prayer” – we felt the Holy
Spirit turning our petition to praise, transforming our brokenness to trust

in God, the wellspring of life. This was not our own doing, not our design,
but the Spirit of God moving within us and among us. It was a remarkable
experience that continues to sustain us, and to affirm God’s call and direc-
tion for our congregation.
Council met on June 29 and every member had a chance to speak. Some in
the CRC may not understand that we at Neland don’t all agree on the
same-sex issues raised by the HSR. But we do agree on paying attention to
the call of the Holy Spirit and the fact that this issue is not a salvation mat-
ter that should shatter churches or denominations. Council ended with a
unanimous vote to (a) not rescind our decision to elect our deacon; and (b)
appeal synod’s decision. Those decisions were sent to the General Secre-
tary.
On July 10, after worship, we held a congregational forum to address the
matter with our faith family. The committee has the PowerPoint outline of
that forum in its possession. There was robust discussion, affirmation,
prayer, and song.
We met briefly with General Secretary King and in loco chair De Vries at
the start of our August 29 Council meeting and appreciated their pastoral
tone. We agreed to arrange a September meeting. Later in that Council
meeting, many (but not all) Council members submitted confessional-dif-
ficulty gravamina regarding Synod 2022’s confessional status decision,
and these were accepted by voice vote.
While we appreciated having the attention of the in loco committee on Sep-
tember 13 and they listened respectfully, it is fair to say that we still don’t
think our story or position is well-understood by denominational authori-
ties, and certainly not at Synod 2022 nor throughout the denomination.
2. We understand that you plan to appeal synod’s direction to remove the
deacon in the same-sex marriage. What are the grounds for this appeal
and is there any openness from Neland’s Council to altering its current
position on same-sex sexual relationships?
A: We have an ad hoc committee working on an appeal and have received
much advice about using one of two options—Church Order Article 30 or
Article 31. We will make a Council-approved decision on which to file in
the weeks ahead. The heart of the appeal will be that Synod 2022 usurped
the authority given to local congregations to select officebearers (Church
Order Articles 3-4) when it instructed Neland to rescind the election of a
deacon, and usurped the authority given to local councils for discipline,
except upon appeal (Church Order Article 80, Supplement Articles 82-84),
when it essentially instructed Neland’s Council to begin discipline upon
this deacon.
It is important to realize that Neland does not have a “position” as a
church on same-sex relationships. We have disagreement, but we have
worked for 10 years on creating “Generous Spaciousness” as it applies to
our LGBTQ+ siblings in Christ. We are always open to the Spirit’s leading,

and in listening to anyone interested in serious and compassionate con-
versation on this matter, as we have for the entirety of our study and jour-
ney.
3. How does Neland understand its relationship to Synod and its confes-
sional declarations?
A: We love the CRC and have been a faithful, productive, and generous
member for 106 years. We don’t want to leave the denomination and will
not do so voluntarily. Throughout our entire history we have participated
at every level of denominational life. Neland is thoroughly Reformed in
theology, worship, ecclesiology, world and life view, and mission in the
world. We have always paid the full allotment of our ministry shares (and
are still doing so). Neland Church does nothing with haste or on a whim
or to be trendy. We respect the deliberations and pronouncements of
every synod. It is excruciating when a church must choose between its
biblical convictions—confirmed by the Holy Spirit in our local church—
and denominational loyalty. It is our belief that 2022 Synod should not
bind Neland’s conscience, and in fact overstepped its authority by reach-
ing into the pastoral work of a council and the Spirit-led actions on an in-
dividual congregation. This “top-down” action, taken despite the warning
of church polity experts, was not representative of the Reformed church
polity of the denomination we hold dear.
4. What were the most influential sources of information that led the coun-
cil to the position it holds now regarding same-sex sexual relationships?
A: Neland has been studying this matter for 10 years now and constituted
a “Generous Spaciousness” committee in 2015 to help the congregation
minister in a more effective way with LGBTQ+ members. After three years
of pondering the issue, Neland established a Council-directed effort in re-
sponse to Synod 2015—a year before there was an “HSR” committee, five
years before the HSR was available to review, and seven years before the
HSR report was taken up at synod. Over the years, Neland has hosted
speakers, forums, presentations, talk-backs, and scripture studies. Our
main emphasis throughout has been that there ought to be a place for all
and an acknowledgement that we won’t all agree on these matters.
“There’s a place for you at Neland” has been our long-standing church
motto; the contentious issue of same-sex relationships and marriage
should not cause a rift at Neland nor in our denomination. Other sources:
the Classis GR East same-sex marriage report; the Colossian Forum; guest
speakers from a range of perspectives; and testimonies from persons from
the LGBTQ+ community.
We believe the Holy Spirit was involved in our choice of this deacon, con-
firmed four times: by many nominations of the individual from the con-
gregation to the Council; by the Council’s deliberative and prayerful deci-
sion to ask the nominated individual to consider a call; by the individual’s
agreement to be nominated; and finally, by the congregation's overwhelm-
ing vote to elect the deacon. Perhaps we should add a fifth confirmation:

the obvious blessing of the work of this gifted deacon in our congregation
and neighborhood.
As stated above, Neland does not have a “position” on same-sex relation-
ships. Unlike the HSR which labeled these issues as “clear,” our Council
does not think they are at all “clear” and that we should accommodate a
range of views on same-sex related matters. Gravamina objecting to Synod
2022’s actions were not submitted by every council member and there is
no “litmus test” for nomination to Council regarding same-sex beliefs. We
have not issued an “affirming church” statement; we simply say, “All are
invited to experience the deep welcome of Christ.”
As an example, during the in loco committee’s conversation with us on
September 13, one of our elders gave a personal testimony. Part of the tes-
timony included these statements: “I’m an elder at Neland and I hold a
traditional view of marriage. So why am I still here? Fundamentally, it’s
because of our bonds of fellowship together. We’re a faith family together.
I’m still at Neland because I continue to be made welcome. In the spring
of 2020, the same Council that put the deacon in question up for congrega-
tional vote, also put me up for vote, knowing full well my traditional
views. Over the last two years, I feel I’ve been heard and that my sugges-
tions have even been invited, not dismissed. I’m still at Neland because I
don’t think this issue, though very important, is a salvation issue. I know
too many wise and godly people who come down on the affirming side of
same-sex marriage. That includes many around this circle. That includes
my own spouse. We hold differing views yet feel that we can be in a cove-
nant of marriage.”
Of late, the book Centered-Set Church: Discipleship and Community without
Judgmentalism by Mark D. Baker (IVP Academic, 2022) has been formative
in our thinking. Baker describes three kinds of churches: bounded (de-
fined by boundaries, in-or-out); fuzzy (no real commitments to anything);
and centered (focused on pointing all people to the center, Jesus Christ).
Our point of view is that Synod 2022 directed churches to be “bounded”
on this issue, to decide who is “in” or “out.” Anyone who knows even a
little about Neland would never describe this commitment-driven congre-
gation as a “fuzzy” church. Instead, we emphasize pointing all in our fel-
lowship and our neighbors to Christ as our first and foremost mission,
and that’s our fervent prayer for the CRC.
5. Neland Ave has interacted with its local sister congregations in Classis
Grand Rapids East. How has Neland considered the broader church, the
CRCNA as a whole and the worldwide church, as it communicates and
lives out its beliefs on human sexuality?
A: Neland did not act for years on the election of a same-sex married dea-
con primarily out of sensitivity to the broader church of which we belong.
It is, in fact, because of this respect that we reached out to the denomina-
tion in the form of communications and overtures for consultation and ac-
countability. In exchange, we received no offer to dialogue, only a letter
from the Council of Delegates that chided our congregation. Letters from

CRCs that feel differently on this issue were accusatory, strident, and un-
inviting to consider a response or a meaningful conversation. Other com-
munications from around the CRC and from individual LGBTQ+ persons,
both current and former CRC members, were full of gratitude for trying to
open the door to conversation. To them, as to us, this matter is extremely
far from “clear.” To the worldwide church, our willingness to dialogue
and state that a congregation can disagree on same-sex relationships and
yet remain together and thrive in ministry (not “bounded”) may be seen
as a hopeful direction—instead of the “winner take all” mantras of current
American church, civic, and political life.
6. Recognizing the clear difference the in loco committee and your council
hold on the presenting issue, how could the in loco committee show love
and care to your congregation?
A: We ask that you tell our Neland story accurately and with some
acknowledgement of our purposeful study, commitment to prayer, atten-
tion to the leading of the Spirit, and humility that we don’t think we have
all the answers. We don’t demand that everyone in our church or the de-
nomination should come to the same conclusions. We would also hope
that there is a shared conviction that when things are not so clear-cut, we
should not bind the conscience where Scripture does not clearly bind the
conscience.
We would also like to know this: How is the Jesus Christ we read about in
the Gospels honored by this action against a single church with a long his-
tory of faithfulness and prayerful service? Neland is, as our recently de-
parted saint Rev. John Van Ryn said, “still asking questions because there
are still questions out there.” This issue is not “clear” and honest and
faithful study and conversation should continue rather than pronouncing
this matter as “settled and binding,” which has the effect of ending all sin-
cere study and dialogue. This position has the tragic result—despite all
protests to the contrary—of slamming the door of the CRC on the over-
whelming majority of LGBTQ+ Christians, their loved ones, and those
who minister with them.
Neland intends to be obedient to the call of the Holy Spirit to be a commu-
nity that points everyone to Jesus, where all are invited to “experience the
deep welcome of Christ.”
Spirit of the living God, fall fresh on each one of us.
C. Letter to Neland Avenue CRC – October 7, 2022
Dear Council of Neland Avenue CRC,
The Synod In Loco Committee has carefully considered what we had re-
ceived from you during our September 13 in-person meeting and the writ-
ten 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 con-
versation with us on September 13, 2022. We had the opportunity to hear
the details of your congregational journey leading to the decision to or-
dain 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 decisions 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 forth-
rightly responded to the inquiries that were posed by the Synod In Loco
Committee. For all of these considerations we thank you.
The correspondence from your council dated September 29, 2022 (a re-
sponse to our questions shared on September 13) confirms Neland Ave
CRC’s intentions regarding the instruction of Synod 2022 to rescind the or-
dination of the deacon that is living in a same-sex marriage. You have con-
firmed that you are rejecting synod’s request, and have reaffirmed your
intent to file an appeal. We are not surprised by the details included in
this correspondence as they are consistent with what we were told in our
September 13 meeting.
On a parallel timeline with this course of action to which you have com-
mitted, the In Loco Committee will continue to pursue the mandate given
to us by Synod 2022. To this end, we continue to prayerfully implore you
to reconsider your decision. Our next step will be to correspond with Clas-
sis Grand Rapids East, seeking its cooperation with us in prayerfully urg-
ing you to reconsider your course of action, and to submit instead to the
decisions of synod. We will copy you on our correspondence with Classis
Grand Rapids East.
Please note that the Synod In Loco Committee will continue to pray for
God’s guidance for the appropriate resolution of this difficult matter. We
also assure you that representatives of our committee would be most will-
ing to meet with you again in response to any matters arising from this
letter. It is our desire that, based on the foundation of God’s Word, we can
all live into the ideal together that is expressed in the apostle Paul’s prayer
in Romans 15:5-6, “May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give
you the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had, so that
with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Je-
sus Christ.”
Sincerely and in the service of Christ Jesus,
The members of the In Loco Committee
D. Letter from Neland Avenue CRC – October 27, 2022
To the in loco committee:
On behalf of the Neland Avenue CRC Council, I thank you for this official
response. The Council was grateful for your time with us last month, and

for the listening spirit displayed by the in loco committee. It is because that
spirit was evident, that we are a bit surprised that your letter indicates
that our work together is finished. We thought listening was the begin-
ning of your process, as you indicated, and that naturally it would move
on to a dialogue aimed at reconciliation. You had questions for us, which
we answered both during our September 13 meeting and in writing on
September 29. We also had questions for you and had assumed that we
would have an opportunity to hear your responses to those questions.
Your letter closed with an expression of willingness to meet with Neland’s
Council again. We would like to accept that offer, so that we may have an
opportunity to listen to you. You have heard from our hearts; we would
sincerely like to hear the committee’s responses to questions such as these,
raised by our Council members:
1. You have heard (and read in our overtures) the in-depth testimony we
shared about our congregation's journey. Please tell us where we have
gone wrong.
2. Please explain how Neland has "broken covenant" with the denomina-
tion. What specifically are we being admonished for?
3. We are disappointed by Synod 2022’s shift in language from “cove-
nant” to “compliance.” The CRC has a long history and detailed polity
that emphasize the covenant nature of congregations’ relationship with
one another. Synod 2022’s actions in demanding compliance without en-
gaging in dialogue, and in breaking due process by declaring a brand-new
interpretation of a confession without ratification by a subsequent synod,
constitute breaking covenant with not only us, but all CRC congregations.
How do you justify enforcing compliance with decisions that defy both
the spirit and letter of our denominational polity?
4. How can an interpretation of a confession be deemed to have confes-
sional status as the binding interpretation for all, when the original au-
thors of that confession were wise enough not to include lists of particular
sins?
5. How is Neland's “third way” (making room to live in community
while holding differing perspectives) considered divisive? And how is the
stance of the HSR and Synod 2022 (which calls into question the salvation
of some members and is causing CRC members and officebearers to leave
the denomination) not considered divisive? As you are aware, we do not
wish to leave the CRC, and do not intend to do so voluntarily. Where is
the divisiveness coming from?
6. Neland Ave CRC has been faithful to God and to the denomination for
107 years, and we have shared how our journey over the last decade is an
outpouring of our desire to be faithful. How does Synod 2022’s action to-
ward Neland honor our legacy and testimony of Spirit-led faithfulness?
How does that action glorify Jesus?

We worked hard to answer the committee’s six questions with integrity
and sincerity, and we trust that you will do the same with our six ques-
tions. We look forward to the opportunity to continue this dialogue, and
to listen in the same way that you listened to us when you visited in Sep-
tember.
In Christ,
Michael Van Denend, Vicar, for The Council of Neland CRC
E. Letter to Neland Avenue CRC – November 10, 2022
To the Council of Neland Ave CRC,
Thank you for your communication dated October 27. Thank you also for
your willingness and desire to meet again to listen to us. We do intend to
continue the dialogue and had no intention of indicating our work with
you was finished. Instead, we sought written clarity as to your position on
the issue that our synodical mandate specifically speaks to. Thank you for
your dialogue with us so far, and we are pleased to continue it with you.
We note at the outset of our response that the six questions you have
posed to us invite us into a conversation that goes well beyond the man-
date provided to us by synod. We cannot speak on synod’s behalf beyond
the mandate given and hesitate to do so. Nor do we have authority to ad-
just synodical decisions. Our intention is not to engage in prolonged dis-
cussions to defend the interpretation of Scripture that underlies the con-
clusions of the HSR or synod’s decisions on these matters. Nevertheless,
we do wish to continue in dialogue and to be heard, even as we have
sought to hear you. Therefore, we provide the following brief responses to
your questions, as well as some references to the HSR and synod’s own
words on these matters.
1. You have heard (and read in our overtures) the in-depth testimony we
shared about our congregation's journey. Please tell us where we have
gone wrong.
Since 1973, the CRCNA has maintained the position that engaging in
same-sex practice is sinful. Nevertheless, Neland Ave CRC proceeded to
ordain a deacon who was known to be living in a same-sex relationship.
Neland Ave CRC continues to justify their action in ordaining as a deacon
a person living in a same-sex relationship despite the biblical teaching af-
firmed by synod. While we respect and appreciate your congregation’s
unique journey, as a denomination we covenant to journey together in
submission to the Spirit’s will as discerned collectively as a community.
2. Please explain how Neland has "broken covenant" with the denomina-
tion. What specifically are we being admonished for?
As noted in response to the previous question, since 1973, the CRCNA has
maintained the position that engaging in same-sex practice is sinful. In
2005-2006, in response to circumstances involving Toronto First CRC and
Classis Toronto, synod made clear that ordaining as an officebearer any
member who was engaged in a same-sex sexual relationship would be

considered a breaking of covenant with the denomination. In 2016 Synod
established a study committee to articulate a foundation-laying biblical
theology of human sexuality. Nevertheless, Neland Ave CRC proceeded
to ordain a deacon who was known to be living in a same-sex relationship.
This decision was enacted without following a procedure of overture to
Synod receiving denominational approval to act in this manner contrary
to what has been the existing denominational policy. The actions of
Neland Ave CRC drew a response of reproof from the Council of Dele-
gates in 2021 making very clear that the body serving in the interim of
synod viewed your actions as a breaking of covenant. Continued rejection
of the position affirmed by Synod 2022 is therefore understandably
viewed by many as an ongoing breaking of covenant with the denomina-
tion.
3. We are disappointed by Synod 2022’s shift in language from “cove-
nant” to “compliance.” The CRC has a long history and detailed polity
that emphasize the covenant nature of congregations’ relationship with
one another. Synod 2022’s actions in demanding compliance without en-
gaging in dialogue, and in breaking due process by declaring a brand-new
interpretation of a confession without ratification by a subsequent synod,
constitute breaking covenant with not only us, but all CRC congregations.
How do you justify enforcing compliance with decisions that defy both
the spirit and letter of our denominational polity?
First, we do not speak for synod nor do we explain synod. We are simply
carrying out synod’s mandate. Our actions are justified by the mandate
from the broadest assembly of the denomination. If Neland Ave believes
synod was wrong and broke covenant with all CRCNA congregations,
this matter would warrant appeal, as you have already stated you will
complete. This is not a matter for us to adjudicate.
Second, we would nevertheless like to draw your attention to several re-
sources to help you understand both the process and legitimacy of
synod’s decisions on the confessionality of the CRC’s position on same
sex. For example, the Synod 2022 FAQ document (question #4) speaks to
the process used by Synod 2022 for its decision.
Furthermore, we would also encourage you to consult the Acts of Synod
1975 (pp. 601-604) which acknowledge that synod has the right to inter-
pret and apply Scripture and the confessions in a way that is confession-
ally binding on CRC congregations, leaders, and members.
Third, while your appeal is developed and awaiting processing by synod,
we believe that you ought to comply with synod’s directive, even if doing
so ‘under protest’ while seeking a future synod’s corrective action.
Fourth, we note biblical interpretation avoids a false dichotomy between
covenant and compliance. In fact, the two are inextricable in the relation-
ship that the Bible envisions for God and his people (John 14:15; 1 John
5:1-5).

4. How can an interpretation of a confession be deemed to have confes-
sional status as the binding interpretation for all, when the original au-
thors of that confession were wise enough not to include lists of particular
sins?
All of the essential confessions of the church receive interpretation. That is
equally true, for example, of creedal and confessional teachings on the na-
ture of God, the deity of Christ, and the authority of Scripture. The church,
when exercising its responsibility as a denomination, does not leave mat-
ters of essential confessional interpretation to the discretion of individual
congregations. Please note our answer to question #3 regarding the right
of synod to interpret the confessions.
5. How is Neland's “third way” (making room to live in community
while holding differing perspectives) considered divisive? And how is the
stance of the HSR and Synod 2022 (which calls into question the salvation
of some members and is causing CRC members and officebearers to leave
the denomination) not considered divisive? As you are aware, we do not
wish to leave the CRC, and do not intend to do so voluntarily. Where is
the divisiveness coming from?
Synod’s response to Neland Ave CRC’s actions may perhaps be judged by
some to be divisive in calling for a unity that is based upon mutually
agreed biblical interpretation. However, the counterpoint to that observa-
tion is that true unity is not attained by simply making space for a variety
of biblical interpretations. True unity comes from standing side by side
with one mind for the faith of the gospel (Phil. 1:27; Eph. 4:3) and mutual
submission to the Word of God to avoid divisions in the body of Christ (1
Cor. 1:10). Without doubt, there are matters in Scripture in which mem-
bers of the church were allowed to take contrary actions (as long as by do-
ing so these groups didn’t damage the faith of others). However, synod
discerned that with regard to same sex, there cannot be diverse practices
among the churches.
6. Neland Ave CRC has been faithful to God and to the denomination for
107 years, and we have shared how our journey over the last decade is an
outpouring of our desire to be faithful. How does Synod 2022’s action to-
ward Neland honor our legacy and testimony of Spirit-led faithfulness?
How does that action glorify Jesus?
Synod 2022 was aware of your congregation’s history and received copi-
ous documentation regarding your journey. Nevertheless, synod has con-
cluded that Neland Ave CRC’s actions in this matter have not been faith-
ful to God’s Word and asks the leadership of this congregation to humbly
submit to the denomination’s position on this issue.
We hope and pray that these brief responses to your questions will help
with our ongoing dialogue and your movement toward compliance with
synod’s directive. Please also note we have included below some quotes
directly from the HSR and Synod that touch on aspects of your questions.

We also once again thank you for your willingness to meet again with rep-
resentatives of our committee. In your response to this communication,
please indicate what time would work best for you to receive members of
the committee.
As brothers and sisters in Christ, we always celebrate the opportunity to
engage in dialogue with one another. We are grateful for your willingness
to participate in the process, and look forward to further dialogue and to
your compliance as part of your mutual fellowship in this small part of
God’s kingdom called the Christian Reformed Church in North America.
With love and prayers for you,
The In Loco Committee of Synod 2022
Some additional quotes from the HSR and Synod 2022
From HSR, p. 460:
…We observe that we stand with the majority church worldwide, in-
cluding the Roman Catholic Church, all branches of Orthodoxy, the non-
Western global church, and a majority of active Protestants in North
America and Europe. Indeed, the global church finds the Western
church’s challenges to biblical teaching on human sexuality incompre-
hensible and offensive. To refuse to uphold Christian teaching on sexual
immorality would signal that the Christian Reformed Church in North
America is deviating not only from Scripture but from the shared confes-
sion of the historic and worldwide church.
From HSR, p. 405:
The Christian Reformed Church’s 1973 synodical report on homosexual-
ity broke ground by making a distinction between homosexual orienta-
tion and homosexual activity. As the report put it: “We must distinguish
between the person who is homosexual in [their] sexual orientation and
the person who engages in explicit sexual acts with persons of the same
sex.” It also noted that “homosexuality is not the result of any conscious
choice or decision on the part of the person.” [Acts of Synod 1973, pp. 612-
13] In other words, there is no sin in being attracted to the same sex. We
only sin if we act on our sexual attractions.
From the HSR Executive Summary, p. 7 (at crcna.org):
Yet many church members cannot imagine denying anyone the inti-
macy of a sexual relationship. Indeed, humans need the intimacy of reg-
ular human touch and strong social networks for health and resilience.
All of us long to be deeply known and accepted as we are. Jesus taught
and modeled a radically new kind of intimate community—sisters and
brothers caring for each other daily in practical ways. But the church has
not provided intimate community for people attracted to the same sex,
nor indeed for most single people. Instead, it has condemned people in
gay relationships while ignoring premarital sex, pornography use, and
adultery throughout the church. We note, therefore, that for many people, no
repetition of biblical teaching on homosexuality will be persuasive unless the

church repents of this hypocrisy and becomes the loving, supportive community
of Christ.
From the HSR Executive Summary, p. 9:
Scripture’s clear prohibition of homosexual acts is accompanied by its
equally clear exhortation to empathize with, love, and bear the burdens
of all who struggle with sexual sin. Since the church, including the
CRCNA, has all too often ostracized, shunned, or ignored some sisters
and brothers, and not treated them as equal and valued members of the
body of Christ, the church’s response to homosexuality must begin with
confession. The church’s response must continue with good teaching
about human sexuality, including the reminder of the important distinc-
tion between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity, as well
as the dangers of promoting the false expectation of orientation change.
The church must demonstrate in a myriad of concrete ways to those
who are same-sex attracted that it is a grace-saturated community that
equips all of its members, both heterosexual and homosexual alike, to
walk in sexual holiness.
From Acts of Synod 2022 (pp. 941-42)—Grounds pointing to the study, de-
liberation, and decision that has been deemed directive to the work of the
in loco committee, along with the decisions of synod in the past, as aided
by the various study committees. (When we received your recent letter,
we, too, benefited from reviewing them.)
Grounds:
1) Neland Avenue CRC has taken action contradictory to the position
of the CRCNA. As per Report 47, section IV, B, 2 (Acts of Synod 1975,
p. 603): “Synodical pronouncements on doctrinal and ethical matters
. . . shall be considered settled and binding, unless it is proved that
they conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order (Church Or-
der Art. 29). All officebearers and members are expected to abide by
these synodical deliverances.”
2) Neland Avenue CRC willingly chose a path of noncompliance. It did
not use the proper means to enact change in the CRCNA or to seek
clarification.
CRCNA. It sends a message to other churches that noncompliance is
acceptable in the CRCNA. It threatens our unity and undermines our
witness to the world. Failure to address a publicly wayward church
is to disregard the third mark of the true church (Belgic Confession,
Art. 29).
churches in common is at stake (Church Order Art. 27-b and 28-b).
According to the Rules for Synodical Procedure, section V, B, 12, “All
other matters may be considered which synod by a majority vote de-
clares acceptable.” Synod is free to deal with any matter that it judges
to be of importance for the well-being of the denomination. Synod

appointed a committee in loco for First CRC of Toronto while the con-
gregation intended to ordain an officebearer living in a same-sex rela-
tionship. Neland Avenue CRC has already ordained such an office-
bearer, and thus a committee in loco is all the more warranted.
F. Report to Classis Grand Rapids East
Neland Avenue CRC In Loco Committee Report and Recommendations
I. Background
The in loco committee appointed by Synod 2022 has been at work since
August of 2022. We have met multiple times as a committee. We have met
both formally and informally with members of Neland Avenue CRC and
Classis Grand Rapids East. Our chairperson and general secretary met
with Neland’s council in late August, and then the full committee met
with the council, some congregational members, and visitors from the
classis in September. We followed these meetings by informally gathering
with a collection of pastors from Grand Rapids East and then a formal
meeting with the classis on September 15. At the same time, we have been
corresponding back and forth via email on a regular basis. We have
prayed together and spoken together. There have been tears and some
laughter. We have always been together as brothers and sisters in Christ.
More recently we have had two more group gatherings in preparation for
the January 2023 meeting of Classis Grand Rapids East. We met with
members of the Executive committee of classis to ensure we were on the
same page regarding the processing of this report and address its inclu-
sion in the January 2023 Agenda. We also met again with Neland’s coun-
cil, some members of the congregation, and visitors from classis. Through-
out the course of all our communications we have made it a priority to lis-
ten carefully and lovingly.
In all of our meetings we have been greeted with Christlike love and an
openness to our presence and communication. There have been times of
disappointment, frustration, and perhaps even anger, but these emotions
have always been mutually expressed and received in the bonds of Chris-
tian fellowship.
We do not think anyone should be surprised to hear that in our conversa-
tions with each other we have come across a number of misunderstand-
ings, concerns and misgivings. We have had some opportunity to gently
educate and push each other when necessary. We on the in loco committee
have appreciated the opportunity to listen, to hear stories, and to experi-
ence some of the pain and wrestling of Neland Ave CRC and Classis
Grand Rapids East. We make the following observations based on our lis-
tening.
• Neland Avenue CRC and Classis Grand Rapids East are important
parts of the denomination as brothers and sisters in Christ. We un-
derstand that they have deliberated, studied, and pastorally cared
for one another as they discussed LGBTQ+ issues through the

years. They have done so imperfectly, but they clearly state and be-
lieve, through the Spirit and through their study of the Word, that
their decisions have been and are faithful.
• Likewise, we think it is important to note that our synods are an
important part of the denomination as brothers and sisters in
Christ. Various synods and their study committees have carefully
deliberated, studied, and pastorally cared for one another as they
have discussed LGBTQ+ issues through the years. They have done
so imperfectly, but they clearly state and believe, through the Spirit
and through their study of the Word, that their decisions have been
and are faithful.
• The issue here is how do we keep covenant with one another when
there is sharp disagreement. It is not helpful to lash out at one an-
other and to assume the worst of the other party. Instead, we must
seek to honor one another and hold each other accountable. This
brings us to our mandate from synod.
• Our synodical mandate (as copied below), is very specific and has
clear boundaries. We have not been authorized to negotiate or in
some way to mitigate the decisions of synod. We have heard the
voices of those who suggest that we should violate the mandate
and do something different. We are free, some have said, to find a
“third way” beyond what synod decided and mandated. We, how-
ever, have agreed to serve on the committee and pursue its man-
date. Failing to do so would be disingenuous and a breakage of
covenant.
II. Our Mandate
Synod 2022 adopted the following motions (Acts of Synod 2022, pp. 926,
941-42):
1. That synod instruct Neland Avenue CRC to immediately rescind its
decision to ordain a deacon in a same-sex marriage, thus nullifying
this deacon’s current term.
—Adopted
2. That synod instruct Neland Avenue CRC to uphold our shared de-
nominational covenants and procedures as laid out in the Church
Order and the Covenant for Officebearers.
—Adopted
3. That synod instruct the executive director to appoint a committee in
loco with the following mandate:
a. Meet with Neland Avenue CRC to oversee its compliance to
synod’s rulings.
b. Meet with Classis Grand Rapids East to admonish them regard-
ing their responsibility to uphold our shared denominational

covenants and procedures as laid out in the Church Order and
c. Report to Classis Grand Rapids East at the autumn meeting (Sep-
tember 15, 2022; classisgreast.org) and make pertinent recom-
mendations for its deliberations and action.
d. If necessary, invite three other classes to assist the committee in
dealing with the issues regarding Neland Avenue CRC.
e. Report to Synod 2023, by way of the published Agenda for Synod,
its own actions and any classical actions taken, and present its rec-
ommendations.
Grounds:
1) Neland Avenue CRC has taken action contradictory to the posi-
tion of the CRCNA. As per Report 47, section IV, B, 2 (Acts of
Synod 1975, p. 603): “Synodical pronouncements on doctrinal and
ethical matters . . . 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.”
2) Neland Avenue CRC willingly chose a path of noncompliance. It
did not use the proper means to enact change in the CRCNA or
to seek clarification.
CRCNA. It sends a message to other churches that noncompli-
ance is acceptable in the CRCNA. It threatens our unity and un-
dermines our witness to the world. Failure to address a publicly
wayward church is to disregard the third mark of the true church
(Belgic Confession, Art. 29).
churches in common is at stake (Church Order Art. 27-b and 28-
b). According to the Rules for Synodical Procedure, section V, B,
12, “All other matters may be considered which synod by a ma-
jority vote declares acceptable.” Synod is free to deal with any
matter that it judges to be of importance for the well-being of the
denomination. Synod appointed a committee in loco for First
CRC of Toronto while the congregation intended to ordain an of-
ficebearer living in a same-sex relationship. Neland Avenue CRC
has already ordained such an officebearer, and thus a committee
in loco is all the more warranted.
—Adopted
III. Admonishment
Classis Grand Rapids East declared, “We also recognize that the classis
will need to address the question of whether it believes Neland’s actions
are ‘allowable’ within the pastoral guidelines of synod.” (Correspondence

November 10, 2020: to CRC Council of Delegates, Attn: Colin Watson, Ex-
ecutive Director; From: The Executive Team of Classis Grand Rapids
East). Classis Grand Rapids East has not effectively followed through on
its own recognition. Instead, it has issued statements of support for
Neland while never holding Neland accountable for actions outside of
synod’s directives. For example, its communication to synod (Deferred
Agenda for Synods 2020-2021, Communication 6) stated, “At its May 20,
2021, meeting, Classis Grand Rapids East adopted the following commu-
nication to Synod 2021 for inclusion in the supplemental agenda. The
communication originated with Neland Avenue CRC and has not been
edited. Classis affirms this communication from Neland Avenue and is deeply
grateful for it.” (italics ours)
This communication of affirmation and gratitude, alongside a failure to
hold Neland accountable, stands against our shared Covenant of Office-
bearers, where we “promise to present or receive confessional difficulties
in a spirit of love and fellowship with our brothers and sisters as together
we seek a fuller understanding of the gospel. Should we come to believe
that a teaching in the confessional documents is not the teaching of God’s
Word, we will communicate our views to the church, according to the
procedures prescribed by the Church Order and its supplements.” While
it is true that, to date, no one from Neland Avenue CRC has appealed its
decision to ordain a same-sex married person as a deacon to classis (or
synod), Classis Grand Rapids East has a responsibility to promote ac-
countability to our synodical and confessional decisions on this and all
other matters as part of our shared covenant as congregations, classes, and
as a denomination.
We admonish Classis Grand Rapids East for failing to hold Neland Ave
CRC accountable to the larger body, and for failing to adhere to our
shared covenants and procedures in how to bring change within the
CRCNA.
IV. Recommendations
1. That Classis Grand Rapids East acknowledge the admonition of Synod
2022, as communicated via the synod in loco committee.
2. That Classis Grand Rapids East, in response to the admonition of Synod
2022 and its in loco committee, establish an oversight committee to guide
the Neland Avenue congregation and leadership into alignment with the
biblical guidelines affirmed by Synod 2022 regarding same-sex sexual re-
lationships.
Grounds:
a) Having heard the instructions of Synod 2022, Neland Avenue CRC
has determined not to comply.
b) While our shared Church Order states that “the discipline of church
members is the responsibility of the local council” (Acts of Synod
2015, p. 674), when this fails to occur, it falls to the classis to inter-
vene.

c) Rather than working within our shared Covenants and practices,
Neland, by its own admission, is “seeking the denomination’s ac-
knowledgment of differing interpretations” (Deferred Agenda for
Synods 2020-2021, p. 694, Q&A I (letter i)).
d) Classis Grand Rapids East is in the best position to disciple its con-
gregations and officebearers, even as appeals are being adjudicated.
The fact that this has not happened is not promoting the spiritual
well-being of Neland or the other churches.
3. That Classis Grand Rapids East continue to pastorally care for those
most directly affected by synodical and classical decisions regarding
same-sex sexual relationships.
Grounds:
a) The CRC has always stated and claimed a pastoral posture toward
same-sex attracted persons, recognizing that they are imagebearers
of God for whom Christ has died and been raised to life. Neverthe-
less, we have often failed to live out this posture effectively.
b) We recognize that all suffer from sexual brokenness and it creates
understandable pain and ambivalence that one kind of brokenness
is now being singled out.
c) The classis itself, along with its churches, is in the best position to
care for the same-sex married deacon, the officebearers and congre-
gation of Neland, and other members of their classis.
4. That Classis Grand Rapids East communicate to synod its response to
the admonition regarding this matter and provide a progress report to
Synod 2023.
G. Classis Grand Rapids East’s Response
Communication from Stated Clerk on January 24
Classis Grand Rapids East met last Thursday, January 19, 2023. As part of
our business for the evening we adopted a local overture (see attached). In
addition we declared that adopting this overture is classis’ response to the
report of the committee in loco. My read is that Classis GR East does not
intend this to be an end point of discussion. Rather it is the response clas-
sis is able to make at this juncture prior to Synod 2023 and with the
agenda deadline for synod in mind.
Overture Asking Classis Grand Rapids East to Adopt a Response to

Neland Avenue CRC
I. Overture
Church of the Servant CRC (“COS”) overtures Classis Grand Rapids East
(“Classis GRE”) to adopt the following position as its response to the ac-
tions of Neland Avenue CRC (“Neland”) in appointing an officebearer in
a same-sex marriage:

Classis GRE will wait for the adjudication of Neland’s appeal by Synod
2023 before discerning any further action to take about Neland. This is
consistent with both accountability and due process for Neland under
the Church Order and prior decisions of Synod.
Grounds:
1. Classis Has Responded Sincerely and Faithfully About Neland.
When Neland told Classis GRE in August of 2020 that it had or-
dained a deacon in a same-sex marriage, the Classis GRE Executive
team brought the communication to the next classis meeting in Sep-
tember 2020 and asked for comments and questions from the mem-
ber congregations. (Minutes of 9-17-20 Meeting of Classis GRE, p. 7.)
Following the meeting, the Classis Executive team proposed sev-
eral actions, including:
• meeting with Neland.
• holding a special Executive team meeting following the meeting
with Neland, if needed; and
• planning for a classis-wide discussion at the next scheduled
classis meeting in January 2021. 1 (Minutes of 10-27-20 Meeting of
Classis GRE Executive team, p. 4.)
The Classis Executive team also anticipated that there would be
many expectations within the denomination about how classis
should respond. (Id.) The Executive team also recognized addi-
tional challenges. The member congregations have different opin-
ions about Neland’s actions. (Id.) Thus, the team had to consider
whether member churches who disagreed with Neland would want
to remain in the classis if Neland wanted to stay in the denomina-
tion. (Id.) However, the Executive team opened itself to the leading
of the Holy Spirit and considered whether this was an opportunity
to model how to live together with differences. In short, the Classis
GRE Executive team gave thoughtful, Spirit-led consideration
about how to respond and about some potential consequences.
The Classis Executive team also responded to a letter sent directly
to Neland from the Council of Delegates (“COD”). The Executive
team assured the COD that Classis GRE has never minimized the
importance of the issue. (11-10-20 Letter to Council of Delegates from
Classis GRE Executive team.) The team acknowledged that classis
would need to address whether it believed Neland’s actions were
“allowable” within the pastoral guidelines of Synod. (Id.)
In reply, the COD agreed that it had no jurisdiction over Neland’s
council and that the appropriate process for churches and classis to
1 Classis GRE ultimately held three classis discussions/education hours—September 20,

2020, May 2021, and May 2022. (Minutes from 9-20-20 Meeting of Classis GRE, p. 7; Minutes
from 5-20-21 Meeting of Classis GRE, p. 2; and Minutes from 5-19-22 Meeting of Classis GRE,
p. 4.)

adjudicate the matter was to engage with synod via overtures. (12-
18-20 Letter to Classis GRE from the COD.) The COD also affirmed
the original authority of the local churches and that it respected the
delegated authority of the classes and synod as described in the
Church Order. (Id.)
Consistent with the advice of the COD, the member congregations
of classis filed overtures and communications seeking clarity about
the Human Sexuality Report (“HSR”) and the nature of the prior
advice by synod about same-sex sexual relationships. Following
Synod 2022, Classis GRE has continued to engage by forming an ad
hoc committee charged with making recommendations about how
classis should respond after Synod 2022. This committee has
drafted an overture for classis to consider that asks synod to re-
verse its 2022 decision on confessional status.
2. Waiting for Synod 2023 to Rule on Neland’s Appeal Respects Both
the Appeal Process and the Original Authority of the Local
Churches Provided in the Church Order.
The Classis Executive team also explained to the member congrega-
tions at the September classis meeting that a member of Neland
must first file an appeal before the classis or synod may involve it-
self in the disciplinary decision of a local council. (Minutes of 9-17-
20 Meeting of Classis GRE, p 7.) This statement is supported by the
opinion of Rev. Kathy Smith, the church polity expert for the
CRCNA and synod parliamentarian. Rev. Smith shared this opinion
with the synod advisory committee at Synod 2022 that considered
the overtures related to Neland and she repeated this opinion on
the floor of Synod 2022 in response to a question from a delegate.
[see Wednesday Afternoon session - June 15 - Synod 2022 –
YouTube.com, at 50:13 – 51.33].
In its Neland Avenue CRC In Loco Committee Report and Recommenda-
tions (“Report”), the in loco committee acknowledged that no mem-
ber of Neland filed an appeal. (Report, Section IV, p. 4). It also
acknowledged that the discipline of church members is the respon-
sibility of the local council, (Id, citing Acts of Synod 2015, p. 674).
However, the in loco committee then said that “when this fails to oc-
cur, it falls to the classis to intervene.” (Report, Section IV, p. 4).
However, the cited selection from the Acts of Synod 2015 states the
opposite: “Synod cannot instruct a classis or a council to exercise
discipline, except upon appeal (one consistory cannot ask another
consistory to act as its proxy in matters of discipline, as indicated in
decisions of Synod 1988, Acts of Synod 1988, p. 613). The discipline
of church members is the responsibility of the local council (see
Church Order Articles 37, 78-81, 85).” (Acts of Synod 2015, p 674,
emphasis added).
Further, Neland informed Classis GRE that it appealed its disci-
pline by Synod 2022. Article 30 of the Church Order describes the

option to appeal. Because Synod 2022 issued the discipline, the ap-
peal will be heard by the following synod, Synod 2023. The Church
Order contains no provision for a classis to intervene to prevent a
local church from appealing its discipline by synod.
3. The Report of the In Loco Committee Did Not Show That Classis
GRE Must Respond Again About Neland Before Synod 2023 Hears
Neland’s Appeal.
The in loco committee outlined the mandate from synod in its Re-
port. The committee stated that it must admonish Classis GRE and
cannot deviate from that mandate. (Report, Section II, pp. 2-3). De-
spite presenting the admonishment of Classis GRE as a predeter-
mined requirement of its mandate, the in loco committee offered
two reasons in support of its admonishment.
First, the in loco committee pointed to the statement by the Classis
GRE Executive team to the COD that classis needed to address
whether Neland’s actions were allowable within the pastoral
guidelines of synod. (Report, Section III, p. 3). The in loco committee
stated Classis GRE “never” followed through. (Report, Section III, p.
3). However, the in loco’s conclusion ignores the ongoing responses
by the Classis GRE Executive team and the member congregations
since receiving notice about Neland in 2020. The committee’s con-
clusion also relies upon a misreading of the Acts of Synod 2015, cited
above, about the proper role of a classis in matters of local disci-
pline.
Second, the committee pointed to a sentence of affirmation and
gratitude towards Neland that Classis GRE made in an introduc-
tory paragraph added to a communication from Neland. (Report,
Section III, p. 3). However, Classis GRE believes the in loco commit-
tee read more into these statements than was intended.
At the 5-20-21 meeting of Classis GRE, Classis acceded to an over-
ture to accept a comprehensive communication from Neland that
outlined its long journey to appointing an officebearer in a same-
sex relationship. (Minutes of 5-20-21 Meeting of Classis GRE, p. 3.)
The Classis GRE Executive team recommended that classis accept
this communication on the grounds stated by Neland, “It is im-
portant that Neland’s response to Overtures 4 through 11 and Com-
munication 2 be heard by synod.” (Agenda for 5-20-21 Meeting of Clas-
sis GRE, p. 5, citing Grounds for Overture, p. 28, emphasis added.)
In acceding to the overture, Classis did not affirm or adopt any po-
sition by Neland on same-sex relationships. Neland voluntarily
prepared the detailed communication specifically for synod and
did so with a goal of transparency and accountability. If, as the
COD said, the proper way to adjudicate the matter is through over-
tures and communications to synod, then Classis GRE does not be-
lieve it was unfaithful for classis to affirm and express gratitude for

Neland’s participation in the process nor in the information shared
in the communication. 2
Classis GRE also notes that the in loco committee felt similarly
about the communications that it received from Neland. The com-
mittee specifically mentioned in its Report to Synod that Neland
greeted the committee with “Christlike love and an openness to our
presence and communication” and that the committee “appreciated
the opportunity to listen, to hear stories, and to experience some of
the pain and wrestling of Neland Ave CRC and Classis Grand Rap-
ids East.” (Report, Section I, p. 1.) The committee separately wrote
to Neland to thank it for its open sharing and clear, detailed, and
specific communications. 3 It is then both surprising and disappoint-
ing that the in loco committee said that similar expressions by Clas-
sis GRE were grounds for admonishment.
The two justifications for admonishment offered by the in loco com-
mittee do not mention two years of the classis work responding to
the HSR and the decisions by Neland and considered what was
done as “never following through,” or by implication, not following
through in good faith. The proffered justifications appear to be
based upon an over reading of Classis GRE’s intended meaning in
one sentence of an introduction to the communication by Neland as
well as an apparent misreading of the Acts of Synod 2015. For all
these reasons, the Report has not shown that Classis GRE must re-
spond again about Neland before Synod 2023 hears Neland’s ap-
peal.
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.)

II. Conclusion
The in loco committee said that a central issue is how to keep covenant
with one another when there is sharp disagreement. (Report, Section I,
p. 1). Classis Grand Rapids East agrees.
The member congregations of Classis GRE have different positions about
how to respond to Neland and the decisions of Synod 2022. In adopting
this overture, they are agreeing to act with unity to recognize that under
the authority of the Church Order Neland may appeal its discipline to
Synod and has already done so. Classis GRE does not believe that forbear-
ing with each other while waiting for the outcome of Neland’s appeal is
the same thing as “never following through,” nor is it forsaking accounta-
bility or challenging the authority of our denominational governance
structures. Classis GRE respects the Church Order and will wait to discern
any further response about Neland until the outcome of the appeal at
Synod 2023. Classis GRE hopes that this overture will create a season of
mutual forbearance, respect, and continued conversation in the classis
while Neland’s appeal is pending before synod.
Classis GRE also suggests for future consideration that the member con-
gregations use the denominational resources of Pastor Church Resources
following Synod 2023 to guide their next steps of discernment in the clas-
sis about Neland rather than using an oversight committee. 4 An oversight
committee inevitably creates an adversarial posture instead of a pastoral
posture of positive engagement.
The in loco committee recommended that Classis GRE continue to provide
pastoral care for those most directly affected by synodical and classical de-
cisions regarding same-sex sexual relationships, including Neland. (Re-
port, Section IV, p. 4). Classis GRE joins the committee in encouraging that
such care continue in these challenging times. Classis GRE humbly sub-
mits this overture as a suggestion of how mutual love, forbearance, and
care might be implemented as an example of Christ-like love for each
other in the body of Christ.
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)

OVERTURES,
COMMUNICATIONS,
AND APPEALS
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Overtures, Communications, Appeals 349

OVERTURES
OVERTURE 1
Refrain from Reading Repetitious Notes at the Beginning of

Synod
Classis Niagara overtures Synod 2023 to consider the inappropriate nature

of the message conveyed by the note appended to the credentials submit-
ted by the Classis Minnkota delegates to Synod 2022 (hereinafter referred
to simply as “the note” (and their related Communication).
I. Introduction
“The note” reads as follows:
The following delegates and alternates from Classis Minnkota protest
the seating of women delegates to synod for reasons of conscience: [list
of current delegate names]. They wish to make clear that their protest
is not against women or against using the gifts of women, but they
wish to uphold their understanding of Scripture’s teaching regarding
the roles of women and men. The Classis Minnkota Communication
sent to this year’s synod offers a fuller explanation of their convictions.
The related Communication reads as follows:
The churches of Classis Minnkota affirm that men and women are cre-
ated 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 Timothy.” (See the original French word-
ing, which refers to persons using the masculine gender.) This belief is
therefore not rooted in chauvinism or patriarchy but in Scripture and
in our historic confession of faith. It is our hope and prayer that this
communication will provide a clear and respectful 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
complement 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.
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Overtures 351

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 respected
women during his earthly ministry (Luke 8:1-3; 10:38-42) and as he con-
tinues 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).
5. That the apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote, “I
do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man” and then
grounded this argument in the good created order (1 Tim. 2:12-13). The
church, therefore, should not ordain women to its authoritative offices.
6. That the purpose of spiritual gifts is not self-fulfillment but service to
God and others, to the end that God receives all the glory (1 Cor. 12:7;
14:26).
7. That the CRCNA’s 1995 decision to open all offices to women is con-
trary to Scripture.
B. We also offer the following observations:
1. That even though Synod 1995 declared that both complementarian and
egalitarian views are faithful interpretations of the Word of God, synodi-
cal practice since that time has become markedly egalitarian, making it
difficult for complementarians to participate in good conscience.
2. That the complementarian position is held by many male and female
members and by other officebearers, churches, and classes in the
CRCNA.
3. That the CRCNA’s 1995 decision to open all offices to women has re-
sulted in offense, division, strife, loss of members, and our expulsion
from the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council in 1997.
4. That celebration of the egalitarian position and practice through video
and song (as done at Synod 2018) causes offense and pricks the con-
sciences of those who hold to the historic complementarian position re-
garding women in church office.
As members of the body of Christ in the CRCNA, Classis Minnkota
does not present this communication in order to offend our brothers
and sisters who hold to the egalitarian view; rather we wish to explain
that our convictions are rooted in the Word of God. Though under
protest, we continue to participate because we love the CRCNA and
seek God’s blessing upon our denomination.
Classis Minnkota
LeRoy G. Christoffels, stated clerk
352 Overtures AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

[Similar notes and communications were submitted by the respective Classis
Minnkota delegates at prior annual synods.]
II. Background
While “the note” includes the statement “their protest is not against
women or against using the gifts of women” and “Classis Minnkota does
not present this communication in order to offend our brothers and sisters
who hold to the egalitarian view,” consider the practical effect of reading
their protest verbatim to the assembly when credentials are reported. For
female delegates, all of whom have been ordained, chosen, and delegated
by their respective classes, they are obliged to sit quietly and be told that a
subset of the other delegates do not accept them as legitimate delegates
who “contribute to the broader wisdom.”
Certain classis delegations have been submitting these and similar notes
in their credentials and related communications for a quarter of a century.
If the intent was or is to convince those who hold to an egalitarian view of
women in ministry to hew instead to a complementarian view or to re-
frain from ordaining female officebearers, that has not taken place. A
quarter of a century ago, the CRCNA did not ordain female pastors, but
year after year, more and more women have been ordained as CRCNA of-
ficebearers. Today the count of female pastors alone in the CRCNA sur-
passes 200.
Registered objections to the ordination of women as officebearers and del-
egates to synod has persisted for some 25 years, and with a painful impact
on female delegates who have served synod over that time (and those
who will serve our denomination at future synods). That is not conducive
to working collegially on the important tasks that synod must address.
III. Overture
Classis Niagara overtures Synod 2023 to request that, in a spirit of com-
mon ministry and the unity of the body of Christ, synod refrain from
reading these repetitious notes.
Grounds:
1. The CRCNA has adopted the position that both egalitarian and com-
plementarian views are valid interpretations of Scripture, making an-
nual promotion of the complementarian position superfluous.
2. Reading these registered credential notes verbatim at synod causes
harm to female delegates by making it clear that a subset of the synod
delegates do not want them there, which undermines our unity and
encourages polarity.
Classis Niagara
Wendy de Jong, stated clerk

OVERTURE 2
Make a Statement on Assisted Suicide

I. Background
The Christian Reformed Church in North America has never made a de-
finitive statement on assisted suicide. Meanwhile, public approval of the
practice is high, and its legalization is expanding under various monikers
such as “death with dignity,” “end of life options,” and “medical assis-
tance in dying.”
The Bible strongly emphasizes the value of human life. Human beings—
male and female—were created in the image of God, unique from all other
creatures (Gen. 1:27). Even after the fall into sin, this imagebearing status
continues and is the reason for prohibiting one person to curse another
(James 3:9). Combined with this, Jesus connects insults and cursing with
anger when teaching on the sixth commandment (Matt. 5:21-22). His con-
nection is reason to believe that God’s moral command against insults and
murder is rooted in the inherent value of human life. The Heidelberg Cat-
echism also ties sins of the tongue with anger and God’s prohibition of
murder (Q. and A.’s 105-107). Human beings are of such value that even
verbal insults are sin in God’s eyes.
Legalization of assisted suicide is expanding rapidly. In the United States,
Oregon was the first to legalize assisted suicide when voters approved the
“Death with Dignity Act” in 1994. Others would follow: Washington
(2008); Montana (by court case in 2009); Vermont (2013); California (2015);
Colorado (2016); Washington, D.C. (2016); Hawaii (2018); New Jersey
(2019); Maine (2019); and New Mexico (2021). 1
In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Carter v. Canada on
February 6, 2015, that laws against assisted suicide are unconstitutional.
The following year, Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) would be imple-
mented. In the years 2016 to 2021, a total of 31,664 people used MAID to
end their lives. Alarmingly, the number using MAID has increased each
year. Canada’s laws on assisted suicide are some of the loosest in the
world, to the point that human rights advocates have “grave concern.” In
2019, 61-year-old Alan Nichols, who had a history of depression and other
medical issues, was approved for MAID and was killed. Nichols listed
“hearing loss” as the only health condition. Some disabled Canadians are
opting to kill themselves through MAID in the face of mounting bills. 2
MAID is set to expand eligibility on March 17, 2023, to persons with a
mental disorder as the sole condition.
1 See euthanasia.procon.org/states-with-legal-physician-assisted-suicide for details on

each state’s laws and how they were adopted.
2 “‘Disturbing’: Experts Troubled by Canada’s Euthanasia Laws,” by Maria Cheng, Asso-
ciated Press, Aug. 11, 2022; apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-

7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867.

Public opinion polls show significant support for assisted suicide in the
United States and Canada. In 2022, Gallup found that 55 percent of Ameri-
cans said doctor-assisted suicide is morally acceptable, while 41 percent
said it was morally wrong. 3 In Canada, a 2020 poll showed that while ma-
jorities of Canadians have concerns and caveats about implementation, 77
percent of Canadians support access to MAID as a basic right. 4 Ipsos polls
sponsored by Death with Dignity Canada show vast majorities of Canadi-
ans favor assisted suicide even when death is not “reasonably foreseea-
ble,” even for those whose only underlying condition is mental illness,
and also for mature minors. 5
We live in a secular culture of death, where death is preferable to suffer-
ing. A 2022 study has shown that legalizing assisted suicide also raises the
overall, or “self-initiated,” suicide rates. 6 We, however, follow the Savior
who was the man of sorrows and familiar with suffering. He voluntarily
left eternal glory for a life of suffering that culminated in death even on a
cross for the sake of our eternal life.
Synod has made no official statement on euthanasia or assisted suicide. In
its position on abortion, the church condemned “the wanton or arbitrary
destruction of any human being at any stage of its development from the
point of conception to the point of death” (Acts of Synod 1972, p. 64). How-
ever, it could easily be rationalized that ending the suffering of a terminal
patient is hardly “wanton or arbitrary,” and therefore assisted suicide
might be considered permissible by CRC standards. Especially when un-
der extreme pressure of suffering, human judgment searches for any
means to end the suffering. For the sufferer, ending suffering, even by
death, is not “wanton or arbitrary.” A clearer statement of life is needed.
II. Overture
Classis Zeeland overtures Synod 2023 to make a definitive statement on
the practice of assisted suicide in all of its forms.
Grounds:
1. The value of human life in God’s image is a strong biblical teaching.
2. The CRCNA has not made a statement on euthanasia or assisted sui-
cide.
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
Angus Reid, Nov. 10, 2020; cardus.ca/research/health/reports/broad-support-for-maid-in-

canada-has-caveats-and-concerns.
5 2021 Poll: Support for medically assisted dying in Canada; dyingwithdignity.ca/media-
center/poll-support-for-medically-assisted-dying-in-canada-2.
6 "Does Legalizing Assisted Suicide Make Things Better or Worse?" by Anscombe Bioeth-
ics Centre; bioethics.org.uk/research/euthanasia-assisted-suicide-papers/suicide-preven-

tion-does-legalising-assisted-suicide-make-things-better-or-worse-professor-david-al-
bert-jones.

3. Legal opportunity for assisted suicide is expanding rapidly for
CRCNA members with ailments, tempting them to believe death is
preferable to life.
4. Mainstream public opinion is largely in favor of assisted suicide, and
CRCNA members breathe the air of a culture of death. Without a de-
finitive statement by the church, members can easily default to popular
thinking.
Classis Zeeland
Ronald J. Meyer, stated clerk
OVERTURE 3
Refocus Ecclesiological Communication

I. Introduction
Over the past decades, we have seen the CRC veer away from focusing on
profound theological principles set within the context of the day and to-
ward promoting stances on specific economic, political, and social biases
with little or weak scriptural support. This move has taken our focus off of
the core tenets of what it means to be the true church and has left the im-
pression with many that our denominational focus is to promote specific
solutions to modern issues in lieu of biblical principles by which solutions
are formulated.
Furthermore, this shift in focus has allowed a few within the denomina-
tion to promote unvetted ideas that represent themselves as the views of
the entire CRCNA. The motivation behind this overture is not to censor
our ministries from communicating but to, in fact, empower the CRCNA
to do the opposite: to articulate issues with robust Reformed theological
reflection using the voices of our neo-Calvinist past with the brilliant
minds of today’s theologians. We desire to restore our rich theological and
historical prowess to equip not merely the CRCNA but the church world-
wide.
II. Overture
Classis Southeast U.S. overtures synod to do the following:
A. Declare that the CRCNA will take no position, make no statements,
and take no actions promoting or endorsing any social, economic, or
political idea or action in any way, including but not limited to, written
comments made in print or on our website, or by providing links from
our website.

B. Appoint a Denominational Content Management Committee (DCMC)
to act as a committee in loco to initially enforce this declaration and en-
sure compliance.
C. Instruct the general secretary to remove all content immediately that
the committee deems violates this declaration, and further instruct the
general secretary to ensure that all policies and job descriptions with
the denominational offices comply with this declaration.
Further, we offer the following names as recommended members for
the DCMC:
• Rev. Gerrit Besteman, Bradenton (Fla.) CRC
• Rev. David Vander Meulen, Escalon (Calif.) CRC
• Rev. Andrew Zomerman, Dresden (Ont.) CRC
• Rev. Jim Hollendoner, Munster (Ind.) CRC
• Rev. Jesse Walhof, Living Water Community CRC, Orange City,
Iowa
Grounds:
1. Promote the proper role of the church
• The role of the church is to purely preach the gospel, administer the
sacraments, and practice church discipline. Preaching can involve
proclaiming biblical principles obtained from Scripture but should
not include promoting specific political, social, or economic posi-
tions that stem from expertise, understanding, and biases outside of
Scripture.
• The church as an institution and organization ought to remain
within its "sphere" and speak only to biblical principles, and in so
doing it will equip its members to be transformative agents as they
serve within the other spheres to which they have been called.
Abraham Kuyper discusses the dangers of a time when "the entire
social life was to be covered by the wings of the Church . . . [and]
. . . as a result the world corrupted the Church." Kuyper goes on to
state that under Calvinism, "the Church receded in order to be nei-
ther more or less than the congregation of believers . . . [and] . . .
thus domestic life regained its independence . . . set free from every
ecclesiastical bond" albeit still under the dominion of God (Stone
Foundation Lectures, p. 79).
• It needs to be presupposed that all truth stems from God's revealed
Word. Scripture is not subject to our observed reality or individual
spiritual beliefs (which are fallen). The trend we are observing is
that current political, social, and economic reflections are priori-
tized above the guidance of Scripture to speak into the issue.
• Thus, if the CRC collectively, as a church, desires to speak to an is-
sue of our day, we need to first approach Scripture and exegete, or
draw out, the biblical principles that speak to that issue and seek to
apply those principles to the current context as best as we can.

Synod has used study committees to construct biblical theologies of
various issues in the past, and this process is still available.
2. Promote the proper function of the denominational agencies
• The mission of denominational agencies is to resource the local con-
gregation and is not intended to represent the plethora of opinions
and political ideologies of CRCNA officebearers or members.
• The CRCNA has spent significant time and effort over the years
formulating and communicating official position statements—from
gambling to abortion. More recently, however, the ease of mass
communication has influenced what our CRCNA agencies decide
to promote with little or no oversight or approval from the denomi-
nation as a whole.
• Some of the calls to social action that are seen in our publications
often seem to be politically motivated with minimal or weak scrip-
tural engagement—or worse, exhibit sophistry that impugns basic
Christian doctrine.
3. Promote proper practices and good results
• Bad theology hurts people. Good orthopraxy only stems from good
orthodoxy; however, it seems many of the statements made in our
publications stem from "orthodoxy following orthopraxy" where a
preferred policy becomes the basis for eisegeting Scripture.
• The proper use of language is important. The church struggled for
centuries on the language it uses to speak about God, demonstrat-
ing the importance of precise language. We need to understand
that the specific words we use communicate our purpose and un-
derstanding. So, for example, when we understand that using the
term "social justice" aligns the CRC with one political and social
movement, it is incumbent upon us to choose language such as
"biblical justice" to instead align the CRC with Scripture.
• Adopting this overture will still allow our publications to publish
opinion letters from individual readers, but the publications them-
selves would not be able to editorialize, since this is done in the
name of the denomination. Rather, they could report on current is-
sues with impartiality, except as has been approved by synod.
• Any individual CRC member, whether an employee or not, can
freely express their opinions about how biblical principles should
be applied; however, the avenues to express those opinions should
be communicated through other means like parachurch organiza-
tions rather than church as institute.
Classis Southeast U.S.

Viviana Cassis, stated clerk

OVERTURE 4
Receive Code of Conduct as Helpful but Not Required

I. Observations
Synod 2022 sent to the churches the proposed Code of Conduct, asking for
a closer look and feedback. We understand that this proposed code arose
out of a desire by the broader church to speak into the problem of abuses
of power that is around in every age, and in more recent history has come
to light through lamentable and evil expressions of sexual abuse present
also in the church. Truly we are a people who sin in thought, word, and
deed, which is why we always need a great Savior, not only to forgive our
grievous sins but also over time to powerfully conform us more and more
into his likeness.
We greatly desire Christ’s church to contend for righteousness and holi-
ness, in our doctrine and in our life as a people. So our concerns about the
proposed Code of Conduct do not arise from a deficiency in a desire for
holy living; rather, our concerns arise from not only some particular word-
ing but also how this code would actually weaken the church and make
her more susceptible to abuse in the future.
II. Overture
Therefore Classis Zeeland overtures Synod 2023 to gratefully receive the
proposed Code of Conduct as providing some helpful guidance in
churches dealing with the problem of abuse, but not to adopt it as a re-
quirement for serving as an officebearer or a ministry leader in the
CRCNA because of significant concerns and weaknesses.
Grounds:
1. The proposed Code of Conduct’s language is too often filled with
vague terminologies that are themselves open to subjective interpreta-
tion, not objective points of rule-keeping that the code desires to put
forward.
2. The proposed code is heavy on man-made legal, business, and aca-
demic terminologies, as well as on phrases that do not appear to or-
ganically arise from Scripture, all of which give the code the flavor of
arising from a human resources office or a dean’s desk rather than aris-
ing from the church or God’s Word.
3. The proposed code presumes that the problem with abuse comes
about from a lack of having specific rules in place rather than from a
lack of a changed heart, and therefore can be fixed by writing more
rules; we as Reformed believers understand, however, that the law is
powerless to change a heart when it comes to dealing with others. The
problem is not with a lack of rules but rather with a lack of a changed
heart.
4. The Christian Reformed Church has proven in its history that, while
not always doing so perfectly, it has and does take the sin of abuse se-
riously and has a history of acting to remove abusive individuals from

positions of leadership in the church when such abuse has been uncov-
ered.
5. All officebearers must already sign the Covenant for Officebearers and
make a public vow when they take office, where they promise before
God and his people to “do the work of [their] offices faithfully, in a
way worthy of [their] calling” (Form for the Ordination of Elders and
Deacons) and to uphold not only in faith but also in life the Reformed
confessions, where we are taught how “I am not to belittle, hate, insult
. . . my neighbor” and that “God wants us to love our neighbors as our-
selves, to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful, and friendly to-
ward them, to protect them from harm as much as we can, and to do
good even to our enemies” (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 40).
6. The Ten Commandments, as well as being a summary of God’s law,
consistently lay out for Christians (leaders of all types) how we ought
to behave and conduct ourselves; abuse toward others does not arise
from our lack of knowing right from wrong, for we in the Reformed
tradition make knowledge of the Ten Commandments an important
part of our weekly worship services and Sunday school/catechism in-
struction.
7. The “spiritual” section guidelines will weaken the elders and deacons
in the church by restraining their speaking as God’s voice into the
hearts and lives of a people who at times need to be challenged and
rightly made to feel uncomfortable and unsafe in their present way of
living.
8. The “spiritual” section guidelines will weaken the pulpit of the church
by restraining ministers of the Word in their preaching, though in that
moment when they preach (when in alignment with Scripture) they
are to be heard as the “voice of God” to God’s people (“Among the
many excellent gifts with which God has adorned the human race, it is
a singular privilege that he deigns to consecrate to himself the mouths
and tongues of men in order that his voice may resound in them”—In-
stitutes of the Christian Religion, 4.1.5).
9. The “safety” section guidelines never objectively define what is a “safe
environment” but rather give a vague subjective description (“where
all persons are respected and valued”). A key weakness in that is that
officebearers or ministry leaders will become more hesitant to address
problems of sin, leaving church members in that sin longer, which is
spiritually dangerous and leaves a more fertile ground for future
abuses in the church.
10. There is confusion in the proposed Church Order changes as to whom
the code would apply (proposed changes to Art. 83 speak of only of-
ficebearers being held accountable, though proposed changes to Art. 5-
b speak of officebearers and “ministry leaders” being required to sign
it).
Classis Zeeland

OVERTURE 5
Commend Code of Conduct as Helpful but Not as a Church

Order Revision
I. Background
Synod 2019 adopted a series of recommendations from the Committee
Addressing the Abuse of Power, including a recommendation that synod
“draft a code of conduct for all employed ministry staff within the CRC”
(Acts of Synod 2019, pp. 554, 795). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this
matter was not taken up until June 2021 at the Special Meeting of the
Council of Delegates, at which time the COD was instructed “to devise a
plan for implementation for the denomination, classes, and churches, per
the instruction of Synod 2019” (Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Council
of Delegates 2021, p. 633). Synod 2022 was asked to revise the Church Or-
der with the inclusion of the Code of Conduct, to be signed by “all office-
bearers and ministry leaders” (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 899).
Synod 2022 did not accede to that recommendation but instead chose to
forward an amended Code of Conduct to the churches for consideration at
Synod 2023. If adopted, this Code of Conduct would be incorporated into
the Church Order, and all “ministry leaders” would be required to sign
it—and those who violate this code could be subject to special discipline.
We want to acknowledge up front the very serious problem of abuse of
power within the church; indeed, the church has long been too willing to
look the other way in cases of misconduct and abuse, and this has indeed
caused great harm. We lament this reality, and we can affirm the need for
the local church to do better. Indeed, those who are guilty of gross miscon-
duct should indeed be held accountable for their actions—up to and in-
cluding special discipline when it is warranted.
However, this Code of Conduct is likely not the solution that we need.
The following examples illustrate the weaknesses.
A. Language
The language in this document is vague and is subject to misinterpretation
and misunderstanding. For example, it is expected that “ministry leaders”
will all have to sign this Code of Conduct, but nowhere is it specified who
this refers to; surely elders and deacons, but what about greeters and ush-
ers? What about the chairperson of the hospitality committee? And on it
goes. What are the ramifications if a greeter, who signs on, violates the
form? They are not subject to special discipline—so would they be liable
to church discipline?
Even words that appear at first glance to be self-defined are not. Words
like “safe” can mean a lot of different things. Indeed, for some, having
their ethical positions challenged or contradicted is not “safe”; encourag-
ing people to step into areas of ministry that are not familiar can feel “un-
safe” in the moment. Even the definition of the word “abuse” is often not

agreed on. For some, hearing a differing viewpoint has been termed
“abuse.” “Unwanted physical touch” could mean a hug given by a well-
intentioned person during the greeting time in a worship service to a per-
son not expecting or wanting it. Does this count as abusive? None of this
is clearly defined by the Code of Conduct.
B. Overreach
Originally synod intended that the Code of Conduct was to be signed by
employees of the denomination; however, the Council of Delegates ex-
panded that mandate to include “all ministry leaders” of all churches and
classes; in other words, they took the unusual step of broadening the
scope far beyond what synod intended. In fact, they did this without in-
tending to hear any feedback from the churches! It was only when Synod
2022 put the brakes on that the Code of Conduct was distributed more
broadly for feedback from the wider church. Such a major change to our
governance, should, at the very least, have been brought to churches for
input. Perhaps more importantly, it is generally not our practice to have
such specific church policies imposed upon the churches from the denom-
inational leadership. The denominational structures should be serving the
local church by resourcing them, not setting their policy for them. Those
churches who wish to make use of this Code of Conduct should feel free
to do so; other churches may wish to adopt their own code, and they
should have the freedom to do this. It is ironic that a document that is
meant to prevent the abuse and misuse of power is being required of all
churches in this way.
Furthermore, the Code of Conduct requires behaviors that are beyond
the scope of what the church can monitor or expect. Signees are ex-
pected to “create an environment of hospitality”—but that’s not clear.
Are all members expected to be warm and social? Invite others over
for a meal? These are valuable practices, but should they be expected
of everyone? Signees are expected to keep all of their “professional re-
lationships free from inappropriate emotional and sexual behaviors . . .
[including] jokes.” This is good—but again, who will monitor or en-
force this? Should the pastor visit congregants at work, to ensure that
no inappropriate comments are being made? Are the elders responsi-
ble to ensure that fellow church members don’t exercise “inappropri-
ate emotional behaviors” (whatever those are) at the office? And if so,
who will monitor or enforce this?
Again, we stress that recognizing and preventing such cases of miscon-
duct is important. The church is no place for any form of misuse of power,
or of abuse. But this Code of Conduct, while well intentioned, is not some-
thing that should be required of all churches and all “ministry leaders”
(whatever is meant by this). Rather, synod should commend this as a use-
ful document to the churches, to adopt or use as they see fit.

II. Overture
Classis Columbia overtures Synod 2023 not to adopt the Code of Conduct
as a revision to the Church Order but instead to commend it to the
churches as a helpful resource for their leaders.
Grounds:
1. The proposed Code of Conduct reflects a significant expansion of the
original mandate given by Synod 2019. The COD was instructed to cre-
ate a Code of Conduct for ministry staff within the CRC; what is being
proposed is a mandate for those in leadership in the local church.
2. The proposed Code of Conduct reflects a top-down approach, which
mandates church policy at the local level rather than allowing churches
to determine for themselves what is most suitable for their context.
3. The proposed Code of Conduct has language that is vague and subject
to misinterpretation:
a. “Ministry leaders” could include anyone from greeters, coffee serv-
ers, youth ministry leaders, to officebearers—but this is not speci-
fied. Who is held to this Code of Conduct?
b. “Abuse” is not clearly defined; for some, “abuse” could mean
speaking truth in a way that is less than sensitive, or hearing an
opinion that is contrary to their own.
c. “Safe” is highly subjective, as indeed the gospel confronts us in
ways that are never “safe”; for some, having their moral or ethical
positions challenged can be construed as “unsafe.”
d. “Unwanted physical touch” could mean a hug by a well-inten-
tioned person during the greeting time at church, directed at some-
one who is not comfortable with receiving affection.
4. Those who violate the proposed Code of Conduct would be subject to
special discipline, meaning that a person (again, it is not clear who this
applies to) could be removed from office for a violation of a mandate
that is vague to begin with.
5. The proposed Code of Conduct is expansive, requiring behaviors that
are beyond the scope of what such a document should include:
a. “To the best of my ability, I will contribute to an environment of
hospitality.” But it is not clear what this means: Are all signers ex-
pected to be warm and social? Are all to be engaged in opening
their homes to guests?
b. “I will keep all of my professional relationships free from inappro-
priate emotional and sexual behaviors . . . [including] jokes.” Who
will monitor this? Who decides what is an inappropriate joke?
c. “I will appropriately use accepted accounting practices and regular
reviews and/or audits.” This mandates church officers to require
the church to have audits/reviews by outside auditors. This would
add a substantial expense and burden that is unnecessary.

6. The Code of Conduct offers helpful guidance to address real concerns
within the church, and thus it should be commended to the churches
for consideration, and for inclusion, or modification as the local church
deems best.
Classis Columbia
Roger D. Kramer, stated clerk

OVERTURE 6
Reject the Proposed Code of Conduct for Ministry Leaders
Classis Minnkota overtures Synod 2023 to reject the proposed Code of

Conduct for Ministry Leaders.
I. Introductory comments
A. We are wholeheartedly supportive of discipleship and accountability
within the body that aims to ensure that godly, servant-like leadership
marks our church life.
B. We are earnestly opposed to any abuse, whether it be emotional, spir-
itual, physical, psychological, sexual, or other.
C. We are aware that abuse happens, sometimes in places where we
might least expect it, and sometimes we least expect it because we
don’t look hard enough for it.
D. We believe that abuse by those in authority does significant harm to
those who have suffered from it and brings dishonor to Christ’s name.
II. Overture
Classis Minnkota overtures Synod 2023 to reject the proposed Code of
Conduct for Ministry Leaders.
Grounds:
1. The Code of Conduct clarifies nothing of our beliefs. We subscribe to
(and theoretically hold each other accountable to) the Three Forms of
Unity precisely because they clarify what we believe vis-à-vis matters
of faith and biblical teaching that have been at times the subject of
doubt or dispute. The Code of Conduct serves no such purpose and
merely layers onto moral commitments we have already made in nu-
merous ways. In what way, then, is the code necessary or helpful?
2. We are not under confusion as to whether or not abuse is acceptable
before God. Knowing already from Scripture that abuse is not accepta-
ble, we should not expect that a Code of Conduct will operate to effect
where Scripture has failed. We are promised that the Word of God is
living and active, sharper than a two-edged sword, but have no similar
promise concerning codes of conduct.
3. The Code of Conduct, as proposed, targets only certain sins, and as
such is incomplete as a Code of Conduct. The code says nothing of
other moral commitments before God and to his people, as if they
were lesser. Additionally, the code is almost entirely horizontal in na-
ture and does not cover any vows for sins mainly of a vertical nature.
Certainly we do not believe that these sins are less heinous.

4. Currently we have Scripture, the Church Order, the Confessions, the
Contemporary Testimonies, the Covenant for Officebearers, our pro-
fession of faith vows, our ordination and installation vows, the charges
to officebearers, and the counsel of our brothers and sisters in Christ—
all of which are means for accountability in the carrying out of our du-
ties. We should not suppose that when we find these to be lacking, lay-
ering a Code of Conduct will be effective where these have failed.
5. The Code of Conduct has already been expanded from the original
mandate—that being a Code of Conduct for employees—to now in-
clude all officebearers. Given that the code is titled as being for “Minis-
try Leaders,” it is reasonable to believe that some may plan for another
mandatory expansion of its applicability to all church volunteers. We
oppose such proliferation and micromanagement of the life of the local
church.
6. Introduction of the concept of “safety” in a moral code is undefined
and ripe for abuse. The Bible knows nothing of the world’s currently
popular notions of safety. Scripture does not demand (or even prize, at
times) safety. It does demand holiness, but this code seeks to demand
an undefined notion of safety. This concept is routinely weaponized in
service of the devil—and even now is being used to criticize and im-
pugn decisions of Synod 2022.
7. Where existing accountability has been lacking, greater accountability
should be exercised through existing means rather than supposing that
we only lacked the means and not the will. God has equipped his
church with Spirit and Word. God has provided pastors, elders, and
deacons to lead in accountability to one another. God has called for ho-
liness and servanthood in his church. We have the tools and the task-
ing that we need. Those ignoring the tools and tasking provided by
God ought to be held accountable to existing standards before adding
new.
8. The Code of Conduct contains ambiguous and confusing language that
will inevitably lead to a host of interpretation and application prob-
lems. Examples include the following:
a. “I will support adults who disclose physical, sexual, or emotional
abuse in a way that appropriately empowers the person who has
been victimized.” Just what constitutes “support” and “appropri-
ately empowers” in this statement? Further, does this statement in-
sinuate that anyone who alleges abuse (including emotional) has in
fact been victimized even before that has been established?
b. “I will actively promote a safe environment. . . .” Will it be consid-
ered by some to be unsafe to uphold biblical sexual ethics? The
charge is already being wielded.
c. “I will disclose any perceived or actual conflict of interest.” Dis-
close to whom? The minister? The president of council? A denomi-
national representative? Safe Church? Also, perceived by whom?

The officebearer or anyone who wants to make a charge of conflict
of interest?
d. “I will work within my professional competence, especially in
counseling situations, and I will refer individuals to other profes-
sionals as appropriate.” What does that mean for a carpenter,
farmer, welder, accountant, or what have you on council? When is
a farmer deemed to be outside of his “professional competence”
when counseling a parishioner? Who determines “as appropriate”?
Remember, this is a vow, and it is supposed to provide clarity and
uniformity.
e. “I will keep all of my professional relationships free from inappro-
priate emotional and sexual behaviors. This includes not engaging
in inappropriate intimate contact or a sexual relationship, un-
wanted physical contact, sexual comments, gestures, or jokes.”
Who will parse “inappropriate emotional behavior”? What about
“unwanted physical contact”? An unwanted handshake in cold
season? A touch on the elbow at a funeral visitation? Using sweep-
ing subjective terms such as appropriate and inappropriate is inap-
propriate for a document purporting to provide clarity and uni-
formity. Do we suppose that judgment of these terms is universal?
Can we say, then, that this Code of Conduct sets us up to have
more harmonious and godly relationships?
9. Abuse in any form is deplorable, especially in Christ’s church, so the
CRCNA is right to aggressively push against it. However, the best way
for the church to fight against this sin is by properly using the means
(tools) prescribed to it in God’s Word—namely, the means of grace
summarized in Article 29 of the Belgic Confession. To that end, we’ve
prepared an “Acknowledgment of Officebearers’ Obligation to Prevent
Abuse in the Church” (see Appendix) that individual churches may
want to consider in lieu of the proposed Code of Conduct.
Classis Minnkota
APPENDIX
Acknowledgment of Officebearers’ Obligation to Prevent Abuse in the

Church
This document is offered not as a code to adopt, but rather as an acknowledgment
that if elders and ministers are fulfilling the marks of the church, no additional
codes are necessary.
The best way to prevent abuse and all other sins is by regular participa-
tion in God’s ordinary means of grace. As a minister, elder, or deacon in

the CRC, my primary duty is ensuring that my local congregation faith-
fully makes these means available by fulfilling the marks of the true
church as summarized in Belgic Confession Article 29.
The vows I have taken at my profession of faith and ordination and in
signing the Covenant for Officebearers commit me to guide my congrega-
tion in faithfully fulfilling these three marks as follows:
A. Engaging in the pure preaching of the gospel
I will work to provide worship services and other activities which
communicate God’s hate and wrath for the sin that drives abuse as
well as his grace, mercy, and peace for both the victims of abuse and
also those who repent of it. I will do this by means of the following:
• Using orthodox hermeneutics consistent with the Reformed tradi-
tion rather than eisegetically derived interpretations influenced by
a culture that promotes sin and abuse in antithesis to God’s truth.
The greatest form of abuse is authoritatively lying about what
God’s Word says.
• Feeding our congregation a robust diet consisting of the full coun-
sel of God’s Word. Ordinarily, a sufficient diet includes two wor-
ship services on the Lord’s Day centered on expository preaching
of the Word, as well as additional catechetical training for all ages
throughout the week. Well-fed Christians are better equipped to
recognize and abate temptations to abuse others and have greater
confidence to protect themselves from abusers.
• Regulating our worship according to God’s Word by including all
of the worship elements God commands and abstaining from prac-
tices he has not commanded. We will remind ourselves weekly of
God’s manifest law so as to be convicted to confess our sin, be as-
sured of God’s pardon made possible by Jesus Christ, and be chal-
lenged to gratefully live in a way that repudiates abuse in any
form.
B. Making use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ in-
stituted them
The physical nature of the sacraments reminds our congregation that
we each belong in body and soul to our faithful Savior, so we must not
use what belongs to Christ to abuse others or allow ourselves to be
abused. Victims of abuse will be reminded in the sacraments that no
matter how deeply they’ve been wounded, Christ’s mark on their life
will never be erased. I will do this by means of the following:
• Making sure our congregation is adequately prepared to celebrate
the Lord’s Supper by discerning the body of Christ and calling each
individual to deeply examine his faith, hope, and love and to
search out indwelling sin.
• Reminding fellow congregants that the mark placed on our heads
at baptism, no matter how long ago it was applied, or whether or

not we remember it being placed there, is still present though the
symbol of the water is long gone. God’s promises to us are certain
forever. We must be diligent to remember that every person in our
congregation has been given this mark as well and therefore must
be royally treated as a child of the King.
C. Practicing church discipline for correcting faults
Our discipline will be both positive (building up the church in
knowledge and sanctification) and negative (convicting sin and calling
for repentance). I will be vigilant to identify and eradicate abuse in our
congregation by means of the following:
• Training both our children and our adults in solid theology so that
they properly understand who God is, who mankind is as a fallen
imagebearer of God in need of salvation, how salvation can be ob-
tained in Christ, and how that then obligates us to live. At its core,
abuse is made possible (certainly for the perpetrator and often for
the victim) when people misunderstand what it means to be an im-
agebearer of God.
• Submitting myself to the oversight of fellow council members
through robust mutual censure and eagerly inviting church visitors
from classis to examine our life and work. The light this oversight
sheds may seem uncomfortable at times, but abuse hides in the
shadows.
• Being quick to confront sin in every form within our congregation.
Large serious sins such as abuse most often begin as small ignored
sins.
• Working to keep the wolves out of our flock, understanding that
wolves can appear from both inside and outside the church.
I will work to limit the scope of church activities to fulfilling these
three marks, understanding that fulfilling these obligations requires
every resource we’ve been given, and that the church has no scriptural
or confessional mandate to do otherwise.
The Belgic Confession goes on to describe the fruits of consistent use of
these marks to form “Christians [who] by faith, and by their fleeing
from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one
and only Savior, Jesus Christ . . . love the true God and their neighbors,
without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its
works. Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it
by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the
blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they
have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him” (Art. 29).
In short, by committing myself and my congregation to diligent use of
these means, by God’s grace our church environment will be a hostile,
unsafe habitat for any form of abuser.

OVERTURE 7
Do Not Accept and/or Use Code of Conduct as a Binding

Document
I. Overture
Classis Lake Superior overtures Synod 2023 not to accept and/or use as a
binding document the Code of Conduct presented to churches for review
and input by the Synod 2022.
Grounds:
1. The Preamble insufficiently sets up the Code of Conduct.
2. The Code of Conduct uses phrases, inferences, and opinions that are
not sufficiently laid out to get an understanding of the motives and in-
tentions of the authors.
II. Background
Below is a discussion of the Code of Conduct statements, pointing out the
phrases, inferences, and opinions that seem to include hidden motives and
intentions.
A. Preamble
1. In an attempt to possibly drive its agenda, the Preamble presents an in-
terpretation of Philippians 2, which is not the intent of the passage and
pulls from this misunderstood emphasis a “calling” for “all of us who
are united to Christ,” which confuses salvation in Christ with a humble
use of power.
a. Even if one insists on using the Philippians hymn as an opening, it
would be better to focus instead on “putting on the mind of Christ”
(Phil. 2:5). Christ consistently challenged the spiritual leaders in
not-so-kind words, especially when he spoke as one with authority.
However, would it be better to start with Jesus’ direct statements
about leadership in response to the apostle's mother’s seeking posi-
tions of leadership for her sons in the coming kingdom? He explic-
itly speaks against such selfish leadership, starting with the state-
ment “Not so with you . . .” then gives them instruction toward
humble service to others (Matt. 20:20-27).
b. The hymn of Philippians 2 is not intended to show us how Christ,
in use of his power, was “humbling himself toward a life-sacrific-
ing kind of obedience” so that we, in turn, will accept our calling
and use our power for “others to thrive.” Rather, the hymn of Phi-
lippians 2 is a beautiful statement of the eternal plan of God for his
Son to pay the debt for our sins by his death on the cross.
c. To read that this hymn is about the “use of power” and then to er-
rantly say that we are “called, in this passage and others, to this
way of being,” is to elevate “use of power” as the primary message
of salvation by God—as if a Christian is saved if he accepts the call

to use his power in “humbling himself toward a life-sacrificing
kind of obedience.”
2. The Code of Conduct also quotes the Confession of Belhar in the
second footnote, elevating this confession erroneously to be on the
same level of authority within our denomination as the Heidelberg
Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the Belgic Confession (and
even Our World Belongs to God). Therefore, quoting the Confes-
sion of Belhar within the same level of authority is implying that
we need to accept this confession as carrying the weight of a Form
of Unity within our denomination. But this is indeed not the case.
B. Code Statement One
1. As a ministry leader, I commit to the following:
Confidentiality
I will use confidentiality appropriately, which means I will hold in
confidence whatever information is not mine to share.
I will not use information shared with me in confidence in order to
elevate my position or to depreciate that of others.
My use of confidentiality will also be guided by mandatory report-
ing as required by law.
2. Response—Our recommended rewrite
Confidentiality
I will use a biblical concept of confidentiality which honors a trust-
worthy holding of a person’s information responsibly and respect-
fully.
Because my ministry leadership is to elevate Christ, I will not use
for my own gain any information of others which I may hold.
My use of confidentiality will respect the laws of any 501(c)3 to re-
port situations of obvious neglect, physical, or sexual abuse to the
proper authorities.
3. Scripture references
• Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets, but he who is
trustworthy in spirit keeps a thing covered. —Proverbs 11:13
• Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others
more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only
to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. —Philip-
pians 2:3-4
4. In reference to Code Statement One as written
• The code statement is referring to an unknown source when it
says, “I will use confidentiality appropriately . . .” Where is this
source? Who determines the church leader’s use of confidential-
ity? The local classis constitution?

• The one reference stated is “required by law.” Although this is
true, it does raise questions of the author’s intent. The code
statement comes off as disrespectful and coercive of the very
people who are to sign this code.
C. Code Statement Two
1. Relational
I will speak and act, in all my personal and professional relations,
in ways that follow the pattern of Christ, who used his power to
serve (1 Pet. 5; Mark 10; Phil. 2; 2 Tim. 4:2).
I will conduct myself with respect, love, integrity, and truthfulness
toward all—regardless of position, status, race, gender, age, or abil-
ity.
To the best of my ability, I will contribute to an environment of hos-
pitality.
Relational
Through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, I seek to speak
and act, in all my personal and professional relations, in ways that
follow the pattern of Christ, who used his power to serve (1 Pet. 5;
Mark 10; Phil. 2; 2 Tim. 4:2).
I will conduct myself with respect, love, integrity, and truthfulness
toward all—no matter one’s human status or condition.
To the best of my ability, I will contribute to an environment of hos-
pitality.
3. In reference to Code Statement Two as written
• On first reading, this code statement is admirable. But without a
source to reveal the motivations and intentions of the author
concerning “position, status, race, gender, age, or ability,” this
code statement is subject to judgments and manipulation.
• It is impossible for anyone to truly follow this code statement.
No one is able to “speak and act, in all my personal and profes-
sional relations, in ways that follow the pattern of Christ . . .”
unless they have the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit within
them. Yet this code does not refer to the powerful work of the
Holy Spirit within people of church leadership. So the code
statement presents itself as an unachievable ideal.
• Again, the motives of the authors of this code statement are in
question. The list of “position, status, race, gender, age, or abil-
ity” in this code statement seems to be a human construct based
on a list of people who have been hurt in the church. If a church
leader signs this document, is that leader not allowed to disa-
gree with someone on this list without the disagreement taken
as an “abuse of power”?

D. Code Statement Three
1. Financial
I will ensure that funds are used for their intended ministry pur-
poses.
In all financial matters, including the acceptance of gifts, I will act
with scrupulous honesty, transparency, and appropriate accounta-
bility.
I will appropriately use accepted accounting practices and regular
reviews and/or audits.
Financial
I will seek to match designated funds to their intended purposes.
In all financial matters, including the acceptance of gifts, I will act
with scrupulous honesty, transparency, and appropriate accounta-
bility.
I will appropriately use accounting practices agreed upon by my
authorities and submit to agreed-upon reviews and/or audits.
3. In reference to Code Statement Three as written
• The extreme presentation of this code statement causes the
signer to wonder: Does “I will ensure that funds are used for
their intended ministry purposes” mean that if the funds are ac-
cidently misused because of a flawed system of accounting, the
people in authority are now labeled as abusers?
• To sign this document with the final current sentence written in
the code statement, a leader would be agreeing to the “accepted
accounting practices” of people he doesn’t know or trust, and
this is disrespectful of hardworking and diligent ministry lead-
ers.
E. Code Statement Four
1. Intimate Relationships
I will maintain standards and appropriate boundaries in all rela-
tionships, which are informed by the Scriptures.
I will keep all of my professional relationships free from inappro-
priate emotional and sexual behaviors. This includes not engaging
in inappropriate intimate contact or a sexual relationship, un-
wanted physical contact, sexual comments, gestures, or jokes.
Intimate Relationships
I will maintain standards and appropriate boundaries in all rela-
tionships, which are informed by the Scriptures.

Because of biblical standards and appropriate boundaries, I will
professionally represent my ministry influence by keeping all min-
istry relationships free from inappropriate emotional and sexual be-
haviors. I will be especially careful concerning inappropriate inti-
mate contact or a sexual relationship, unwanted physical contacts,
sexual comments, gestures, or sexually based humor.
3. In reference to Code Statement Four as written
• This is the first time the code says, “which are informed by the
Scriptures.” And, therefore, it can trusted and understood what
is meant by the “boundaries in all relationships.”
• However, the code statement is again misleading as to the mo-
tives and intentions of the author. If there is an accusation
against a person in authority from someone who feels that a
comment made or a gesture was inappropriate, does that accu-
sation now determine the person in authority to be an abuser? If
a leader signs this code of conduct and someone makes an accu-
sation against him, is he an abuser even if the accusation is ei-
ther made up or a mistaken response to something that is com-
pletely innocent?
F. Code Statement Five
1. Safety
I will actively promote a safe environment where all persons are re-
spected and valued, where any form of abuse, bullying, or harass-
ment is neither tolerated nor allowed to take place.
I will report known or suspected cases of physical, sexual, or emo-
tional abuse or neglect of minors to the proper government authori-
ties.
I will support adults who disclose physical, sexual, or emotional
abuse in a way that appropriately empowers the person who has
been victimized.
2. Response – Our recommended rewrite
Safety
I will actively promote a safe environment where the transforming
presence of the Holy Spirit is welcomed and the power of evil is
driven out in Christ’s authority. This environment will be a place of
a balance of the love and truth of Christ. There will be no tolerance
of an evil mode of operation including flattery, intimidation, slan-
der, threats, and rage, for these promote abuse, bullying, and har-
assment.
I will follow professional and legal requirements to report known
or suspected cases of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or ne-
glect of minors to the proper government authorities.

I will be a support to all adults who are accused of abuse as well as
those who disclose physical, sexual, or emotional abuse in a way
that appropriately seeks the truth, and I will seek to apply godly
strategies of healing and discipline.
3. In reference to Code Statement Five as written
• Because we do not know the motives or intentions of the author,
this code statement sets up a potentially dangerous atmosphere
with differing opinions of what a “safe environment” is. Our
world and our church have too many opinions as to the defini-
tion of a “safe environment,” and without biblical support, this
code statement is dangerous.
• There is an assumption that all who sign this code of conduct
will know the definitions of “any form of abuse, bullying, or
harassment.” However, what happens if a preacher humbly and
perhaps even quietly teaches from the Word of God about a sin
issue in our world today and it offends someone? Would that
preacher now be an abuser or a bully? Who is in charge of de-
termining these definitions?
• Also, the last sentence does not have a source of definition of
what it means to be a “victim.” This raises red flags to any
leader who is trying hard to understand parameters of being a
strong yet compassionate leader. Is a victim someone who disa-
grees with a sermon? Just what is a victim?
G. Code Statement Six
1. Spiritual
I will acknowledge the use of Scripture and the Spirit’s work in the
community of the church and, therefore, refrain from presuming to
be the sole “voice of God.”
I will teach, admonish, or discipline in ways that are biblical and
Christlike, and I will seek other people’s well-being (Matt. 18; Col.
1:28; 3:16).
I will use my position as a way to serve the body of believers, ra-
ther than myself, for the common good and the cultivation of the
gifts of the Spirit.
2. Response
Well, there you go—well-written code statement.
H. Code of Conduct Additional Commitments
1. First commitment
I will work within my professional competence, especially in coun-
seling situations, and I will refer individuals to other professionals
as appropriate.
a. Response—Our recommended rewrite

I will commit to a strategy of evaluation of my professional
competence and make references to other professionals as ap-
propriate.
b. In reference to first commitment as written
At first read, this “commitment” seems agreeable, but again, it
borders on disrespect for people in places of church authority
and reveals a motivation or intention that is unhealthy.
2. Second, third, and fourth commitments
I will promote truthfulness, transparency, and honesty in all of my
work.
I will disclose any perceived or actual conflict of interest.
In all that I do, I will seek to use my position, power, and authority
prudently and humbly and in nonexploitive ways.
Second, third, and fourth commitments
In the presence of the ascended Lord Jesus Christ and the pre-
sent Holy Spirit, I will promote working in “truth and love,”
which means I will be transparent and honest.
I will speak and act directly to situations and people without
seeking to use agendas to manipulate.
In all that I do, I will seek to use my position, power, and au-
thority which reflects God’s call to humility, meekness, right-
eousness, mercy, purity in heart, and peace (Matt. 5:3-9).
b. In reference to the second, third, and fourth commitment as
written
• Again, what is the source of definition of “nonexploitive
ways,” and who is going to be the jury to determine whether
a leader is following this commitment?
• There is a weak understanding of commitment presented
here, based perhaps upon “psychological” rather than “bibli-
cal” parameters. First, commitment needs to be a surrender
to operate according to the will of the Father, through the
grace of Jesus Christ, and by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Then, “In the presence of the ascended Lord Jesus Christ and
the present Holy Spirit, I will promote . . .”
3. Fifth commitment
In the event that I misuse my power, either intentionally or unin-
tentionally, as a ministry leader, I will acknowledge the harm that
has been caused and the trust that has been broken, and I will ac-
tively seek restoration with justice, compassion, truth, and grace. I
will humbly submit to the insight and accountability of others to

ensure that I use any power entrusted to me fully in service to
Christ.
In the event that I, by the conviction of the Holy Spirit and by
submission to clear evidence, come to the conclusion that I en-
gaged in a misuse of power either intentionally or unintention-
ally, I will listen to and be compassionate toward those harmed.
I will work toward rebuilding the trust that has been broken
and turn toward the Lord in surrender, submission, obedience,
and cooperation with the Holy Spirit. I will prayerfully seek res-
toration with God’s justice, Christ’s compassion, truth, and
grace. I will humbly submit to the insight and accountability of
those in God-given authority over me to ensure that I engage in
humble and accountable ministry in service to Christ. I firmly
resolve with the help of God’s grace to commit to the humble
and competent use of authority as a leader.
b. In reference to the fifth commitment as written
Again, this commitment is disrespectful of pastors who operate
with a genuine call to represent the Lord Jesus Christ in all they
do. In order for many pastors to sign a commitment like this, it
would need to include surrender, submission, obedience, coop-
eration with the Holy Spirit, and most certainly prayer.
Classis Lake Superior

Henry G. Gunnink, stated clerk

OVERTURE 8
Do Not Implement or Mandate the Code of Conduct

I. Background
Lamenting and responding to the reality of abuse of power within the
church, Synod 2018 mandated the formation of a committee to “bring rec-
ommendations . . . to Synod 2019 regarding how the CRCNA can best ad-
dress the patterns of abuse of power at all levels of the denomination”
(Acts of Synod 2018, pp. 523-24). Among the committee’s subsequent rec-
ommendations, adopted by Synod 2019, were the creation of training on
abuse of power for pastors, taking steps to prevent abuse in CRCNA of-
fices (including new limits on the use of nondisclosure agreements), the
formation of a Dignity Team, and the drafting of a code of conduct “for all
employed ministry staff within the CRC.” The mandate further directed
that the code of conduct, to be presented to Synod 2020 for approval,
“shall be . . . signed by all ministry personnel who are employed by the
CRCNA, local churches, and classes” and shall be “reviewed annually, as
part of annual evaluations” (Acts of Synod 2019, pp. 611, 795).
The Council of Delegates, acting on behalf of Synods 2020 and 2021, fol-
lowed that mandate in the formation of a Code of Conduct presented to
Synod 2022 for adoption. After robust discussion, Synod 2022 deferred ac-
tion, giving time for congregations and classes to provide feedback.
In discussion throughout Classis Iakota, it became clear that while there is
deep appreciation for the spirit and intent of the Code of Conduct and a
shared commitment to eliminating abuse of power at all levels of Christ’s
church, there are specific concerns with the theological framework of the
Code of Conduct and the polity implications of the scope of Synod 2019’s
mandate. Specifically, we find the Code of Conduct’s implicit theology of
power and authority to be one-sided and reductionistic, and we question
the polity precedent and pastoral wisdom of synod mandating a static
document across all local contexts and reaching into nonordained ministry
leaders, including at the microlevel of annual reviews. Such a centralized
approach does not reflect deep trust in the integrity or contextualized
ministry wisdom of local councils and classes. It also seems out of step
with the reconciling admonishment of the Belhar Confession that recon-
ciled unity “can be established only in freedom and not under constraint;
that the variety of spiritual gifts, opportunities, backgrounds, convictions,
as well as the various languages and cultures, are by virtue of the reconcil-
iation in Christ, opportunities for mutual service and enrichment within
the one visible people of God” (Art. 2).
II. Overture
Classis Iakota overtures Synod 2023 to take the following actions:
A. Acknowledge the tragic reality of the abuse of power within the
church and our denomination.

B. Recognize that deficiencies in the present Code of Conduct preclude its
healthy functioning as a tool to prevent abuse, and therefore synod
should not encourage that it be required throughout the denomination.
C. Encourage church councils and classes to appropriately respond to the
reality of the abuse of power within the church and our denomination
by doing the following:
1. Examining their governance models and procedures to (a) assess
whether all officebearers and ministry leaders are truly held ac-
countable to scriptural standards of behavior and the right exercise
of authority and (b) ensure that the governance models and proce-
dures are transparent and open to all members of the church.
2. Making clear the expectation that all officebearers and ministry
leaders will be held accountable to the standards of Scripture re-
garding the exercise of power and authority for all those who gov-
ern in the church.
3. Studying and reinvigorating the exercise of mutual accountability
and church discipline, noting that when an abuse of power is toler-
ated, the failure is ultimately the failure of officebearers to exercise
church discipline and robust scriptural oversight of one another.
Grounds:
1. The Code of Conduct for Ministry Leaders is redundant and therefore
unnecessary. Everything the Code of Conduct attempts to achieve is
better accomplished by Scripture itself and by the process of church
discipline that is outlined in Scripture and in the CRCNA’s Church Or-
der.
2. The opening paragraphs of the Code of Conduct’s preamble reveal a
questionable theological foundation. The preamble presents an often
one-sided and reductionist view of Scripture’s treatment of the gift and
exercise of authority and power, highlighting the need for kenosis
(emptying) while giving insufficient attention to the need for the exer-
cise of power in the church to govern the body of Christ in order to
confront, admonish, convict, and call to repentance those who are in
sin (as modeled by Jesus himself in his earthly ministry and as com-
pelled by the epistles of Christ’s apostles).
3. The vague and extrabiblical terminology in the Code of Conduct (e.g.,
“abuse of power,” “bullying,” “harassment”) lacks the scriptural con-
text in which those terms might be accurately interpreted; that termi-
nology is thus open to broad and potentially abusive interpretation.
Scripture names specific sins in biblical contexts that allow the church
to properly identify specific sins and appropriately hold accountable
brothers and sisters in Christ (including those in positions of institu-
tional power).
4. A mandated, one-size-fits-all Code of Conduct does not reflect the
beautifully varied contextualized realities of the CRCNA. God has

blessed the CRCNA with different Canadian and U.S. legal and cul-
tural contexts, rural and urban contexts, and ethnic majority and mi-
nority contexts where the understanding and proper exercise of au-
thority find varied healthy expressions captured by unique grammars
and patterns of community formation that cannot be adequately cap-
tured in a uniform document.
5. Mandating the use of the Code of Conduct for unordained ministry
leaders and employees in classes and in local churches establishes a
new and unhealthy precedent, seeking to enforce orthopraxis in areas
where we have refrained from enforcing orthodoxy. As God is Lord of
our hearts and minds and not just our words and actions, for synod to
mandate unordained local ministry leaders to sign a Code of Conduct
but not something akin to the Covenant for Officebearers would be to
privilege behavior over belief in ways that are neither Reformed nor
wise. It would also establish a precedent of increasing centralized con-
trol of local ministry personnel, including local human resource prac-
tices, that could unintentionally contribute to the very patterns of insti-
tutional abuse of power that the code itself seeks to avoid.
Classis Iakota
Bernard J. Haan, stated clerk
OVERTURE 9
Reject the Proposed Code of Conduct
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.

Grounds:
1. The Code of Conduct is an overreach since the role and responsibility
of the pastor is prescribed in broad terms in the Form for the Ordina-
tion/Installation of Ministers (1971). Those entering into the ministry of
the Word are exhorted,
Keep watch over yourself and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit
has made you overseers. Shepherd the church of God which he
bought with his own blood (Acts 20:28). Love Christ and feed his
sheep, serving as an overseer not by constraint but willingly, not
for shameful gain but eagerly. Set the believers an example in
speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Hold in trust those
matters confided to you in counsel or confession.
2. Part of the ordination/installation of officebearers is the signing of the
Form of Subscription. Asking officebearers to sign the Code of Con-
duct elevates the code to the standard of the Form of Subscription.
3. Requiring all church staff and volunteers to sign the Code of Conduct
means that all enter voluntarily into a contractual agreement. It is not
clear what the possible legal ramifications are for the church and also
for individuals who sign the Code of Conduct.
4. The Code of Conduct as presented does not specify any repercussions
for those violating the code. Besides, the denomination already has an
avenue in place for dealing with abuses in the church.
5. Having all ministry leaders (which we understand to include not only
pastors and councils but also church staff, all teachers, and helpers)
sign the Code of Conduct will make it much more difficult to recruit
volunteers for these positions over concerns of possibly being accused
of a form of abuse.
6. It is not clearly defined what happens when pastors, councils, staff,
and volunteers refuse to sign the Code of Conduct.
7. The wording of the Code of Conduct is vague and one-sided. There are
clear examples of abuse that should be dealt with by means already
available in the church; however, the Code of Conduct leaves it up to
the individual to determine what to them constitutes abuse. For in-
stance, a student who needs correcting in class, a hand placed on a per-
son’s shoulder, a poorly expressed thought, or a misinterpreted ges-
ture, all done with the best intentions, may be interpreted as abuse.


OVERTURE 10
Provide Procedures for Discipline of Church Leaders

I. Introduction
The CRCNA has made significant strides in addressing abuse of power by
leaders in its congregations. In 2016 the Church Order Supplement, Article
84, was amended to include specifics regarding sexual abuse. The Code of
Conduct for church leaders will be considered for adoption at Synod 2023.
And the report of the Addressing the Abuse of Power Committee regard-
ing the training program for pastors makes a significant step toward
abuse prevention (Acts of Synod 2019, pp. 587-615). This overture seeks to
address the identification of abuse of power, its prevention, and the
church’s response in more specific ways.
II. Overture
John and Debra Kamer, in obedience to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
and for the benefit of the church of Jesus Christ through the denomination
of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, and as members of
the Christian Reformed Church of St. Joseph, Michigan, humbly submit
this overture to the synod of the Christian Reformed Church in North
America.
We overture synod to do the following:
A. Provide procedures for the reporting of abuse and the appropriate ap-
plication for the accountability, transparency, discipline, and restitu-
tion relevant to abuse of power by existing and past church leadership,
in keeping with the intent of the 2019 Addressing the Abuse of Power
report.
B. Assure that each member and attender of a CRCNA congregation have
the safety and protection from all aspects of abuse of power as desig-
nated in Church Order Articles 82-84, in the Addressing the Abuse of
Power report, and in the Code of Conduct.
1. Provide a procedure for two or more members to bring formal ac-
tion of abuse to the denomination by reporting abuse of power
committed by specifically named individuals in leadership, who in
specific ways meet criteria for abuse of power as defined in the Ad-
dressing the Abuse of Power report and by the denomination.
2. Streamline and make the reporting procedure effective by requiring
mandatory training in abuse of power prevention, including an ac-
countability system for the designated member of the safe church
team at the local congregation and at classis.
C. Define the leadership (church leaders) to include present and past min-
isters of the Word, elders, deacons, youth pastors, church staff, volun-
teers, and present and past classis leaders.
D. Provide alleged victims procedures for working through the process of
addressing abuse, as guided by the Safe Church ministry of the

CRCNA to address the formal action, to include, but not be limited to,
testing, diagnosis, harm assessment, restitution, and reconciliation so
as to provide relief to victims of abuse and provide godly compliance
and the process of accountability of existing church leaders in their
calling—all in keeping with the attitude of the Addressing the Abuse
of Power report and the denominational structure.
E. Establish a Chart of Offenses that will measure the seriousness of the
abuse and include actual and prospective penalties, where abusive
leadership can result in suspension, removal, disciplinary action, and
financial consequences for the purpose of restitution, with Church Or-
der Articles 82-84 being updated and amended to include these specif-
ics.
F. Define and require, in part, that mandatory psychological testing in-
clude either the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory)
or the MCMI-III (Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory) as administered
and evaluated by a qualified psychotherapist, a mental health profes-
sional selected by the victim(s) who is experienced in this therapeutic
discipline to provide a diagnosis, including an evaluation of a level of
severity, as well as recommended actions for intervention based upon
these results. Testing should also include familial and close acquaint-
ance interviews, if the health professional deems necessary, in order to
provide a more accurate and timely diagnosis. Refusal to cooperate
with counseling and the recommended psychological testing will re-
sult in applicable appropriate consequences as outlined in the Chart of
Offenses.
G. Allow for, encourage, and cooperate with the assignment of an inde-
pendent investigatory agency, such as, but not limited to, G.R.A.C.E.
(Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) and others,
to pursue unbiased assessment and potential recommendations to re-
mediate abusive behaviors perpetrated by church leadership. Also, re-
view for effectiveness and adjust if necessary the current existing crite-
ria and procedures for the recommending and calling for an independ-
ent investigation.
H. The independent investigation (in item G above) can be called by any
entities listed in items K and L below; items B, B1, and B2 above; and
/or by the victim when the leader has been charged with abuse. The in-
dependent investigation will include inviting prior potential victims
that might have had a problem with the leader in the past but did not
speak up for reasons that most victims will not say anything until their
experience is validated by someone else.
I. Guard against the abuse of weaponizing preaching, effectively target-
ing individuals involved in conflict situations for not adhering to “bib-
lical authority,” perpetuating a distorted message that provides justifi-
cation for disciplining and shunning members. Classis shall institute
measures to guard against this abuse.

J. Assure victims of abuse that as they engage in this process, they will
experience the biblical love and support of the denominational struc-
ture, applying the recommendations of the Addressing the Abuse of
Power report, section X, and that those recommendations will help fa-
cilitate exposure of leadership abuse in a timely manner and will pro-
vide immediate protection to all possible and potential victims from
such abuse, including disclosure to the congregation that one or more
members are in need of ongoing prayer and emotional support.
K. Provide victims of abuse the assurance and access for safety, support,
and compliance to recommended actions for healing by the denomina-
tional structure, including but not limited to assistance and funding
from Pastor Church Resources, Safe Church, the general secretary, the
Council of Delegates, Candidacy, Calvin Theological Seminary, or any
other sources of denominational support.
L. Provide that any such established committee, including those listed or
referenced in items above, also include membership of no less than 40
percent participation and 40 percent voting rights of individuals who
are not associated with CRCNA departments, nor are employees. Such
individuals would be elders, deacons, or past elders or past deacons.
This is to establish committee membership inclusion of lay members
(nonpastor) and fair membership representation of abuse victim peers.
Grounds:
1. The grounds are the same as those which are stated and argued in the
Addressing the Abuse of Power report under section “I. Introduction
and mandate.”
2. This overture is helpful and necessary for the process of dealing specif-
ically with the presence of abuse of power in existing and former lead-
ers.
3. Christians and especially those in church leadership positions must
more and more model their Savior Jesus Christ, who came not to be
served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many. Some
helpful Scripture in processing these issues are James 3:1, Ezekiel 34:1-
10, 1 Peter 5:1-4, 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, 2 Peter 2:1-3, and 2 Peter 3:15-
17.
4. Jesus, when speaking to his disciples about which one was to be re-
garded as the greatest, said in Luke 22:25-26 (ESV), “The kings of the
Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them
are called benefactors. But not so with you. . . .” May we be more like
Jesus, and may we bring all to the glory and honor of Jesus Christ, our
Lord and Savior, and may he be praised.
We believe this overture is in harmony with the intent of previous work
and is a necessary requirement to all of the previous work of the denomi-
nation in dealing with abuse of power. We also believe this overture is
helpful and necessary for the process of dealing specifically with the pres-
ence of abuse in existing leadership. We look forward to positive and

healthy results for the denomination through the approval and implemen-
tation of this overture.
John and Debra Kamer, St. Joseph, Michigan
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
Revise Church Order Article 61; Encourage Churches to

Include Lament in Their Public Prayers
I. Background
The church has long seen the importance of prayer as part of a person’s
daily life as well as part of our corporate worship service. In Scripture we
often see prayer as part of a corporate gathering, and, as Church Order
Article 61 states, these times of prayer shall include prayers of adoration
(1 Chron. 16:7-36), confession (Ezra 9:4-10:5), thanksgiving (1 Chron.
23:30), supplication (2 Kings 19:14–19), and intercession (Acts 12:5). The
inclusion of specific types of prayer in the public prayers during worship
was brought before synod in 1961. “The congregational prayers constitute,
by common consent, such an important part in our worship services that it
is well for the Church Order to indicate the chief elements of a normal
congregational prayer” (Acts of Synod 1961, p. 449). In 1962, Article 64 (it
became Article 62 in 1965) was changed to read: “The public prayers in the
worship services shall include adoration, confession, thanksgiving, suppli-
cation, and intercession for all Christendom and all men” (Acts of Synod
1962, p. 92). Synod 1965 was asked to adopt Article 62 as follows:
Article 62
a. The public prayers in the worship services shall include adoration,
confession, thanksgiving, supplication, and intercession for all
Christendom and all men.
b. In the ministry of prayer the approved liturgical prayers may be
used.
(Acts of Synod 1965, pp. 77, 180)
This article (renumbered to 61 because another article [Art. 18] was de-
leted in 1965) remained unchanged until the request for a complete review
and revision of the Church Order, due to all the changes which had been

made in the past number of years, was brought to Synod 2007: “The Board
of Trustees proposes that synod initiate a process for a complete review
and revision of the Church Order and Rules for Synodical Procedure”
(Agenda for Synod 2007, p. 28). This was adopted by synod “for the pur-
pose of an orderly updating to incorporate the synodical decisions and
regulations that govern the life of the denomination and the churches”
(Acts of Synod 2007, p. 597). The Board of Trustees appointed a task force,
which presented a report to Synod 2010 (Agenda for Synod 2010, pp. 510-
34), and synod adopted the following recommendation for Article 61:
Remove the concluding phrase “for all Christendom and all human-
ity” from Article 61-a, and remove Article 61-b.
Grounds:
a. The reference to “Christendom” is archaic and problematic,
and delimiting prayers to the social and political realms dis-
courages other appropriate sorts of prayer (such as prayer for
the creation).
b. A provision stating that certain written prayers may be used is
superfluous and can be eliminated.
Article 61
The public prayers in the worship service shall include adoration, con-
fession, thanksgiving, supplication, and intercession.
With only these minor variations over the past sixty years, it has served
the church well, and we have been blessed by the times of communal
prayer within our services. When we review the past decade, we realize
there have been many times when these elements of prayer have been ap-
propriate. We have also witnessed many moments in which prayers of la-
ment are also very appropriate. As we read the Psalms, we see
songs/prayers of adoration, confession, thanksgiving, supplication, and in-
tercession, as well as many prayers of lament. Almost a third of the
Psalms are psalms of lament, and almost a third of those are communal
psalms of lament. David was called “a man after [God’s] own heart”
(1 Sam. 13:14), and we see how he authentically struggled and wrestled
with God in the deepest parts of his emotions concerning the difficult cir-
cumstances he faced in life. We see how Job was also very real in his emo-
tions with God. Both men dared to ask God “Why?” or “How long?” The
prophets Jeremiah and Habakkuk also questioned what God was doing;
Jeremiah wrote a book about laments. Both dared to challenge God while
fully understanding that God is in control and knew there would be a
time of thanksgiving and adoration and praise at the end. However, dur-
ing the struggle, there is a need for the difficult questions. Throughout
Scripture we see examples of how prayers of lament authenticate the faith
of God’s people.

Lament is a Christian’s calling out to God in the midst of their struggles,
waiting for the hope they know comes from their sovereign Lord. Lament
is the way a Christian turns to God in deep faith, rather than turning to a
life of bitterness. Lament is handing one’s sorrow over to a loving Father,
who is big enough to handle our questions and complaints.
We are currently witnessing a tragic number of our young people leaving
the faith. One of the reasons may be due to the desire for an authentic
faith in God, a faith in which we are able to question God about the reality
of our lives. Walter Brueggemann in his article “The Costly Loss of Lament”
writes:
One loss that results from the absence of lament is the loss of genuine
covenant interaction because the second party to the covenant (the pe-
titioner) has become voiceless or has a voice that is permitted to speak
only praise and doxology.
Where there is lament, the believer is able to take initiative with God
and so develop over against God the ego strength that is necessary for
responsible faith. But where the capacity to initiate lament is absent, one
is left only with praise and doxology. God then is omnipotent, always to
be praised. The believer is nothing, and can uncritically praise or accept
guilt where life with God does not function properly. The outcome is a
‘False Self’, bad faith which is based in fear and guilt and lived out as re-
sentful or self-deceptive works of righteousness. The absence of lament
makes a religion of coercive obedience the only possibility.
(Walter Brueggemann, “The Costly Loss of Lament” in The Psalms: The
Life of Faith, ed. Patrick D. Miller [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995], pp. 98-111)
When we include lament in our public prayers, we are modeling the au-
thenticity of our struggles in our faith.
In the past few years there has been an increasing sense of struggle in the
hearts of all people due to issues of equality and injustice, both in the
church and in the world. As a community we need to bring these issues
before God in a public way and allow for others to see the pain and strug-
gle we have as a church. Walter Brueggemann in his article “The Costly
Loss of Lament” also writes:
A community of faith which negates laments soon concludes that the
hard issues of justice are improper questions to pose at the throne, be-
cause the throne seems to be only a place of praise. I believe it thus fol-
lows that if justice questions are improper questions at the throne they
soon appear to be improper questions in public places, in schools, in
hospitals, with the government, and eventually even in the courts.
Justly questions disappear into civility and docility. The order of the
day comes to seem absolute, beyond question and we are left with
only grim obedience and eventually to despair. (Ibid., p. 107)
We need to practice and model lament in our churches before people look
to other places for answers or give up hope altogether. The world needs to

see the body of Christ lamenting over the inequalities and injustices of the
world.
Prayer remains essential to the life of the church and its members. When
we look at the Lord’s Prayer, it includes the same elements as mentioned
in Article 61, and thus our public prayers reflect the example given to us
by the Lord. We also see Jesus praying a prayer of lament when he was in
the Garden of Gethsemane, as well as quoting a prayer of lament while on
the cross (Psalm 22). This prayer shows the struggle of the human heart
wrestling with God and yet acknowledging the sovereignty of God.
Throughout Scripture we see different kinds of prayers, often used in dif-
ferent circumstances. Charles Spurgeon in his commentary on Psalm 42:9
wrote, “Faith is allowed to enquire of her God the causes of his displeas-
ure, and she is even permitted to expostulate with him and put him in
mind of his promises, and ask why apparently they are not fulfilled. If the
Lord be indeed our refuge, when we find no refuge, it is time to be raising
the question, ‘Why is this?’” (The Treasury of David: An Expository and De-
votional Commentary on the Psalms, Volume II, Psalms 27-52 [Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Guardian Press, 1976], p. 304). Within the church we have songs of
lament, and many songs are forms of prayer. Both songs and prayers of la-
ment show the reality of life and draw us together as a community before
the Lord. We need to bring the aspect of lament into our services, and by
adding “lament” to Article 61 we can remind and encourage churches to
be authentic in their prayers as with their singing. We need to remind our-
selves to take time to bring authentic hope in times of despair, knowing
our God reigns and his mercies are new every morning (Lam. 3:19-26).
II. Overture
To encourage churches to include prayers of lament in their services, Clas-
sis Quinte overtures synod to include the word “lament” in Church Order
Article 61 (change indicated by italics):
Article 61
The public prayers in the worship service shall include adoration, con-
fession, thanksgiving, supplication, lament, and intercession.
Grounds:
1. Our practice of prayer follows the practice and instruction of prayer in
Scripture. Throughout Scripture we see evidence of prayers of adora-
tion, confession, thanksgiving, supplication, and intercession. We also
see significant evidence of prayers of lament, both personal and com-
munal.
a. Almost one third of the Psalms are psalms of lament, and almost
one third of those are communal psalms of lament.
b. Job, Jeremiah, and Habakkuk all display prayers of lament.
c. Jesus prayed prayers of lament in the garden of Gethsemane and
on the cross.

2. Lament recognizes our pain and struggles while acknowledging God
as sovereign.
3. Lament brings authenticity to our struggles and gives permission to
move beyond simple obedience into a covenant relationship with God.
4. Sharing prayers of lament brings the body of Christ together in the re-
ality of life. This practices authentic faith and demonstrates to our chil-
dren how God is our refuge, even when we can’t see him.
Classis Quinte
Joan Crawford, stated clerk
OVERTURE 12
Develop a Strategy to Reverse the Trend of Membership

Decline and Require Annual Reporting of Progress
I. Background
In 2017 synod received an overture from Classis Southeast U.S. titled “Dis-
cover Cause for CRC Membership Decline; Develop Strategy to Reverse
the Trend of Decline through Church Renewal and Planting; Require An-
nual Reporting of Progress” (Agenda for Synod 2017, pp. 429-34).
At that time, utilizing CRCNA Yearbook statistics, the overture took note of
the alarming trend of decline throughout our denomination since the early
1990s. Those statistics revealed that the denominational decline was geo-
graphically widespread and appeared to be increasing in the rate of de-
cline. The following were among the key findings within the overture:
• At the time of the publication of the 2016 Yearbook, CRC membership
stood at 235,921. Only ten years prior in 2006, membership stood at
272,127. Twenty years prior in 1996, total membership of the CRC was
291,796.
• Thus there was a 6.7 percent decline in membership for the years from
1996 to 2006, but this decline rate doubled (13.3%) for the years from
2006 to 2016.
• During that twenty-year period of time, 45 of the then 47 classes in the
Christian Reformed Church declined. Almost half of the 45 declining
classes (22) declined at a rate of 10 percent or more. Twelve classes de-
clined at a rate of more than 15 percent over this time frame.
• Assuming that each classis would continue to decline at the same rate
as it had for the previous ten years, the following projections were
made about CRC total membership: By 2026 the total membership of

the CRC will be reduced to 206,995. By 2036 the total membership of
the CRC will be reduced to 184,107.
The overture contained the following warning: “If these projections prove
to be anywhere near accurate, it is certain that this decline will have a pro-
found impact on the entire denomination and all its ministries. It is diffi-
cult to see how, if nothing changes, the CRC’s kingdom impact will not be
severely reduced.”
The overture asked synod to act with urgency and to make the following
two items a top priority: (1) gaining a full understanding of the causes of
our membership decline, and (2) developing a comprehensive unified
strategy and plan to arrest and reverse the trend of decline and bring a
positive trend-line of membership growth to our denomination through
both church renewal and church planting.
The overture at that time also requested that synod “instruct the executive
director, the Board of Trustees, and each agency to report its progress to
synod annually until such time as synod decides that this issue has been
satisfactorily addressed.”
In response to the overture, Synod 2017 took into consideration the efforts
of denominational leadership already under way in the area of church re-
newal—especially in the denomination’s strategic planning regarding Our
Journey 2020. The synod advisory committee concluded “that the denomi-
national leadership of the CRC has made a good start in beginning to ad-
dress the concerns raised in this overture with strategies for growth and
renewal. We see hopeful possibilities also emerging from our new unified
global mission agency and the structural changes of our new Council of
Delegates.”
For this reason, Synod 2017 declined to ask the executive director to de-
velop the comprehensive and unified strategy requested by the overture
and also declined to request the CRC leadership to make an annual pro-
gress report to synod. Instead the following four recommendations were
adopted (Acts of Synod 2017, p. 706):
1. That synod instruct the executive director to make available a list of
current denominational resources related to church renewal, including
church planting with emphasis on training for evangelism.
2. That synod instruct the executive director to work with each agency
and educational institution to seek out best practices and resources re-
lated to church renewal in the CRC and similar denominations and
share these with classes and congregations in order to more faithfully
carry out our commitment to Church Order Articles 74-76.
3. That synod instruct the executive director to work with each agency
and educational institution to collaborate in finding areas of conver-
gence related to church renewal and to develop effective strategies for
implementation by classes and churches.

4. That synod instruct the executive director to keep the call to prayer for
church renewal, church planting, and evangelism continually before
God’s people.
II. Five-year update
More than five years have passed, and it is worthwhile for synod to revisit
and reevaluate issues surrounding denominational membership decline.
Despite the hopeful feelings that were expressed by Synod 2017, the rate
of decline has not improved. In fact, a study of Yearbook statistics reveals
the following:
• At the time of the publication of the 2021 Yearbook, CRC membership
stood at 211,706. For points of reference, membership stood at 235,921
in 2016; 272,127 in 2006, and 291,796 in 1996.
• There was a 6.7 percent decline in membership from 1996 to 2006. The
decline rate doubled to 13.3 percent from 2006 to 2016. It is now clear
that the rate of decline continues to increase. In only five years, 2016 to
2021, the CRCNA has declined by another 10.3 percent. This means
that (assuming no further acceleration in the rate of decline) the deca-
dal rate of decline from 2016 to 2026 will be approximately 21 percent.
• The decline continues to be widespread. Forty-seven of the 49 classes
in the Christian Reformed Church sustained membership losses in the
past five years. More than half of these declining classes (26) declined
at a rate of 10 percent or more. Sixteen classes declined at a rate of
more than 15 percent over this time frame.
• If the CRC continues to decline at the same rate as it has for the past
five years, the following projections can be made about CRC total
membership: By 2026 the total membership of the CRC will be reduced
to 189,984. By 2031 the total membership of the CRC will be reduced to
170,491.
• Finally, we must acknowledge that the impact of the COVID-19 pan-
demic on CRCNA membership is not fully taken into account and that
the true rate of decline may actually be understated here. (See Appen-
dices 1 and 2.)
The decline that our denomination has experienced in the past twenty-five
years is already affecting us today in innumerable ways beyond articula-
tion. The same warning from 2017 must be now repeated: “If these projec-
tions prove to be anywhere near accurate, it is certain that this decline will
have a profound impact on the entire denomination and all its ministries.
It is difficult to see how, if nothing changes, the CRC’s kingdom impact
will not be severely reduced” (Agenda for Synod 2017, p. 430).
Despite all previous efforts, we must now admit that as of yet we have not
developed satisfactory solutions to arrest—much less reverse—this alarm-
ing trend. It is now time to place this issue at the very top of the denomi-
national priority list. We must act with urgency. If immediate, bold, and
decisive action is not taken to find solutions that actually work to solve the

problem, then together we are failing to take hold of the strategic oppor-
tunity that this moment in our history provides. Making this issue a top
priority must entail that all other denominational decisions and initiatives
should be evaluated in light of this priority.
III. Overture
Classis Southeast U.S. requests that synod instruct the Office of General
Secretary, the Council of Delegates, and each agency to act with urgency
to make the following a top priority: developing a comprehensive unified
strategy and plan to arrest and reverse the trend of decline and bring
about a positive trend-line of membership growth to our denomination.
Classis Southeast U.S. further requests that synod instruct the Office of
General Secretary, the Council of Delegates, and each agency to report its
progress regarding this plan to synod annually until such time as synod
decides that this issue has been satisfactorily addressed.
Grounds:
1. A satisfactory comprehensive strategy for church planting and church
renewal that adequately addresses our membership trend-line has yet
to be developed.
2. The past five-year history has revealed how costly it has been not to
take comprehensive, swift, and bold action on this issue. The old adage
seems quite appropriate, “If nothing changes, nothing changes.”
3. “Christ’s love compels us” (2 Cor. 5:14). These actions should not be
undertaken for our own sake. The love of Jesus and the Great Commis-
sion must compel us in a North American context where ignorance,
apathy, and hostility toward the gospel is on the rise.
Note: This overture was submitted to Synod 2022. However, because it

was submitted after the March 15 deadline, it was not published in the
Agenda for Synod 2022 nor presented to synod. Classis Southeast U.S.
therefore submits this overture to Synod 2023 along with the following ad-
dendum giving updated figures for 2022 and 2023.
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.

• In 2023, the total membership of the CRCNA now stands at 195,704,
which means that the total membership loss so far for 2023 has been
8,960 members, a 4.4 percent drop.
It is instructive to note the underlying realities behind the macro member-
ship numbers. The number of children being baptized annually has now
fallen consistently below 2,000 per year; the amount of transfer growth an-
nually has also now fallen consistently below 2,000 per year; the amount
of annual evangelism growth has alarmingly fallen below 1,000 per year.
Children Baptized Transfer Evangelism
Baptized Growth Growth
1996 4,397 2,534 3,170
2001 3,398 3,074 3,005
2006 3,768 4,570 3,373
2011 3,650 3,826 3,089
2016 3,204 3,180 2,292
2017 3,097 3,227 2,118
2018 2,834 2,992 1,553
2019 2,799 3,359 1,848
2020 2,627 2,801 1,771
2021 1,914 1,885 1,294
2022 1,586 1,120 625
2023 1,815 1,921 833
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

Eastern Canada 5,402 5,038 4,125 3,570
Georgetown 10,357 9,342 9,012 8,030
Grand Rapids East 9,330 8,668 8,270 7,694
Grand Rapids North 9,483 7,718 4,848 3,660
Grand Rapids South 9,347 8,817 7,678 7,279
Grandville 8,965 8,588 7,468 6,907
Greater Los Angeles 5,425 6,718 3,985 5,523
Hackensack 3,059 2,853 2,556 2,156
Hamilton 6,618 6,952 6,374 5,511
Hanmi (formerly Pacific Hanmi), Est. 1996 1,479 1,669 1,636
Heartland 5,907 5,045 5,092 4,932
Holland 11,424 11,992 11,096 9,004
Hudson 3,955 2,905 2,347 2,055
Huron 8,213 8,763 7,742 6,996
Iakota 8,345 8,217 8,022 7,587
Illiana 8,947 7,556 6,469 6,119
Kalamazoo 6,672 5,308 3,635 2,793
Ko-Am, Est. 2014 638 1,106
Lake Erie 4,296 4,243 3,241 2,623
Lake Superior (formerly
Minnesota North) 7,682 7,459 5,727 5,227
Minnkota (formerly
Minnesota South) 4,426 3,411 4,322 4,087
Muskegon 6,329 6,089 5,096 4,477
Niagara 5,855 5,728 4,958 4,658
North Cascades 2,349
Northcentral Iowa 2,537 1,861 1,678 1,383
Northern Illinois 5,560 5,574 5,322 4,278
Northern Michigan 3,848 3,520 3,000 2,932
Ontario Southwest (formerly Chatham) 11,156 9,806 7,852 7,061
Pacific Northwest 8,595 7,196 6,117 2,580
Quinte 7,561 7,639 6,295 5,551
Red Mesa 1,745 1,824 1,712 1,543
Rocky Mountain 5,120 4,755 4,550 3,829
Southeast U.S. (formerly Florida) 2,616 2,476 2,289 2,294
Thornapple Valley 4,803 4,901 4,220 4,173

Toronto 8,406 7,730 5,880 4,579
Wisconsin 5,935 5,303 4,949 4,366
Yellowstone 2,622 1,732 1,363 1,188
Zeeland 7,485 6,460 4,806 4,205
Total Membership 291,796 272,127 235,921 211,706
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%

Iakota -1.53% -2.37% -5.42%
Illiana -15.55% -14.39% -5.41%
Kalamazoo -20.44% -31.52% -23.16%
Ko-Am, Est. 2014 73.35%
Lake Erie -1.23% -23.62% -19.07%
Lake Superior (formerly
Minnesota North) -2.90% -23.22% -8.73%
Minnkota (formerly
Minnesota South) -22.93% 26.71% -5.44%
Muskegon -3.79% -16.31% -12.15%
Niagara -2.17% -13.44% -6.05%
North Cascades* -18.77%
Northcentral Iowa -26.65% -9.83% -17.58%
Northern Illinois 0.25% -4.52% -19.62%
Northern Michigan -8.52% -14.77% -2.27%
Pacific Northwest* -16.28% -14.99% -18.77%
Ontario Southwest (formerly Chatham) -12.10% -19.93% -10.07%
Quinte 1.03% -17.59% -11.82%
Red Mesa 4.53% -6.14% -9.87%
Rocky Mountain -7.13% -4.31% -15.85%
Southeast U.S. (formerly Florida) -5.35% -7.55% 0.22%
Thornapple Valley 2.04% -13.90% -1.11%
Toronto -8.04% -23.93% -22.13%
Wisconsin -10.65% -6.68% -11.78%
Yellowstone -33.94% -21.30% -12.84%
Zeeland -13.69% -25.60% -12.51%
Total Membership -6.7% -13.3% -10.26%
*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.

OVERTURE 13
Declare that a Virtual Church Is Not a Church

I. Background
Our classis is considering planting a “virtual church,” which, as we under-
stand it, is a church that would “meet” only online. So far, there has been
little discussion about whether such a concept conforms to the Scriptures
and to our confessions. While we appreciate the desire to use technology
to reach out to others with the good news of the gospel, we have serious
concerns about calling this initiative a “church.”
II. Appreciation
We appreciate the sincere desire to use technology for the glory of Christ,
for the salvation of unbelievers, and for the edification of the saints. We
believe that technology is a gift from God when used with these purposes
in mind, and we have seen God use technology to bless many people in
their walk with him. Over the past couple of years, churches, including
many in our classis, have invested in their livestreaming capabilities, re-
sulting in a significant increase in gospel proclamation throughout the
world. We praise the Lord for this, and we offer our sincere appreciation
to those among us who are using their gifts to proclaim the gospel
through technology.
This overture is neither “antimission” or “antitechnology.”
III. Concerns
Our main concern about the “virtual church” concept is this: Is it a
church? That is, is a virtual ministry, which exists online only, a church?
We believe that the answer to this question is no and that describing such
a ministry as a “church” is unbiblical and may harm our churches as well
as individual believers. Below are some of our concerns:
A. Concern for ministering to the whole person
Our church affirms that each person is made of a united body and
soul. Our catechism begins with the declaration that we belong, “body
and soul,” to our faithful Savior, Jesus Christ, and that theme of body
and soul is repeated throughout the catechism.
• We deserve “eternal punishment of body and soul” (Q&A 11).
• God provides “whatever I need for body and soul” (Q&A 26).
• “We are temples of the Holy Spirit, body and soul” (Q&A 109).
• “My very flesh will be raised by the power of Christ, reunited with
my soul, and made like Christ’s glorious body” (Q&A 57).
At the center of the gospel is the act of Christ’s incarnation, the Word
becoming flesh. “Christ sustained in body and soul the wrath of God
against the sin of the whole human race. This he did in order that, by

his suffering as the only atoning sacrifice, he might deliver us, body
and soul, from eternal condemnation. . . .” (Q&A 37).
The “virtual church” concept separates the person’s body from their
soul and, in essence, ministers to disembodied souls. The argument is
that it doesn’t really matter where your body is as long as you are spir-
itually connected to other believers online. This view of church, one
whose members are connected spiritually but not in person, is out of
step with the Scriptures and our Reformed confessions. While at times,
and for various reasons, a church’s members may be physically iso-
lated from one another, this is not healthy or normal. Our physical iso-
lation from one another in the body of Christ is something to lament.
B. Concern for the public, corporate, in-person worship of God
God calls his people to gather together regularly to worship him. The
writer of Hebrews reminds us not to neglect to meet together (Heb.
10:25). The book of Psalms regularly calls us to worship God in a way
that is public, corporate, and in person, while at the same time lament-
ing our separation from the corporate worship of God:
What shall I return to the Lord for all his goodness to me? I will lift
up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord. I will ful-
fill my vows to the Lord in the presence of all his people.
(Ps. 116:12-14)
These things I remember, as I pour out my soul: how I would go
with the throng and lead them in procession to the house of God
with glad shouts and songs of praise, a multitude keeping festival.
Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you in turmoil
within me? Hope in God; for I shall again praise him, my salvation
and my God. (Ps. 42:4-6)
“Virtual worship” falls short of the worship that is commanded in the
Scriptures, and it normalizes what the Scriptures lament: the isolation
from in-person corporate worship of God.
C. Concern for pastoral care
Church leaders are called to “care for the church of God, which he ob-
tained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). This care calls for leaders to
have a close in-person relationship with the members of their church.
The Scriptures tell us that the apostles conducted their ministry by vis-
iting “from house to house” (Acts 5:42; 20:20). Similarly, James in-
structs believers who are ill to call the elders, who will go to them in
person, anoint them with oil, and pray for them (James 5:13-14). The
apostle Paul, who often communicated with churches via letters, ex-
pressed his ongoing desire to care for them in person (1 Thess. 2:17–
3:2; Rom. 1:9–12).
As church leaders, it is our privilege and calling to be physically pre-
sent at the bedside of believers during times of illness or death, to hold
their hand, to pray for them, and to sing hymns with them during the

times that they need it most. We are not called to be “virtual pastors,”
“virtual elders,” or “virtual deacons” to the sheep under our care.
D. Concern for the fellowship of believers
One of the distinctive characteristics of the early church was the close
in-person fellowship among believers. The book of Acts describes it
this way:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fel-
lowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came
upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done
through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all
things in common. And they were selling their possessions and be-
longings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And
day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their
homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts.
(Acts 2:42-46, emphasis added)
The fellowship among members of a congregation is much more than
meeting together in a church building once or twice a week. It includes
many organic interactions that take place as part of living in the same
local community. We run into another member at the local grocery
store and chat about how we’re doing. We speak to one another at lo-
cal events. We occasionally visit one another in our workplaces as we
conduct our daily business. We practice hospitality when we eat to-
gether in one another’s homes.
“Virtual fellowship” falls very short of the biblical picture of the fel-
lowship of believers.
E. Concern for the proper administration of the sacraments
In the sacraments God uses tangible and physical signs to convey spir-
itual realities. More than mere symbols, the physical administration of
the sacraments corresponds to the spiritual realities being represented,
and therefore ought to be administered properly.
The Scriptures repeatedly command us to “come together” (several
times in 1 Cor. 11) to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. In 1 Corinthians 10,
Paul attributes significance to the practice of believers sharing one
bread as a symbol of being united together:
Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we
all partake of the one bread. (1 Cor. 10:17)
Our catechism also emphasizes the importance of pastors and elders
personally feeding the flock with the Lord’s Supper:
. . . as surely as I receive from the hand of the one who serves, and
taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, given me as
sure signs of Christ’s body and blood, so surely he nourishes and
refreshes my soul for eternal life with his crucified body and
poured-out blood. (Q&A 75)

Similarly, in baptism, the outward physical administration of the sac-
rament corresponds to spiritual realities. The washing with physical
water by the pastor corresponds to Christ’s washing away our sins.
This takes place in the midst of the Christian congregation, symboliz-
ing our belonging to the covenant community.
While some advocate for the practices of “virtual communion” and
“virtual baptism” (with some even using digital avatars and digital
water), we must continue to affirm the importance of the proper physi-
cal administration of the sacraments.
IV. Summary of concerns
The “virtual church” concept, like any cultural trend, needs to be assessed
in the light of biblical principles. It is our opinion that “virtual church”
does not meet the biblical criteria set for the church in the areas of wor-
ship, pastoral care, fellowship, and the sacraments. Therefore, while such
an initiative may be a useful ministry or a discipleship program, we must
make it very clear that it is not a church. If “virtual church” is presented as
a viable substitute to church, we may unintentionally end up harming our
churches as well as individual members who choose to isolate themselves
from the body of Christ.
V. Overture
The council of Wyoming (Ont.) Christian Reformed Church asks synod to
do the following:
A. To declare that a “virtual church” (i.e., a “church” which by design
“meets” only online) is not a church.
Ground: A “virtual church” does not meet the biblical and confessional
criteria for a church in the areas of worship, pastoral care, fellowship,
and the sacraments.
B. To encourage any “virtual churches” within our denomination to re-
frain from using the label “church” and to come up instead with a
more appropriate title.
Ground: Using distinct language will help to make it clear that this ini-
tiative is meant to supplement and not replace a member’s participa-
tion in their local church.
C. To add the following supplement to Article 51-a in the Church Order:
Article 51-a
The congregation shall assemble for worship on the Lord’s Day, to
hear God’s Word, to receive the sacraments, to engage in praise
and prayer, and to present gifts of gratitude.
Proposed supplement
The congregation shall assemble for worship in person. If for ex-
traordinary reasons a congregation is unable to meet in person,
they shall resume in-person worship as soon as circumstances per-
mit.

Grounds:
a. Assembling in-person is in mind here, but the language is no
longer explicit enough.
b. A “virtual church” extends beyond the geographical boundary
of any classis as its leaders and members reside throughout the
world. Therefore, the broader assembly should be consulted.
Council of Wyoming (Ont.) CRC

Brenda Beintema, clerk
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis On-
tario Southwest but was not adopted.
OVERTURE 14
Adopt Belhar Confession as a Confession of the CRC

I. Background
From biblical times to the present, Christians have united the church,
fought heresy, testified to outsiders, defied persecution, taught newcom-
ers, and worshiped God—all by the use of creeds and confessions. . . .
So it is with the Belhar Confession. Forged in the fires of racial injustice
in South Africa in 1986, the Belhar speaks eloquently to the need for
unity, reconciliation, and justice in the church. The church should wit-
ness to these great realities, model them to the world, and become an
agent for spreading them. All because of the costly work of Jesus Christ
—the one through whom God was reconciling the world to himself.
—Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., in the Calvin Theological Forum,
Fall 2010, p. 2; digitalcommons.calvin.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=cts_forum
We find in the Belhar a compelling call to North American Christians to
embody the gospel message—which, like that of the prophets, does make
God "in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged"
(Belhar Confession, Art. 4).
The current cultural moment that we are living in demands that we make
a statement against the injustices born out of racial prejudices and dis-
crimination. One cannot think that this is a unique moment that will have
its day in the sun, only to be replaced by another cultural movement in a
few years’ time. The need for the church to have a confessional statement
against racism is long overdue and will be needed until Christ’s return.
This charge to be active participants in the reconciliation of all things must

be seen as a fundamental aspect of being a member of the church, particu-
larly for those called to one of the offices.
The only way is forward, forward into God's freshly storied world,
forward with the symbols that speak of death and resurrection, for-
ward with the humble praxis of the gospel—and forward in that mul-
tilayered context with fresh thoughts, fresh arguments, fresh intellec-
tual understanding.
—N.T. Wright in Sewanee Theological Review 41.2, p. 199
II. Overture
The council of First Hamilton Christian Reformed Church overtures
Synod 2023 of the CRC to adopt the Belhar Confession as a fourth confes-
sional standard of the CRC.
Grounds:
1. The Belhar Confession fully comports to Scripture. The only authority
for such a confession and the only grounds on which it may be made
are the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God. God has revealed himself
as the One who wishes to bring about justice and reconciliation, true
peace among people. God calls the church to follow him in this. And if
God calls us to be agents of justice, he will empower us to do the job
(see Ps. 112:5; 106:3; John 17:20-23; Phil. 2:1-5; 1 Cor. 12:4-31; Eph. 4:15-
16; Acts 5:29-33; 1 Pet. 2:18-25; 3:15-19; Eph. 2:11- 22).
2. The Belhar brings a unique expression of embodied faith that aug-
ments the other confessional standards. It is a call to justice and mercy
that is more experiential and less doctrinal. It makes more explicit
what is implicit in the Three Forms of Unity. We are called afresh to
consider the marginalized and the wronged, of which there are many,
and whom we too easily overlook in everyday life. And as such the
Belhar is not redundant with the other confessional standards of the
CRC (see Eph. 2:11-22; 4:1-16; Ps. 133; James 5:1-6).
3. The themes of the Belhar are biblical, universal, and timeless—of
which the North American experience is no exception in the functional
racial divisions deeply embedded in our culture, whether it be First
Nation residential schools, reservations, slavery, refugees, the contain-
ment of Japanese citizens, et al. (see Isa. 1:10-22; 3:16-24; Hos. 8:14; 12;
Amos 3:16-24).
4. The Belhar calls on churches to be witnesses against injustice. God uses
his people to work toward greater biblical faithfulness. The church-in-
mission must then take sides: for life and against death; for justice and
against oppression (David Bosch). God has entrusted the church with
the message of reconciliation in and through Jesus Christ. And he will
equip it for this task (see Heb. 12:2; Deut. 32:4; Luke 2:14; Ps. 146;
James 5:1-6).

Additionally, it should also be stated that the Belhar Confession's intent is
to speak to race, as stated in endnote 2 (at crcna.org/belhar):
It is clear, given the original context of the Belhar Confession, that race
is the intent here. Because the ambiguity of the term social factor could
lead to misinterpretation or misapplication, Synod 2009 noted that
“the Belhar Confession does not negate the biblically derived state-
ments of synod” with regard to human sexuality (e.g., Synod 1973,
1996; Acts of Synod 2009, p. 606).
Council of First Hamilton CRC, Hamilton, Ontario

George Van Kampen, clerk
Note: This overture was submitted to Classis Hamilton at its winter meet-
ing but was not adopted.
OVERTURE 15
Revise Belgic Confession Articles 18 and 34
Classis Alberta South/Saskatchewan overtures Synod 2023 of the Christian

Reformed Church in North America to receive, as a confessional-revision
gravamen, this request to revise Articles 18 and 34 of the Belgic Confes-
sion regarding the specific naming of Anabaptists.
I. Background
Our beloved Belgic Confession was written at a particular historic time,
but it is also a current confession of our faith to which we bind ourselves
and which we also use in the catechism of our people, in one-on-one con-
versations, classes, and even larger settings such as Sunday-morning wor-
ship services.
At the time when the Belgic Confession was written, prominent leaders of
the Anabaptist movement did hold to the teachings referenced by the Bel-
gic Confession but today those teachings are no longer specific to Anabap-
tists.
The following overture seeks to revise the Belgic Confession to make it
more helpful in addressing current error.
II. Confessional Revision Gravamen
Classis Alberta South/Saskatchewan proposes the following revisions to
the Belgic Confession:
A. Article 18 – Replace the words “the Anabaptists” with “those.”
B. Article 34 – Replace the words “the Anabaptists” with “those.”

Grounds:
1. The revised wording would be helpful in our use of the Belgic Confes-
sion in settings where historical explanations are not easily made.
2. While the errors mentioned were specific to the Anabaptists at the time
the confession was written, these errors are no longer specific only to
the Anabaptist. The suggested revision broadens our understanding of
those who may hold these errors.
3. The suggested revision would help us to respect our confession as an
accurate statement of belief that we confess in our churches today, and
not simply as a good historic statement.
Classis Alberta South/Saskatchewan
Nelly Eyk, stated clerk
OVERTURE 16
Change Decision re Confessional Status of Sins to Agreement

I. Background
In June 2022 the synod of the Christian Reformed Church had before them
the Human Sexuality Report (HSR). As they processed this document,
they accepted a number of recommendations. Two of the recommenda-
tions that synod approved are as follows,
That synod recommend the HSR to the churches as providing a useful
summary of biblical teaching regarding human sexuality.
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.
The decision to declare that this interpretation has confessional status has
created significant discussion as well as concerns within the denomina-
tion. The idea of declaring a certain synodical decision to have confes-
sional status seems to be a new thing, and with it, it has created a whole
host of concerns for officebearers. This means that when one agrees to the
Covenant for Officebearers, one is therefore also agreeing with Synod
2022’s understanding of unchastity.
II. The concern
We believe that synod should change their decision from “this interpreta-
tion has confessional status” to “this interpretation is in agreement with
the confessions.” The reasons are as follows:

First, in making the statement that “this interpretation has confessional
status,” synod has created a list of “confessional sins” that is incomplete
and therefore unhelpful. Anytime one attempts to make a list of sins, it
will always be incomplete. It should be noted that the list of sins that falls
under “unchastity” is missing other significant sins such as bestiality or
pedophilia. That means someone who sees no problem with pedophilia
can agree to the Covenant for Officebearers without concern but that
someone who has questions about “extramarital sex” cannot. To fix this
discrepancy, will the denomination now create a full and complete list of
sins that might be deemed “confessional” in order to ensure the purity of
the church? To create such a list would push us close to the legalism that
Jesus condemned in the Pharisees in Matthew 23.
Second, the list is problematic because it does not give a full definition for
each sin. Synod was right to condemn pornography and label it as a sig-
nificant sin, but just what is pornography? Do we work with the famous
test of saying “I’ll know it when I see it”? The fact of the matter is that
what was deemed pornography in the 1960s is now very common in ad-
vertisements and on TV shows and movies. Many of the officebearers in
our churches consume such porn without a second thought and probably
wouldn’t even label it as such. Should that then keep them from being
able to sign the Covenant for Officebearers? Quite simply, we don’t know,
because our denomination has not created a clear definition as to what is
or is not pornography, so we are again failing to give helpful direction.
In all of this we must recognize the problematic nature of the legalism we
are walking into by labelling some sins as “confessional.” The fact of the
matter is that all sins are “confessional,” and we need to recognize the se-
riousness of all our sin. At the same time, picking certain sins to be the
epitome of hedonism while ignoring other sins, such as pride and judg-
mentalism, which are just as damaging to our churches, is problematic.
III. Overture
Classis Ontario Southwest overtures synod to change their decision from
“this interpretation has confessional status” to “this interpretation is in
agreement with the confessions.”
Grounds:
1. Synod has created a list of “confessional sins” that is incomplete and
therefore unhelpful.
2. The list is also problematic because it does not give a full definition of
each sin.
3. This change would be in agreement with the spirit of synod’s original
decision but would eliminate the legalism it has created.
Classis Ontario Southwest

Ron Middel, stated clerk

OVERTURE 17
Clarify and Affirm that the CRC’s Doctrine of Marriage Is

Confessional Doctrine
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

that are confessed” and that what are confessed are “all the doc-
trines contained in the standards of the church” (Supplement, Art. 5,
A, 1 and 3, emphases added).
d. From all of this, it is clear: to say that something is “confessional” is
simply to say that it is a doctrine contained in our confessional
standards (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of
Dort)—a doctrine that we believe “fully agree[s] with the Word of
God.”
2. The authority of the assemblies to clarify confessional doctrine
(Church Order Supplement, Art. 5, A, 3): At times, a question arises as
to whether or not a doctrine is confessed in the standards, and thus
whether or not it is a doctrine that officebearers agree via subscription
to heartily believe, promote, and defend. When such a question arises,
the decision belongs not to individual members or officebearers but ra-
ther to the assemblies (council, classis, synod). As Church Order Sup-
plement, Article 5 states, “No one is free to decide for oneself or for the
church what is and what is not a doctrine confessed in the standards.
In the event that such a question should arise, the decision of the as-
semblies of the church shall be sought and acquiesced in” (Supple-
ment, Art. 5, A, 3). It is the “decision of the assemblies,” then, and not
the personal belief of the individual, that is the final authority on what
is (and is not) a doctrine contained in the confessions, and thus what is
“confessional.”
3. Affirming a traditional doctrine of marriage in Heidelberg Cate-
chism Q&A 108: In view of that authority, and in view of recent teach-
ing and practice in our denomination to the contrary, I am asking
Synod 2023 to clarify and affirm (per Church Order Supplement, Art.
5, A, 3) that the doctrine of marriage—as historically defined and inter-
preted by our denomination (1973, 2022)—is a doctrine contained in
Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 (i.e., “doctrines contained in the
standards of the church”), and thus is a confessional doctrine to which
officebearers subscribe via the Covenant for Officebearers. I offer the
following grounds for this, in addition to the two above:
a. Connection of marriage and chastity: Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108
asks what the seventh commandment (“You shall not commit adul-
tery”) teaches us. From this narrow beginning (a commandment
about adultery), the catechism’s answer is expansive. From this
command we learn that “God condemns all unchastity” and ex-
horts us to “live decent and chaste lives, within or outside of the
holy state of marriage.” In four short lines, a question about the
prohibition of adultery opens up into teaching about unchastity,
chastity, and marriage—each of which is referenced directly. Un-
chastity (of which adultery is one instance) is forbidden because it
undermines the “holy state of marriage.” Chastity is enjoined be-
cause it preserves the “holy state of marriage.” Unchastity and

chastity, then, are behaviors that either preserve or undermine mar-
riage. Likewise, the “holy state of marriage” helps clarify what be-
haviors are sexually chaste and unchaste. In all of this, a doctrine of
marriage is presumed in the catechism, apart from which the lan-
guage of chastity and unchastity do not make sense. That is to say,
a doctrine of marriage is contained in Q&A 108, apart from which its
prohibition of unchaste behavior and its exhortation to chaste liv-
ing lack meaning. What is this doctrine of marriage?
b. Definition of marriage: It is the one-flesh union of one man and one
woman in a mutual, exclusive, and enduring covenantal relation-
ship, within which sexual union serves both natural and symbolic
ends: the joining of male and female in one flesh (Gen. 2:24); the
bearing of children (Gen. 1:28); and the nuptial union of Christ and
church (Eph. 5:31-32). 1 This vision of marriage originates in creation
(Gen. 2:21-24), is ensconced in Israel’s law (Ex. 20:14), grounds the
prophetic articulation of the God/Israel relationship (Isa. 54:5-6;
Hos. 2:14-20), is confirmed by Jesus (Matt. 19:1-12), is deepened by
the apostles (Eph. 5:22-33), and culminates in the new creation with
the climactic marriage of Christ and the church (Rev. 19:1-10; 21:1-
27), to which all earthly marriage points. I offer, then, a threefold
defense that this traditional definition of marriage is the doctrine
presumed by and contained in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108.
Historical consensus: This account of marriage, derived first from
Scripture, has also been the historic and universal doctrinal witness
of the church, and remains the majority witness of the global
church today. 2 That our own Reformed catechism, written in 1563
and confessed ever since, would think outside of that doctrinal con-
sensus when it speaks of the “holy state of marriage” in Q&A 108 is
untenable.
Scriptural priority: Moreover, the two study reports on this topic in
our denomination’s history both share and defend this doctrinal
consensus from Scripture (1973, 2022). This matters a great deal, for
our first commitment is to Scripture, to which the confessions are
subordinate. As we say in the Church Order, we confess our “com-
plete subjection to the Word of God and the Reformed creeds as a
true interpretation of this Word” (Art. 1). In the Covenant for Of-
ficebearers, we say that the doctrines in the confessions “fully agree
with the Word of God.” Scripture thus has priority. At the same
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.

time, our confessions (which faithfully reflect and synthesize Scrip-
ture) continue to “define the way we understand Scripture.” To re-
interpret (or make ambiguous) a doctrine in the confessions, one
would have to reinterpret Scripture; likewise, to reinterpret Scrip-
ture could lead to a reinterpretation of confessional doctrine. But
Scripture is where we begin. If all of the above is true, then it fol-
lows that if our reading of Scripture on questions of marriage and
sexuality is governed (“settled and binding”) by our study reports
(1973, 2022), it is impossible for the “holy state of marriage” in Hei-
delberg Catechism Q&A 108 to mean anything other than the tradi-
tional doctrine of marriage summarized above (3, b). This doctrine
in Q&A 108 “fully agree[s] with the Word of God” as we have in-
terpreted that Word, and, conversely, this doctrine also shapes “the
way we understand Scripture.” It is this doctrine of marriage that is
contained in Q&A 108 and that underlies the catechism’s teaching
on chastity and unchastity.
Contemporary (synodical) interpretation: Finally, in its interpretation
of “unchastity” in Q&A 108 (i.e., its “interpretation of [a] confes-
sion”), Synod 2022 confirmed a traditional account of chastity/un-
chastity, which presumes a traditional doctrine of marriage, in keep-
ing with the conclusions of our study reports (Acts of Synod 2022, p.
922). To say this differently, Synod 2022’s interpretation of “un-
chastity” is inconsistent with a revisionist account of marriage in
Q&A 108. Both “unchastity” and “marriage,” then, need to be un-
derstood in accordance with the traditional understanding of these
terms in order to maintain the internal consistency of the cate-
chism’s answer. To be sure, Synod 2022’s interpretation of unchas-
tity is not “confessional,” but it is “settled and binding” as the “in-
terpretation of [a] confession” (see the Classis Holland overture
elsewhere in this agenda that makes this case). In clarifying un-
chaste behavior as it did, Synod 2022 thus presumed a traditional
doctrine of marriage present in Q&A 108 when the catechism
speaks of the “holy state of marriage.” If this is not the doctrine of
marriage contained in Q&A 108, Synod 2022’s “settled and bind-
ing” interpretation of unchastity does not make sense, and should
be reversed. I suggest the opposite. For reasons historical, scrip-
tural, and contemporary/synodical, and in light of recent pressure
toward revisionist accounts, I am asking Synod 2023 officially to
clarify and affirm (per Church Order Supplement, Art. 5, A, 3) that
a traditional doctrine of marriage, which underlies Synod 2022’s in-
terpretation of unchastity, is in fact the doctrine of marriage con-
tained in Q&A 108, and thus a confessional doctrine to which of-
ficebearers subscribe via the Covenant for Officebearers.
4. If Synod 2023 were to adopt this overture together with Classis Hol-
land’s overture (“In Pursuit of Scriptural and Confessional Unity, Alter
Synod 2022’s Decision on Confessional Status in Three Ways”), it
would helpfully clarify what is confessional and what is not in our

denomination’s position on matters pertaining to human sexuality. In
short, Synod 2022’s “interpretation of [a] confession” is “settled and
binding” via synodical pronouncement; our long-standing traditional
doctrine of marriage is confessional via Q&A 108 as a doctrine “which
fully agree[s] with the Word of God” (Gen. 2:18-25; Matt. 19:3-9; Eph.
5:22-33). The implications of this for each when it comes to the “extent
of their jurisdiction,” the “nature of their authority,” and the “measure
of agreement expected” are spelled out in the Acts of Synod 1975 (pp.
601-602).
Benjamin J. Petroelje, minister of the Word at

Fourteenth Street CRC, Holland, Michigan
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meetings of the council of
Fourteenth Street CRC and Classis Holland but was not adopted.

OVERTURE 18
Reverse Synod 2022’s Interpretation of Q&A 108 and

Declaration on Confessional Status; Provide an Alternative
Interpretation
We, the undersigned members of Fourteenth Street CRC of Holland,

Michigan, overture Synod 2023 to reverse Synod 2022’s interpretation of
“unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 as encompassing “adul-
tery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, polyamory, pornography, and
homosexual sex” as well as “sexual violence within and outside of cove-
nantal marriage,” and its decision to declare that its interpretation of the
confession has “confessional status” (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922), since
synodical pronouncements themselves cannot have the status of a
confession (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 598); and instead to do the following:
A. Adopt the following definition of “chastity” as a guide for the meaning
of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108: “the state or practice of refraining
from all sexual activity outside of the marriage of one man and one
woman, and sometimes within marriage as well.”
B. Affirm that “adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, polyamory,
pornography, and homosexual sex, all of which violate the seventh
commandment,” comprise a helpful and representative list of what
constitutes “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108.
C. Declare that this definition of “chastity” and this affirmation of “un-
chastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 is an interpretation of the
Heidelberg Catechism that shall be considered “settled and binding”
(Church Order, Art. 29) in its use and function as “an interpretation of
the confession” (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 44).
Grounds:
1. Synod 2022’s citation to Synod 19751 as authority for declaring its in-
terpretation of the Heidelberg Catechism to have “confessional status”
is confusing and potentially misleading, given Synod 1975’s statement
“No synodical decision involving doctrinal or ethical pronouncements
is to be considered on a par with the confessions” (Acts of Synod 1975,
598). Synod’s 1975 report on the relationship between synodical pro-
nouncements and the confessions quotes with approval the following
statement of Synod 1926 when it reaffirmed Synod 1881’s interpreta-
tion of the Heidelberg Catechism:
“The six points of 1881 are to be regarded, even as the three points
of 1924, as an interpretation of our Confession. First, the Synod of
1881 did not add a new confession to the Forms of Unity, but ac-
cepted the six points as an interpretation of the confessional writ-
ings, in so far as they express the Reformed position relative to the
1 “When a synodical pronouncement is set forth as an interpretation of the confession,
this is its use and function” (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603).

fourth commandment. Secondly, such an interpretation given by
synod must be regarded as the official interpretation, and is, there-
fore, binding for every officer and member of our denominational
group. Thirdly, one cannot place one’s personal interpretation of
the Confessions or a part thereof above the official interpretation of
synod. That would make void the significance and power of the
Forms of Unity” (Acts of Synod 1926, pp. 191-92).2
Notwithstanding the unique function served by synod’s interpreta-
tions of the confessions, the 1975 synodical report concludes that “this
use does not elevate them to the status of the confessions” (Acts of Synod
1975, p. 598, emphasis added). Synod 2022 inexplicably disregarded
the settled and binding authority of Synod 1975’s decision when it de-
clared its interpretation of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 to have
“confessional status.” 3
2. In declaring its interpretation to have “confessional status,” Synod
2022 blurred lines that are clear in the 1975 report, setting a poor and
potentially confusing precedent for future synodical pronouncements
on doctrinal and ethical matters.
3. Synod 2022’s declaration of “confessional status” could be miscon-
strued to mean that Synod 2022 intended its interpretation to have the
same authoritative status as the confession itself; this confusion could
lead to unintended consequences, such as the following:
a. thwarting otherwise permissible discussions of Synod 2022’s inter-
pretation, since dissent “to a synodical decision is permissible, al-
though this is not tolerated with respect to the confessions” (Acts of
Synod 1975, p. 602).
b. applying church discipline without just cause, since, as Synod 1975
noted, “there is a difference in the nature of the authority of the
confessions and synodical pronouncements” (Acts of Synod 1975,
p. 601).
c. causing thoughtful and conscientious people to unnecessarily de-
cline nomination to serve as officebearers since a greater measure of
agreement is expected with respect to confessions than synodical
pronouncements. “Full agreement with the confessions is expected
from all members of the church and subscription to the confessions
is required of all officebearers by signing the Form of Subscription.
While synodical decisions are ‘settled and binding,’ subscription to
synodical decisions is not required” (Acts of Synod 1975, pp. 601-
602).
4. While synod has authority to adopt new confessions and amend its
current confessions, Synod 2022 decided against adding its interpreta-
tion as a footnote to Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108. Such a measure
was not necessary since synodical pronouncements on doctrinal and
2 Acts of Synod 1975, p. 598.

3 “Therefore, this interpretation has confessional status” (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922).

ethical matters are, by themselves, considered settled and binding un-
less proven to conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order
(Church Order, Art. 29).
5. Synod 2022’s list of unchaste behaviors does not constitute a definition
but rather offers a representative list. The church would be well served
by a simple definition of “chastity” that provides guidance for recog-
nizing and avoiding unchaste behaviors regardless of nomenclature.
Members of Fourteenth Street CRC, Holland, Michigan

Timothy Dykstra
Paul Katerberg
Doug Rooks
Rebecca Rozema
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meetings of the council of
Fourteenth Street CRC and Classis Holland but was not adopted.

OVERTURE 19
Reverse Synod 2022’s Declaration That Its Interpretation of

“Unchastity” Has Confessional Status; Instead Make the
Interpretation Nonbinding
I. Background
Synod 2022 considered the report of the Committee to Articulate a Foun-
dation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality, and a majority of
delegates voted to recommend the Human Sexuality Report (HSR) to
churches as providing a useful summary of biblical teaching regarding
human sexuality. More significantly, synod declared that same-sex sexual
activity is sinful under all circumstances by asserting that “unchastity” in
Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 “encompasses adultery, premarital sex,
extramarital sex, polyamory, pornography, and homosexual sex, all of
which violate the seventh commandment” (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922).
This codified an interpretation of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108, thereby
granting this interpretation “confessional status.” Confessional teachings
must be upheld by all who hold office in the church, including clergy, el-
ders, deacons, and professors at denominational schools.
II. Overture
Classis Lake Erie overtures Synod 2023 to reverse Synod 2022’s declara-
tion that an interpretation of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 defining ho-
mosexual sex as unchastity already has confessional status in the CRCNA,
instead making this interpretation advisory and nonbinding.
Grounds:
1. Synod’s interpretation of a confession does not have the same author-
ity as a confession itself. The claim that an interpretation of Q&A 108
already has confessional status is without precedent. Homosexual sex
in the context of a committed same-sex marriage is not addressed in
the confessions of the church, and officebearers of the church should
not be bound to adhere to an interpretation of the confessions for
which there is not widespread agreement or sufficient study that in-
cludes diverse voices and opinions.
2. The Human Sexuality Report does not adequately represent the full
breadth of Reformed scholarship on issues of human sexuality. There
is significant disagreement among scholars, theologians, and pastors
about what constitutes a faithful and biblical sexual ethic. Since those
in disagreement with the prior 1973 synodical report on homosexuality
were not allowed to serve on the committee, a diversity of Reformed
voices was not included, and the report is limited and affected by their
absence. Reformed scholarship values a diversity of opinions and
trusts that Christ is present in culture. By rejecting the input of our
members who held a different interpretation than the 1973 report, the
report is not complete.

3. The Human Sexuality Report relies on incomplete and flawed scientific
and medical claims. By not including the contributions of science, we
fail to seek wisdom from general revelation. While we strongly affirm
that the Bible is the Word of God and contains all things necessary for
salvation, general revelation also plays an important role in Reformed
theology and practice. In fact, the Belgic Confession begins answering
the question “How do we know God?” by naming general revelation
when it says, “We know God by two means: First, by the creation,
preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is
before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and
small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God”
(Art. 2).
III. Elaboration of the grounds
A. Synod’s interpretation of a confession does not have the same author-
ity as a confession itself. The motion brought before Synod 2022 read
as follows: “That synod affirm that ‘unchastity’ in Heidelberg Cate-
chism Q. and A. 108 encompasses adultery, premarital sex, extramari-
tal sex, polyamory, pornography, and homosexual sex, all of which vi-
olate the seventh commandment. In so doing, synod declares this affir-
mation ‘an interpretation of [a] confession’ (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603).
Therefore, this interpretation has confessional status.”
This motion referenced the Acts of Synod 1975 out of context. The study
report on Synodical Decisions and the Confessions adopted at Synod
1975 made clear that the authority of the confessions is subordinate to
Scripture and the authority of synodical decisions is subordinate to the
confessions. Granting confessional status on the basis of a synodical in-
terpretation of a confession is not the process to follow in a matter as
weighty as this, is unprecedented, and will inevitably lead to division
in the CRCNA.
Beyond this illegitimate route to confessional status undertaken at
Synod 2022, a more fundamental concern is the application of confes-
sional status in the first place to declare homosexual sex sinful in all
circumstances, including within a committed same-sex marriage. Con-
fessional status should be reserved for the core doctrines of our faith
and have a purpose of maintaining the integrity of the gospel, but the
Human Sexuality Report fails to establish that this “issue involves the
heart of the message of the gospel” (HSR, p. 456). In light of scientific
understanding in regard to human sexuality and differing conclusions
of Reformed scholars regarding human sexuality (see sections III, B
and C below), it is not appropriate to raise any particular belief about
this complex issue to the level of confessional status. Doing so causes
irreparable harm to the denomination, creates a crisis of conscience for
officebearers, and further alienates those in the LGBTQ community
who have already been isolated and harmed by the actions of our
church.

B. Requiring affirmation of the CRC’s 1973 Statement on Homosexuality
as a prerequisite to serving on the Committee to Articulate a Founda-
tion-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality eliminated the possi-
bility of a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter. Excluding
otherwise-qualified potential members from this committee resulted in
insufficient Reformed engagement with the topic, as evident in the re-
port’s treatment of individual texts as well as the whole arc of Scrip-
ture. Significant voices within the Reformed tradition with differing
conclusions about matters of human sexuality were not considered
within the report. This was a missed opportunity to engage with ongo-
ing Reformed scholarship in this area.
C. The presentation of conclusions derived from scientific literature in the
Human Sexuality Report is flawed and incomplete. There was no evi-
dence of a formal process of consultation with medical or scientific ex-
perts in the writing of the report. There was no description of the liter-
ature review used in the report, which casts doubt on the reliability of
the scientific evidence cited in the report. The HSR erroneously con-
cludes that a failure thus far to identify genetic factors that predict ho-
mosexual disposition with high accuracy suggests that being gay is not
an innate condition (HSR, p. 405), and in this way the HSR even con-
tradicts the 1973 report, which states that “homosexuality is not the re-
sult of any conscious choice or decision on the part of the person” (Acts
of Synod 1973, p. 613). Members of the CRCNA who are also profes-
sionals in the medical or social sciences have criticized the report for its
handling of these matters. 1
Incomplete understanding of the medical and scientific literature in-
creases fear and stigmatization, and it impairs the church’s discern-
ment. The treatment of the Belgic Confession, Article 2, by Synod 2022
is incomplete. The HSR references Synod 1991’s statement regarding
the “primacy of special revelation” as grounds to deemphasize the im-
portance of medical and scientific scholarship in the area of human
sexuality. In doing so, Synod 2022 adopted a position that ignores
three elements of the Reformed tradition for interpreting general and
special revelation as advised by Synod 1972 and Synod 1991.
First, the report of the Committee on Creation and Science (Report 28,
Synod 1991) warns against allowing science to dictate our interpreta-
tion of Scripture but goes on to cite the Acts of Synod 1972 (p. 515) as
1Video, “Misuse of Research” by Dr. Emily Helder, youtu.be/bJndecsMpvs; video, “Inter-

sex Children and the CRC Approach to Sexuality” by Kathy VanderGrift,
youtu.be/4ELd_WIvn0U; excerpt from “Sexuality Report Letter of Concern” signed by
147 Calvin University faculty members 12/10/2020: “The report insufficiently engages
with relevant scholarship from our disciplines, leading to a biased view of the theologi-
cal, scriptural, and scientific basis for the report. The discussions of gender identity and
sexual orientation lack the scientific and hermeneutic rigor and accuracy of prevailing
peer-reviewed scholarship. . . .” drive.google.com/file/d/1beBncK-
OEjnMSVqMqwlh5lDuHtmzcCizS/view

background as it states that “scientific discovery can become the occa-
sion for reexamining a traditional interpretation and in this way can
lead to a reinterpretation of certain aspects of the Bible” (Agenda for
Synod 1991, p. 384). But the Creation and Science report doesn’t inter-
pret “primacy of special revelation” as grounds to cut off dialogue, de-
bate, or research between special and general revelation. Rather, the re-
port encourages debate, as in the days of Copernicus, to take place in
such a way that both special and general revelation are allowed to
speak, saying, “So today we may not foreclose the possibility that
something similar could occur under the impact of certain contempo-
rary scientific perspectives” (Agenda for Synod 1991, p. 384).
Second, the report on Creation and Science addresses how Reformed
Christians should approach “apparent” conflicts in the dialogue be-
tween the Bible and science. The report humbly asserts that acknowl-
edging an “apparent” conflict “means to affirm as a religious confes-
sion that the conflict is ultimately only [italics original] apparent . . .
that in the mind of God there is no contradiction or incompatibility
even when we do not understand how this is so” (Agenda for Synod
1991, p. 402). As Reformed Christians, we are not called toward an ap-
proach in which the “primacy of special revelation” means an end to
debate or an unqualified rejection of science. Instead, “as Reformed
Christians who recognize the authority of general revelation and the
legitimacy of the scientific enterprise as a God-given task, we also reso-
lutely reject [an unqualified rejection of the scientific account]”; rather,
“being Reformed means that we accept the problem in all its diffi-
culty” (Agenda for Synod 1991, p. 402).
Third, the Acts of Synod 1991 advocates for a Reformed approach to
reading and interpreting general revelation through the glasses of spe-
cial revelation and the confessions that was not allowed in the man-
date to the HSR study committee. The decision of Synod 2022 is incon-
sistent with the traditional Reformed approach to scholarship advised
by Synod 1991, which advises a process that welcomes ongoing debate:
“The church urges its scholars who seek to provide guidance to the
church on sensitive issues of faith and learning to first submit their
ideas and theories to peer review as the most appropriate arena for ad-
equate scholarly assessment of their biblical, confessional, and scien-
tific validity” (Acts of Synod 1991, pp. 775-76). When Synod 2022 de-
clared an interpretation of the word “unchastity” to be confessional, it
sought to end dialogue and debate. In its decision Synod 2022 failed to
heed the pastoral advice of Synod 1991, which says, “The church re-
minds its members of the necessity of distinguishing in the context of
the present debate what is essential to the faith from what is not and of
the importance of allowing open and vigorous discussion on matters
pertaining to the latter. Fellowship within the body of Christ should
not be broken over such matters” (Acts of Synod 1991, p. 776).
Classis Lake Erie
Benjamin W. Van Arragon, stated clerk

OVERTURE 20
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+

community. This interpretation will severely limit any future denomi-
national guidance provided for pastoral counsel.
2. The synodical decision regarding “confessional status” limits local con-
gregations in their search for officebearers, since many members are
unwilling to sign the Covenant for Officebearers, given this interpreta-
tion of “confessional status.”
3. The history of decisions made within the CRCNA provides alterna-
tives to the present situation, such as provisions made for churches
and classes in response to the position of the CRCNA on “Women in
Ecclesiastical Office.” It is our hope that the CRCNA denomination
will in future be able to provide generous space for local churches and
regions/classes to proceed with actions believed to be consistent with
biblical principles, despite different perspectives and convictions
within the denomination.
IV. Additional explanation and references for Grounds 1 and 2
A. Ground 1
Previous synods have made revisions or added footnotes to confes-
sions of the CRCNA following comprehensive studies of broader con-
textual interpretations. Synod 2022, in its discussions about the HSR
recommendations, acknowledged but did not recognize or include
concerns about the limited scope of the HSR (e.g., a minority report,
overtures) in its adoption of recommendations. Nevertheless, some
recommendations were postponed on the grounds that “congregations
and classes need time to reflect on the implications of this year’s deci-
sions” and “future synods can prioritize which of the many suggested
tasks related to human sexuality . . . will be most urgent” (Acts of Synod
2022, pp. 909-10). We suggest that our request to reverse the “confes-
sional status” decision of Synod 2022 is indeed urgent, to allow for a
more gracious space within our midst.
The Hesed Project (hesedprojectcrc.org/) includes extensive analysis of
the HSR in broader biblical and current context and cites many con-
cerns about and potential errors in the HSR.
Other Reformed authors have built strong arguments based on historic
context, wherein same-sex acts described in the Bible were deemed to
be cultic or temple prostitution, sexual debauchery, pederasty, and/or
controlling acts of power. The Bible does not provide explicit advice on
committed relationships/faithful marriage between same-sex partners.
“Any use of the text [referring to Romans 1] that fails to take the con-
text of the biblical texts into consideration is deeply suspect. Faithful
reading always occurs in the context of the whole narrative, centred on
Jesus . . . in biblical times the idea of same-sex orientation would not
have made any sense.”
“. . . Paul is not making a point about the creational normativity of
heterosexuality. . . . Paul is attacking erotic practices that transgress
what is known about God from the very creation of the world, not

what is known about human gender identity and reproduction. Sexual
lives that are steeped in infidelity, injustice, and insatiable consump-
tion are brought under judgment because they fall so short of our call-
ing to image God in faithfulness, justice, and love.” The latter state-
ment about sexual lives is very much congruent with Q&A 108 in the
Heidelberg Catechism. We believe that committed same-sex relation-
ships/marriages are neither inconsistent with the teachings of Scripture
nor in contravention to the Heidelberg Catechism.
B. Ground 2
A critical difference in the authority of a synod versus the confessions
has been explained as follows: “Synods do adopt confessions (Church
Order Article 47). . . . Synods can also change the confessions. For ex-
ample, [Synods 1958, 1985, 2010]. . . . All of these are changes in the
confessions made by synods. But this is not what Synod 2022 did. It
didn’t claim it was changing anything in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A
108; it claimed that it was merely explaining what the catechism had
always meant and that its interpretation of the catechism answer was
confessional. It did so on the basis of a decision about the authority of
synod made in 1975. . . . Synod 1975 did not say what Synod 2022 says
it says. Quite the opposite, Synod 1975 said that a synodical decision
never has the authority of a confession. So, Synod 2022 declared its in-
terpretation of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 to be confessional on
the basis of an egregious misreading of an earlier synodical decision.
Synodical decisions deserve respect, but when they are wrong, they
are wrong. Synods make mistakes. . . . The 1975 decision does not say
that a synodical interpretation of a confession is itself confessional. It
says that a synodical interpretation of a confession is just that: a synod-
ical interpretation. It comes with the authority of the synod, not the au-
thority of the confession it interprets. . . . Synod 1975 recognized that
decisions of that kind are not actually confessional. They don’t express
our joint faith. . . . They have the authority of the synod, but not of the
confessions. It’s important in this time that we observe this difference
between what a synod does and what’s actually confessional.” Similar
concerns have been raised by others, acknowledging that the HSR’s
“conclusion about ‘confessional status’ appears incorrect or at least sig-
nificantly misleading.”
We believe this misinterpretation by synod is damaging and divisive
within the CRCNA in its unauthorized, yet authoritative, use of the
Synod 1975 decision, and we therefore ask for a reversal of this “con-
fessional status” declaration in 2022.
V. Additional explanation and references for Further Implications 1, 2,
and 3
A. Implication 1
A church congregation must be a place of fellowship and hospitality,
supported by gracious space and pastoral counsel. While the adoption

of the HSR was intended to provide guidance for CRCNA congrega-
tions, we note this is not mentioned, nor is the HSR referenced, in the
Position Statement section of the CRCNA website. We agree with the
observation of the Reverend Clay Libolt, in which he asks, “But what
happens if a synod takes a part of a confession and narrows it down to
a specific and controversial interpretation. The ‘us’ is gone. It no longer
speaks for us; it speaks for some of us and not for others. It drives a
wedge into denominational life.”
Indeed, New Life CRC, Guelph, has asked in its overture (see Overture
70 from Classis Huron) that synod direct the denomination “to affirm
our commitments to manage disagreements within our congregations,
and among churches, with love, charity, and grace, and to ensure that
all who seek to follow Christ are afforded a safe place to honestly share
their views and listen to those of others”; and “to develop resources
and tools . . . to equip congregations to minister pastorally with and to
LGBTQ+ people.”
B. Implication 2
The misuse of the synodical interpretation regarding “confessional sta-
tus” further limits potential officebearers in their willingness to serve
amid tensions and divisions. We quote further, “A signatory [to the
Covenant for Officebearers] is bound only to those doctrines that are
confessed, and is not bound to the references, allusions, and remarks
that are incidental to the formulation of these doctrines, nor to the the-
ological deductions that some may draw from the doctrines” (Church
Order Supplement, Art. 5, A, 3). “. . . By declaring sex in a same-sex
marriage as unchaste by definition and then declaring that declaration
to be confessional, Synod 2022 suddenly put many holders of office in
the CRC on the wrong side of ecclesiastical law” (peripateticpas-
tor.com/2022/10/14/hold-those-gravamina-why-filing-a-gravamen-
might-not-be-the-right-move-for-those-who-disagree-with-synod-
2022/).
We note that the CRCNA website’s “FAQ about the Human Sexual-
ity Report” provides some discussion of options for officebearers such
as the submission of a confessional-difficulty gravamen. However, the
CRCNA website appears to provide only one article as a resource to
guide decisions of potential officebearers. Members are welcomed to
hold office, even if with a gravamen of confessional difficulty, yet com-
ments in response to the online article suggest that such use of a grava-
men is not meant for consistent practice.
C. Implication 3
Historically the CRCNA has sought to make provisions for churches
and classes, to honor local differences in the characters and makeup of
congregations. We note, for example, in the position statement of the
CRCNA on “Women in Ecclesiastical Office,” that such recognition
and flexibility was provided wherein the “CRC recognizes that there

are two different perspectives and convictions on this issue, both of
which honor the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God.” Indeed,
there is even allowance provided for regional differences wherein clas-
ses may declare limitations on officebearers delegated to their classis,
and churches may exercise an option “to move to the classis in closest
proximity that is willing to receive them and which they are willing to
join.”
The CRCNA does not currently support such local/regional options to
address differences in biblical interpretation regarding homosexual sex
specifically and human sexuality in general. It is our hope that the
CRCNA, in its Church Order and Supplements, can provide direction
that sustains unity and grace within our denomination in the future,
while also acknowledging and providing space for important matters
of difference in perspective and conviction.
Officebearers of New Life CRC, Guelph, Ontario

James Bryson (deacon)
Dirk Kroon (deacon: representative on council)
Patricia Vanderkooy (pastoral elder)
Jacinda Laning-Wallace (pastoral elder)
Kathy Zettler (deacon)
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.

OVERTURE 21
In Pursuit of Scriptural and Confessional Unity, Alter Synod

2022’s Decision on Confessional Status in Three Ways
I. Background: Our present situation
Before moving to the overture, we wish to reflect briefly both on the bibli-
cal and theological convictions out of which this overture arises, as well as
on the realities of our present situation as a denomination. We note the
following points:
1. In John 17, Jesus prays that his church may all be one, on the model of
the perfect unity of the Father and Son (vv. 20-23). In Ephesians 4, Paul
confesses that there is “one body and one Spirit . . . one Lord, one faith,
one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all
and in all” (vv. 4-6). These texts of Holy Scripture are the bedrock
foundations on which the theological doctrine of the church’s unity is
built. As readers of Scripture, we are not invited to neglect these vital
texts, nor to pit truth against unity, as is so often done. The unity of the
church—the answer to Jesus’ prayer, and the core of Paul’s confes-
sion—is a matter of the truth of the gospel and of right doctrine. The
church’s unity, as we confess in the Nicene Creed, is a mark of the
church. It is precious—“both a gift and an obligation,” a Spirit-given
reality to be received and a Spirit-empowered call to be earnestly
sought. Our challenge is to receive and guard this gift and “together
fight against all which may threaten or hinder this unity” (Belhar Con-
fession, Art. 2).
2. Strikingly, however, in the very same two key New Testament texts
just cited, we find a deep concern not just for the church’s unity but
also for her holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. Jesus’ disciples are
“not of the world,” and so he prays, “Sanctify them in the truth; your
word is truth” (John 17:16-17, 19; cf. Eph. 4:17-24; 5:3-14, 25-27). This
holiness is not just a matter of life but also of doctrine; the church is to
desperately avoid error and pursue truth (Eph. 4:14, 25; 5:17; 6:14; cf.
John 17:14). Moreover, the church is built on an apostolic foundation
and equipped with apostolic gifts, all so that she might “attain to the
unity of the faith”—a oneness through which “the world may believe”
(Eph. 2:20-21; 4:11-13; John 17:21, 23). If it means anything in Ephesians
to “grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (4:15),
it means to grow up in all of these ways. In John 17 and Ephesians 4
(and more broadly), then, it is vital that we find all the marks of the
church there together. As readers of Scripture, we are not invited to pit
these marks against each other, or teach any single mark in a way that
undermines another. The church is “one holy catholic and apostolic
church.” These are Christ’s gifts to the church, to be received by the
Spirit; as such, they are also to be guarded and protected, earnestly
pursued and sought.

3. This, of course, is very far from our present reality. Within our own
small corner of this “one holy catholic and apostolic church” we are at
war with one another. Synodical decisions are openly disregarded and
disdained, or hastily used to try and silence any questions and purge
all disagreement; we withhold both admonishment and comfort be-
cause we are scared; we seek control because we are angry; we mock
one another, label each other, are suspicious of one another, stop talk-
ing with each other, and withdraw from one another. For all our con-
cern for the seventh commandment and Q&A 108, we have belittled,
hated, insulted, and killed each other in thoughts, words, looks, and
gestures (Q&A 105), and we have twisted words, gossiped, slandered,
and rashly condemned, failing to do all we can to guard and advance
each other’s good names (Q&A 112). In these ways, we have broken
the sixth and the ninth commandments. “No one is righteous; no, not
one” (Rom. 3:10). We are not healthy, and we should admit as much.
In the words of the town clerk in Ephesus, we really are “in danger of
being charged with rioting today” (Acts 19:40). Worse, we’re acting
schismatically toward each other. We’re in danger of “devouring one
another” and thus in danger of being “consumed by one another” (Gal.
5:15). Lord, have mercy upon us.
4. All of this is sin. This is not primarily conflict that needs to be medi-
ated, but sin that requires repentance. To break the body is sin (1 Cor.
1:10-13). To bless the “works of the flesh” of any kind in the body and
call them good is sin (1 Cor. 5:1-13; Gal. 5:19-21). To introduce false-
hood into the church is sin (2 Pet. 2; Jude 1:3-16). To not herald a king-
dom of radical and surprising welcome is sin (Matt. 23:13; Luke 14:15-
24). We are here, by way of negative statement, back to the marks of
the church. We have broken every single one. These are Christ’s gifts,
but we have not received them. This is the Spirit’s call, but we have not
followed. The church is not one, not holy, not catholic, and not apos-
tolic. And insofar as we are not, we are breaking the very means by
which the world is meant to know that the Father sent the Son, and
that the Father loves the world (John 17:23). To break the marks is a fail-
ure of mission, and we each have contributed to its breaking. This is a
tragic failure. The “principalities and powers” are toying with us (Eph.
6:12). We are caught in Satan’s schemes (2:2). We are sinners, all of us,
“children of wrath like the rest” (2:3), who dare not stand save the
grace of Christ, “so that every mouth may be stopped” (Rom. 3:19).
5. But God! He is rich in mercy! Because of the great love with which he
loves us, even when we are dead in our trespasses, he makes us alive
together with Christ—by grace we have been saved—and he raises us up
with him and seats us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
He does all this so that in the coming ages he might show the immeas-
urable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by
grace we are saved through faith. This isn’t our own doing; it’s the gift
of God—not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph. 2:4-9).
“The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; his mercies never come to

an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness” (Lam.
3:22-23). “Ruined sinners to reclaim! Hallelujah! What a Savior!”
6. It is just this—the common depth of our misery (“children of wrath”),
solely attributable to us (“every mouth may be stopped”), together
with the common heights of our salvation (“raised together with
Christ”), solely attributable to God (“so that no one may boast”)—that
provides the scriptural basis for the call to humility. That, and Christ
himself: “Though he was in the form of God, he did not count equality
with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the
form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found
in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point
of death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:6-8). Taking its cue from the
nature of salvation and from Christ’s own example, Scripture then re-
peatedly enjoins humility on God’s people—first toward God himself
(James 4:10; 1 Pet. 5:6), and then also toward one another (Phil. 2:3;
1 Pet. 5:5). “Have this mind among yourselves,” Paul says in Philippi-
ans 2, “which is yours in Christ Jesus”—just before he goes on to de-
scribe the astounding descent of Christ’s own humility. Our call to hu-
mility is modeled on Christ’s own. It is, in fact, a sign of new creation,
one of those heavenly virtues we are to seek and to clothe ourselves
with (Col. 3:12). Such humility, toward God and neighbor, will usher
forth in concrete realities like forgiveness and love, “which binds eve-
rything together in perfect harmony” (3:13-14). It will be a sign that
Christ’s peace is at work in our hearts, “to which we were called in one
body” (3:15). 1
7. That is a vision very different from our present reality. If we are to
“put to death” all that is earthly in us (Col. 3:5-11) and instead “grow
up in every way into Christ” (Eph. 4:15; cf. Col. 3:12-17), the road there
is paved with repentance and humility. That gate will be narrow, and
that way hard, but it is the road that leads to life (Matt. 7:14). This hu-
mility, in particular, will have to take quite concrete forms, as we for-
sake “anger, wrath, malice, and slander” (Col. 3:8), and pursue instead
“what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Rom. 14:19)—as
we practice, in real life, what it means to “count others more significant
than ourselves” (Phil. 2:3). Such humility will, of course, need to be
displayed among all members of the body, but also from ordained
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).

leaders to members (1 Pet. 5:1-4; Matt. 20:26-28), from members to or-
dained leaders (1 Pet. 5:5; Heb. 13:7, 17), and from all of us to the as-
semblies (council, classis, synod) that govern us under “Christ, the
only head of the church” (Church Order, Art. 1; cf. Eph. 1:22-23; Col.
1:18). This is what humility will look like in concrete practice. As we
then “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21),
“humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God” (1 Pet. 5:6), and
give ourselves over in “complete subjection to the Word of God”
(Church Order, Art. 1; Isa. 40:8; 1 Pet. 1:24-25; 2 Tim. 3:16-17), perhaps
God will have mercy, make our darkness light, and see fit to exalt us at
the proper time (1 Pet. 5:6). Perhaps he will draw us ever nearer to be-
coming that “one holy catholic and apostolic church” that he has given
us as a gift for the life of the world. Until that day, we ought earnestly
to pursue and seek that gift and to “cast all our anxieties on him, be-
cause he cares for us” (1 Pet. 5:7).
Toward this end, we offer the following overture (along with the commu-
nication to Synod 2023 adopted by Classis Holland) as our hope for how
we might live together in Scriptural and confessional unity, while “bear-
ing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:2-3).
II. Overture
We, Classis Holland, overture Synod 2023 to alter Synod 2022’s decision to
affirm that its “interpretation of the confession” (i.e., its interpretation of
“unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 as encompassing “adul-
tery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, polyamory, pornography, and ho-
mosexual sex, all of which violate the seventh commandment” and as en-
compassing “sexual violence within and outside of covenantal marriage”
[Acts of Synod 2022, pp. 922-24]) has “confessional status” pursuant to the
Acts of Synod 1975 (p. 603). Instead, we overture Synod 2023 to alter that
decision in the following ways:
A. Adopt the following definition of chastity in order to guide the inter-
pretation of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108: “Chastity is the pursuit of
that purity of heart which Jesus calls blessed (Matt. 5:8). Whether in
married or single life, chastity is the preservation of sexual union for
the one-flesh union of one man and one woman in marriage, within
which such sexual union serves both natural and symbolic ends: the
joining of male and female in one flesh (Gen. 2:24); the bearing of chil-
dren (Gen. 1:28); and the nuptial union of Christ and church (Eph. 5:31-
32). Chastity is thus a gift which preserves the holy state of marriage
and signals our ultimate betrothal to Christ, and unchastity is any
transgression that undermines this state and this betrothal.”
Ground: Synod 2022’s list of seven unchaste actions does not constitute
a definition but rather offers a representative list. The church would be
well served by a definition of chastity that is in keeping with the bibli-
cal and theological conclusions of our study reports (1973/2022). This

definition will provide further guidance to the churches to recognize
and pursue chaste living within and outside of marriage.
B. Affirm that Synod 2022’s “interpretation of the confession” offers a
helpful and representative list of what constitutes “unchastity” in light
of the conclusions of our synodical study reports (1973/2022), but re-
vise the language of “encompasses” to “includes, but is not exhausted
by.” The full text of the affirmation would thus read: “that ‘unchastity’
in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 includes but is not exhausted by
adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, sexual violence within and
outside of covenantal marriage, polyamory, pornography, and homo-
sexual sex, all of which violate the seventh commandment.”
Ground: In discerning “the need to call the church to radical obedience
for chaste living” (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922), Synod 2022 rightly recog-
nized that representative lists of sins can be helpful and should be af-
firmed.
1. Such a list is not to be regarded as a legalistic set of rules to follow
by which one deems oneself righteous or another unrighteous (an
attitude against which Jesus warns—Matt. 23:23-28), but rather as
examples which help us to understand what sort of life is enjoined
upon those who are new creations in Christ, living not according to
the flesh but according to the Spirit (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 5:16-25). In do-
ing this, Synod 2022 simply followed the pattern we see in the law
(e.g., Ex. 20:1-17) and the teaching of Jesus (e.g., Mark 7:20-23) and
Paul (e.g., Gal. 5:19-21), not to mention the Heidelberg Catechism
itself (e.g., Q&A’s 99, 105, and 110).
2. The language of “includes, but is not exhausted by” better captures
both the spirit of subpoint 1 above and of lists in the Bible them-
selves, whereas “encompasses” suggests a complete list, which is
not true of the list adopted by Synod 2022.
C. In agreement with Synod 2022, declare that this interpretation of “un-
chastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 is an “interpretation of [a]
confession” (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603). However, alter Synod 2022’s
declaration that this interpretation has “confessional status” (Acts of
Synod 2022, p. 922) and declare instead that Synod 2022’s interpretation
of “unchastity” shall be considered “settled and binding” (Church Or-
der, Art. 29) in its use and function as an “interpretation of [a] confes-
sion” (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603), which is the most significant category
of pronouncement on doctrinal and ethical matters available to synod
(Acts of Synod 1975, p. 597).
Ground: Synod rightly has the authority to pronounce on doctrinal and
ethical matters that concern the whole church (Acts of Synod 1975, p.
597). Such decisions may fall into one of several categories, which are
listed and described by Synod 1975’s Report 47 on “Synodical Decision
and the Confessions” (p. 597). Regarding the authority of these deci-
sions, the following statements all pertain to Synod 2022’s decision and
serve as the grounds for our recommended alteration:

1. Synodical decisions “shall be considered settled and binding, unless it
is proved that they conflict with the Word of God or the Church Or-
der” (Church Order, Art. 29).
2. At the same time, “No synodical decision involving doctrinal or ethical
pronouncements is to be considered on a par with the confessions”
(Acts of Synod 1975, p. 598). That is to say, no synodical pronouncement
itself (even an “interpretation of the confession”) can ever be “ele-
vate[d] . . . to the status of the confessions” (p. 598).
3. Instead, “clothed with ‘synodical authority,’ [such pronouncements]
serve that precise use and function for which they were specifically de-
signed by synod” (p. 598). At Synod 2022, this pronouncement took the
form of an “interpretation of [a] confession” (Acts of Synod 2022, p.
922). As such, “When a synodical pronouncement is set forth as an in-
terpretation of the confession, this is its use and function” (Acts of
Synod 1975, p. 603). It follows, then, that Synod 2022’s “interpretation
of [a] confession” does not itself have “confessional status” but is ra-
ther “settled and binding” (Church Order, Art. 29) in its “use and func-
tion” as an “interpretation of the confession.”
4. As “settled and binding” in this way, what authority does Synod
2022’s decision have? How should this “interpretation of the confes-
sion” (i.e., synod’s reading of “unchastity” in Q&A 108) function for
our body, within our covenantal commitments to one another and in
our “complete subjection to the Word of God and the Reformed creeds
as a true interpretation of this Word” (Church Order, Art. 1)? Synod
1926 has told us, as quoted by the 1975 report, “Such an interpretation
given by synod must be regarded as the official interpretation, and is,
therefore, binding for every officer and member of our denominational
group. . . . One cannot place one’s personal interpretation of the Confessions
or a part thereof above the official interpretation of synod. That would make
void the significance and power of the Forms of Unity” (Acts of Synod 1975,
p. 598; quoting Acts of Synod 1926, pp. 191-92; emphasis ours). All
teaching, preaching, discipleship, and discipline within CRCNA
churches should therefore conform itself to the “settled and binding”
character of this interpretation.
5. To summarize: Synod 2022’s interpretation of “unchastity” in Q&A 108
does not (should not) have confessional status (per Acts of Synod 1975,
p. 598), but it does represent the most significant category of pro-
nouncement on doctrinal and ethical matters available to synod, and is
“settled and binding” as such, as defined above (Acts of Synod 1975, pp.
597, 603). 2
6. Two things follow from the above, and should be recognized by all
members and officebearers in the CRCNA:
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).

• On the one hand, it should be acknowledged that the “measure of
agreement expected” is different for a synodical decision than it is
for a confessional doctrine. As the 1975 report says, “Full agree-
ment with the confessions is expected from all members of the
church and subscription to the confessions is required of all office-
bearers by signing the Form of Subscription. While synodical deci-
sions are ‘settled and binding’, subscription to synodical decisions is
not required. Registering a negative vote with regard to a synodical
decision is permissible, although this is not tolerated with respect
to the confessions” (Acts of Synod 1975, pp. 601-2). As this makes
clear, disagreement with a synodical decision is possible/allowable,
even as that decision remains “settled and binding” on the church. 3
• With that said, and charges of divisiveness notwithstanding, it
should also be acknowledged that in making the decisions it did,
Synod 2022 was attempting to call local churches, officebearers, and
members away from such disagreement and back towards unity on
this doctrinal/moral subject. In this way, Synod 2022 attempted to
use the confessions as what we say they are—“Forms of Unity.” As
the 1975 report says, “The well-being of the church is fostered when
there is substantial unity with respect to all the decisions of synod”
(Acts of Synod 1975, p. 602).
7. In sum: by declaring its interpretation to have “confessional status,”
Synod 2022 blurred lines that are clear in the 1975 report, setting a
poor and potentially confusing precedent for future synodical pro-
nouncements on doctrinal and ethical matters. Altering Synod 2022’s
decision in the way described above brings it in line with the position
of the 1975 report on the relationship between synodical decisions and
the confessions. At the same time, it honors synod’s intent to clarify the
meaning of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 in the strongest way pos-
sible, so as not to allow divergent practice at the local church level by
appeal to the suggestion that previous synodical deliverances were
“pastoral advice” that can be set aside. As such, the purpose of this
overture is to alter Synod 2022’s decision so as to bring it in line with
the conclusions of the 1975 report, while affirming the “settled and
binding” authority and significance of its interpretation of “unchas-
tity” in Q&A 108.
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).

OVERTURE 22
Confessional-Revision Gravamen
The council of Maranatha Christian Reformed Church of Edmonton, Al-

berta, is deeply disappointed with Synod 2022's decision to put more
power into a modern interpretation of a word in the Heidelberg Cate-
chism than in the love and compassion of Jesus Christ. By making this de-
cision, synod has, in effect, put a wall between nonhomosexual members
and homosexual members, saying that they are not welcome. That is the
reality of the outcome of the decision. Whether intended or not, the per-
ception is unmistakable, and the message will be interpreted as closing a
door or building a wall rather than showing welcome and love to all our
congregants.
Furthermore, enacting the very rare synodical decision to “read into” the
catechism this new interpretation of the definition of “unchastity” and,
additionally, declaring that this definition has confessional status is unnec-
essary and provocative. Unnecessary because of the redundant nature of
including "homosexual sex," which is already included in the definition of
extramarital sex within our denomination, and provocative by singling
out homosexuals and adding an emphasis where no emphasis was
needed. This sends a loud message that we do not welcome homosexuals
in our churches.
It puts up a clear wall against our duty to love all people—all sinners.
Synod's decision makes a statement—one that puts aside Jesus' love for an
interpretation of the law. It seems to put us on the side of Pharisees rather
than on the side of Jesus. Our mission is to love. Our mission is to open
doors, not to close them; to learn to recognize the difficulties that our ho-
mosexual members experience rather than throwing the Heidelberg Cate-
chism in their faces and pointing a finger and saying, “You sinners!” Do
we really presume to cast that stone?
Synod's decision also seems hypocritical. If synod was going to begin list-
ing the various sins individually that make up what we understand as
“unchastity,” there are a number of other sexual sins not included in this
list, including divorce. Are we pretending that divorce is not also clearly
stated in the Bible as a sin? We have managed to stop pointing that finger,
and while there are differences, we cannot escape the hypocrisy of ignor-
ing or conveniently skipping over divorce in this decision.
Perception in this case, unfortunately, has almost the same power as the
truth. The truth is that synod gave insufficient thought to God's unfailing
love for all undeserving sinners. They lost sight of our need as a church to
reflect Jesus' love first and foremost, above the need to single out a word
in the Heidelberg Catechism. This synodical decision is causing divisive-
ness and the perception of exclusivity. We at Maranatha want to be a
church that shows Jesus' love to all people—to all sinners. Synod's action
now forces us to be embarrassed and explain what synod's decision means

to members of our congregation and guests, distracting us from our true
mission to reflect God's love to all.
A further consequence of this decision is to put additional barriers to find-
ing members of our congregation willing and/or able to serve as elders
and deacons. We now have the potential of members not being able, in
“good conscience,” to sign the Covenant for Officebearers upon their ordi-
nation.
We have added to the bureaucracy of our church rather than helping to
ease that burden. Synod has created another unnecessary barrier.
We cannot help asking, “Why was this necessary?” Why did synod have
to force an issue that did not need to be forced? They have potentially cre-
ated an irrevocable rift within our denomination, between congregations
and between our congregants. Love is why we are here and what we are
meant to show. Our job as Christians is not to point out the sins of others
but to embrace those sinners and remind them that, even though we are
all sinners, God loves us all unconditionally. While we understand we
must teach God's truth, we do not believe this change was necessary or
improves upon what we already know to be God's Word and the wisdom
of the Heidelberg Catechism. This decision is not the way. We choose to
show Jesus' love instead.
Therefore, the council of Maranatha CRC makes an overture, as a confes-
sional-revision gravamen, that synod reverse its decision to
affirm that “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q. and A. 108 en-
compasses adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, polyamory, por-
nography, and homosexual sex, all of which violate the seventh com-
mandment. In so doing, synod declares this affirmation “an interpreta-
tion of [a] confession” (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603). Therefore, this inter-
pretation has confessional status. (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922)
To be clear, this overture can be satisfied by either removing the phrase
“and homosexual sex” from the above list or changing the interpretation
from “confessional status” to “pastoral advice.”
Grounds:
1. There is no precedent for adding this kind of interpretive list to the
Heidelberg Catechism in its entire 460-year history.
2. The Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of
Human Sexuality was not mandated to revise the Heidelberg Cate-
chism. Therefore, the classes and churches have not been given the op-
portunity to consider the implications of this revision.
3. The list itself is problematic. For example, the terms “adultery, premar-
ital sex, and extramarital sex” are all encompassed with a single term,
“extramarital sex.” If we are going to attempt a list to define “unchas-
tity,” then this list is incomplete. It does not include other sexual sins
(e.g., divorce, incest, bestiality, intimate partner violence) that are also
prohibited in the Bible.

4. The subsequent decision (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 923) to not publish this
list with the catechism is confusing. It appears that synod has made a
momentous and unprecedented decision and does not want to tell any-
one about it.
5. This interpretation assumes the catechism author's intent but does not
support this supposition. It can be equally assumed that the author did
not define “unchastity” because the definition changes over time and
social context. For example, if the author were to visit a modern-day
Christian Reformed church, we could assume he would be aghast at
the revealing nature of clothing worn by men, women, and children at
worship. He would certainly define that as unchaste, given his own so-
cial context, and might consider that to be a greater concern than those
we now list.
6. The act of attempting to define “unchastity” with a list of prohibitions
is a step toward legalism and is not in accord with Jesus' desires for us
to be Spirit led. We are also taught by Paul (especially in Galatians but
also in Romans) that we are to live by the Spirit, not by law, that Jesus
has fulfilled the law on our behalf, and we have been set free.
7. Finally, this decision detracts from our need to spend our energies on
finding ways to love and minister to all sinners (ourselves included),
not on developing and arguing over lists of particular sins that, at the
time, seem to be more important than other sins. Ultimately this is de-
humanizing and negates the glorious salvation of our Lord, demand-
ing compliances that we cannot hope to achieve.
Council of Maranatha CRC, Edmonton, Alberta

David Paszek, clerk
Note: This confessional-revision gravamen was adopted by the council of

Maranatha Christian Reformed Church of Edmonton, Alberta, at a meet-
ing of council held on January 31, 2023. This confessional-revision grava-
men was not adopted by the classis and therefore comes to synod as an ap-
peal of the classis decision, per Church Order Supplement, Article 5, C, 5.
Such gravamina will be processed according to Church Order Supple-
ment, Article 30-a, B-C.

OVERTURE 23
Remove Confessional Status from Interpretation of

“Unchastity”
I. Introduction
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-
We believe the confessional status granted to this interpretation should be
removed because it presents serious theological, pastoral, and Church Or-
der issues, outlined below.
A. Issue 1: Church Order
The decision of Synod 2022 incorrectly bases its “confessional status” deci-
sion on the report "Synodical Decisions and the Confessions” adopted in
1975. This report states that “no synodical decision involving doctrinal or
ethical pronouncements is to be considered on a par with the confessions”
(Acts of Synod 1975, p. 598) and that such pronouncements are “subordi-
nate to the confessions” (p. 603). Regarding interpretations of a confession,
the report states: "When a synodical pronouncement is set forth as an in-
terpretation of the confession, this is its use and function" (p. 603). That is
to say, the “use and function” of an “interpretation of a confession” is just
that: an interpretation which does not itself attain the status of a confes-
sion (as per p. 598). It is instructive to note that the 1975 report distin-
guishes between the status of the confessions, which are “binding upon all
confessing members,” and synodical interpretations, which “all officebear-
ers and members are expected to abide by” (sections B, 1 and B, 2, p. 603).
The spirit and aim of the 1975 report was to create as broad a basis for
Christian unity as possible rather than narrowing the scope of unity, as
the 2022 decision does.
B. Issue 2: Threatens the gospel
Making a specific interpretation of “unchastity” confessional presents the
most serious problem, a challenge to the gospel of grace as articulated in
the Reformed confessions. Synod followed the Human Sexuality Report
(HSR) in shifting the gospel sequence from one of grace to one of duty. In
its discussion of confessional status, the HSR stated, “At the heart of the
gospel is the call to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ” (Agenda for Synod
2022, p. 459). This misses the gospel by a degree, but a dangerous degree.
The heart of the gospel is, first, the declaration of God’s acceptance and
adoption of unworthy sinners through the merits of Christ Jesus, and,

based on this prior gracious 1 acceptance and new identity, follows the im-
perative call to sanctification, a life of repentance and faith (cf. Gal. 2:16;
3:2). Elsewhere the HSR rightly notes the heart of the gospel, that “the
starting point for Christian reflection on sexual morality is our identity in
Christ. . . . First and foremost we are children of God, ‘heirs according to
the promise’ (Gal. 3:29), and we are called to practice our sexuality in ac-
cord with this purpose” (p. 339). The necessary sequence of the gospel is,
first, acceptance by God and adoption in Christ, and then a call to a
changed life; 2 the priority of grace, then a life of gratitude. Reverse this se-
quence, and you have constructed something other than the gospel of Je-
sus Christ.
C. Issue 3: Impedes pastoral care
The HSR contains helpful pastoral guidance for receiving, enfolding, and
caring for LGBTQ+ persons in the church. For example, the report high-
lights the need for “nonjudgmental presence and support” (p. 364), hospi-
tality (“Individuals who identify as transgender or have gender dysphoria
need to be received without judgment as persons made in God’s image,
valuable to God as they are. In other words, they need to be welcomed
with unconditional love”—p. 398), and acceptance (“Accept those who
have already fully transitioned (i.e., have had hormones and surgery) as
they are”—p. 399). In addition, the report calls the church to establish rela-
tionships with believers who hold to different views on same-sex mar-
riage (“Develop relationships with believers attracted to their own sex
who affirm same-sex marriage. . . . Encourage their relationship with Jesus
and affirm them for continuing in their faith”—p. 430). In these statements
the report assumes a spectrum of conviction regarding human sexuality
among confessing believers in the church. It recognizes that the church is a
field filled with both wheat and weeds (Matt. 13:24-30) in our sexual ex-
pressions and convictions—this is the pastoral context of the church. 3
However, the confessional status of the interpretation of “unchastity”
places an impediment to the provision of the important acts of pastoral
care called for in the HSR. In fact, this confessional boundary around
membership in the church prevents pastoral care from functioning in the
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
the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience.”

first place and removes the communal context needed for the develop-
ment of Christian holiness.
D. Issue 4: Unnecessary expansion of the scope of necessary beliefs for member-
ship
Synod’s decision concerning the confessional status of its interpretation of
“unchastity” adds to the scope of necessary beliefs for membership in the
Christian Reformed Church, as stated in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 22:
Q. What then must a Christian believe?
A. All that is promised us in the gospel, a summary of which is taught
us in the articles of our universal and undisputed Christian faith. [i.e.,
Apostles’ Creed]
Synod’s decision creates an additional criterion for confessing members,
thereby adding a barrier to many people’s membership and participation
(cf. John 20:31; Acts 16:30-34). Additionally, it complicates and creates con-
fusion about important parts of the life of the church, including commun-
ion and baptism. May people who disagree with this interpretation still
make profession of faith or be baptized, present children for baptism, or
serve as officebearers? Should the people who have not come to a place of
agreement with the HSR’s perspective and synod’s interpretation be
barred from the Lord’s Supper? Would someone who at one point rejects
this interpretation and leaves the CRC but later recants and accepts this
teaching then need to be rebaptized or make a new profession of faith?
The church is what it is only through a living relationship with the living
Lord. The essence of the church is in the union of the whole church with
Christ, not in the personal character of certain select Christians. The holi-
ness of the church is not derived from the virtue of its individual members
but is derived from the holy nature of its head, Jesus Christ.
E. Issue 5: The list of proscribed sexual practices is selective and pastorally inade-
quate
Synod’s list of sexual practices deemed to be violations of the confessions
“encompasses adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, polyamory, por-
nography, and homosexual sex.” This list targets several specific activities
but does not mention (except by omission) other practices that have his-
torically been regarded as unchaste (e.g., masturbation). Most im-
portantly, this list fails to address the matter of unchastity within the mar-
riage relationship, such as marital rape or the withholding of sexual rela-
tions by a marriage partner. Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 109 wisely al-
lows for broader pastoral application, directing Christians to the heart as
the wellspring of “all unchaste actions, looks, talk, thoughts, or desires”
(see also Matt. 5:27-30).
F. Issue 6: Unity of the church
The unity of the church was a great concern for our Lord Jesus (John 17),
and this decision by synod is unnecessarily divisive, effecting a separation

within the communion of saints that proceeds beyond the unity that “be-
lievers one and all . . . share in Christ and in all his treasures and gifts”
(Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 55). Our Lord cautions against such inclina-
tions to judge and separate, instead leaving any weeding out to God’s fi-
nal judgment (Matt. 13:28-30, 40-43).
II. Overture
Classis Toronto overtures Synod 2023 to remove the confessional status
granted to the interpretation of the word “unchastity” in Heidelberg Cate-
chism Q&A 108.
Grounds:
1. Synod 2022’s decision runs contrary to the Synod 1975 report, which
states that interpretations of confessions do not themselves have con-
fessional status.
2. Synod 2022’s decision threatens the core of the gospel.
3. Synod 2022’s decision is an impediment to pastoral care.
4. Synod 2022’s decision unwisely expands the scope of necessary belief
for full membership in the CRC in a manner that creates barriers and
confusion.
5. Synod 2022’s decision selectively and inadequately addresses issues of
unchastity.
6. Synod 2022’s decision unnecessarily threatens the unity of the
CRCNA.
Classis Toronto
Matilda Berg, stated clerk

OVERTURE 24
Declare that Synod 2022’s Interpretation of Heidelberg

Catechism Q&A 108 Has Synodical Authority but Not
Confessional Status
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.
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

changes. For this reason, Reformed polity has distinguished between the
authority of the confessions and the authority of synods.
Synod 2022, however, did not observe the deeply embedded principle of
distinguishing confessional and synodical authority. Among its decisions
on human sexuality, Synod 2022 declared
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.
“When a synodical pronouncement is set forth as an interpretation of the
confession, this is its use and function” (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603).
If officebearers are to subscribe not only to the confessions as written but
also to synodical interpretations of the confessions, then they cannot be
certain to what they are subscribing. Those who opposed the actions taken
by Synod 2022 on the basis of the Human Sexuality Report (HSR) are
faced with many questions about what their previous subscription to the
confessions now means. Do they need to resubscribe? Is their previous
subscription invalidated by the decisions of Synod 2022?
Synod 2022’s decision also creates an additional criterion for confessing
members. It complicates and creates confusion about important parts of
the life of the church, including communion and baptism. People who dis-
agree with the confessional nature of this interpretation may make profes-
sion of faith or be baptized, present children for baptism, or serve as of-
ficebearers. Should people who have not come to a place of agreement
with the HSR’s perspective and synod’s interpretation be barred from the
Lord’s Supper? Would someone who at one point rejects this interpreta-
tion and leaves the CRC, but later recants and accepts this teaching, be re-
quired to make a new profession of faith?
B. Theological concern
Making a specific interpretation of “unchastity” confessional presents a
serious challenge to the gospel of grace as articulated in the Reformed
confessions. It adds to the scope of necessary beliefs for membership in
the Christian Reformed Church as stated in the Heidelberg Catechism and
the Belgic Confession:
1. Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 22:
Q. What then must a Christian believe?
A. All that is promised us in the gospel, a summary of which is
taught us in the articles of our universal and undisputed Chris-
tian faith. [i.e., Apostles’ Creed]

2. Belgic Confession, Article 21 (1985):
Therefore we rightly say with Paul that we “know nothing but Je-
sus and him crucified”; we consider all things as “dung for the ex-
cellence 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.
The heart of the gospel is, first, the declaration of God’s acceptance and
adoption of unworthy sinners through the merits of Christ Jesus, and,
based on this prior gracious acceptance and new identity, follows the im-
perative call to sanctification, a life of repentance and faith.
C. Pastoral care concern
The HSR contains helpful pastoral guidance for receiving, enfolding, and
caring for LGBTQ+ persons in the church. For example, the report high-
lights the need for “nonjudgmental presence and support” (p. 364), hospi-
tality (“Individuals who identify as transgender or have gender dysphoria
need to be received without judgment as persons made in God’s image,
valuable to God as they are. In other words, they need to be welcomed
with unconditional love”—p. 398), and acceptance (“Accept those who
have already fully transitioned (i.e., have had hormones and surgery) as
they are”—p. 399). In addition, the report calls the church to establish rela-
tionships with believers who hold to different views on same-sex mar-
riage (“Develop relationships with believers attracted to their own sex
who affirm same-sex marriage. . . . Encourage their relationship with Jesus
and affirm them for continuing in their faith”—p. 430). In these state-
ments, the report assumes a spectrum of conviction regarding human sex-
uality among confessing believers in the church. It recognizes that the
church is a field filled with both wheat and weeds (Matt. 13:24-30) in our
sexual expressions and convictions.
However, the confessional status of the interpretation of “unchastity”
places an impediment to the provision of the important acts of pastoral
care called for in the HSR. This confessional boundary around member-
ship in the church prevents pastoral care from functioning in the first
place and removes the communal context needed for the development of
Christian holiness.
With all that in mind, it would seem more than prudent for Synod 2023 to
reconsider the decision of Synod 2022 to declare their interpretation of
Q&A 108 of the Heidelberg Catechism to be confessional. We would hope
that Synod 2023 would reinstate the principle of Synod 1975 that synodi-
cal pronouncements, even when they are interpretations of a confession,
do not themselves have confessional status.
Classis Rocky Mountain

Kelly Vander Woude, stated clerk

OVERTURE 25
Alter the Action of Synod 2022 regarding Confessional Status

of Interpretation of “Unchastity”
I. Goal of this overture
The goal of this overture is to ask Synod 2023 to alter the “confessional
status” action of Synod 2022 (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922) and thereby for-
bear all action for a period of three years to allow churches time to reflect,
discuss, and discern. This overture, if passed, does not rescind synod’s de-
cision of 2022 but does give more time for the churches to discern and ad-
dress all of the issues.
II. Background: Understanding the context of the past fifty years
Synod 1973 provided a seminal assessment on same-sex relations in differ-
entiating between the condition of homosexuality and acting upon the ori-
entation, which was labeled homosexualism.
Key to understanding the 1973 action is that it was provided as pastoral ad-
vice. Furthermore, synod adopted further pastoral recommendations stem-
ming from a report from the Committee to Give Direction about and for
Pastoral Care for Homosexual Members. Again, the intention of synod is
clear by means of the wording of the particular decision:
That synod recommend this report (as amended) with its appendices
to the churches for their use in ministering to persons who experience
sexual attraction to others of the same gender.
While the adopted report is lengthy, a key paragraph is this:
We have different views on the subject of homosexuality. Emotionally
charged issues tend to bring quick reactions, personal attacks, threats
to secede, and so forth. But Scripture says, “You must understand this,
my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to an-
ger; for your anger does not produce God’s righteousness” (James
1:19-20). As Christians we must learn to exercise justice and grace
when we disagree. (Agenda for Synod 2002, p. 337)
One of the most significant changes in Canada and the United States in the
past 50 years is the legalization of same-sex marriage. While many have
sensed that this change in context has something to do with how the
church should respond, Lewis Smedes’s analogy is helpful:
Harsh as it seemed, the church believed that its exclusion of such [di-
vorced] people was nothing else but obedience to the clear teaching of
the Bible. The Bible said that adulterers cannot be members of the
Kingdom of God. Jesus said that divorced and remarried people are
adulterers. And so any Bible believing church had to exclude the re-
married from the Kingdom of God and the Body of Christ.

Finally, in the middle 1950s, the church did reverse its policy of exclu-
sion and began embracing divorced and remarried couples into its
family circle. The grace of Jesus Christ, it decided, could bless and sup-
port remarried people in their second marriage. The result is that to-
day, rather than requiring them to break up their second marriages
and families, it devotes itself to helping them keep those marriages
alive and well.
[There were] three shifts in the church’s consciousness that were going
on behind the scenes and preparing the way for their embrace by the
church. Let me recall them. For one thing, the church became sensitive
to the growing number of divorces and remarriages among their own
sons and daughters. For another, the church began to see and feel the
sacrament more as medicine for our spiritual illness than as a symp-
tom of our spiritual health. And, thirdly, it became more aware that it
could not tell how the Lord’s Word about marriage should be applied
to real people unless they also had eyes for the real people it affected. It
seems to me that our attitudes toward Christian homosexual partners
are being modulated these days in exactly the same way.
—Lewis B. Smedes, “Like the Wideness of the Sea?”
Reformed Journal (Oct. 1, 2014)
A quickly moving river is more difficult to navigate than settled waters.
Smedes’s reflections about the Christian Reformed Church’s ultimate deci-
sions about divorce and remarriage are readily understood in hindsight,
but in the middle of the discussion those who were there would tell us it
was a time of great dissension and debate.
We have lived these past 50 years with pastoral advice to minister to those
with same-sex attractions. And now, possibly for the first time, synod has
given confessional status to its interpretation of a confession.
This is a dramatic change—a change that has left some but not all congre-
gations confused. Yet all congregations seek to minister in the swirling
waters of this world, a task that requires not only conviction but grace,
time for reflection, and honest discussions. In addition, Synod 2022 gave
its decision “immediate effect.”
III. Overture
The council of Monroe Community Church hereby overtures Synod 2023
of the CRCNA to take the following three actions:
A. Declare that for a period of three years, concluding with Synod 2026
(see Rules of Synodical Procedure, p. 22), the action of Synod 2022 with
regard to the confessional status given to the interpretation of “unchas-
tity” (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922), be altered by forbearing its implemen-
tation during these three years. In addition, Synod 2023 hereby urges
Synod 2024 and Synod 2025 to refuse to accept overtures regarding
this issue and asks those synods to encourage that all such overtures
go to Synod 2026.

B. Declare that during these three years, the church shall refrain from
judgmental communications and actions toward each other—congre-
gation to congregation and classis to classis—but instead shall encour-
age discussion between churches and classes as facilitated by the gen-
eral secretary of the CRCNA.
C. Ask that during these three years all churches study this matter and
discern with the Holy Spirit how they can minister most effectively to
persons with same-sex attraction.
Grounds:
1. A specific action that changes fifty years of synodical pastoral advice
needs time to be reflected upon and understood, as these fifty years
have evidenced a variety of approaches to pastoral care. Such a
weighty issue as this should require more time for its churches to re-
flect on how synod’s declaration will affect pastoral care for its mem-
bers.
2. A change in creeds, Church Order, or even adopted liturgical forms in
the CRCNA requires an affirmative vote of one synod to propose fol-
lowed by an affirmative vote at the following synod to adopt (Church
Order Supplement, Art. 47). This is surely because of the gravity of the
decisions. How much more impactful is it when Synod 2022 declares
this affirmation “’an interpretation of [a] confession’ (Acts of Synod
1975, p. 603). Therefore, this interpretation has confessional status”
(Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922). Synod 2022 then gave this decision imme-
diate effect. Logic, however, would require such a decision to be
treated with at least as much gravitas as a change in creeds, Church
Order, or even adopted liturgical forms, requiring an affirmative vote
by the following synod, which, in turn, would give the churches
twelve months’ time for discernment. In addition, it is possible that
Synod 2022 erred in following proper procedures by declaring imme-
diate effect to its own decision.
3. As the 2002 approved report suggests, “We have different views on the
subject of homosexuality. Emotionally charged issues tend to bring
quick reactions, personal attacks, threats to secede, and so forth. But
Scripture says, ‘You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be
quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; for your anger does not
produce God’s righteousness’ (James 1:19-20).” A three-year forbear-
ance will show that members of the CRCNA can live out Scripture’s
guidance to listen, be slow to speak, and be slow to anger as we dis-
cern God’s guidance for the future.
4. The original mandate given by Synod 2016 to the Committee to Articu-
late a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality states,
The study will include the following three components:
1) Discussion . . .
2) Dialogue . . .

3) Reflection and evaluation of whether or not, with respect to
same-sex behavior and other issues identified in the study, it
will be advisable for future synods to consider
• changing the main text of Church Order Article 69 (see
Overtures 18, 19, 20, 21, 31, 38).
• declaring a status confessionis (see Overture 16). . . .
The original mandate from Synod 2016 contemplated a time sequence
of a report back to synod and then further discussion and discernment
by the churches and later synods. Synod 2022 did not follow this ex-
pectation but received the report and acted immediately to declare a
status confessionis. The churches must, therefore, be given more time
now to discern and address all of the issues.
Council of Monroe Community Church

Jess Brummel, clerk
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Grand
Rapids South but was not adopted.

OVERTURE 26

Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108
I. Introduction
This overture presents grounds for vacating an action made by Synod
2022 of the Christian Reformed Church in North America regarding Hei-
delberg Catechism Question and Answer 108. The action of synod offi-
cially added a definition of the term “unchastity.” In effect, this grants
confessional status to the definition, which then can be used as grounds
for ecclesiastical discipline.
This overture was taken up by the council of Fourteenth Street CRC at its
December 2022 meeting. After it was discussed, a ballot was taken result-
ing in a decision not to adopt the overture and hence not to forward it to
Classis Holland. The motion to support the overture lost by only two
votes. Throughout the process of writing the overture and preparing it for
presentation to the council, promoters of the overture were in communica-
tion with the council and pastor, as well as with interested members of
Fourteenth Street Church.
The overture was considered at the December 2022 Classis Holland meet-
ing but was not adopted. Hence classis did not forward it to synod. There-
fore, we, the undersigned, request that the overture be considered at
Synod 2023 and be adopted.
II. Overture
We respectfully request that Synod 2023 reverse Synod 2022’s declaration
that the meaning of “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 en-
compasses “adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, polyamory, por-
nography, and homosexual sex” and that this is now the official
interpretation of this confession which, therefore, has confessional status
pursuant to the Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603: “When a synodical pronounce-
ment is set forth as an interpretation of the confession, this is its use and
function.”
Grounds:
1. Imparting confessional status on synod’s interpretation of “unchastity”
is a significant use of synod’s authority that should be used sparingly.
Synod’s declaration of confessional status is neither necessary nor cru-
cial, given that synodical reports and decisions are already binding.
There are better ways to emphasize the binding effect of the Human
Sexuality Report (HSR) without making synod’s interpretation of “un-
chastity” confessional.
2. Giving confessional status to synod’s definition of “unchastity” seems
to concede that its synodical reports and decisions are not binding un-
less coupled with an interpretation of a confession or creed.

3. Synod’s list of six unchaste behaviors is neither an interpretation nor a
definition. Synod’s short list of examples does not provide helpful
guidance for recognizing and avoiding other forms of unchastity with-
out returning to synod for further instruction on unlisted behaviors.
4. Synod 2022 mischaracterized Synod 1975’s pronouncement on the rela-
tionship between synodical pronouncements and confessions, which
Synod 2022 cites as authority for declaring its interpretation of the Hei-
delberg Catechism to have “confessional status.” Synod 1975 clearly
and repeatedly says synodical pronouncements are subordinate to the
confessions. After quoting Synod 1881’s interpretation of the Heidel-
berg Catechism, the report on “Synodical Decisions and the Confes-
sions” to Synod 1975 stated, “It is obvious that these particular synodi-
cal pronouncements of a doctrinal and ethical nature serve a unique
function. However, this use does not elevate them to the status of the confes-
sions” (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 598, emphasis added). Synod 2022’s decla-
ration of “confessional status” is contrary to the settled and binding
authority of Synod 1975’s ruling that “No synodical decision involving
doctrinal or ethical pronouncements is to be considered on a par with
the confessions” (Ibid.). While synod has authority to change confes-
sions, as Synod 1985 and Synod 1958 did with the Belgic Confession,
Synod 2022 rejected a proposal to amend Q&A 108 by adding its inter-
pretation as a footnote.
5. Synod’s declaration that its interpretation of “unchastity” has confes-
sional status is ill-timed, unwise, and divisive, and the value of its in-
terpretation is substantially outweighed by the discord and division it
has caused, evidence of which is shown by the many concerns, com-
plaints, and criticisms being expressed, which include the following:
a. That by declaring its interpretation of “unchastity” to be confes-
sional, synod has thwarted a full and frank discussion by its mem-
bership, since anyone voicing opposition to this decision now is ex-
posed to church discipline.
b. That this decision will make it increasingly difficult to fill church
council seats because thoughtful and conscientious people will de-
cline nominations to serve as officebearers rather than pursue the
process of submitting a confessional-difficulty gravamen, which
does not promise to resolve ambiguities about their role and place
in the CRC denomination.
c. That synod’s action breaks with a long tradition of not identifying
specific sins as confessional and seems to single out certain sins for
harsher discipline.
d. That synod either gave insufficient consideration and/or weight to
the division its decision would cause or it intended such division as
a means of encouraging nonconforming churches and members to
leave the CRC.

e. That synod’s action signals to dissenting members that if they do not
leave the CRC voluntarily, they could be stigmatized and purged from
the denomination.
f. That synod’s interpretation of “unchastity” now begs for an interpreta-
tion of “polyamory,” “sex,” “marriage,” “adultery,” “pornography,”
etc., and raises the question “Is synod’s interpretation of its interpreta-
tion of a confession likewise to be treated as having confessional sta-
tus?”
III. Scope and limitations
A. This overture does not question synod’s authority to define “unchas-
tity” as it did in approving the HSR, but it questions the wisdom and
necessity of declaring its definition to have confessional status.
B. This overture does not diminish in any way the authority of synodical
reports, such as the HSR, which remain binding and to which teaching
and ministering within the CRC must conform.
C. Voting to adopt this overture does not necessarily mean that a synodi-
cal delegate believes any of the following:
1. That synod should not have adopted the HSR.
2. That synod does not have authority to impart confessional status
on its interpretation of “unchastity” as used in Q&A 108 of the Hei-
delberg Catechism.
3. That the delegate agrees with all the grounds stated above.
4. That the delegate agrees with any of the subpoints of Ground 5.
D. If a synodical delegate votes to adopt this overture, the reason(s) for
doing so may or may not agree with the reason(s) of other delegates
who vote to adopt it. A unified body of believers can agree on a deci-
sion even though the individual believers may arrive at that decision
for different reasons.
Members of Fourteenth Street CRC,

Holland, Michigan
Benjamin Algera Jeffrey DeVries

Emily Algera Kristen Sytsema DeVries
Barry Bandstra Philip DeVries
Debra J. Bandstra Katherine Dickey
Jack Berghoef Mary Dood
Nancy Berghoef Andrew E. Fisher
Roger Brummel Lynnae K. Fisher
Elizabeth Cook David Genzink
Daniel Day Deborah Genzink
Lois Day Giny Hoekman
Ben DeVries Mark Hoekman

Greg Hofman Maria Rooks
Jonathan M. Hofman Rebecca Rozema
Judith Hofman Melanie Scholten
Julie Hofman Benjamin Shank
Marvin J. Hofman Suzette Stall
Mary Hofman Barbara Steen
Mary Jellema Norman Steen
Brenda Brummel Katerberg Raymond Swierenga
Paul Katerberg Meredith VanderHill
Laura Keeley Micah S. VanderHill
Robert J. Keeley A.C. VanderKolk
Mary Koster Gary Vander Veen
Steve Koster Benjamin VanderWoude
Jacob Nyenhuis Kathyrn VanderWoude
Leona M. Nyenhuis Kellye VanderWoude
Amy Peterson Meika Weiss
Clinton Peterson Michael Weiss
Kris Pikaart Bethany Wolter
Jason Roelofs Ryan Wolter
Martha Roelofs Christina Wood
Douglas Rooks Tim Wood

OVERTURE 27
Allow Classes of the CRCNA to Declare Article 65, Item 2 of

the Acts of Synod 2022 Inoperative
I. Introduction
For nearly fifty years, congregations in the Christian Reformed Church
have struggled to create safe and welcoming spaces for those who identify
as LGBTQ+. The synodical Human Sexuality Report (HSR) counters those
efforts as follows:
• While seeking to be inclusive and empathetic, Synod 2022’s endorse-
ment of the HSR (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 919) and adoption of Recom-
mendation D of the report to declare confessional status (Acts of Synod
2022, p. 922) results in the opposite.
• The binding nature of the report hinders efforts of local congregations.
• The report places heavy burdens on officebearers. This overture seeks
to address these three concerns.
II. Background
In 1973 the Acts of Synod stated (using the language of that time), “The ho-
mosexual may not, on the sole ground of his sexual disorder, be denied
community acceptance, and if he is a Christian he is to be wholeheartedly
received by the church as a person for whom Christ died” (Acts of Synod
1973, p. 632).
Synod 1999 reiterated this pledge when it called “the churches to repent-
ance for their failures to minister to those who experience same sex attrac-
tions” (Acts of Synod 1999, p. 603).
The Human Sexuality Report expands on this commitment by acknowl-
edging that
the church’s response to homosexuality must begin with confession
and lament. Despite repeated and strong exhortations of past study
committee reports to love and care for brothers and sisters who are at-
tracted to the same sex as equal members of the body of Christ, the
church has all-too-often ostracized, shunned, or ignored such Jesus-fol-
lowers. Congregations need to honestly examine their attitudes and
actions toward people who are attracted to the same sex and need to
repent when such attitudes and actions are sinful: treating homosexu-
als as if they are worse sinners than those who are caught up in por-
nography, premarital, or extramarital sex; overlooking them for posi-
tions of leadership, including those of pastor, elder, and deacon in-
stead of considering whether they are, like all officebearers need to be,
living holy and godly lives; keeping them physically and emotionally
at a distance because they make some feel uncomfortable; failing to
stand in solidarity with them as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

A. While Synod 2022 acknowledges this deficit, it fails to realize that its
decision to clarify the word “unchastity” (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922) to
include “homosexual sex” will continue to make members of the
LGBTQ+ community feel less than welcome. Further, elevating an in-
terpretation of a confession regarding what constitutes “unchastity” to
confessional status itself is not only contentious but becomes even
more unwelcoming to members of this community.
B. The report places a heavy burden on local congregations to accept
synod’s decision to include “homosexual sex” in the Heidelberg Cate-
chism Q&A 108 understanding of “unchastity” (Acts of Synod 2022,
p. 922). Though some congregations are united in their agreement with
the decision, many others are divided in their biblical understanding of
God’s design for human sexuality. This has resulted in high levels of
fear, anxiety, confusion, suspicion, and division throughout the de-
nomination. It has also kept the local church from being a welcoming
place for the LGBTQ+ community.
C. The primary burden of Synod 2022’s decision has fallen on officebear-
ers who serve on the front lines of local church ministries. Like the con-
gregations they serve, officebearers are also divided on the issue of hu-
man sexuality, particularly regarding “homosexual sex.” Some are
contemplating stepping down because of their disagreement with the
synodical report. Others have written gravamina to their local councils
to acknowledge their struggle to accept the decision of Synod 2022.
Still others are seeking to bring their congregations into alignment
with this decision. As such, this decision of synod has not only created
division and discord within the denomination but has also made it dif-
ficult for officebearers in local congregations to welcome members of
the LGBTQ+ community.
III. Overture
Classis Eastern Canada, in the interest of denominational healing and
unity, and for the sake of welcoming members of the LGBTQ+ community
into our congregations, overtures Synod 2023 to declare that a classis of
the CRCNA, in response to local needs and circumstances, may declare
that Article 65, item 2 of the Acts of Synod 2022 (p. 922) be considered inop-
erative, thereby allowing officebearers from local congregations who disa-
gree with the decision to continue serving and ministering within their lo-
cal contexts without being subject to discipline.
Grounds:
1. The decision of Synod 2022 harms the unity of local congregations,
classes, and the denomination. Requiring officebearers to accept Synod
2022’s decision will cause deepening rifts within congregations and the
denomination. Looking back, Synod 1995, in addressing the division
surrounding women in ecclesiastical office, allowed each classis
unique authority for a time to deal with matters of ordination of wom-
en largely as an act of maintaining unity (Acts of Synod 1995, p. 727).

Granting classical authority in this matter helped to guard against con-
gregationalism while allowing individual congregations to consider
what was best for local realities where theological differences exist.
2. The decision of Synod 2022 mistakenly declares an interpretation of a
confession to be confessional in nature. The study report on Synodical
Decisions and the Confessions, approved by Synod 1975, stated, “No
synodical decision involving doctrinal or ethical pronouncements is to
be considered on a par with the confessions” (Acts of Synod 1975,
p. 598). This same report goes on to recommend that “when a synodi-
cal decision involves pronouncements that are related to the confes-
sions or go beyond the confessions, the use and function of such deci-
sions is to further express the faith of the church without such state-
ments thereby becoming additions to the confessions” (Acts of Synod
1975, pp. 603-604). Synod 2022’s decision sets a troubling precedent by
sidestepping the 1975 decision of synod and requiring all officebearers
in the Christian Reformed Church to agree with what is recognizably
an interpretation of a confession.
3. The decision of Synod 2022 to clarify the meaning of the word “un-
chastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 makes CRC congregations
inhospitable places for members of the LGBTQ+ community. God calls
all people to live in holiness as sexual beings. But Synod 2022 unfairly
targets the LGBTQ+ community by declaring “homosexual sex” a sin
even within a committed and loving relationship. This clarification re-
inforces the message that our faith communities are not welcoming
places for those from the LGBTQ+ community. It harms the witness of
the gospel message of grace and hinders officebearers from ministering
in a way that is welcoming to all people.
Classis Eastern Canada

B. Bernard Bakker, stated clerk

OVERTURE 28
Reverse Decision re Definition of “Unchastity”

I. Background
It is the practice of the CRCNA, when significant changes are made to
Church Order or our confessions, to ratify these changes at a subsequent
synod (Church Order Supplement, Article 47). It has been argued that the
imposition of a definition of the word “unchastity” in Q&A 108 of the Hei-
delberg Catechism was merely a clarification and not a change, and there-
fore did not need the ratification of a subsequent synod. By taking this
stance, the committee and Synod 2022 failed to adhere to the polity that
we have upheld together, imposing a perspective rather than seeking
God’s will through a patient process. Questions being raised include the
following: Is the definition of “unchastity” the right one? What about di-
vorce and remarriage, the transgender question, abuse within marriage?
What is the effect on the rest of the catechism’s teaching in raising one
word in importance over another by giving it a specific definition? A year
of study and deliberation would have been fruitful and in order and may
have served to bring a conclusion that would have had a more unifying
influence on our denomination.
II. Overture
The council of Bethany CRC in Bloomfield, Ontario, overtures Synod 2023
to reverse the decision of Synod 2022 that imposed a definition of the
word “unchastity” as found in Q&A 108 of the Heidelberg Catechism
(Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922) without the usual ratification of such a change
at the subsequent synod.
Grounds:
1. While recommendation D of the Human Sexuality Report (HSR) stated
that “the church’s teaching on premarital sex, extramarital sex, adul-
tery, polyamory, pornography, and homosexual sex already has con-
fessional status” (HSR, p. 461), it did not impose any definition of that
confession but instead pointed to “the biblical portion of [the] report”
(HSR, p. 459) as the teaching of the church and the basis of confession.
2. The wording of the definition of “unchastity” as found in Q&A 108 of
the Heidelberg Catechism came out of the work of the advisory com-
mittee (Advisory Committee 8, Recommendation 2), was never pre-
sented to the churches, and was a significant narrowing of the work of
the HSR committee and a deviation from its overall report. As such,
the churches were not able to consider and debate this particular rec-
ommendation prior to the meeting of Synod 2022.
3. A large number of classes and churches submitted overtures to Synod
2022 asking that Recommendation D of the HSR not be adopted.
Synod instead imposed an even more specific confessional statement
than had been made by the committee in its report.

4. The imposition of this narrow, binding interpretation of the confession
stifles conversation and debate, preventing congregations and office-
bearers from actively participating in the process of discovering the ap-
plication of God’s Word to the world in which we live together as a de-
nomination.
5. The impact of Synod 2022’s decisions regarding the definition of “un-
chastity” has had distressing consequences. Valued members have re-
signed their membership from congregations. People have refused to
serve as officebearers, to make public profession of faith, or to have
children baptized, as it requires public assent to a teaching that these
members do not believe has an adequate biblical basis. Congregations
are considering withdrawing from the denominational fellowship.
Council of Bethany CRC,

Bloomfield, Ontario
Joanne Adema, clerk
Note: This overture was submitted to Classis Quinte at its January 21, 2023,
meeting but was not adopted.

OVERTURE 29
Declare that Synod 2022's Interpretation of “Unchastity” in

Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 Does Not Have Confessional
Status
I. Background
Synod 2022 decided that “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108
mandment.” It described this decision as “‘an interpretation of [a] confes-
sion’ (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603)” and declared, “Therefore, this interpreta-
tion has confessional status” (Acts of Synod 2022, pp. 922).
Although Synod 2022 aimed for clarity, its action has generated disagree-
ment but also significant confusion among the congregations in the
CRCNA related to an interpretation of a confession with the same status
as a confession itself. Our classis includes congregations and individuals
who hold the traditional view of marriage, those who accept/affirm same-
sex marriage, and those with a range of pastoral approaches to same-sex
attracted individuals in the church.
Our classis and congregations have been working together in faith and
hope, engaging in open and honest discussion, and making “every effort
to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3) in the
face of a contemporary moral question. By declaring the one view to be
confessional, Synod 2022 has impaired this work, generated disagreement
and confusion, made pastoral care difficult, and conveyed to many people
that they are not welcome in the body of Christ. Many in our classis who
hold the traditional view of marriage nevertheless do not believe this view
should be held with confessional status. For the reasons stated below, we
are concerned about the confusion this has created in Christian Reformed
congregations among people with varying viewpoints.
II. Overture
Therefore, Classis Grand Rapids East overtures Synod 2023 to declare that
Synod 2022's interpretation of “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A
108 does not have confessional status but that instead this can function as
a reasonable interpretation of “unchastity” to provide guidance for the
church in dealing with these matters.
Grounds:
1. Making synod's interpretation of a confession itself on the same level
of the confessions has generated many questions churches are unable
to answer regarding present and future officebearers:
• Does this confessional interpretation, and any given person's un-
derstanding of its meaning, become a determining factor in who
may be nominated for elder or deacon?

• Do candidates for the ministry have to be asked about this specifi-
cally by synodical deputies, or is a person's overall adherence to the
confessions sufficient?
2. Similarly this has led to confusion regarding current and future mem-
bers of the church, including young people and people who may come
into the church through evangelism:
• Is this a determining factor in accepting a young person’s (or any-
one’s) profession of faith or in the baptism and profession of faith
of those received through evangelism?
• Can pastors serve communion to members who differ about this or
baptize the child of parents who may have a spectrum of views on
this one particular topic?
Removing the confessional status adopted by Synod 2022 and keeping
this interpretation in a different category would clear up this confusion
and allow the insight and wisdom of local pastors and consistories to
make determinations regarding specific individuals.
3. The Forms of Unity and the historical doctrinal standards in the
CRCNA communion have traditionally included three ecumenical
creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian) and three Reformed confes-
sions (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort).
Across these three creeds and three confessions is a rich array of ecu-
menical and Reformed orthodox theology from which the church
teaches and preaches and to which members and officebearers give
their assent. The aim of these creeds and confessions is to unite the
church around a common theology. But the confusion surrounding the
interpretation of the single word “unchastity” in just one of these doc-
uments has seemed to make that one word, its interpretation, and its
application stand alone as the primary mark of confessional orthodoxy
in all matters regardless of one’s commitment to everything else in the
creeds and confessions. Such confusion could be cleared up by desig-
nating this as a reasonable interpretation to be used as guidance for the
churches.
4. The Human Sexuality Report (HSR) had been before the churches in
the CRCNA for a longer-than-usual period of time due to the interrup-
tions of the global pandemic. Thus when Synod 2022 recommended
the report as a useful summary of biblical teaching, this action was
within the bounds of good procedure since the churches had had time
for prior consideration. However, this does not apply to the new action
of Synod 2022. When the advisory committee and then Synod 2022
adopted a recommendation to declare an interpretation of the word
“unchastity” to itself be confessional, this specific matter had not been
before the churches for prior consideration. In its grounds for this deci-
sion Synod 2022 claimed this was similar to the “intent” of the HSR,
but it was not the same as the report’s conclusion. Additionally it was
noted in another ground that what was in the HSR had already created
confusion, as evidenced by multiple overtures that pointed this out.

But the new decision undertaken by the advisory committee and then
Synod 2022—in addition to not having been before the churches ahead
of time—has resulted in further confusion, which this overture seeks to
address.
5. Synod 2022 acted on the matter of this interpretation despite the man-
date to the study committee from Synod 2016 that, because of the
weightiness of this particular issue, the study committee should make
recommendations on confessional status “for future synods to con-
sider” (Acts of Synod 2016, pp. 919-20, emphasis added). By making a
motion and passing it all in a single synod, the Synod of 2022 created
uncertainty and confusion in the denomination that the original man-
date to the study committee desired to avoid. Time was needed subse-
quent to the synod that received the study committee report for the
church to weigh and discuss this matter before a synod acted on ques-
tions about confessional status. Synod 2023 can give the church that
time and clear up the confusion by putting the interpretation of “un-
chastity” into a different category.
6. Synod 2023 can declare that a decision of a previous synod does not
stand. When the Rules for Synodical Procedure discusses “rescinding”
a decision, it applies to decisions taken by the synod in session. How-
ever, “a succeeding synod may alter the stand of a previous synod; it
may reach a conclusion which is at variance with a conclusion reached
by an earlier synod. In such cases the most recent decision invalidates
all previous decisions in conflict with it” (Rules for Synodical Proce-
dure, VIII, I, 2). This action by Synod 2023 would address the confu-
sion that has been expressed by many since Synod 2022.
Classis Grand Rapids East

Robert A. Arbogast, stated clerk

OVERTURE 30
Reverse the Interpretation That “Unchastity” in the

Heidelberg Catechism Has Confessional Status
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,

and placed before the churches and synodical delegates would have sup-
ported the requirement of due consideration.
Such a process, at minimum, champions for all voices in the church. We
think such a process would contribute to unity and understanding.
III. Conclusion
We cannot change the past. The work of the HSR committee, as consti-
tuted, is complete. The HSR has been published. However, we contend
that the process leading to a determination of confessional status lacked
the necessary rigor required for “due consideration.”
IV. Overture
Classis Lake Erie overtures synod to reverse the interpretation of “unchas-
tity” in the Heidelberg Catechism as having confessional status. The Hu-
man Sexuality Report would remain as pastoral advice, as was the original
report in 1973.
Grounds:
1. Church Order Article 29 provides, in part: “Decisions of ecclesiastical
assemblies shall be reached only upon due consideration.”
2. “Due consideration” includes the ability to reflect on the work of advo-
cates committed to the positions under consideration.
3. The limitation of the HSR study committee’s composition mandated
by Synod 2016 precludes “due consideration” and is therefore an inad-
equate basis for Synod 2022’s decision regarding confessional status.
Classis Lake Erie

Benjamin W. Van Arragon, stated clerk
OVERTURE 31
Do Not Implement the Interpretation of “Unchastity” before

2027
I. Preamble
Synod 2022 recommended to the churches the Human Sexuality Report
(HSR), including its findings that homosexual sex is always and under all
circumstances sexual immorality, unchastity, and sin. But synod did more
than that. It went one step further by interpreting Heidelberg Catechism
Q&A 108 to mean that homosexual sexual relations are included in the
definition of “unchastity.” This makes the HSR’s (and synod’s) interpreta-
tion of the Bible and confessions regarding homosexuality binding on all

CRC members. A significant segment of the membership understands the
Bible’s teachings on homosexuality differently from that of the HSR and
synod. What happens to them? What is the status of their membership?
Are they welcome at the Lord’s table? Are they to be disciplined? If their
membership status is to be diminished, what shape will that take and be
effective when?
Decisions were made at Synod 2022, the implications of which are not im-
mediately obvious and understood. If those decisions are to stand, the
practical implications need to be worked out going forward. The denomi-
nation and its membership need time to do that responsibly.
II. Overture
Nick Loenen overtures Synod 2023 not to implement or make effective Ar-
ticle 65, pt. 2, of the Acts of Synod 2022 (p. 922), regarding the interpreta-
tion of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108, before Synod 2027, or for a longer
period if deemed necessary.
Grounds:
1. While the CRC has a long history of believing that the church should
not bind the consciences of believers more than Scripture does, Synod
2022 in its decisions did not address the matter of binding consciences.
2. The denomination, its classes, and local church councils need time to
understand and work out the practical implications of binding the con-
sciences of all its members on whether homosexual sex is always and
under all circumstances sexual immorality, unchastity, and sin.
3. As it stands, Synod 2022’s decision may invoke church discipline
against a significant segment of the membership, pursuant to Article
81 of the Church Order.
4. It is not prudent to make major decisions affecting a significant seg-
ment of the membership before understanding the practical implica-
tions.
5. Settling the practical implications before implementation will avoid
unnecessary speculation, suspicions, and mistrust.
Nick Loenen, member of Ladner CRC,

Delta, British Columbia
Note: This overture was presented to the council of Ladner CRC and to
Classis B.C. South-East but was not adopted.

OVERTURE 32
Declare that Synod 2022's Definition of “Unchastity” as

Having Confessional Status Was a Change to the Confessions
I. Preamble
Synod 2022 declared the following (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922):
. . . "unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q. and A. 108 encompasses
In so doing, synod declares this affirmation "an interpretation of [a]
confession" (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603). Therefore, this interpretation
has confessional status.
This decision to raise to confessional status an interpretation of the word
"unchastity" in Q&A 108 has raised questions about procedure as to
whether such a declaration can be made by a single synod or whether it
constitutes a change to the confessions. It has also led to confusion and
disagreement in many churches with uncertainty about the scope of syn-
od's decision: Can members who disagree with this interpretation make
public profession of faith, remain members, present their children for bap-
tism, serve as officebearers, or sign the Covenant for Officebearers? We
also note that this is following on the heels of a pandemic and its subse-
quent continuing effects. This has placed considerable strain on church
councils and congregations who are finding themselves working through
the implications of the Synod 2022 decision before they have restored
community post-COVID.
We believe, for both pastoral and process reasons, that Synod 2022 acted
too hastily and should have given the churches, agencies, and institutions
of our denomination time and opportunity to reflect on, and speak into,
such a decision before the decision was made. This would include ad-
dressing how the church should pastorally address the different beliefs
members have on this issue. Regardless of our views on matters of human
sexuality, recognizing that the church may not be able to resolve these dif-
ferences, we believe the process regarding confessional “change” and al-
lowing the churches to consider and speak to such changes is very im-
portant. The issue of how we live together with those differences is the im-
mediate concern we need to address to pursue unity in the faith and in the
church.
We believe that Synod 2023 would help the church in this by withholding
implementation of the 2022 change to the confessions to pursue a more
holistic, pastoral, and proper process. This does not address the position
the CRC has had, but asks specifically to withhold implementation of the
function of such a position by not declaring it to have confessional status
at this time.

II. Overture
Classis Alberta North overtures synod to take the following actions:
A. That Synod 2023 declare that Synod 2022's definition of unchastity in
Q&A 108 of the Heidelberg Catechism as having confessional status
was a change to the confessions, and that Synod 2023 withhold implemen-
tation of that decision of Synod 2022 to allow time for proper process
to be followed.
Grounds:
1. Q&A 108 prior to Synod 2022 did not define the word "unchastity."
2. By its declaration Synod 2022 elevated an interpretation of that word to
the level of the confessions. With many others, we see this as being in
conflict with the report that Synod 1975 adopted, titled "Synodical De-
cisions and the Confessions," which states that "no synodical decision
involving doctrinal or ethical pronouncements to be considered on a
par with the confessions" (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 598).
3. This introduced a specific change to the confessions during the ses-
sions of Synod 2022 that did not receive prior discussion and delib-
eration by the church and classes.
4. Insufficient rationale was given to explain the significant change in
function from pastoral advice (1973) to confessional status (2022).
5. The churches did not receive sufficient time to consider and properly
weigh the implications and effects of this declaration upon the
churches, its officebearers, and its members.
B. That synod review the implications of such a confessional assertion,
and of how such a definition attached to or included in the confessions
functions, before implementing such a declaration.
Ground: The confusion, lack of direction, and conflict within our
churches, agencies, and institutions in seeking to work out the implica-
tions of the Synod 2022 declaration demonstrate that much more delib-
eration and planning are required before a declaration of this kind is
made.
C. That synod, pending the above, submit any clarification of “unchas-
tity” and the interpretation of Q&A 108 of the Heidelberg Catechism
with appropriate rationale to the churches for consideration, with de-
liberation and a subsequent vote at a future synod.
Grounds:
1. Such changes will have momentous impact on our congregations,
assemblies, agencies, and institutions, so all due diligence must be
done to ensure that these changes are worthy and that any negative
results will be sufficiently mitigated.

2. This will allow a period of dialogue as a denomination, before the
potential of schism, to discern if there is a way to “be one” (John
17:20-21) in spite of differences—and, if not, what might be the
most God-honoring way forward.
Classis Alberta North

Gary Duthler, stated clerk
OVERTURE 33
Revise Definition of Homosexuality

I. Introduction
The historic Christian church since its inception has committed itself to
theological precision not only in its understanding of biblical truths but in
the precise language it has used to communicate these truths. In this vein,
it is necessary for the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) to scrutinize its
past definitions and positions on homosexuality, especially in light of its
current efforts to examine human sexuality from a biblical perspective.
The biblical, historical, and confessional grounds provide the basis for
these proposed changes, and the practical theological considerations
demonstrate the unity and love within the body that these changes actu-
ally promote.
In light of the decision of Synod 2022 to affirm that “unchastity” in Hei-
delberg Catechism Q. and A. 108 encompasses, among other things, por-
nography, we must reconsider our stance that homosexuality is not sinful.
The CRC, in 1973, made the distinction that having a homosexual orienta-
tion (i.e., homosexuality) is not sinful but that the homosexual action (i.e.,
homosexualism) is sinful. However, the CRC's subsequent decision to de-
termine that pornography is sinful clearly indicates the understanding
that sin is not merely an action but rather, at its core, is the desire to go
against God's will. Acknowledging that pornography, which occurs with-
out any sexual act, is sinful must also acknowledge that all sexual sin be-
gins when the human heart desires sex that is outside of God's perfect
will. As such, we must acknowledge that homosexuality is sinful and
those who possess this condition share with all humanity a sinful condi-
tion in which, from their birth, their very desires are depraved and must
be redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ.

II. Overture
Classis Southeast U.S. overtures synod to revise the definition 1 of homosex-
uality to the following: homosexuality: a condition of personal identity,
stemming from the desires of the same sinful nature that all people inherit
through original sin, in which a person is sexually oriented (that is, pos-
sesses a pattern of romantic and/or sexual attraction) toward persons of
the same sex.
We further overture synod to revise the current stance on homosexuality
as follows: Homosexuality, like all conditions of the fallen human nature
where human desires and inclinations, tainted by original sin, incline
someone to act against God's will, is a condition of the sinful human na-
ture and makes one guilty of sin before God. But, praise be to God, it is
also, along with all conditions of the fallen nature, covered by Christ's
blood for all who believe in him. As such, there is no counting of sin for
believers in Christ, who, while they may have inherited a homosexual at-
traction, desire to live not in accordance with that attraction but in accord-
ance with the Spirit that is now in them, and therefore, homosexual believ-
ers, along with all those in Christ, are considered righteous.
III. Background
Page 613 of the Acts of Synod 1973, Supplement Report 42, states the homo-
sexual “is not responsible insofar for his resulting homosexuality.” The
2020 Human Sexuality Report (HSR) quotes this line from the 1973 report
and goes on to add, “In other words, there is no sin in being attracted to the
same sex” (emphasis added). Page 616 of the 1973 report also states, “to
lay blame on the homosexual for his condition can be . . . cruel and un-
just.”
This imprecise phraseology has caused profound confusion within the
CRC. It may cause some to believe that sexual disorders may not be part
of the fallen sinful nature. The current definition of homosexuality as
adopted by the CRC as well as the modified definition proposed herein in-
dicate that homosexuality is a condition in which a person is sexually ori-
ented toward persons of the same sex. According to the American Psycho-
logical Association, “Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of
emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both
sexes. 2 “The HSR correctly, then, makes the connection between the defi-
nition of homosexuality and “being attracted to the same sex.” An attrac-
tion, in turn, is, by definition, a desire toward something, and the Bible,
along with many writings of the historic church, indicates that it is hu-
mankind's very desires themselves that are sinful, not simply the actions
stemming from those desires.
1 Current definition contained in the Acts of Synod 1973 as follows: “Homosexuality is a

condition of personal identity in which the person is sexually oriented toward persons of
the same sex.”
2 Cited 19 February 2021, apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation.

A. Biblical grounds
A careful look at the creation and fall story in Genesis demonstrates that
the root of the problem in “the Fall” was not foremost that Adam's actions
were evil but that his desires became so—the ensuing actions were the
necessary outcome of a tainted desire. In Genesis 3:6 Eve first saw the tree
was to be desired (from the Hebrew root word ‫ָמד ח‬ ַ ) to make one wise,
and as a result she acted by taking and eating the fruit. At the core, it was
her desires that were turned evil—misaligned with God's perfect will.
The next time that a derivative of this same Hebrew root word (‫ָמד ח‬
ַ ) is
used in Scripture is in the tenth commandment (generally translated
“covet”). Various theologians 3 have commented that this commandment
20F
implies far more than a prohibition on desiring other people's possessions.

Rather, it serves as an inclusio, or bookend, with the first commandment
to cover all the other commandments, thereby making the case that hav-
ing no other gods but the one true God necessarily means having desires
that align perfectly with his. All other desires are sin.
Our Lord teaches us this truth regarding the sin of desire in Matthew 5:28
when he explains that “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has al-
ready committed adultery with her in his heart.” He hereby contends that
the human condition, being steeped in evil desire, is sinful because of its
automatic attraction power. These desires are an uncontrollable character-
istic of being human. In this case, the heterosexual orientation/condition as
Jesus explained is just as skewed by the Fall.
Paul expands on this idea throughout many of his letters. Speaking in Ro-
mans 1 about the natural evil desires (ἐπιθυμίαις, which is the Greek
translation of ‫ְמד ְח נֶו‬
֤ ָ in the tenth commandment as used in the Septuagint
and the same root as the verb used by Jesus in Matthew 5:27, often trans-
lated “lustfully”) that all humans have inherited from Adam, Paul ex-
plains that while “they claimed to be wise, [humankind] became fools” (v.
22, NIV; cf. Genesis 3:6 when Eve professed that the tree would make her
wise, she became a fool) and as a result “they exchanged the glory of the
immortal God for” created things (v. 23; cf. the first and second command-
ment). Therefore, “God gave them over in the sinful desires [ἐπιθυμίαις]
of their hearts” (v. 24; cf. the tenth commandment).
Paul tells the Colossians to “put to death” (Col. 3:5) these evil desires
(ἐπιθυμίαις) that all people possess in their “earthly nature”; these desires
include, among other things, many sexual desires. Furthermore, in Ro-
mans 5, Paul states, “Sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin” (v. 12), and he goes on to explain that “many died by the
trespass of the one man” and “one trespass resulted in condemnation for
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.”

all people” (vv. 15, 18). If God has condemned all people due to their con-
dition found in their inherited sinful nature, then he has determined that
they are all guilty. They are guilty not just of the evil they do but of their
sinful desires stemming from the sinful nature with which they are born.
In other words, to separate the inclination toward sin (the condition) apart
from acting on sin (the action) has no biblical precedent.
B. Historical grounds
This idea of inherited guilt has been the historic understanding of many
theologians throughout the centuries and continues to be the understand-
ing of those in the Reformed tradition.
Augustine states, “That, therefore, which is born of the desires of the flesh
is . . . not of God. . . . The guilt of this desire, regeneration alone remits.” 4
Clearly, he demonstrates that the desires themselves make people guilty,
not simply acting on them.
Calvin points to Galatians 5:19 to conclude that all humans inherit a cor-
ruption from Adam; it is this corruption itself that is called sin, “while the
works which proceed from it, such as adultery, fornication, theft, hatred,
murder, revellings, [Paul] terms . . . the fruits of sin.” 5 Calvin goes on to
explain that, “those who term [original sin] concupiscence [i.e., strong de-
sire, especially sexual desire, from Latin concupiscentia, used in Vulgate for
Greek ἐπιθυμία] use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were
added . . . that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will . . .
is defiled . . . with this concupiscence; or to express it more briefly, that the
whole man is in himself nothing else than concupiscence.” 6 In other
words, the original sin pervading all human beings' intellect and will can
in essence be summed up as evil desire. These desires are not merely part
of being evil, they are the heart of human corruption. Calvin goes on to
say human beings are “merely on account of such corruption, deservedly
condemned by God. . . . This is not liability for another’s fault. For we,
who are in ourselves innocent and blameless, are bearing his guilt.” 7 Cal-
vin demonstrates here the difficulty and balance that is needed in pre-
cisely explaining that humans are not to blame for the specific acts of
Adam yet at the same time are guilty for these inherited desires—finally
concluding with Augustine that although original sin is “another's sin,” it
is indeed “each individual's own sin.” 8 Calvin further points out that hu-
man beings do not merely have some evil desires but have a nature or
condition of evil desire in which they all stand condemned. Therefore, any
attempt to parse the concept of desire from that of inclination or nature
changes nothing, since both bear the guilt of sin.
4 St. Augustine of Hippo, The Retractions, “On Marriage and Concupiscence.”
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.

It needs to be considered then, how this is applied to those redeemed in
Christ yet still possessing attractions that tempts them to sin. Anselm per-
haps can be of some assistance when he parses the difference between
what he terms the “essence of the appetites” versus the “rational will
which complies inordinately with them.” 9 He echoes the statements of
Paul in Romans 7 who, speaking of the war waged within himself, ex-
plains, “Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me” (v. 21). It
needs to be noted what Paul, Augustine, Anselm, and Calvin do not do;
they do not explain that those desires or inclinations placed there by the
Fall are not sin. Rather, calling those inclinations evil, Paul points to God
who delivers him through Christ so that he no longer stands condemned
since he is in Christ. So, these inclinations of the flesh are evil, but, in
Christ, the true desire of the believer is to delight in the law of God. Be-
cause these inclinations of the flesh themselves are sin, all who are in
Christ must war against them—they must hate them and not consider
them “the way God made me” as if God were the author of sin or the im-
petus of the sinful nature.
C. Confessional grounds
The Belgic Confession, in Article 15, states that original sin is “enough to
condemn the human race,” and the Canons of Dort state that Adam
“brought forth corrupt children” and “all people . . . are born children of
wrath” indicating a state of being guilty at birth. The Heidelberg Cate-
chism, in Answer 7, explains that “we are . . . corrupt from conception on”
and, in Answer 10, says that “[God] is terribly angry about the sins we are
born with as well as the sins we personally commit” which “increase our
guilt every day.” This indicates that people are born with a sinful condi-
tion that bears with it guilt even before they personally commit sins.
The Heidelberg, in answering what God's will is in the tenth command-
ment, states “that not even the slightest thought or desire contrary to any
one of God's commandments should ever arise in my heart.”10 The authors
of the Heidelberg clearly understood that even the slightest desire that is
contrary to a commandment of God is against his will and is therefore, by
definition, sinful. 11
Modern Reformed theologians continue to uphold this historical biblical
understanding of inherited guilt. Berkhof, in his Systematic Theology, states,
“The Western Church reached their culmination in Augustinianism which
stressed the fact that humankind is both guilty and polluted in Adam. . . .
The Reformers shared the views of Augustine.” 12 He goes on to conclude
that “Adam sinned not only as the father of the human race, but also as
the representative head of all his descendants; and therefore the guilt of
9 Anselm of Canterbury, The Virgin Conception and Original Sin, chap. 4.

10 See Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 113.
11 “Sin, then is any transgression in deed, or word, or desire, of the eternal law.” Saint
Augustine, In Reply to Faustus the Manichæan, Book XXII, Para. 27,

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104/npnf104.iv.ix.xxiv.html.
12 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 240.

his sin is placed to their account, so that they are all liable to the punish-
ment of death. It is primarily in that sense that Adam’s sin is the sin of all.
. . . It is not sin considered merely as pollution, but sin as guilt that carries
punishment with it.”
James K. A. Smith in You Are What You Love states that “you are what you
love because you live toward what you want.” 13 He goes on to explain that
“love, as our most fundamental orientation to the world, is . . . a baseline
inclination, a default orientation that generates the choices we make.” In
other words, what people desire is what they love, and their actions
spring from this desire. Smith recognizes here that the root of bad behav-
ior is a fallen condition of sinful desire.
This fallen condition is the plight of all human beings. It is responsible for
all human desires that orient people away from the will of God, and ho-
mosexual desires are no less a part of this condition.
D. Practical theology grounds
Understanding this issue correctly goes beyond just a pursuit of theologi-
cal precision or even a dedication to holiness sparked by love for God—
although it is certainly that. Understanding that homosexual desires are
sinful is also paramount in order to avoid undermining both the unity of
Christ's body and the gravity of his gospel. Stating that homosexual acts
are sinful while maintaining that the homosexual inclinations or desires
are not tells homosexual brothers and sisters that their sin and their very
status before God is somehow different than that of other believers. The
sexual desires of all believers suffer from the taint of original sin. Before
any sinful act takes place, all heterosexual believers are pervasively and
radically inclined to want sexual things contrary to God's will. They need
more than just to avoid acting on these desires; they need to be washed in
their inner being. It is remiss to tell homosexual believers that they are dif-
ferent—to tell them that when it comes to their sexual desires they merely
need a behavioral adjustment and not a transformational cleansing from
within. It is to rob our homosexual brothers and sisters of the unity found
in this shared redemption experience in which members are built up by
encouraging one another to take each of their desires captive.
Further, it is to curtail the complete joy of the gospel. Failing to see the
gravity of the sinful nature fails to see the gravitas of the crucified Savior.
It is then the most loving response to convey to our homosexual members
that they are just like all other believers, stained from deep within to the
core of all their desires and with the whole church are made righteous
through faith and fully share in the peace of our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ.
13James K.A. Smith, You Are What You Love (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2016), p.
13.

IV. Conclusion
Therefore, it is problematic and will inevitably be largely misleading to
state “there is no sin in being attracted to the same sex.” It is biblical and
loving pastoral advice to warn against showing partiality, calling out par-
ticular sins over others, and leveling greater accusation of blame for the
fallen human state on any one particular group. Conversely, however, it is
patronizing and strains theological precision to exclude any particular sin-
ful desire or inclination from being part of the fallen condition. Rather, the
church might be well to state that, like all human desires, human sexual
desires have been tainted by the condition of original sin inherited from
Adam. Homosexuality is merely one result of this. Therefore, all these
tainted desires that incline someone to act against God's desires, including
homosexuality, are conditions of the sinful human nature and are thus in
themselves sin and deserving of death. However, even though all believ-
ers continue to struggle with this sinful nature, 14 the gospel reminds us
that the sins of all these evil desires are covered by Christ's blood for all
who believe. As such, there is no counting of sin for believers in Christ,
who, while they may have inherited a homosexual attraction, desire to
live not in accordance with that attraction but in accordance with the
Spirit that is now in them, and therefore, homosexual believers, along
with all those in Christ, are considered righteous.

14 See Romans 7:15-25.

OVERTURE 34
Alter the Interpretation Given to Heidelberg Catechism Q&A

108 and Remove “Homosexual Sex” from the List of Sins That
Constitute “Unchastity”
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

Homosexual sex is not named specifically in Q&A 108; Synod 2022
brought it in by interpreting “unchastity” to include homosexual sex.
The plain meaning of the word unchastity has to do with “sexual sug-
gestiveness, transgression, or excess; lascivious; bawdy.” A person
who has sex only with one’s marriage partner would never aptly be
described as “unchaste,” according to any plain and commonly under-
stood definition of the term. The ironic upshot of all this is that a mar-
ried gay couple in which each partner remains faithful to the other for
a lifetime is both breaking the seventh commandment (“Don’t commit
adultery”) and living unchastely. This strains common sense to the
breaking point.
If Q&A 108 of the Heidelberg Catechism is the best we can do for de-
claring that opposition to (all) homosexual sex is “confessional,” that is
a shaky foundation indeed. It indicates that opposition to homosexual
sex is not a “confessional” matter at all. It is simply not to be found in
the CRC’s creeds and confessions, unless artificially forced into them. 4
If homosexual sex was so clearly forbidden at this point in the Heidel-
berg Catechism, why was it not brought into the 1973 report on homo-
sexuality? 5 Why is it only now entering into the denominational con-
versation? We realize that there are some people within the CRC who
want opposition to homosexual sex to be a confessional matter. We are
in a cultural moment when emotions in the church are running high
over various aspects of the culture war, and most especially over gay
marriage. However, to shoehorn this interpretation into the Heidelberg
Catechism does not serve the church well. It simply demands compli-
ance on a very complicated and controversial issue, about which there
clearly is disagreement among people of good faith in the church.
D. Our fourth objection is that this interpretation shows a lack of faithful-
ness to what Scripture actually says, with the result that male experi-
ence is privileged and female experience is marginalized. Synod (fol-
lowing the HSR) failed to account for the differences between how
male homosexuality and female homosexuality are treated in Scrip-
ture. Even after explicitly citing sources that show how the male expe-
rience is privileged and preferred in studies about homosexuality in
the research (and the problems that result when one tries to extrapo-
late research results to include female homosexuality), 6 the HSR pro-
ceeded to do the very same thing in its treatment of homosexuality in
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).

Scripture. The HSR looked almost exclusively at what the Bible had to
say about male homosexuality and then extrapolated its findings to in-
clude female homosexuality.
Quite possibly this is because if one takes female homosexuality on its
own terms in the Bible, there is hardly anything to find at all. Female
homosexual sex is possibly addressed in only one verse in the entire
Bible (Rom. 1:26 7)—and (since it is not named directly) that is only if
we assume it is included as one of the types of “unnatural” intercourse
women can engage in. 8 And yet, on the “evidence” of one ambiguous
verse, the HSR (and Synod 2022) made sweeping declarations about all
homosexual sex, female homosexual sex included. That is not good Re-
formed hermeneutics. 9 And it is certainly not a good basis for making
something “confessional.” It is simply not possible that Scripture
speaks in a “clear, consistent, and compelling” 10 way on lesbian rela-
tionships when Scripture devotes (at most) one verse to the subject.
This is a clear case where our prejudices have shaped our interpreta-
tion of Scripture instead of letting Scripture speak (or not speak, as the
case may be) on its own terms.
E. Our fifth objection has to do with the application of Scripture. It is one
thing to know what Scripture says, and another thing entirely to know
how and when to apply what Scripture says. The HSR gave a one-
sided and biased accounting of what Scripture says on this matter, and
it compounded the problem by ignoring entirely the question of how
and when to apply that Scripture.
To give an obvious example: Paul told slaves to obey their masters
(Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22), and Peter told them to submit to their master’s
beatings (1 Pet. 2:18-20). It is not hard to understand what these texts
say; anyone who can read can do that. The difficult thing is to know
how and when to apply them. Were white preachers in the antebellum
South (United States) honoring Scripture by quoting and applying
these verses to African American slaves? Of course not; they were
abusing Scripture, using it to uphold an evil institution. Simply know-
ing what Scripture says is not enough; we need to think carefully about
how and when to apply it, lest we use Scripture to the opposite end of
its Author’s 11 intentions.
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
women could engage in “unnatural intercourse,” including with male partners.

9 On p. 165 of Principles of Biblical Interpretation, Louis Berkhof notes that the greater the
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.

This is not an idle example. Reformed hermeneutics, for all that it
serves as an aid to help us rightly interpret Scripture, also has the po-
tential to lead to the wrong conclusion. In Calvin Theological Semi-
nary’s own journal, a Reformed scholar made the case that there is
nothing inherently wrong with the institution of slavery, provided that
both slave and master (and especially the master) obey the law of
neighbor-love within the constraints of the institution. 12 It is incredible
to us (and to many) that anyone could believe that owning one’s neigh-
bor is consistent with loving one’s neighbor—yet in recent memory
Calvin Seminary itself published this perspective in its peer-reviewed
journal. Among other things, this shows that simply applying “Re-
formed hermeneutics” as a tool to interpret Scripture does not neces-
sarily lead us to an obvious, we-all-agree-on-this conclusion. It leads
some to accept the institution of slavery, and some to reject it. 13
Clearly, much depends on the assumptions and prejudices of those
who are using the tool. 14
Real people are being harmed by Synod 2022’s interpretation of Scrip-
ture and the Heidelberg Catechism. The damage done by the church to
those who identify as LGBTQ+ is well rehearsed: depression, suicide,
leaving the church and the Christian faith entirely. This “fruit” of our
blanket opposition to homosexual sex must not be ignored. It is a real-
life example of Jesus’ sober warning in the parable of the good Samari-
tan.
In this parable, a priest and a Levite choose to pass by on the other side
of the road rather than to offer aid to a suffering man. It’s not because
they are cruel or uncaring people. It is because if the man is dead, or
dies under their care, they will be unclean according to the law, and
they care very much about abiding by the law. When push comes to
shove, they care more about abiding by the law than about the life and
well-being of the suffering man. It is the Samaritan, who is not so
caught up with law observance, who is free to stop, show compassion,
and tend to the man. Jesus does not leave us in any doubt about who
chose the better part: “Go and do likewise,” he says—about the Samar-
itan.
The message is clear: there are times when our attempts to honor the
law actually cause us to go contrary to the (heart of the) law, which is
to love our neighbor as ourselves. We believe this is what Synod 2022
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.

did in its interpretation of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108. Whole-
heartedly and sincerely attempting to abide by the law, it went con-
trary to the heart of the law. Synod chose to maintain purity according
to (its perception of) the letter of the law, and passed by on the other
side of the road. Not content with that, it is making it compulsory for
the whole Christian Reformed Church to do the same.
The reality is that even if the framers of the Heidelberg Catechism in-
tended to include “homosexual sex” in their definition of unchastity,
that would not solve the problem we have here. The Christian church
has always held to a sexual ethic in which (consensual) sex within mar-
riage is acceptable, but sex (whether consensual or not) outside mar-
riage is not. When the Heidelberg Catechism was written, all homosex-
ual sex was by definition outside marriage, and so could be con-
demned as unchaste without having to give it much thought. We now
live in a cultural moment when something new has emerged that the
Heidelberg Catechism knew nothing of, and probably couldn’t have
imagined: legal gay marriage. Instead of giving this new situation care-
ful and thoughtful consideration, Synod 2022 chose to side-step the
whole discussion by claiming that married homosexual sex was some-
how addressed and condemned by a document written hundreds of
years before there was such a thing as married homosexual sex. This is
a lamentably inadequate response to the cultural moment we are living
in, and we call on the Christian Reformed Church to give a better rea-
soned and more thoughtful one.
For these reasons, we are asking for a change to the interpretation of
Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 put forward by Synod 2022.
Council of Church of the Savior CRC, South Bend, Indiana

Charis Schepers, clerk
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.

OVERTURE 35
Reverse Synod 2022’s Interpretation of “Unchastity” as

Including a List of Specific Behaviors
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
1 This reticence appears to be intentional, from the earliest history of Protestantism. In

contrast with Roman Catholic church leaders, who did present lists of chaste and un-
chaste behaviors (both in written catechisms and from the pulpit), Martin Luther con-
sciously avoided doing so, and the other Reformers followed suit. See Tilmann Walter,
Unkeuschheit und Werk der Liebe: Diskurse über Sexualität am Beginn der Neuzeit in Deutsch-
land, Studia Linguistica Germanica 48 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), pp. 125–26.

Word, out of the entire human race, from the beginning of the world to
its end, gathers, protects, and preserves for himself a community cho-
sen for eternal life and united in true faith.” We have already seen evi-
dence in our churches of the divisiveness of Synod 2022’s controversial
decision. Henry DeMoor, professor emeritus of Calvin Theological
Seminary and an expert in CRC Church Order, summed it up this way:
“Synod [2022] has squandered the unity of the church and damaged its
mission.” 2
Unity has long been a driving concern when synod has had to make
controversial decisions. For example, Synod 1995 approved the recom-
mendation that “synod recognize that there are two different perspec-
tives and convictions, both of which honor the Scriptures as the infalli-
ble Word of God, on the issue of whether women are allowed to serve
in the offices of elder, minister, and evangelist.” 3 This same concern for
unity must remain front and center in present conversations concern-
ing the Human Sexuality Report (HSR).
B. One has only to consider a sample of the history of interpretation on
Lord’s Day 41 to see this. For example, neither Hoeksema, Kuyvenho-
ven, nor Klooster 4 offer the kind of list that Synod 2022 did. Only
Hoeksema mentions homosexuality, and that only in passing. One
would never guess from these sources that polyamory might be a
problem. However, both Hoeksema and Kuyvenhoven talk a great
deal about divorce and remarriage (the “hot-button issue” of their
day).
This brief survey illustrates how discussions of specific forms of un-
chastity rapidly become dated, as Spirit-filled believers wrestle with
what behaviors are in and out of bounds in their unique and particular
context and the challenges it faces. New generations are, sadly, always
creating new ways of being unchaste (e.g., internet pornography) that
cannot be anticipated beforehand. Although it is quite necessary and
appropriate for the secondary sources to discuss the specifics of such
context-dependent behaviors (making them very relevant for their
time but often obsolete within a decade or two), it is not fitting or help-
ful for a primary source such as the Heidelberg Catechism to do so. 5
Historic creeds and confessions are intended to apply and remain rele-
vant across time and space. Getting into the “weeds” of the hot-button
issues of any given age, such as Synod 2022 did, guarantees that they
2 See “After Synod 2022: Discerning What’s Next,” The Banner (Sept. 2022), p. 14.
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.

will become obsolete and lose their relevance, diminishing their power
to speak to the church across the ages.
The wisdom of Gamaliel applies today, as it did in Acts 5. After Peter
answers the authorities, "We must obey God rather than any human
authority" (5:29), the authorities want to kill the apostles. But Gamaliel
advises caution: "So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from
these men and let them alone, because if this plan or this undertaking
is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to
overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against
God!” (5:38-39).
C. Several examples will illustrate the point. Synod 2022 did not list besti-
ality among the list of behaviors that constitute “unchastity.” Was
Synod 2022 condoning bestiality by its lack of inclusion on the list? Or
was this omission unintentional?
Synod 2022 also did not list masturbation in its list of unchaste behav-
iors, despite the fact that it does not conform to the norm of heterosex-
ual marriage as laid out in creation (Gen. 1-2). 6 Was Synod 2022 in-
tending to give tacit approval to (all instances of) masturbation, as a
chaste way to live out our sexuality? 7
Synod 2022 named “pornography” in its list of unchaste behaviors, but
it did not specify which aspect(s) of pornography are to be condemned
as unchaste. Giving a blanket condemnation of pornography as “un-
chastity” fails to recognize that many of the subjects involved in the in-
dustry (particularly women) are involved against their will or because
they themselves are being exploited. Simply equating “pornography”
with “unchastity” runs the very real risk of blaming the victim. 8
As a further example, prostitution rightly falls under the category of
“extramarital sex.” But again, women and men often become involved
in prostitution as a result of marginalization and exploitation. One
supposes that prostituting oneself should be considered “unchaste”—
but did Synod 2022 really intend to declare that all those who engage
in prostitution (some of whom are sex slaves) are engaging in behavior
that puts them outside the kingdom of God? 9 This does not seem to be
a judgment that Jesus himself would make.
The problem is becoming clear. Making a list of what constitutes “un-
chastity,” such as Synod 2022 did, creates more and worse problems
than it solves. This is precisely why Reformed governing bodies, over
500 years of history, have avoided making such lists.
6 See HSR, p. 328.

7 See HSR, p. 360.
8 That synod gave a blanket condemnation of pornography is particularly disappointing
in light of the careful and nuanced discussion of pornography in the HSR itself.
9 See HSR, pp. 344, 415, 458-59.

D. The specific list of unchaste behaviors provided by Synod 2022 does
not take into account cultural differences in what is considered “un-
chaste.” For example, chastity related to head coverings for women,
while unimportant in most Western cultures, is very important in sev-
eral Eastern cultures. Having an interpretive list is necessarily culture
specific, effectively limiting the CRC to being and remaining a pre-
dominantly Western denomination and making it less relevant and
nimble in bringing Christ to other cultures that might have quite dif-
ferent but still very appropriate and biblical norms for what is consid-
ered chaste.
II. Conclusion
Over and over again, Scripture instructs us not to judge our brothers and
sisters:
Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge oth-
ers; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, be-
cause you, the judge, are doing the very same things. (Rom. 2:1)
Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their
own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord
is able to make them stand. . . . We do not live to ourselves, and we do
not die to ourselves. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we
die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the
Lord’s. (Rom. 14:4, 7-8)
Composing a specific list of sins that God condemns, as Synod 2022 did,
has the potential of judging brothers and sisters in Christ who are pursu-
ing authentic Christ-following in a rapidly changing culture, and in di-
verse cultures around the world. Therefore, based on the above grounds,
we urge synod to reverse the list of sins associated with “unchastity.”
Council of Church of the Savior CRC,

South Bend, Indiana

OVERTURE 36
Remove “Homosexual Sex” from Definition of “Unchastity”

I. Background
Mill Creek (Wash.) Community Church (MCCC) has been a part of the
Christian Reformed Church since its formation as a church plant within
Classis Pacific Northwest. We value our relationship with our denomina-
tion as a source of blessing to our congregation and desire to continue and
deepen that relationship while being true to our calling to minister within
our local cultural context.
MCCC is committed to reaching out, in word and deed, to our surround-
ing community with the good news that Jesus is Lord, that abundant and
eternal life is found in Christ. This has led MCCC to become a diverse
community of people who joyfully strive to serve Christ in our individual
lives and together as a congregation.
MCCC is known for being a welcoming and loving presence in our com-
munity. This community focus has resulted in attracting seekers and be-
lievers in Jesus Christ who identify as LGBTQ+, as well as families with
loved ones, friends, and coworkers who identify as LGBTQ+. We do not
see a distinction or perceive a separation between followers of Jesus based
on one’s sexual identity or orientation. We believe the love of Jesus is in-
clusive, not exclusionary, embracing all who seek to follow him. Our love
for members of the LGBTQ+ community and our calling by God to bring
the hope of the gospel to them and their family members has opened our
hearts and minds to the fresh and new interpretation of Scripture that Pe-
ter demonstrated in Acts 11 and Acts 15.
While treasuring and honoring the Bible as the revealed Word of God, we
see the handful of passages that explicitly address homosexual behavior
(Lev. 18:22, 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-10) as condemn-
ing lust, not addressing same-sex orientation or healthy, same-sex rela-
tionships within a covenantal marriage. The clear and dominant message
heralded throughout Scripture calls us to bless others with unconditional
love (Matt. 22:39; John 13:35). If there is some doubt about how to inter-
pret these very sparse verses which specifically address homosexual be-
havior, then we must imitate our Lord and extend unconditional grace
and assume a loving posture of radical hospitality toward LGBTQ+ peo-
ple.
Synod 2022 overlooked the fact that there are honest differences of inter-
pretation of key Bible passages (along with volumes of theological argu-
ments by Reformed theologians advocating for the full inclusion of both
celibate and married LGBTQ+ Christians in the life of the church) when
they made their decision to define all homosexual sex as a violation of the
seventh commandment. Making this a confessional issue is forcing one
narrow theological interpretation based on disputed readings of a handful
of Scriptures onto the entire denomination.

Synod 2022's adoption of the Human Sexuality Report (HSR) and decision
to include all homosexual behavior as a sinful violation of God’s com-
mandments perpetuates a history of homophobia within our churches that
will continue to harm and alienate LGBTQ+ members and their loved
ones. This rigid stance does not allow local churches to be supportive,
grace-saturated communities that “choose together to live anew as the
nurturing family of God; to give and receive grace as we learn together
how to walk in sexual holiness; to support each other in celibate single-
ness or faithful marriage” (HSR, p. 407). The lament that “despite repeated
and strong exhortations of past study committee reports to love and care
for brothers and sisters who are attracted to the same sex as equal mem-
bers of the body of Christ, the church has all-too-often ostracized,
shunned, or ignored such Jesus-followers” (HSR, p. 426) will only con-
tinue unless the church allows grace and love to season our posture to-
ward LGBTQ+ persons.
At MCCC we view LGBTQ+ persons as fellow imagebearers of God,
equally valued as such without discrimination based on gender identity or
sexual orientation. Since June 2022, our council, members, and regular at-
tenders have participated in a season of focused study, including sermons,
reviews of reading resources, prayerful reflection, and open dialogue on
the issues presented in this appeal. This process has strengthened our de-
sire to welcome all to serve in every area of the church’s life and ministry
according to their calling and gifts. This would include leadership posi-
tions for those members called and gifted for leadership. As we live, love,
and minister together as a community of believers, we call all of our mem-
bers and attenders to embrace a radical obedience to the path, walk, and
teachings of our Lord as we each strive to live a Christlike life, keeping in
step with the Holy Spirit, producing the spiritual fruit of abundant life
(Gal. 5:22-23).
We are living in a time and place where the institution of marriage is open
to all couples. The Bible passages addressing homosexual behavior seem
to focus on extramarital sexual activity fueled by lust. Thus we believe
that the church should bless and celebrate monogamous covenantal mar-
riage, regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation. We encourage
members of the LGBTQ+ community as well as heterosexual members to
express their sexuality within the confines of the covenant of marriage.
MCCC believes that solemnizing and celebrating the weddings of same-
sex Christian couples is not in conflict with the Word of God (Church Or-
der, Art. 69-c.).
II. Overture
The council of Mill Creek Community Church overtures Synod 2023 to re-
move the phrase “and homosexual sex” from the following decision (Acts
of Synod 2022, p. 922):
That synod affirm that “unchastity” in the Heidelberg Catechism Q. & A.

Grounds:
1. This blanket condemnation of all homosexual acts overlooks the avail-
ability of monogamous, covenantal marriage for same-sex couples.
2. Given the diversity of interpretations of relevant Scriptures by Re-
formed scholars, officebearers should not be bound to a confessional
interpretation based on one narrow interpretation of several hotly de-
bated Scriptures.
3. The phrase “extramarital sex” applies to all extramarital sexual activity
regardless of the gender identities or sexual orientation of those in-
volved.
4. The phrase creates an unnecessary barrier to the gospel by excluding
married LGBTQ+ persons from the life and membership of the church.
III. Conclusion
In conclusion, we are not asking that all churches interpret these passages
as we do, but that we be given the freedom to minister to our community
from a foundation of biblical interpretation that does allow for same-sex
intimacy within the covenant of marriage. We are asking that the CRCNA
recognize that the conclusions of the HSR are but one interpretation of
Scripture and allow for other readings that would compel local churches,
like MCCC, to be open and affirming to full participation of LGBTQ+ per-
sons in the life and membership of our congregation while still belonging
to the covenant community of the CRCNA.
Council of Mill Creek Community Church,

Mill Creek, Washington
Carol Bowker, clerk
Note: This overture was submitted to the March 2, 2023, meeting of Classis
Pacific Northwest but was not adopted.

OVERTURE 37
Reverse the Synod 2022 Decision Defining “Unchastity”

I. Introduction
Alger Park Christian Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan, has
spent much time and energy over the past months and years studying a
variety of interpretations and perspectives regarding the participation of
same-sex-attracted people in the life of the church. As a result, our congre-
gation has grown in our understanding of relevant issues, as well as in our
understanding of those who hold opinions different from our own. Our
congregation has grown to appreciate the variety of sincere, biblically
based perspectives and the persons who hold them.
We desire to follow the will of God in our lives together, and we have be-
come increasingly convicted that God may not require the polarized, all-
or-none perspective that we read in the 2022 Human Sexuality Report
(HSR). As a result, we have deep concerns regarding synod’s definition of
the word “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 and regarding
the decision to make that definition confessional. Alger Park CRC holds a
wide variety of opinions about how best to love and serve our same-sex-
attracted family members, friends, and neighbors. But we also strongly be-
lieve that our variety of perspectives need not divide us.
By making our differences a matter of confession rather than a matter of in-
terpretation and pastoral care, we effectively shut down ongoing discussion,
threaten the unity of the Spirit, and forsake the very gifts that have served
the CRCNA so well in the past.
II. Overture
The council of Alger Park CRC of Grand Rapids, Michigan, overtures
Synod 2023 to reverse the decision of Synod 2022, which defined the word
“unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 to include specific sexual
behaviors (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922).
Grounds:
1. Unity in Christ. We believe that our unity is found in Christ—not in
singular interpretations of Scripture. Our denomination has a long his-
tory of struggling and growing because of interpretive differences
within our tradition. In our best and humblest moments, we have
made space for our differences because we know that our theology,
our interpretation of Scripture, and the Holy Spirit are never static. In
living with this diversity of interpretations, we trust the leading of the
Spirit, the faithful preaching of the Word, and the administration of the
sacraments. These practices make room for changes in practice—even
as we grow in faith and in the gifts God gives.
2. Removing stumbling blocks. In Romans 15, Paul instructs the early
church concerning differences of interpretation and practice to refrain
from passing judgment, constructing stumbling blocks, and destroying

the work of God. He encourages the church to make every effort that
leads to peace and mutual edification. He calls on those early believers
to “accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to
bring praise to God” (Rom. 15:7).
The elevation of our disagreements about human sexuality to that
which threatens a person’s salvation runs counter to Paul’s admoni-
tion. The decision of Synod 2022 that this interpretation is embedded
in the confessions in such a manner that to believe otherwise is to be
acting like the “false church” is damning to our congregation, to those
we love and serve, and to the broader mission of the church.
It strikes us as prudent and faithful to follow Paul’s guidance on this
matter. In our ministry we try to remove barriers to the gospel and
nurture a culture of acceptance so that all might know the grace of God
expressed in Christ Jesus. We believe that synod’s decision in 2022 un-
dercuts those efforts.
3. Ecclesiological unity. There is ample evidence that other denominations
have not been able to navigate this discussion without splintering. Of-
ten unity is sacrificed at the altar of confessional precision. And yet—
even as a theological tradition with a robust commitment to creed and
confession—we have long made space for discussion, disagreement,
and learning from the work of the Spirit in one another. We believe
that continuing to make space for discernment and the work of the
Spirit will serve us well and allow us to remain unified rather than
fracturing the church.
Synod 2022’s decision to narrow and specify the scope of Q&A 108
runs counter to that tradition. Additionally, the HSR’s delineation of
“true church” and “false church” initiates a dangerous game through
which, for thousands of years, the church has tragically divided itself,
excommunicated itself, and taken eternal judgment into its own hands.
Something similar is currently happening in the CRCNA.
We recognize that such commitments to unity require a great measure
of humility and a willingness to remain in communion. We bear wit-
ness that the CRCNA has remained unified through significant disa-
greement concerning issues of race, the baptism of adopted children,
divorce and remarriage, the role of women, and more. Those ongoing
disagreements did not lead to irreparable division. To the contrary,
each of those debates highlights either a commendable commitment to
unity (i.e., the role of women), or God’s faithfulness to us during a sea-
son of theological foolishness and pastoral malpractice (i.e., race, bap-
tism of adopted children).
The decision of Synod 2022 regarding Q&A 108 mitigates against our
tradition of unity and reflection. It is not clear to us why this matter re-
quires such divisive action. Our strength is in belonging to Christ, be-
ing signed and sealed by the sacraments, and seeking to follow the
way of Christ in this world—not by a singular standard of confessional
scrupulousness.

4. Care for same-sex-attracted people. Christians have catastrophically failed
in their care for same-sex-attracted people, causing many of our
LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters to feel exiled from and deeply wounded
by the church. The HSR laments and seeks to rectify those injurious be-
haviors; however, making same-sex relationships a confessional issue
actually limits the ability of churches to effectively minister to individ-
uals and unnecessarily binds the consciences of our officebearers. Each
situation is different, and each LGBTQ+ person receiving pastoral care
is at a unique point in their spiritual journey. The type of care and in-
clusion extended to one person might not be appropriate for another.
In making same-sex relationships a confessional issue, pastors and
congregations have very little leeway in deciding what will be most
appropriate, helpful, and loving to the individual people they encoun-
ter. In short, it propagates a system that could easily lead the church to
cause even more harm to an already marginalized community.
III. Conclusion
The request to reverse the decision of Synod 2022 is not to advocate for
one position over another but to leave the care of those in a same-sex com-
mitted relationship in the realm of pastoral care. It is to allow individual
congregations to faithfully live out their biblical understanding of how
they are called to include LGBTQ+ members in their church community. It
is, in fact, to leave Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 as a matter of interpre-
tation and not salvation. It is to recognize that we can be united in bap-
tism, worship, mission, and communion without agreeing on all issues of
interpretation.
The members of Alger Park CRC hold our variety of views in tension, mu-
tual respect, and, at our best, in conversation and prayer. We try to hold
all of this in humility, love, and unity in Christ. Conferring confessional
status on one particular interpretation has proven to be hurtful and divi-
sive. Rather than strengthening congregational life and enhancing our
gospel witness, the decision of Synod 2022 has distracted and weakened
our collective life and witness.
Council of Alger Park CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Jeff Helmus, clerk
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Grand
Rapids South but was not adopted.

OVERTURE 38

Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108
I. Overture
The council of Kibbie Christian Reformed Church overtures Synod 2023 to
reverse Synod 2022’s interpretation of “unchastity” in Heidelberg Cate-
chism Q&A 108 as including a list of specific behaviors, namely “adultery,
premarital sex, extramarital sex, polyamory, pornography, and homosex-
ual sex.”
Grounds:
1. By removing the list, while still preserving Synod 2022’s affirmation of
the Human Sexuality Report (HSR), the status of the report would be
that of a synodical decision rather than having confessional status. This
approach would mirror Synod 1973’s decision on homosexuality,
which provided fifty years of broad unity while nurturing deeper con-
versations about Christian discipleship. It would thus keep the spirit of
Heidelberg Q&A 54, which encourages and even mandates the unity
of the church.
2. It seems unusual for a Reformed governing body to create an illustra-
tive list of behaviors that constitute “unchastity” or any particular sin.
As Reformed Christians, we have always respected the Spirit’s work
within individual believers and within the church to interpret what is
chaste and unchaste within a particular time and a particular culture. 1
3. Given the debate over same-sex marriage in our denomination, in our
broader culture, and at synod itself, the list of behaviors constituting
unchastity adopted by Synod 2022 draws attention to that one issue
over against a host of other sins. A specific list of unchaste behaviors
runs the risk of condemning certain behaviors while condoning, down-
playing, or ignoring others that vex the broader church. Further, if that
sin targets a marginalized demographic, it risks appearing like the
judgmentalism condemned by our Lord. A reversal of synod’s decision
to hold its list of unchaste sins confessional would signal synod’s re-
spect for those who remain unconvinced of its position in a time of dis-
cernment, without compromising synod’s adoption of the Human Sex-
uality Report.
1 This reticence appears to be intentional, from the earliest history of Protestantism. In

contrast with Roman Catholic church leaders, who did present lists of chaste and un-
chaste behaviors (both in written catechisms and from the pulpit), Martin Luther con-
sciously avoided doing so, and the other Reformers followed suit. See Tilmann Walter,
Unkeuschheit und Werk der Liebe: Diskurse über Sexualität am Beginn der Neuzeit in Deutsch-
land, Studia Linguistica Germanica 48 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), pp. 125–26.

II. Background
Our primary purpose in presenting this overture is to maintain the unity
of the Christian Reformed Church for which Jesus prayed in John 17:20-26.
The unity to which we are called is summarized in Heidelberg Catechism
Q&A 54, which states, “I believe that the Son of God through his Spirit
and Word, out of the entire human race, from the beginning of the world
to its end, gathers, protects, and preserves for himself a community cho-
sen for eternal life and united in true faith.” This primary calling rooted in
the mission of Christ to the nations is being threatened by the confessional
status of synod’s list of unchaste behaviors. We have already seen evi-
dence in our churches of the divisiveness of Synod 2022’s controversial
decision. In the words of Henry DeMoor, a professor emeritus of Calvin
Theological Seminary and an expert in CRC Church Order, “Synod [2022]
has squandered the unity of the church and damaged its mission.” 2 We
acknowledge and appreciate synod’s guidance in contemporary moral is-
sues, as offered for example in 1973 and again in the HSR. Yet, in matters
as widely and passionately debated as same-sex marriage, we would
humbly ask synod to offer its guidance without threatening the unity of
the denomination.
We find the reflections of John Calvin in the Institutes of the Christian Reli-
gion (Book 4) to be pertinent. The Belgic Confession, Article 29, maintains
that the marks of the true church are in the pure preaching of the gospel,
the pure administration of the sacraments, and the practice of church dis-
cipline, and that no one should be separated from the true church. When
doctrinal disagreements arise, when differences of interpretation become
pronounced, is the unity of the church to be threatened? Calvin argues
only in the most central of doctrines.
The pure ministry of the Word and pure mode of celebrating the sac-
raments are, as we say, sufficient pledge and guarantee that we may
safely embrace as church any society in which both these marks exist.
The principle extends to the point that we must not reject it so long as
it retains them, even if it otherwise swarms with many faults.
What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either
doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from com-
munion with the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of
the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be cer-
tain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion.
Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation
rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other
articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith.
. . . Here are the apostle’s words: “Let us therefore, as many as are per-
fect, be of the same mind; and if you be differently minded in any-
thing, God shall reveal this also to you” [Phil. 3:15]. Does this not suffi-
ciently indicate that a difference of opinion over these nonessential
2 “After Synod 2022: Discerning What’s Next,” The Banner (Sept. 2022), p. 14.

matters should in no wise be the basis of schism among Christians?
First and foremost, we should agree on all points. But since all men are
somewhat beclouded with ignorance, either we must leave no church
remaining, or we must condone delusion in those matters which can
go unknown without harm to the sum of religion and without loss of
salvation.3
In keeping with this advice, unity has long been a driving concern when
synod has had to make controversial decisions. For example, Synod 1995
approved the recommendation that “synod recognize that there are two
different perspectives and convictions, both of which honor the Scriptures
as the infallible Word of God, on the issue of whether women are allowed
to serve in the offices of elder, minister, and evangelist.” 4 This same con-
cern for unity must remain front and center in present conversations con-
cerning the HSR. Preserving Synod 2022’s affirmation of the HSR without
making its conclusions “confessional” follows the wise example of Synod
1973’s decision on homosexuality, which has provided fifty years of broad
unity while nurturing deeper conversations about Christian discipleship
within the CRC.
Indeed, for those who maintain with Synod 1973 and the HSR that homo-
sexual activity is sinful, Calvin would add this advice about zeal for right-
eousness and the bonds of Christian unity. While calling on the church to
preach true righteousness and seek what is morally good and true, Calvin
warns against an “immoderate severity” that sets aside the kindness of the
Lord and threatens unity, vainly seeking “a church besmirched with no
blemish.” 5
But [those zealous for moral purity] cry out, it is intolerable that a
plague of vices rages far and wide. Suppose the apostle’s opinion here
again answers them. Among the Corinthians no slight number had
gone astray; in fact, almost the whole body was infected. There was
not one kind of sin only, but very many; and they were no light errors
but frightful misdeeds; there was corruption not only of morals but of
doctrine. What does the holy apostle—the instrument of the Heavenly
Spirit, by whose testimony the church stands or falls—do about this?
Does he seek to separate himself from such? Does he cast them out of
Christ’s Kingdom? Does he fell them with the ultimate thunderbolt of
anathema? He not only does nothing of the sort; he even recognizes
and proclaims them to be the church of Christ and the communion of
saints. . . . The church abides among them because the ministry of the
Word and sacraments remains unrepudiated there.6
3 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia,
Pa.: Westminster Press, 1970), 4.1.12.

5 Institutes, 4.1.13.
6 Institutes, 4.1.14.

We believe our churches and officebearers in the CRCNA share deep com-
mitments to the preaching of the Word and the sacraments that mark
them as genuine. While synod ought to speak to contemporary issues and
give clear guidance, we would ask synod to reconsider a decision that
threatens the unity of the church as taught in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A
54.
One has only to consider a sample of the history of interpretation on
Lord’s Day 41 to see this. For example, neither Hoeksema, Kuyvenhoven,
nor Klooster offer the kind of list that Synod 2022 did. 7 Only Hoeksema
mentions homosexuality, and that only in passing. One would never
guess from these sources that polyamory might be a problem. However,
both Hoeksema and Kuyvenhoven talk a great deal about divorce and re-
marriage (the “hot-button issue” of their day).
This brief survey illustrates how discussions of specific forms of unchas-
tity rapidly become dated, as Spirit-filled believers wrestle with what be-
haviors are in and out of bounds in their unique and particular context
and the challenges it faces. New generations are always creating new
ways of being unchaste (e.g., internet pornography) that cannot be antici-
pated beforehand. Although it is quite necessary and appropriate for the
secondary sources to discuss the specifics of such context-dependent be-
haviors, it is not always fitting or helpful for a primary source such as the
Heidelberg Catechism to do so. Historic creeds and confessions are in-
tended to apply and remain relevant across time and space, providing
both foundation and framework for the church’s ongoing work of disci-
pleship.
Consider the broad strokes of the Belgic Confession, Article 24, which
speaks eloquently of the process of sanctification. The Spirit produces
faith through the hearing of God’s Word, regenerating believers and caus-
ing them to live in newness of life. Indeed, “it is impossible for this holy
faith to be unfruitful in a human being.” The confession then speaks of
“faith working through love,” and works that “are good and acceptable to
God, since they are all sanctified by his grace.” These general terms and
phrases provide bedrock theological statements that draw believers to-
gether across generations. Again, we have no issue with synod seeking to
define in our context what is holy and righteous: we argue rather that
synod should maintain the distinction between that contemporary work
and the more broad-speaking confessions.
We again acknowledge and welcome synod’s need to speak to contempo-
rary issues and bring issues brought before synod to resolution. This work
is good and necessary. However, raising this list of unchaste actions to
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.

confessional status in the midst of heated debate highlights the issue of
same-sex marriage and opens the denomination to unwelcomed accusa-
tions.
We are concerned how those in opposition to the HSR might read the fol-
lowing passages:
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you
judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will
be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your
brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”
(Matt. 7:1-3, NIV)
Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge oth-
ers; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because
you, the judge, are doing the very same things. (Rom. 2:1, NRSV)
Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their
own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is
able to make them stand. . . . We do not live to ourselves, and we do not
die to ourselves. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to
the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.
(Rom. 14:4, 7-8, NRSV)
For those guilty of judging others, Paul has this question in Romans 2:4
(NIV): “Do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance
and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to
repentance?” Our concern is that making a list of condemnable sins runs
the risk of committing a contemptible sin.
While it is within the right of synod to make conclusions settled and bind-
ing, we would ask synod—as Calvin counseled kindness over against se-
verity—to signal its commitment to kindness, patience, and respect to-
ward those who disagree with the HSR, within and outside the denomina-
tion, by reversing its decision to make confessional its list of unchaste be-
haviors.
In conclusion, synod’s adoption in 2022 of a specific list of unchaste sins as
confessional in a time of broad debate threatens the unity of the denomi-
nation. While we welcome synod’s clear counsel in the matter of same-sex
marriage, we ask synod in a spirit of mutual respect and faith in the guid-
ance of the Holy Spirit to reverse its decision to designate its list of un-
chaste sins as confessional.
Council of Kibbie CRC, South Haven, Michigan

Don Bemis, clerk

OVERTURE 39
Reverse Synod’s Endorsement of the Human Sexuality Report
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.”

b. Teaching #2: Commenting on Genesis 2:24 and 1 Corinthians 6:16:
“In other words, sex is of profound significance because it estab-
lishes a one-flesh union. And that one-flesh union either is or is not
consistent with the believer’s bodily union with Christ. Thus sexual
immorality is not simply a violation of the will of God. Much more,
it is incompatible with union with Christ. To be sure, all sin is ulti-
mately incompatible with our union with Christ, but Paul’s point
here is that sexual immorality is especially incompatible with that
union. Why? Because, as he has argued from Genesis 2:24, it in-
volves the body in a deeply intimate one-flesh union that is of pro-
found significance for human beings” (HSR, p. 345, emphasis in
original).
• We note first that the notion of something’s being “especially in-
compatible” with something else is incoherent; incompatibility
does not admit of degrees. This is a minor issue.
• Part of the context for Teaching #2 is the claim that, according to
Paul, “the body is not just destined for resurrection and union
with Christ” but is also a temple of the Holy Spirit (HSR, p. 346).
The remark about our destiny is telling, however, because it in-
dicates that the “union with Christ” that the authors are talking
about is or includes postmortem union—namely, the union we
have by way of salvation. (This is, of course, a perfectly standard
understanding of what union with Christ involves.) But if this is
right, and if it is also true that sexual immorality is “especially in-
compatible” with union with Christ, then it straightforwardly
follows that anyone (believer or not) who commits sexual sin is
thereby deprived of union with Christ, and hence of salvation.
Against this, however, witness the Canons of Dort, First Point,
Rejection VII, which says the Synod of Dort rejects the errors of
those “who teach that in this life there is no fruit, no awareness,
and no assurance of one’s unchangeable election to glory, ex-
cept as conditioned upon something changeable and contin-
gent.” Obviously whether a person is or is not someone who has
committed sexual immorality is a “changeable and contingent”
matter; thus, Teaching #2 straightforwardly contradicts this part
of the Canons of Dort.
c. Teaching #3: The document says that “by the word ‘unchastity’ the
catechism intends to encompass all sexual immorality, including
homosexual activity” (HSR, p. 458), but it also says the following in
its “word to church members who are attracted to the same sex”:
“know that your sexual attractions do not make you sinful any
more than your temptations to pride, selfishness, or idolatry make
you sinful” (HSR, p. 434).
If “unchastity” includes gay and lesbian sexual acts, then Q&A 109
of the Heidelberg Catechism forbids gay and lesbian sexual attrac-
tions, as follows: “We are temples of the Holy Spirit, body and soul,

and God wants both to be kept clean and holy. That is why God
forbids all unchaste actions, looks, talk, thoughts, or desires.” If it
be objected that “attractions” do not include thoughts or desires,
we reply that the Human Sexuality Report itself rebuts this objec-
tion. In talking about the world’s view of sexuality, the document
says, “In the world’s eyes it is outrageous to expect those who are
attracted to the same sex not to express those desires in a sexual re-
lationship . . .” (HSR, p. 425). In this remark, the term “those de-
sires” refers back to sexual attractions; thus, sexual attractions in-
clude desires.
d. In sum: The HSR has managed to include remarks that violate the
Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the Heidelberg Cate-
chism. This by itself is sufficient to disqualify the report as, on the
whole, “useful information” to churches in the Reformed tradition.
2. The teachings on gender identity are so irresponsible as to be harmful
rather than useful.
a. In commenting on Genesis, the document says that “to be male is to
possess male sexuality and to be female is to possess female sexual-
ity” (HSR, p. 329). Importantly, the terms “male sexuality” and “fe-
male sexuality” are left undefined. Gender is defined as “categoriza-
tion of humans as male and female based on culturally sanctioned
roles, behaviors, expressions (sometimes also labeled as masculin-
ity and femininity)” and gender identity is defined as “a person’s in-
ternal sense of being male, female, or other” (HSR, p. 373).
Transgender is defined as “a broad term that includes persons who
define themselves as a gender other than their sex” (HSR, p. 374).
This terminological scheme is both nonstandard and incoherent.
Consider Sophie, a transwoman who was assigned the sex “male”
at birth and has not transitioned (so, among other things, she has a
penis). Standard usage would say that what it is for Sophie to be
transgender is for her to identify with a gender (in this case,
“woman”) other than the one that corresponds with the sex she
was assigned at birth. But the HSR can make no sense of this. On
their terminological scheme, if Sophie is trans, it is because she
identifies as female. But to be female is to possess female sexuality;
so the Human Sexuality Report is committed to understanding So-
phie as thinking of herself as possessing female sexuality. Sophie
obviously recognizes that she has a penis (and, let us suppose, she
has no other anatomical features that would mark her as female).
So she cannot possibly think that she possesses anatomical female
sexuality. What, then, could it possibly mean for her to think she
possesses female sexuality? The terminological scheme suggests
that in addition to anatomical female sexuality there is also “cul-
tural” female sexuality—namely, femininity. But if femininity is a
form of female sexuality, then to be female is either to be anatomi-

cally female or to be feminine, in which case either Sophie is mis-
taken in thinking she is feminine (an unlikely possibility) or she re-
ally is female and she is also genuinely male (by virtue of her male an-
atomical sexuality). This makes no sense by anyone’s lights.
b. The document grants that the Bible doesn’t really speak to issues of
gender identity since the sex-gender distinction would have been
alien to the writers of the biblical texts. Specifically, it says:
Central to the discussion of sex and gender identity is the dis-
tinction between sex and gender. Yet, as we have seen, this dis-
tinction is a relatively recent one, and it is unknown to the Bible.
For most of Western history, male and female would have in-
cluded the biological realities of those terms as well as all of
what is now included in the term gender.
Needless to say, there is very little that the Bible explicitly says
about these issues. (HSR, p. 387)
Since the primary goal of the document is “to articulate a founda-
tion-laying biblical theology of human sexuality that pays particu-
lar attention to biblical conceptions of gender and sexuality” (HSR,
p. 315), the best move at this point would have been to end the dis-
cussion of gender and move on to other topics. Instead, it specula-
tively notes that the discussion of eunuchs in Matthew 19:11-12
“may shed light on the topic of gender identity and DSD [Disorders
of Sexual Development]” (HSR, p. 388) and proceeds to identify as
the general upshot of that discussion the notion that for many
Christians it is better not to marry, and this is a praiseworthy path
that leads to great reward. The clear suggestion, then, in light of the
claim that Matthew 19:11-12 may shed light on the topic at hand, is
that it may well be better for trans people and intersex people
simply not to marry. In a context like this one, where there are sig-
nificant quality of life issues at stake and real people can be harmed
(even to the point of being driven from the church) by false claims
about what the Bible says about an entire class of people, it is ex-
ceedingly irresponsible to speculatively suggest that there are bibli-
cal grounds for depriving trans and intersex individuals of the
great goods of marriage after previously acknowledging that,
strictly speaking, the Bible does not speak to their condition.
c. In a similar vein, the document says “We do not help people to
flourish when we encourage them to transition from one sex to an-
other” (HSR, p. 393). Quoting Kevin Vanhoozer approvingly, it
goes on to say that “‘in refusing one’s biology, the creature refuses
what is ultimately not merely a natural given but a gift of God,’”
and “our true vocation is not to reject our physical bodies. It is ‘to
discern, deliberate on, and do those possibilities that are given to us
with our biological sex’” (HSR, p. 393). But, again, with so much at
stake and an open acknowledgment of the fact that the Bible does
not speak to matters of gender, claims like this, wholly untethered

as they are from clear biblical guidance, are absolutely irresponsi-
ble.
d. In sum: Some of what the HSR has to say about gender identity is
incoherent; some of it is objectionably speculative, untethered from
biblical moorings. In consequence, it runs a grave risk of seriously
harming the members of the transgender community within our
midst. Such a document cannot be recommended to CRC churches
as containing “useful information” on this subject.

South Bend, Indiana

OVERTURE 40
Address Harm Done to LGBTQ+ Persons

I. Introduction
This overture emerges from deep grief about what has happened within
the Christian Reformed Church since the 2020 release of the Human Sexu-
ality Report (HSR). It is a plea for the following:
• greater attention to ongoing harm within our midst.
• more respect for the moral agency and consciences of individuals.
• a pause in the implementation of some Synod 2022 decisions out of
love and concern for the CRC as a whole.
Below are three significant matters that have not received enough atten-
tion to date. They are the rationale for an overture that proposes a way
forward, with grounds for taking this direction.
A. Apology and follow-up
The Human Sexuality Report repeatedly named the harms done to mem-
bers of the LGBTQ+ community and openly acknowledged that the CRC
has failed them. As part of apologizing for wrongs done, the report spells
out some helpful components for a wholesale change in the way CRC
churches relate to persons struggling with their sexual identities or identi-
fying as members of the LGBTQ+ community.
Synod 2022 repeated apologies made in 1973 and 2016, acknowledging
that CRC churches have contributed to harm done in the past. Those
harms continue to happen in our communities, and the outcomes of
Synod 2022 have served to increase rather than decrease the harm and alien-
ation of those to whom apologies were made.
Sincere apology requires listening with respect and compassion to those
who are harmed, understanding and owning the impact of our own be-
haviors, and then making the required changes in the practices that harm
them. Refusing to consider the harmful implications of decisions being
made undermines synod’s apology. Ignoring or deferring valid concerns
about the implications of the “confessional status” decision is less-than-
wise leadership. We need to apologize again and act as if we mean it.
B. Preventing harm is a biblical imperative
Preventing harm to others is a central focus of the Bible, beginning in Gen-
esis, through the Old Testament, in the Jesus way, in early church life, and
continuing into the shalom of the new creation. The Bible does not justify
doing harm in this life in order to save a soul for eternity. It does not bifur-
cate “life on earth” and “life in the world to come” in a way that might
justify harm in order to point toward salvation.
Jesus led with full acceptance, love, and compassion; moreover, his harsh-
est judgments were for those who put obstacles in the way of the vulnera-
ble in this life, not primarily for eternity but always. In practice, using fear

of eternal damnation to save souls turns people away from Jesus more
than to him.
The harmful impacts of some decisions made at Synod 2022 have become
evident in one year, including the following bitter fruits: hurt and rejec-
tion experienced by LGBTQ+ members of the CRC, as stated in their own
voices. Many are choosing to walk away despite their deep love for the
CRC because it is too painful to stay; and there is more conflict within
churches because many members recognize the harm being done and do
not accept that this is the only path for the CRC to follow.
Gravamina—more than for any other issue in the CRC—are based on con-
science claims. Failure to respect the moral agency and conscience of
church members is, in itself, a form of unnecessary moral harm, as well as
being inconsistent with other Reformed teachings about respect for con-
science decisions. 1
Research on preventing harm for LGBTQ+ persons provides clear direc-
tion about necessary conditions for mental health and well-being. In addi-
tion, there is a growing body of research on what churches can do to cre-
ate safe, supportive, and loving spaces for struggling members or mem-
bers who have identified themselves as LGBTQ+. 2 We know what is nec-
essary for the mental health of LGBTQ+ members, but Synod 2022 added
obstacles to doing it. Within the CRC, numerous pastors have testified
that the “hate-the-sin, love-the-sinner” approach, endorsed by Synod
2022, is too simplistic and does harm instead of good for someone who is
born gay and wonders why God made them that way. It does harm when
we require them to live a life without committed, intimate relationships.
Categorizing committed same-sex relationships as unchaste and adulter-
ous is unfair, even if one thinks such relationships should not exist. Addi-
tionally, the means and manner of making decisions at Synod 2022 were in-
consistent with the imperative to treat every person with respect and dig-
nity, created in the image of God.
The fallout of Synod 2022 is making it more difficult to create safe spaces
for young people who are forming their spiritual and sexual identities.
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
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).

Preventing emotional and spiritual harm to our young people is a cove-
nant obligation under the baptismal vows we make. Those vows don’t ex-
pire when young people disclose that they have a different sexual orienta-
tion or gender identity than expected at birth. It is not the case that “we
don’t know what to do.” A decade of research informs good practice. 3
Synod 2022 did the opposite by creating obstacles to good practice.
C. Justice and compassion
Justice and compassion were not given adequate consideration in the final
decisions of Synod 2022 and the way those decisions were made. Justice
and compassion are central to biblical teachings and the way Jesus taught
us to live—more central than any specific verses about sexual morality.
The failure to give adequate consideration and weight to other relevant
biblical teachings was named in many of the overtures to Synod 2021 and
2022 that called for more time and dialogue. Those calls were ignored by
Synod 2022 without adequate response to the substantive issues raised in
them. For reason of length, this overture cannot go into details about what
justice and compassion mean with regard to this topic, so it calls for time
to do so before we inflict more harm on more people.
As a community church, Jubilee Fellowship Christian Reformed Church
needs to be a welcoming church and one that puts a high priority on com-
passion and justice in both its outreach and creating safe space for mem-
bers, including and especially members of the LGBTQ+ community.
II. Overture
For these reasons, Jubilee Fellowship Christian Reformed Church over-
tures Synod 2023 to take the following steps:
A. Give highest priority to enabling every CRC church to become a space
where members of the LGBTQ+ community will feel they are accepted,
loved, and belong in the family of God, in keeping with our calling to
act out of compassion and justice.
B. Put on hold implementation of the “confessional status” decision by
Synod 2022 until such time as the majority of CRC churches are safe
spaces, especially for young people.
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.

C. Develop a strategy for intentional, ongoing listening to Christ-serving
members of the LGBTQ+ community, families, and allies to inform the
way we express belonging, provide pastoral care, and create safe
spaces in CRC churches, in keeping with the apology for past wrongs
and failures.
D. Develop an action plan for serious implementation of the Synod 2022
decision that calls for more research, theological study and reflection,
and open dialogue on human sexuality, including consideration of
other Reformed approaches to interpreting Scripture.
Grounds:
1. Preventing harm to other people in this life is a central teaching
throughout the Bible, as part of the commandment to love others as
ourselves. “The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You
shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and what-
ever other command there may be, are summed up in this one com-
mand: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbor.
Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:9-10).
2. The Bible does not justify doing harm in this life in order to save a soul
for eternity. The good news of the kingdom of God, based on dignity
and respect for every person as created in the image of God, applies
now and in the renewed creation.
3. The Heidelberg Catechism, in Q&A 107, teaches that the sixth com-
mandment includes protecting others from harm as much as possible.
This was not considered when Synod 2022 based its “confessional sta-
tus” decision on one specific, dated interpretation of the term “unchas-
tity” in Q&A 108 of the Heidelberg Catechism. Q&A 107 is just as im-
portant as Q&A 108. Both need to be considered in the larger context of
how the Heidelberg Catechism understands the second table of the
commandments as a guide for Christian living. Q&A 107, the third
question on the sixth commandment, reads:
Q. Is it enough then that we do not kill our neighbor in any such
way?
A. No. By condemning envy, hatred, and anger God wants us to
love our neighbors as ourselves, to be patient, peace-loving,
gentle, merciful, and friendly to them, to protect them from harm
as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies.
4. Compassion and justice—two central teachings of Jesus and the good
news we proclaim for our world—were not given enough considera-
tion in the final decisions and the way those decisions were made at
Synod 2022. Calling for a pause and taking time to ensure that those
core teachings are given the weight they deserve is warranted by the
bitter fruits evident in the first year. There are other Reformed inter-
pretations of Scripture that do not lead to the injustice, harm, and con-
flict caused by the one particular approach to interpreting Scripture
used to justify labelling all homosexual sex as “unchastity.”

5. The failure to treat with respect members of the CRC community who
are also members of the LGBTQ+ community has caused harm and
reaped negative fruits in many churches during the first year. We
know the harm done and how to prevent further harm. The growing,
specific research on outcomes of different approaches by churches pro-
vides a clear, evidence-based consensus on what constitutes safe
spaces within churches. Furthermore, members of the LGBTQ+ com-
munity who follow Jesus have gifts to contribute to our mission, fel-
lowship, and worship.
6. Synod 2022 called for more research, study of the Bible and theology,
and dialogue on the matters covered in the HSR report. It is logical to
implement that decision before moving to aggressive implementation
of a later, very specific decision that is known to have destructive con-
sequences.
Council of Jubilee Fellowship CRC,

St. Catharines, Ontario
Harry Van Tuyl, clerk
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Niag-
ara but was not adopted.

OVERTURE 41
Hold Implementation of the “Confessional Status” Decision by

Synod 2022 until Synod 2028
I. Introduction
This overture emerges from deep grief about what has happened within
the Christian Reformed Church since the 2020 release of the Human Sexu-
ality Report (HSR). This is a plea for the following:
• greater attention to ongoing harm within our midst
• more respect for the moral agency and consciences of individuals
• a pause in the implementation of some Synod 2022 decisions out of
love and concern for the CRC as a whole
Below are three significant matters that have not received enough atten-
tion to date. They are the rationale for an overture that proposes a way
forward, with grounds for taking this direction.
A. Apology and follow-up
The Human Sexuality Report repeatedly named the harms done to mem-
bers of the LGBTQ+ community and openly acknowledged that the CRC
has failed them. As part of apologizing for wrongs done, the report spells
out some helpful components for a wholesale change in the way CRC
churches relate to persons struggling with their sexual identities or identi-
fying as members of the LGBTQ+ community. Synod 2022 repeated apolo-
gies made in 1973 and 2016, acknowledging that CRC churches have con-
tributed to harm done in the past. Those harms continue to happen in our
communities, and in many situations efforts to interpret and apply the de-
cisions of Synod 2022 may and will serve to increase rather than decrease
the harm and alienation of those to whom apologies were made.
Sincere apology requires listening with respect and compassion to those
who are harmed, understanding and owning the impact of our own be-
haviors, and then making the required changes in the practices that harm
them. Refusing to consider any possible harmful implications of decisions
being made undermines synod’s apology. There is a need to clarify the
implications of the “confessional status” decision in order to address the
valid concerns that have been raised.
B. Preventing harm is a biblical imperative
Preventing harm to others is a central focus of the Bible, beginning in Gen-
esis, through the Old Testament, in the Jesus way, in early church life, and
continuing into the shalom of the new creation. The Bible does not justify
doing harm in this life in order to save a soul for eternity. It does not bifur-
cate “life on earth” and “life in the world to come” in a way that might
justify harm in order to point toward salvation.

Jesus led with full acceptance, love, and compassion; moreover, his harsh-
est judgments were for those who put obstacles in the way of the vulnera-
ble in this life, not primarily for eternity but always. In practice, using fear
of eternal damnation to save souls turns people away from Jesus more
than to him.
The harmful impacts of some decisions made at Synod 2022 have become
evident in one year, including the following bitter fruits: hurt and rejec-
tion experienced by LGBTQ+ members of the CRC, as stated in their own
voices, with many choosing to walk away despite their deep love for the
CRC because it is too painful to stay; there is more conflict within
churches because many members recognize the harm being done and do
not accept that this is the only path for the CRC to follow.
Research on preventing harm for LGBTQ+ persons provides clear direc-
tion about necessary conditions for mental health and well-being. In addi-
tion, there is a growing body of research on what churches can do to cre-
ate safe, supportive, and loving spaces for struggling members or mem-
bers who have identified themselves as LGBTQ+. 1 We may know what is
necessary for the mental health of LGBTQ+ members, but Synod 2022
added obstacles to doing it. Within the CRC, numerous pastors have testi-
fied that the “hate-the-sin, love-the-sinner” approach, endorsed by Synod
2022, is often applied in ways that are too simplistic and that do harm in-
stead of good for someone who is born gay and wonders why God made
them that way. Even for those who believe that the biblical teaching on
homosexuality also prohibits committed, intimate same-sex relationships,
there is a need to acknowledge and recognize the very real hurt and dis-
tress that this prohibition causes. And using terms such as “unchaste” and
“adulterous” to label committed same-sex relationships is not necessarily
accurate or fair, even if one thinks such relationships are not biblical. Ad-
ditionally, the means and manner of making decisions at Synod 2022 were
inconsistent with the imperative to treat every person with respect and
dignity, created in the image of God.
The fallout of Synod 2022 in many cases is that it has become more diffi-
cult to create safe spaces for young people who are forming their spiritual
and sexual identities. Preventing emotional and spiritual harm to our
young people is a covenant obligation under the baptismal vows we
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).

make. Those vows don’t expire when young people disclose that they
have a different sexual orientation or gender-identity than expected at
birth. It is not the case that “we don’t know what to do.” A decade of re-
search informs good practice. 2 Without further discussion and clearer
guidance, the reality is that in many situations efforts to apply the deci-
sions of Synod 2022 will do the opposite by creating obstacles to good
practice.
C. Justice and compassion
Justice and compassion were not given adequate consideration in the final
decisions of Synod 2022 and the way those decisions were made. Justice
and compassion are central to biblical teachings and the way Jesus taught
us to live—more central than any specific verses about sexual morality.
The failure to give adequate consideration and weight to other relevant
biblical teachings was named in many of the overtures to Synod 2021 and
2022 that called for more time and dialogue. Those calls were ignored by
Synod 2022 without adequate response to the substantive issues raised in
them. For reason of length, this overture cannot go into details about what
justice and compassion mean with regard to this topic, so it calls for time
to do so before we inflict more harm on more people.
II. Overture
For these reasons, Classis Eastern Canada overtures Synod 2023 to do the
following:
A. Put on hold implementation of the “confessional status” decision by
Synod 2022 until Synod 2028, when the decision of Synod 2022 will be
revisited.
B. Use this five-year time period to develop a strategy for intentional, on-
going listening to Christ-serving members of the LGBTQ+ community,
families, and allies, to inform the way we express belonging, provide
pastoral care, and create safe spaces in CRC churches, in keeping with
the apology for past wrongs and failures.
C. Use this five-year time period to develop an action plan for serious im-
plementation of the Synod 2022 decision that calls for more research,
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.

theological study and reflection, and open dialogue on human sexual-
ity, including consideration that there may be other Reformed ap-
proaches to interpreting Scripture.
Grounds:
1. Time is needed to give intentional effort to enable every CRC church to
become a space where members of the LGBTQ+ community will feel
they are accepted, loved, and belong in the family of God, in keeping
with our calling to act out of compassion and justice.
2. Preventing harm to other people in this life is a central teaching
throughout the Bible, as part of the commandment to love others as
ourselves. “The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You
shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and what-
ever other command there may be, are summed up in this one com-
mand: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neigh-
bor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:9-10).
3. The Bible does not justify doing harm in this life in order to save a soul
for eternity. The good news of the kingdom of God, based on dignity
and respect for every person as created in the image of God, applies
now and in the renewed creation.
4. The Heidelberg Catechism, in Q&A 107, teaches that the sixth com-
mandment includes protecting others from harm as much as possible.
This was not considered when Synod 2022 based its “confessional sta-
tus” decision on one, specific interpretation of the term “unchastity” in
Q&A 108 of the Heidelberg Catechism. Q&A 107 is just as important as
Q&A 108. Both need to be considered in the larger context of how the
Heidelberg Catechism understands the second table of the command-
ments as a guide for Christian living.
Q. Is it enough then that we do not kill our neighbor in any such
way?
A. No. By condemning envy, hatred, and anger God wants us to
love our neighbors as ourselves, to be patient, peace-loving,
gentle, merciful, and friendly toward them, to protect them
from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our ene-
mies.
5. Compassion and justice—two central teachings of Jesus and the good
news we proclaim for our world—were not given enough considera-
tion in the final decisions and the way those decisions were made at
Synod 2022. Calling for a pause and taking time to ensure that those
core teachings are given the weight they deserve is warranted by the
bitter fruits evident in the first year. There are other possible Reformed
interpretations of Scripture that do not lead to the injustice, harm, and
conflict caused by the one particular approach to interpreting Scripture
used to justify labeling all homosexual sex as “unchastity.”

6. The failure to treat with respect members of the CRC community who
are also members of the LGBTQ+ community has caused harm and
reaped negative fruits in many churches during the first year. We
know the harm done and how to prevent further harm. The growing,
specific research on outcomes of different approaches by churches pro-
vides a clear, evidence-based consensus on what constitutes safe
spaces within churches. Furthermore, members of the LGBTQ+ com-
munity who follow Jesus have gifts to contribute to our mission, fel-
lowship, and worship.
7. Synod 2022 called for more research, study of the Bible and theology,
and dialogue on the matters covered in the HSR report. It is logical to
implement that decision (for more research, study, and dialogue) be-
fore moving to aggressive implementation of a later, very specific deci-
sion that has already been seen in many cases to have destructive con-
sequences due to a lack of more specific guidance and heartfelt reflec-
tion.
Classis Eastern Canada

B. Bernard Bakker, stated clerk
OVERTURE 42
Reverse Synod 2022’s Interpretation of “Unchastity” as

Including “Homosexual Sex"
I. Background
The Human Sexuality Report (HSR) offers two pieces of evidence in sup-
port of the claim that “unchastity” in Q&A 108 includes gay and lesbian
sexual acts: (a) in 2017 the Reformed Church in America offered the same
interpretation; and (b) Ursinus, one of the authors of the Heidelberg Cate-
chism, states in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism that “un-
chastity” is to be understood in this way (see Agenda for Synod 2022, p.
458). Plausibly, the first piece of evidence here is derivative upon the sec-
ond; but even if it isn’t, the teachings of the Reformed Church in America
are not normative for our synod, so that is further reason for treating the
second piece of evidence as primary. But in this matter we should follow
the “spirit” of Ursinus’s commentary rather than the letter (as we shall ar-
gue below), and doing so would lead to the rescinding of Synod 2022’s de-
cision to interpret “unchastity” in the way that it did.

II. Overture
We overture Synod 2023 to rescind Synod 2022’s interpretation of “un-
chastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 as including a list of specific
behaviors, namely “homosexual sex.”
Grounds:
1. There is tension between the following claims: (i) “unchastity” in-
cludes gay and lesbian sexual acts; (ii) Heidelberg Catechism Q&A’s
108 and 109 are equally normative for CRC churches; (iii) “homosexual
desire/attraction” is not sinful. The tension arises out of the fact that
Q&A 109 explains that unchaste desire is included in Q&A 108’s con-
demnation of “all unchastity.” Thus, at least one of claims (i) - (iii) must
be rejected, otherwise the CRC position is incoherent.
2. Ursinus, in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (cited here as
“Comm.”), is deeply committed to both (i) and (ii). Commenting on
Q&A’s 108 and 109, he writes: “When one thing is specified, all those
are understood which are closely allied or connected with it. Therefore,
when adultery is prohibited, as the most shocking and debasing form
of lust, we are to understand all other forms of lust as forbidden at the
same time” (Comm., p. 590). He then goes on to identify among the
various forms of lust “the corrupt inclinations to which good men give
no indulgence, but which they resist, and from which they cut off all
occasions, so that their consciences are not troubled . . .” (Comm., p.
591). Immediately following this sentence, he calls these sin: “Marriage
was instituted after the fall as a remedy against these sins” (Comm., p.
591). To be sure, this passage is not talking specifically about homosex-
ual desire, but what it does make clear is that the Ursinian concept of
lust encompasses not just the objectifying gaze that the HSR character-
izes as lust, but any inclination or desire contrary to chastity, even
those that otherwise “good men” have and do not indulge. Therefore,
if Ursinus is treated as authoritative for the interpretation of the Hei-
delberg Catechism, it is (iii) above that should be rejected, not (i) or (ii).
3. The view that both (ii) and (iii) above are true is affirmed in the 1973
synodical report on homosexuality and reaffirmed in the HSR. It has
been the consistent position of the CRC for almost 50 years. In taking
this position, the CRC has effectively rejected the authority of Ursinus on the
interpretation of Q&A’s 108 and 109. Moreover, they are right to do so.
Ursinus is clearly a product of his time. In the quotation above, we see
Ursinus saying that adultery is “the most shocking and debasing form
of lust,” which we expect is a claim that even—and maybe especially—
the most conservative among us will find implausible at best. More
strikingly, we find remarks like these:
Fornication takes place when those that are unmarried have con-
nection with each other. Magistrates ought by virtue of their office
to punish severely fornication and adultery. God appointed and re-
quired capital punishment to be inflicted upon adulterers. And alt-
hough he did not appoint death as the punishment of fornicators;

yet, when he frequently declared in his word that no whore should
be found among his people, he signified that it should be punished
according to its heinousness and aggravated nature.
(Comm., p. 591)
This is perhaps standard fare for the 16th century (though it is worth
noting that the Thomistic view on these matters is not nearly so se-
vere); but, despite its reference to Old Testament law, this does not re-
flect what most of us nowadays would regard as a properly biblical
way of dealing with sexual sin. Nor is it how the CRC has thought
about sexual sin for at least the past 50 years.
4. There is an obvious resolution here in the quotation from Ursinus
about marriage: “Marriage was instituted after the fall as a remedy for
these sins.” Ursinus, of course, thought that marriage was, by defini-
tion, a “union between one man and one woman.” Then again, Ursinus
wasn’t the most coherent thinker on the subject of marriage: just one
page after saying that “marriage was instituted after the fall as a rem-
edy for [various] sins,” he says that marriage “was instituted by God
himself in Paradise, before the fall of man” for a variety of purposes,
only one of which was that “wanton and wandering lusts might in this
way be avoided” (Comm., p. 592). But, in any case, it seems clear that
the CRC might have some claim to following the spirit of Ursinus if
they resolved the longstanding tension between their position on
same-sex relationships and the Heidelberg Catechism by rescinding the
2022 interpretation of “unchastity” and recognizing gay marriage as a
remedy parallel to heterosexual marriage for “wanton and wandering
lusts.”
South Bend, Indiana

OVERTURE 43
Amend the Decision of Synod 2022 regarding the Definition of

“Unchastity”
I. Overture
The council of Hope Christian Reformed Church (Oak Forest, Ill.) over-
tures Synod 2023 of the Christian Reformed Church in North America to
amend the decision of Synod 2022 regarding the definition of “unchastity”
in Question and Answer 108 of the Heidelberg Catechism. We move that
“homosexual sex” be removed from that expanded understanding of “un-
chastity.”
Grounds:
1. Our communion includes a variety of interpretations about how best
to love and serve same-sex-attracted people. We came to this diversity
of interpretations by biblical study, theological reflection, and living
and worshiping with our same-sex-attracted siblings, children, grand-
children, friends, and parents.
We believe that our unity is found in Christ—not in singular interpre-
tations of Scripture. There have long been interpretive differences
within our tradition. We make space for those differences. We give
time to unfold and enfold those differences. We come to new under-
standings of the implications of the gospel by living with those differ-
ences. In living with this diversity of interpretations, we trust the lead-
ing of the Spirit, the faithful preaching of the Word, and the admin-
istration of the sacraments. Those practices make room for changes in
practice—even as we grow in faith and grow in the gifts God gives.
The decision to change the catechism runs counter to that tradition. By
making our differences a matter of confession rather than a matter of
interpretation and pastoral care, we effectively shut down ongoing dis-
cussion and threaten the unity of the Spirit. We forsake the very gifts
that have served us well in the past.
2. In Romans 15, Paul instructs the early church concerning differences of
interpretation and practice to refrain from passing judgment, con-
structing stumbling blocks, and destroying the work of God. He en-
courages the church to make every effort that leads to peace and mu-
tual edification. He calls on those early believers to “accept one an-
other, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to
God” (15:7).
The elevation of our disagreements about human sexuality to that
which “threatens a person’s salvation” runs counter to Paul’s admoni-
tion. The decision of Synod 2022 that this interpretation is embedded
in the confessions in such a manner that to believe otherwise is to be
“acting like the false church” is damning to our congregation and to
those we love and serve. It strikes us as prudent and faithful to follow
Paul’s guidance on this matter. We try to remove barriers and nurture

a culture of acceptance so that all might know the grace of God ex-
pressed in Christ Jesus. Synod’s action in 2022 cuts against the grain of
those efforts.
3. There is ample evidence that other denominations have not been able
to navigate this discussion without splintering into new organizations.
Unity is sacrificed at the altar of confessional purity. And yet—even as
a theological tradition with a robust commitment to creed and confes-
sion—we have long made space for discussion and disagreement and
learning from the work of the Spirit in one another. We believe that
those historical patterns can continue to serve us well by staying to-
gether rather than by separating.
We recognize that such commitments require a measure of humility
and a willingness to remain in communion. We bear witness that the
CRCNA has wrestled with issues of race, the baptism of adopted chil-
dren, divorce and remarriage, the role of women, etc. Those discus-
sions did not lead to irreparable division. The decision of Synod 2022
regarding Q&A 108 mitigates against that tradition of unity and reflec-
tion. It is not clear to us why this matter requires such divisive action.
Our strength is in belonging to Christ, being signed and sealed by the
sacraments, and seeking to follow the way of Christ in this world—not
by a singular standard of confessional rigor.
4. Thoughtful, faithful Christians—who study Scripture, seek the Lord’s
leading, and submit to the will and way of God—live out their faith in
different ways. Within our congregation there are pastoral colleagues,
lifelong friends, and spouses who have come to different understand-
ings of Scripture’s teaching regarding same-sex marriage. This reality
is not the result of indifference, inactivity, or ignorance. This reality is
not because of activism or following the whims of the world. This real-
ity is not part of a secular scheme or the failure of biblical education.
This diversity of interpretation is simply the reality of the long faithful
lives of the saints. Therefore, it seems the height of hubris to claim one
interpretive position above others.
The request to amend the decision of Synod 2022 is not to advocate for
or to impose another position but to leave the care of those in a same-
sex committed relationship in the realm of pastoral care. It is, in fact, to
leave Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 as a matter of interpretation and
not salvation. It is to recognize that we can be united in baptism, wor-
ship, mission, and communion without agreeing on all issues of inter-
pretation.
At Hope CRC, we hold our variety of views in tension, mutual respect,
and, at our best, in conversation and prayer. We try to hold all of this
in humility, love, and unity in Christ. Conferring “confessional status”
on one particular interpretation has proven to be hurtful and divisive.
We’ve lost church members who no longer want to be associated with
the CRCNA. We’ve lost church members who are now emboldened to
name the “biblical unfaithfulness” of fellow congregants. Rather than

strengthen congregational life and enhance our gospel witness, the de-
cision of Synod 2022 has distracted and weakened our collective life
and witness.
II. Conclusion
Therefore, it is the prayerful and considered request of the council of
Hope Christian Reformed Church that the decision of Synod 2022 to in-
clude “homosexual sex” in the definition of “unchastity” (Heidelberg Cat-
echism, Q&A 108) be amended and that “homosexual sex” be removed
from that definition.
May God bless and build his church.
Council of Hope Christian Reformed Church,

Oak Forest, Illinois
Val Bosscher, clerk
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Chi-
cago South but was not adopted.

OVERTURE 44
Remove Definition of “Unchastity” as Part of the Confessional

Interpretation of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108
I. Preamble
On June 15, 2022, the synod of the CRCNA affirmed
that “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q. and A. 108 encompasses
In so doing, synod declares this affirmation “an interpretation of [a]
confession” (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603). Therefore, this interpretation
has confessional status. (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922)
We, the undersigned, agree that “unchastity” does encompass most of the
sexual activities listed, but we do not believe that homosexual sex belongs
on the list.
Many of the undersigned have friends or family members that identify as
LGBTQ+, and we are very concerned about synod’s decision to pronounce
this interpretation of Q&A 108 to be confessional.
This overture was submitted to Classis Alberta North and was discussed
at their March meeting but was not approved to forward to synod from
classis. Instead we were encouraged to submit our overture directly to
synod.
II. Overture
The undersigned members of Woody Nook Christian Reformed Church
overture Synod 2023 that the definition of unchastity, as defined in the Hu-
man Sexuality Report and affirmed by Synod 2022 to “encompass adul-
tery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, polyamory, pornography, and ho-
mosexual sex” be removed as part of the confessional interpretation of
Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108.
It is with prayerful consideration and faithful study that we submit this
overture.
Grounds:
1. Synod’s decision on confessional status is based on their interpretation
of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108, which asks, “What does the sev-
enth commandment teach us?” and answers, “That God condemns all
unchastity, and that therefore we should thoroughly detest it and live
decent and chaste lives, within or outside of the holy state of mar-
riage.” In the June 2022 decision synod defined “unchastity” to include
a list of practices. Synod has not established the reason “unchastity”
needed to be defined with a list of sexual practices. Living a chaste or
unchaste life is about living a faithful or unfaithful life. Defining “un-
chastity” solely in terms of sexual practices fails to follow the true

meaning and brilliance behind the Heidelberg Catechism. The cate-
chism focuses on how a grateful life is marked by faithfulness in rela-
tionships. Reducing “unchastity” to sexual practices fails to under-
stand what the Heidelberg Catechism is really about and is an unhelp-
ful reduction in exploring the dimensions of faithful relational practice
that honors the person created in the image of God.
2. Q&A 108 is in the Gratitude section of the Heidelberg Catechism, in
which the Ten Commandments are explained in the context of positive
guidelines for living. By focusing on the word “unchastity” in Q&A
108, synod missed the opportunity to focus on the positive and con-
structive directive to “live decent and chaste lives” in keeping with a
life characterized by gratitude.
3. The CRC Church Order, when explaining the Covenant for Officebear-
ers that all pastors, elders, and deacons in the CRC must commit to
and agree with, expressly states that “a signatory is bound only to
those doctrines that are confessed, and is not bound to the references, allu-
sions, and remarks that are incidental to the formulation of these doc-
trines . . .” (see Church Order Supplement, Art. 5, A, 3, emphasis
added). We believe that Synod 2022 has made “references, allusions, and
remarks” about Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 when claiming that it
refers to a specific list of sins. They have added their own bias to the
definition of “unchastity” (in Q&A 108) and then declared their inter-
pretation as confessional.
4. The process of creating the Human Sexuality Report, which was used
to define “unchastity,” is lacking the perspective and voices of many
theologians and leaders in the Christian Reformed Church that under-
stand human sexuality differently. Alternate interpretations of key
texts were not given adequate attention, and conclusions made by the
committee were not adequately explained. The Human Sexuality Re-
port, which laid the foundations for synod’s interpretation of Heidel-
berg Catechism Q&A 108, is not a comprehensive summary of biblical
teachings on human sexuality; therefore, the change to the understand-
ing of “unchastity” should be removed as a confessional interpretation
of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108.
5. Over time our understanding of how God is faithfully reflected in gen-
der and marriage, and indeed in all relationships, has grown. The
deepening of this understanding needs to continue as God reveals
himself to us. The cultural context has also changed. Giving confes-
sional status to such an interpretation hinders the willingness to ex-
plore biblical wisdom in cultural context.
6. Jesus makes it very clear that the most important part of faithfully re-
flecting God’s grace is love. When Jesus is asked what the greatest com-
mandment is he replies: “The most important one . . . is this: ‘Hear, O
Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and

with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as your-
self.’ There is no commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:29-31; cf.
Matt. 22:35-40; Luke 10:27-28). Holding on to the confessional status of
the interpretation of “unchastity” at this point will alienate many
members. It will be very divisive for the denomination, and more im-
portantly would hinder our church’s witness of Christ in the world.
By this overture we ask the CRCNA to allow for unity within diversity.
Members of Woody Nook CRC, Lacombe, Alberta
Jarnick Bartels Linda Kraay

Lotte Bartels Malia Kraay
Hidde Born Rachel deKoning Kraay
Jackie Born Reuben Kraay
Connie deBoon Herman Laarman
Ashley deBoon-Luymes Martha Laarman
Klaaske deGroot-deKoning Kate Luymes
Edith Dening Darrell Mulder
Jack Dening Karen Mulder
Hans Doef Karissa Prins
Jen Doef Keith Prins
Leah Doef Jack Siebenga
Miriam Doef Linda Siebenga
Paul Doef Julie Ten Hove
Sid Doornbos Carlee Vandekraats
Heather Dreise Justin Vandekraats
Jeremy Dreise Erwin Van Haren
Ryan Drost Judy Van Haren
Kurt Hoogland Jason Veldhuisen
SherryAnn Hoogland Melinda Veldhuisen
Ron Hulleman Kristin Westervelt
Ed Kraay
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Alberta
North but was not adopted.

OVERTURE 45
Confessional-Revision Gravamen: Revise Interpretation of

Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 by Synod 2022
The council of Inglewood Christian Reformed Church of Edmonton, Al-

berta (hereafter “Council”), by this gravamen, makes a specific recommen-
dation for revision of the interpretation of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108
made by Synod 2022, declaring all homosexual sex as unchaste. Such an
interpretation is too broad in that it would prohibit sexual relations be-
tween committed same-sex marriage partners and thereby exclude them
from the blessings and fulfillment of holy matrimony, including its psy-
chological, physical, social, and spiritual benefits. This gravamen requests
that the words “homosexual sex” be removed from the interpretation of
Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 declared as confessional by Synod 2022.
Grounds:
1. Inglewood Christian Reformed Church is a church within Classis Al-
berta North of the Christian Reformed Church in North America.
2. Synod 2022 adopted the following (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922):
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,
3. Council disagrees with the interpretation of Heidelberg Catechism
Q&A 108 as pronounced by Synod 2022, in that Council believes that
committed same-sex relationships and marriages are neither incon-
sistent with the teachings of Scripture nor contemplated unchaste by
the Heidelberg Catechism.
4. Article 2 of the Belgic Confession states that God makes himself known
in two ways: by the Scriptures and through the study of the universe
or creation. Synod’s interpretation of the Heidelberg Catechism and
pronouncement of the confessional status of that interpretation is not
well grounded in the divine gift of revelation as manifested in the so-
cial sciences. See critiques of the science used in the Human Sexuality
Report by Dr. Emily Helder, Pediatric Clinical Neuropsychologist, Pro-
fessor of Psychology, Calvin University, and by Dr. Linda Naranjo-
Hebl, Professor of English, Calvin University at allonebody.org.
5. Furthermore, synod’s interpretation of the Heidelberg Catechism is
grounded in a specific theological interpretation of Scripture as if it
were the only possible interpretation of Scripture as pertains to same-
sex committed relationships and disallows or discredits other Re-
formed interpretations of Scripture that would affirm committed same-

sex marriage. By its pronouncement of confessional status on one par-
ticular interpretation of Scripture, synod renders those other interpre-
tations untruthful and heretical and condemns those who hold such in-
terpretations. For alternate interpretations of Scripture by Reformed
theologians, see “Classis Grand Rapids East Study Report on Biblical
and Theological Support Currently Offered by Christian Proponents of
Same-Sex Marriage,” communicated to Synod 2016 at classis-
greast.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ssmRevised.pdf; and “Re-
sponse to the Human Sexuality Report to the Synod of 2021” by Dr.
Nicholas Woltersdorff (Dec. 2020) at libguides.calvin.edu/ld.php?con-
tent_id=59367502.
6. Synod took the extraordinary step of declaring “confessional status”
without regard to the consequences for the queer membership of the
CRCNA, and particularly to the exclusion of queer confessing mem-
bers from both full participation in, and the benefits of membership in,
the CRCNA.
7. The exclusion of a whole category of Christ-followers has and will con-
tinue to cause grave and serious harm to the queer community both
within and without the CRCNA and will impoverish the whole
church, including the CRCNA.
8. The interpretation of and pronouncement regarding the Heidelberg
Catechism puts officebearers who hold a contrary view from the refer-
enced declarations of Synod 2022 outside the teachings of the church.
9. This gravamen does not foreclose different interpretations or view-
points and is not meant to disrespect various perspectives.
Prayer: That synod adopt the foregoing gravamen.
Council of Inglewood CRC, Edmonton, Alberta

Albert Den Otter, clerk
Note: The foregoing confessional-revision gravamen was adopted by the

council of Inglewood Christian Reformed Church, Edmonton, Alberta, on
August 22, 2022. This confessional-revision gravamen was not adopted by
the classis and therefore comes to synod as an appeal of the classis deci-
sion, per Church Order Supplement, Article 5, C, 5. Such gravamina will
be processed according to Church Order Supplement, Article 30-a, B-C.

OVERTURE 46
Declare that the Interpretation of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A

108 Does Not Have Confessional Status
Having read and reflected on the Human Sexuality Report accepted by

Synod 2022, and while recognizing the work put into producing the re-
port, the council of First Christian Reformed Church of Denver, Colorado,
nevertheless overtures Synod 2023 to rule and declare that the interpreta-
tion of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 adopted by Synod 2022 does not
have confessional status.
Grounds:
1. Declaring the conclusions of the report of the Committee to Articulate
a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality as “confes-
sional” is harming the unity of First Christian Reformed Church to live
and serve together as outlined in our mission statement and stated on
First CRC’s website:
We are a family of God, living our faith and growing by joyfully
surrendering to Jesus, freely sharing our lives, and humbly em-
bracing the hurting.
Jesus Lovers
As a Christian church, we believe that Jesus Christ is God's greatest
gift to the world. We believe that Jesus came to bring abundant life
to us and to all of creation, and that he is the only source of true
hope and peace. We believe that Jesus redefines our relationships
with God and with each other and that a relationship with Jesus is
the only way to true meaning and fulfillment. And we believe that
growing up to be like Jesus—as individuals and as a community—
should be our greatest ambition.
We want our community to be all about Jesus! Whether you al-
ready share in this passion for Jesus or would simply like to learn
more about him, we welcome you!
Reformers
Like all Christian churches, we are a community that is centered on
the person and work of Jesus Christ. But as a Christian Reformed
Church, we have a unique way of speaking about our Christian
faith—our own "theological accent."
Our "accent" emphasizes that we serve a very BIG God who has
very BIG plans for us and the world he made. Much of this accent
is shaped by the work of the 16th-century "Reformers" from whom
we take our name.
Like the early Reformers, we proclaim that we belong, in life and in
death, to the God who has made himself known to us in Jesus, and
that our world belongs to him too. We take comfort in knowing
that he continues to hold our lives in his hands and that he alone is

responsible for our salvation. We are also challenged by our belief
that he puts his claim on every inch of our lives, and we rejoice be-
cause we believe he intends to renew and restore not just our
"souls" but his entire Creation.
Family
We believe that Christians are called to live in relationship with
other members of the body of Christ. First CRC is one expression
of this family.
As a family, we desire to welcome people of all different ages and
backgrounds so that we can worship God together, grow in faith
together, and serve God and his world together.
2. The weight of confessional status does not allow us to be the loving
and inclusive family that we as a congregation feel called to be in our
church family and community. We understand that the Human Sexu-
ality Report concludes one view among many concerning human sexu-
ality. But it is not as simple as “the traditional position” versus “the
progressive position,” and many individuals in the denomination and
in our congregation realize human sexuality is more nuanced. The
weight of confessional status tells some that they are not welcome. The
weight of confessional status has caused several individuals and fami-
lies, those from both “traditional” and “progressive” positions that dif-
fer from the conclusions of the Human Sexuality Report, to leave First
CRC. The weight of confessional status also disqualifies many of our
current members from eligibility to bear office. The report’s conclu-
sions also undercut the efficacy of local conversations and the process
of restorative circles by declaring that one point of view “already has
confessional status.”
3. Removing the confessional status will allow us to move forward in
unity with our goal to understand that our primary identity is in
Christ, and that being able to disagree in love and respect on issues
like same-sex marriage can strengthen our witness for Christ and his
kingdom.
Council of First CRC, Denver, Colorado

Karen Waanders, clerk
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Rocky
Mountain but was not adopted.

OVERTURE 47
Create Local Option to Allow LGBTQ+ Christians to

Participate Fully
I. Background
Committed to inclusivity, Fellowship Christian Reformed Church of
Edmonton, Alberta, desires to “welcome all who seek to follow Christ to
participate as full members in the life of our church. We strive to remain
faithful to the promises made at baptism, welcoming and nurturing the
faith of all God’s children. We seek to build community in the midst of
diversity and honour God’s greatest commandment—to love one another
as Christ loves us” (Fellowship CRC Statement of Inclusion, adopted
2015).
Our commitment to welcome God’s children and to invite them to full
participation in the life of the church extends to all, including “people of
all ages, colours, genders, sexual orientations, abilities, ethnic origins, and
economic circumstances” (Fellowship CRC Statement of Inclusion). Our
church arrived at this statement after several years of common prayer, the-
ological reflection, learning, and discernment, and we communicated the
statement to the church visitors of Classis Alberta North in 2015. We have
tried to live up to this statement of inclusion, recognizing that we are bro-
ken people on a journey of learning who need God’s grace, Christ’s teach-
ing, and the empowerment of Christ’s Spirit.
Our church is convinced that the deliberations over the Human Sexuality
Report (HSR) at Synod 2022 and the decision to adopt the corresponding
majority report, including the interpretive statement on Heidelberg Cate-
chism Q&A 108, are at odds with our Christ-inspired commitment to wel-
come and love all of God’s children.
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.
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,

C. Continue to critically and openly engage the Human Sexuality Report
that provided the theological framework for synod’s deliberations.
This, at the very least, will require a more robust minority report writ-
ten by a committee not bound by the 1973 synodical decision on homo-
sexuality and open to a diversity of Reformed scholarship.
Grounds:
1. While Fellowship CRC is not asking that all churches interpret the
Scriptures and Christian tradition as we do, we do ask that our church
and others like ours be given the freedom to minister to our commu-
nity from a foundation of biblical interpretation that does allow for
same-sex intimacy within the covenant of marriage. The very existence
of a variety of robust biblical and theological arguments for the inclu-
sion of celibate and married LGBTQ+ Christians in the church signals
that there is not theological or pastoral consensus on this topic. We are
asking that the CRCNA recognize that the conclusions of the HSR are
but one interpretation of Scripture, allowing for other interpretations.
This would give local congregations, like Fellowship CRC, the freedom
to be open and affirming of full participation by LGBTQ+ persons in
the life and membership of our congregation while still belonging to
the covenant community of the CRCNA.
2. Pastoral care and community building with those in the LGBTQ+ com-
munity, their families, and their allies, has been severely damaged by
the decisions of Synod 2022. Those churches who wish to offer genuine
care and welcome to LGBTQ+ Christians must have the local authority
to do so with integrity. Though the pastoral care section of the HSR,
and the synodical discussion of the majority report at Synod 2022 ex-
pressed a desire to be compassionate and welcoming, in the end, this
desire seems by many to be incompatible with synod’s conclusion that
LGBTQ+ people who are not celibate may not participate fully in the
life of the church.
3. The HSR did not engage robustly with theological understandings of
same-sex relationships that differ from those articulated in the report.
A number of prominent Reformed biblical scholars and theologians
have provided compelling arguments for the full inclusion of same-sex
relationships in the church. The Classis Grand Rapids Study Report on
Biblical and Theological Support Currently Offered by Christian Proponents
of Same-Sex Marriage (January 2016) is a helpful summary of just some
of these arguments. The HSR relied on a definition of Reformed theol-
ogy indebted to the notion of “the order of creation,” a construct that is
not unanimously accepted among Reformed scholars and which is ab-
sent in the theology of John Calvin himself. The absence of careful en-
gagement with these arguments and the apparent refusal to engage
with differing voices in a spirit of generosity and listening hampered

the discussion of the HSR at Synod 2022 by withholding the full spec-
trum of Christian wisdom—Reformed and otherwise—on this vital
topic.
Council of Fellowship CRC, Edmonton, Alberta

Robert Bruinsma, clerk
Note: This overture was submitted to Classis Alberta North at its winter
meeting but was not adopted.

OVERTURE 48
Reverse Synod 2022’s Decision to Interpret “Unchastity” in

Q&A 108 of the Heidelberg Catechism as Including
“Homosexual Sex”
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)

2 crcna.org/sites/default/files/1973_report_homosexuality.pdf
3 In fact, since the decision of the most recent synod takes priority, Synod 2022 over-
turned Synod 1973 on this matter, all the while purporting to be in agreement with it.
5 Ibid., p. 613.

We must now consider the problem of the homosexual who is in the
unhappy dilemma of not being able to marry because of his homosex-
uality, but at the same time experiences all the desires and drive for
sexual fulfillment that brings the heterosexual to marriage. (p. 627)
A homosexual, on the other hand, like almost all human beings, has a
need for the fulfillment of sexual relationships. For him not to have sex
relations is to be deprived of that which his body craves, a deprivation
of which he is constantly aware. He therefore lives in a circle of frustra-
tion caused by unfulfilled physical desires and the unfulfilled need for
interpersonal love and companionship. (p. 628)
What then do we say to the homosexual who cannot relate to a mem-
ber of the opposite sex but at the same time is “aflame with passion?”
(p. 628)
These representational quotations come from disparate places in the 1973
report, but they all illustrate the same point: the same-sex oriented person
has sexual desire for a person of the same sex which cannot be fulfilled.
The mind and body desire and crave something that cannot (or at least
should not) be had. What is repeatedly made clear in the report, however,
is that the desire is not the sin. 6 The same-sex oriented person is not culpable
for having the desires (a condition he or she may have been born with) but
only for acting on them.
Synod 2022, however, has done away with this distinction and has contra-
dicted this position set forth in the 1973 report. It did so by interpreting
“unchastity” to include homosexual sex. Q&A 108 of the Heidelberg Cate-
chism asks, “What does the seventh commandment teach us?” Answer:
“That God condemns all unchastity, and that therefore we should thor-
oughly detest it and live decent and chaste lives, within or outside of the
holy state of marriage.” Synod 2022 included “homosexual sex” among a
list of things that fall under the description of “unchastity.”
The problem enters in when we consider the next question and answer,
Q&A 109, which asks, “Does God, in this commandment, forbid only such
scandalous sins as adultery?” Answer: “We are temples of the Holy Spirit,
body and soul, and God wants both to be kept clean and holy. That is why
God forbids all unchaste actions, looks, talk, thoughts, or desires, and what-
ever may incite someone to them” (emphasis added). If homosexual sex is
considered unchaste (as Synod 2022 declared), then by the logic of the
Heidelberg Catechism, thoughts about or desires for homosexual sex are
also condemned and forbidden. 7 Thus, Synod 2022 has contradicted the
6 Note the distinction between homosexuality as a “condition” (which is throughout the

1973 report associated with attractions and desires) and homosexualism as a “practice”
(p. 613), and also the last paragraph on p. 613, which distinguishes between what one is
and is not responsible for.
7 Ursinus makes this point very explicitly: “CHASTITY, in general, is a virtue contrib-
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,

1973 report by making even the desire for homosexual sex (a necessary and
obvious part of a homosexual orientation) forbidden by God.
On Synod 2022’s interpretation of the catechism, God forbids and con-
demns not just homosexual sex (Q&A 108) but also homosexual desire
(Q&A 109). In contradiction of the 1973 report, the desire itself is now a sin,
forbidden by God and condemned along with “all unchastity,” whether
acted upon (Q&A 108) or desired (Q&A 109). 8 What the 1973 report gave
with the right hand, Synod 2022 took away with the left.
The CRC position on homosexuality has become, as of Synod 2022, incon-
sistent and incoherent. The 1973 report contradicts the decision of Synod
2022, and the decision of Synod 2022 contradicts the 1973 report. 9 Logi-
cally speaking, one cannot both agree with the 1973 report and consider
“unchastity” in Q&A 108 to include homosexual sex. 10 For this reason,
synod should reverse Synod 2022’s decision to interpret the word “un-
chastity” in Q&A 108 of the Heidelberg Catechism to include “homosex-
ual sex.”
II. Potential objections
1. “Desire” in Q&A 109 indicates lustful or excessive desire, as opposed
to a natural or “normal” desire, or the “cultivating” of desire, as op-
posed to involuntary desire.
Answer: The German word in the original text does not carry the con-
notation of lustful or excessive desire. It means much the same as the
English word desire, which can be used to indicate desire for positive
things, or negative ones, depending on the context. No doubt there is a
difference between desires felt involuntarily, and cultivating those de-
sires, but such a distinction is foreign to the catechism, which does not
limit or nuance “desire” in any way.
p. 921; see monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/ursinus/Commentary%20on%20the%20Hei-

delberg%20Ca%20-%20Zacharias%20Ursinus.pdf). It is abundantly clear that Ursinus in-
tends to condemn both homosexual desire and homosexual sex, over against the 1973 re-
port.
8 Note the church in California that in May 2022 disaffiliated from the CRC in part over
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.

2. There is a distinction to be made between same-sex “attraction” and
same-sex “desire,” such that Q&A 109 treats “desire” but not the
(mere) “attraction” that is by definition part of a same-sex orientation.
Answer: Such distinctions fall apart upon scrutiny, based on common
sense and common usage of the terms. See, for example, how these
terms blur together in the Human Sexuality Report itself: “There is no
sin in being attracted to the same sex. We only sin if we act on our sex-
ual attractions” (p. 405); “although Scripture condemns homosexual
sex, it does not condemn people who are attracted to the same sex…In
the world’s eyes it is outrageous to expect those who are attracted to
the same sex not to express those desires in a sexual relationship” (p.
425). See also the definitions provided in the 1973 report: “Sexuality” is
“the desire to give and receive in intimacy . . .” and “homosexuality” is
“the condition in which an adult’s sexuality is directed to his own sex”
(p. 611); a “homosexual” is “an adult who is motivated by a definite
preferential erotic attraction to members of the same sex” (p. 613). See
also the quote in note 8, where desire and attraction are equated, and
distinguished from behavior.
3. Synod 2022 and the HSR claim to uphold the 1973 position. They did
not intend to forbid or condemn homosexual desire or attraction, only
homosexual sex.
Answer: Whether or not they intended it, that is in fact what they did.
The context of Lord’s Day 41 and the progression of Q&A 108 followed
by Q&A 109 allow for no other reasonable conclusion.
III. Summary
In summary, the 1973 report laid out a groundbreaking and gracious posi-
tion. Those who experienced same-sex attraction and desire were assured
that they were not under God’s condemnation simply for having those at-
tractions and desires; nor was their “condition” somehow forbidden by
God; it was only specific actions done by choice that were forbidden.
Tragically, Synod 2022 has obliterated this distinction, condemning not
only the actions done by choice (Q&A 108) but by logical consequence for-
bidding even the desires that lie behind them (Q&A 109). It is our heartfelt
plea, as officebearers in the Christian Reformed Church, that we return to
the gracious stance of the 1973 report and not be confessionally obligated
to hold the position that God condemns and forbids same-sex desire.

South Bend, Indiana

OVERTURE 49
Amend Church Order Supplement, Article 5, B

Classis Grandville overtures synod to adopt the following amendments to
Church Order Supplement, Article 5, B:
I. Background
The Christian Reformed Church has always held its officebearers to a high
theological standard. As a condition for holding office, all CRC officebear-
ers are required to take and abide by the terms of an oath called the Cove-
nant for Officebearers (see Church Order Art. 5). By taking this oath, those
elected to serve as officebearers affirm “without reservation all the doc-
trines contained in the standards of the church as being doctrines that are
taught in the Word of God” (Church Order Supplement, Art. 5, A, 1). And
they promise to “promote and defend [these] doctrines faithfully” (Sup-
plement, Art. 5, Covenant for Officebearers).
The CRC has never allowed an officebearer to take exception to any of the
doctrines contained in our creeds and confessions. Meeting less than four
years after its founding, the CRC’s broadest assembly unanimously
adopted a resolution requiring all officebearers to “unconditionally sign”
the Form of Subscription/Covenant for Officebearers (Assembly Minutes,
April 5, 1861, Art. 13). In adopting this resolution, the CRC was doing
nothing more than following in the footsteps of the great Synod of Dort
(1618-19) and of the 1834 Afscheiding (see, Godfrey, W. Robert, “Subscrip-
tion in the Dutch Reformed Tradition” in The Practice of Confessional Sub-
scription, ed. David W. Hall [Powder Springs, Ga.: The Covenant Founda-
tion, 2018], pp. 93-104).
Unfortunately, following Synod 2022, the denominational offices pub-
lished an online document undermining the CRC’s official policy regard-
ing confessional subscription. The document is titled “Frequently Asked
Questions about Synod 2022 and the Human Sexuality Report”
(crcna.org/synod/hsr-faq, accessed Aug. 14, 2022), and it makes two claims
that we find deeply problematic.
A. Confessional-difficulty gravamina
First, the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document claims that a
council may grant an officebearer an exception to a doctrine contained in
the confessions if that officebearer submits to their council a confessional-
difficulty gravamen. According to the FAQ document, “A confessional-
difficulty gravamen indicates that an officebearer personally has difficulty
with something in the confessions or an interpretation of the confessions
and wishes to go on record with his or her church council in that regard”
(FAQ, Q/A 8). As both the history and text of the Church Order show,
however, this understanding of a confessional-difficulty gravamen is in-
correct.
As an official Church Order category, confessional-difficulty gravamina
did not exist until Synod 1976. Prior to that synod, many churches simply

assumed that if an officebearer had some “difficulty” with a confession,
the only way for that officebearer to express that “difficulty” was for them
to submit a gravamen calling for a revision of the confessions. In its report
to Synod 1976, however, the Committee to Study Revision of the Form of
Subscription rightly challenged this assumption.
According to the study committee, if an officebearer were to come to a
“settled conviction” that some confessional teaching was wrong, then, of
course, that officebearer should submit a gravamen calling for a revision
of the confessions (Acts of Synod 1976, p. 572). But suppose, the committee
argued, an officebearer had not come to such a “settled conviction.” In-
stead, suppose they had merely developed “serious doubts about a point of
doctrine taught in the confessions” or suppose that they were “unsure as
to whether or not [some personal belief was compatible] with the church’s
confessions” (Acts of Synod 1976, p. 572, emphasis added). In those cases,
the committee argued, what is called for is not a revision of the confes-
sions, but rather for the officebearer to have “an open and frank” discus-
sion with their council, “hopefully leading to the removal of [the office-
bearer’s] doubts” (Acts of Synod 1976, p. 572).
The 1976 advisory committee tasked with helping synod respond to this
study committee report agreed with the study committee that there was a
significant difference between someone’s having, on the one hand, a “set-
tled conviction” or “objection” to the confessions and, on the other hand,
their merely having “doubt” (Acts of Synod 1976, p. 67). As a result, the ad-
visory committee recommended that Synod 1976 create a new category of
gravamina. In those cases when an officebearer has come to a “settled con-
viction” that the confessions are wrong, the officebearer should submit a
“confessional-revision gravamen.” However, when an officebearer merely
has “doubts” about something in the confessions, the officebearer should
submit a “confessional-difficulty gravamen.” The aim of this new type of
gravamen would be for the church to provide an officebearer with what-
ever “information and/or clarification of the confession” was needed to re-
solve their doubts (Supplement, Art. 5, B, 2).
Not only did Synod 1976 adopt this new distinction between “confes-
sional-revision gravamina” and “confessional-difficulty gravamina,” they
also applied the new distinction to a concrete case. In 1975, Dr. Harry Boer
had sent a communication to synod asking synod “to inform him what
‘the express testimony of Scripture’ [was] for [the doctrine of reproba-
tion]” (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 105). Dr. Boer had gone to his consistory and
classis with this request, but they had denied his request. In keeping with
the common assumption of that day, they believed that Dr. Boer should
have submitted his “difficulty” as a request to revise the confession. But
this is not what Dr. Boer thought was needed. In a personal interview
with the study committee tasked with examining his communication, Dr.
Boer explained that “it [was] not his purpose in his letter to deny or object
to the doctrine of reprobation as taught in the Canons, but to seek only the
express testimony of Scripture which the Canons assert is available” (Acts
of Synod 1976, p. 623). In other words, Dr. Boer was not “objecting” to the

doctrine of reprobation as taught in the Canons; nor did he have a “settled
conviction” that the Canons were wrong. He simply had doubts about a
point of doctrine and wanted the church to help him to resolve them.
Synod 1976 responded to Dr. Boer’s request in two ways. First, they de-
cided to classify Dr. Boer’s communication as a “confessional-difficulty
gravamen.” This made Dr. Boer’s communication the first-ever confes-
sional-difficulty gravamen in CRC history. Second, they established a spe-
cial committee to meet with Dr. Boer to help him resolve his doubts. Un-
fortunately, before the committee had a chance to meet with him, Dr. Boer
had come to the conclusion that the strength of his views required him to
call for a confessional revision.
Synod 1976’s handling of this first-ever confessional-difficulty gravamen
shows that it did not understand the confessional-difficulty gravamen as a
way for someone, like Dr. Boer, to take exception to a doctrine in our con-
fessions. Instead, Synod 1976 understood confessional-difficulty gravam-
ina as a personal request for help in resolving their doubts. And the way a
council, classis, or synod was to do that was by providing the officebearer
with the “information and/or clarification” of the confessions (Supple-
ment, Art. 5, B, 2). What Synod 1976 did not say and what no synod has
ever said is that this type of gravamen is a way for someone to take excep-
tion to the church’s creeds and confessions.
Why, then, does the FAQ document claim that a council can grant an ex-
ception to the confessions? We have heard two arguments. The first argu-
ment is that this interpretation merely reflects how some churches have
used confessional-difficulty gravamina in the past. Apparently, some of-
ficebearers have used this type of gravamen in order to avoid having to
agree with infant baptism, limited atonement, and the doctrine of reproba-
tion (among other doctrines). But let us be clear: this is an illegitimate use
of the Church Order. And the fact that some councils have misused the
Church Order in this way is no justification for the denominational offices
to hold up that misuse as something for other councils and classes to copy.
Second, we have heard that this interpretation is implied by Supplement,
Art. 5, B, 1. According to this regulation, when it comes to “the submission
of a confessional-difficulty gravamen: . . . ministers . . . elders, or deacons
shall submit their ‘difficulties’ to their councils for examination and judg-
ment.” According to the denominational offices, the word “judgment” in
this regulation implies that the council must decide whether to “accept”
an officebearer’s difficulty (i.e., grant them an exception) or to place that
officebearer under discipline.
The primary problem with this argument is that it assumes what needs to
be proven. That is, the only way that the FAQ’s interpretation of the word
“judgment” can mean what they say it means is if we start with the as-
sumption that a confessional-difficulty gravamen is a way for an office-
bearer to take an exception to the confessions. But this assumption is pre-
cisely what the denominational offices need to prove!

Instead, given both the text and history of the Supplement, the word
“judgment” in this regulation is best interpreted as merely referring to the
fact that a council must judge how to handle an officebearer’s proposed
“difficulty.” Perhaps the council may “judge” that the officebearer has
misunderstood what subscription requires. Or perhaps the council may
judge that the officebearer’s “difficulty” is actually compatible with the
confessions. Or perhaps the council may judge that there is a conflict be-
tween what the officebearer now thinks and what the confession says. Or
perhaps they may judge that they need to send the gravamen to classis. In
short, there are all kinds of “judgments” that a council might need to
make in processing a confessional-difficulty gravamen.
The second problem with this argument is that it assumes that, short of
granting an exception, the only other course of action a council can take is
to put an officebearer under special discipline. But this is clearly false. As
the Church Order says, “this type of gravamen is a personal request for in-
formation and/or clarification of the confession. Hence this type of grava-
men should be dealt with pastorally and personally by the assembly ad-
dressed” (Supplement, Art. 5, B, 2). In other words, having examined and
judged the nature of the “difficulty” facing the officebearer, the council,
classis, or synod is to deal with the officebearer “pastorally and person-
ally,” providing them with whatever “information and/or clarification”
may be needed to resolve their doubts or uncertainties (Church Order Art.
5, B, 2; Acts of Synod 1976, p. 572). And even if the council, classis, or synod
cannot provide what is needed to resolve those doubts, special discipline
is still not the next natural course of action. In that case, the assembly
should require the officebearer to submit a confessional-revision grava-
men so that the entire denomination may examine and judge the issue.
In addition to the textual and historical problems facing the FAQ’s inter-
pretation of confessional-difficulty gravamina, we would also point out
that the FAQ’s interpretation would require councils to have authority to
amend the Covenant for Officebearers. The Covenant for Officebearers re-
quires subscribers to affirm all the doctrines contained in the creeds and
confessions as being doctrines that “fully agree with the Word of God.” It
also requires officebearers to declare that they “heartily believe” these
doctrines and “will promote and defend [these] doctrines faithfully, con-
forming [their] preaching, teaching, writing, serving, and living to them.”
Someone who takes an exception to the confessions cannot make those af-
firmations. Accordingly, in order for a council to grant an exception, they
would need to amend the terms of the Covenant for Officebearers. That is,
they would need to revise the covenant so that it read that the officebearer
affirmed the doctrines in the confessions in so far as they agreed with the
Word of God. Otherwise, by signing the Covenant for Officebearers, the
officebearer would be committing perjury. But councils do not have au-
thority to revise the Covenant for Officebearers. Therefore they do not
have authority to grant exceptions to a doctrine contained in the creeds
and confessions.

B. Delegating those with “exceptions” to classis and synod
The second problematic claim that the FAQ document makes is that an
officebearer who objects to a doctrine in the confessions may be delegated
to classis and synod provided that that officebearer’s council has granted
them an exception. According to the FAQ, “Those who have filed grava-
mina which have been accepted by their councils would be considered
officebearers in good standing and therefore eligible to serve as delegates
to the broader assemblies” (FAQ, Q/A 16).
The most pressing problem with this claim is that it encourages officebear-
ers to violate the third and ninth commandments. When a person is dele-
gated to classis or synod, they are required to retake their oath of office. At
classis, this oath is the Covenant for Officebearers; at synod, it is the Public
Declaration of Agreement. In both cases, the oaths require officebearers to
“heartily believe” and affirm all the doctrines contained in the CRC’s
creeds and confessions as being doctrines that “fully agree with the Word
of God.” Obviously, an officebearer who has been granted an “exception”
to the creeds and confessions cannot take those oaths. Accordingly, for a
council or classis to delegate an officebearer to classis or synod whom they
know cannot honestly take these oaths is for that council or classis to en-
courage that officebearer to blaspheme God’s name and to commit per-
jury.
Furthermore, if allowed to stand, the FAQ’s claim would undermine trust
among CRC officebearers and churches. As a confessional church, the
basic assumption of our assemblies is that “the doctrines contained in the
confessions of [our] church fully agree with the Word of God” (Supple-
ment, Art. 5, C, 1) and, therefore, that every delegate "affirms without res-
ervation 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).
This is why, on their classical credentials form, synod requires every coun-
cil to “testify that [their] council faithfully adheres to the doctrinal stand-
ards of the Christian Reformed Church . . .” (Supplement, Art. 41; see,
Agenda for Synod 2006, pp. 55-63). And it is also why classes authorize their
synodical delegates “to take part in all deliberations and transactions of
synod” in so far as those transactions are “in agreement with the Word of
God according to the conception of it embodied in the doctrinal standards
of the Christian Reformed Church . . .” (Credentials for Synod Form;
crcna.org/classis/stated-clerks/resources-stated-clerks/synod-delegates-
overtures-communications). The FAQ’s claim would undermine these
basic confessional assumptions. And, consequently, delegates from one
church or classes would now be justified in wondering whether their fel-
low delegates agree with them in doctrine and life.
Finally, if permitted to stand, the FAQ’s claim would undermine the
CRC’s commitment to confessionalism. It would mean that an entire coun-
cil could grant itself an exception to some doctrine or confessional inter-
pretation and the council would never have to inform either its congrega-
tion or its classis. In fact, the Church Order requires that “in all instances of

confessional-difficulty gravamina, the matter shall not be open for discus-
sion by the whole church . . .” (Supplement, Art. 5, B, 2). This means that
entire councils and, possibly, an entire classis, could take exception to in-
fant baptism, limited atonement, or the doctrine of reprobation, among
other doctrines, and synod would not be permitted to discuss it!
II. Overture
Therefore, Classis Grandville overtures Synod 2023 to do the following:
A. Amend the Church Order Supplement, Article 5, B by adding the fol-
lowing regulations:
3. A confessional-difficulty gravamen is a personal request for help in
resolving a subscriber’s “doubts” about a doctrine contained in the
confessions. It is not a request for an assembly to tolerate a sub-
scriber’s “settled conviction” that a doctrine contained in the con-
fessions is wrong. Therefore, in all instances of confessional-diffi-
culty gravamina, no assembly may exempt a subscriber from hav-
ing to affirm all of the doctrines contained in the standards of the
church.
Grounds:
a. Past synodical decisions, the Church Order, and the Covenant
for Officebearers all assume and require unconditional subscrip-
tion to our creeds and confessions (see Supplement, Art. 5, A, 1;
C, 1).
b. When it crafted the Supplement to Article 5, Synod 1976 did not
understand confessional-difficulty gravamina as providing a
way for officebearers to take exception to the doctrines con-
tained in our confessions.
c. To permit a council or classis to grant exceptions to the creeds
and confessions would imply that councils and classes have au-
thority to amend the Covenant for Officebearers. They do not
have this authority.
4. A subscriber who has submitted a confessional-difficulty gravamen
may not be delegated to classis or synod until they can reaffirm
without reservation all the doctrines contained in the standards of
the church as being doctrines that are taught in the Word of God.
This shall be done by requiring the subscriber to re-sign the Cove-
nant for Officebearers.
Grounds:
a. Delegating officebearers to classis and synod who cannot hon-
estly affirm their unreserved agreement with the Covenant for
Officebearers is to encourage them to violate the third and ninth
commandments.
b. Delegating officebearers to classis or synod who cannot hon-

Officebearers undermines trust and unity among officebearers,
churches, and classes.
c. Delegating officebearers to classis and synod who cannot hon-
Officebearers undermines the CRC’s confessional integrity.
d. “All officebearers, on occasions stipulated by council, classical,
and synodical regulations, shall signify their agreement with the
doctrine of the church by signing the Covenant for Officebear-
ers” (Church Order Art. 5).
e. “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” (Church Order Supplement, Art. 5, A, 1).
B. Instruct the general secretary to correct the guidance given on the de-
nominational website regarding confessional-difficulty gravamina so
that it accords with the decisions of Synod 2023.
Ground: The advice to the churches on the denominational website has
resulted in confusion and errors within councils and classes on matters
that are fundamental to the good order and values of the CRC.
C. Instruct the general secretary to send a letter to every council (a) ex-
plaining that a mistake was made in the original online advice given to
churches and (b) informing them of the decisions of Synod 2023 with
regard to confessional-difficulty gravamina.
Grounds:
1. The advice to the churches on the denominational website has re-
sulted in confusion and errors within councils and classes on mat-
ters that are fundamental to the good order and values of the CRC.
2. Sending a letter to every council will better ensure that councils and
classes are aware of Synod 2023’s decisions regarding confessional-
difficulty gravamina.
Classis Grandville
Daniel B. Mouw, stated clerk

OVERTURE 50
Establish a Time of Discipleship for Officebearers with a

Confessional-Difficulty Gravamen
I. Introduction
Classis North Cascades is concerned about the recent usage of the grava-
men process among faculty at Calvin University and among members of
the Council of Delegates. We are concerned that the gravamen process is
being utilized to reject or seek a personal exemption from the declarations
of Synod 2022 regarding human sexuality as taught and understood by
the Reformed churches for five centuries. This is not the intent of the pro-
cess. To rightly understand its intended use, some historical background
is in order.
II. Background
In 1914 the Church Order clearly declared, “The ministers of the Word of
God and likewise the professors of theology (which also behooves the
other professors and school teachers) shall subscribe to the Three Forms of
Unity—namely, the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism,
and the Canons of Dordrecht, 1618-’19, and the ministers of the Word who
refuse to do so shall de facto be suspended from their office by the Consis-
tory or Classis until they shall have given a full statement, and if they ob-
stinately persist in refusing, they shall be deposed from their office” (Art.
53). Article 80 then goes on to state that “false doctrine or heresy, public
schism . . . adultery, fornication . . . would be considered worthy of excom-
munication.” 1 Thus the foundation of the gravamen was to give a state-
ment for a differing view, that if judged inconsistent with the Three Forms
would lead to deposition.
In 1965, the synod adopted a new form of Church Order that is the basis
of the order currently in use. Its version of Article 5 stated, “All office-
bearers, on occasions stipulated by consistorial, classical, and synodical
regulations, shall signify their agreement with the doctrine of the church
by signing the Form of Subscription.” 2 In adopting the new Church Order
and a new Form of Subscription in 1965, for the first time synod made a
way for officebearers to reveal
. . . difficulties or different sentiments respecting the aforesaid doc-
trines . . . to the consistory, classis, and synod, that the same may be
there examined, being ready always cheerfully to submit to the judg-
ment of the consistory, classis, and synod, under the penalty in case of
refusal of being by that very fact suspended from our office.
And further, if at any time the consistory, classis, or synod, upon suffi-
cient grounds of suspicion and to preserve the uniformity and purity
1 Schaver, J.L. “Christian Reformed Church Order” in The Polity of the Churches, Vol. 2
(Chicago: Church Polity Press, 1937, 1947 ed.), pp. 50-51, 55-56.
2 Spaan, H. Christian Reformed Church Government (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publica-
tions, 1968), p. 12.

of doctrine, may deem it proper to require of us a further explanation
of our sentiments respecting any particular article of the Confession of
Faith, the Catechism, or the explanation of the National Synod, we do
hereby promise to be always willing and ready to comply with such
requisition . . . and until a decision is made upon such an appeal, we
will acquiesce in the determination and judgment already passed.”3
It is noteworthy that the Church Order of 1965 also recognized that viola-
tions of the Form of Subscription, as well as deviations from sound doc-
trine, were worthy of special discipline (Art. 89). 4
Synod 1976 was the first synod to adopt the two types of gravamina
which exist in our modern Church Order—the confessional-difficulty and
the confessional-revision. 5 That synod rightly understood that not all “diffi-
culties and different sentiments” are a call to revise the church’s confes-
sions but that sometimes these are requests for discipleship and further in-
struction. But what must be remembered is that in the case of a confes-
sional-revision gravamen, if a council approves it, then it becomes an
overture to the classis, and if classis approves the overture, then it auto-
matically becomes an overture to the synod.6 Thus the synod clearly
sought to ensure that doctrinal uniformity and consistency were main-
tained within the denomination, while also providing a way for continued
discipleship of officebearers with significant questions.
In 1988, however, the synod made a subtle but important change to the
Form of Subscription. Whereas in 1965 the Form called on officebearers to
reveal their difficulties or different sentiments to “the consistory, classis,
and synod,” in 1988, these difficulties or differing views are to be dis-
closed “to the council, classis, or synod for examination.” The change from
“and synod” to “or synod” created a situation where gravamen could be
adjudicated independently and did not require disclosure to all governing
assemblies. The purpose of adjudicating gravamen appears to have been
twofold. First, to grant officebearers an ability to seek genuine help in doc-
trinal understanding should such struggles arise. And second, to “main-
tain unity and purity in doctrine.” 7 With this subtle change it appears the
churches only envisioned confessional-difficulty gravamina being brought
forth and therefore opened up a loophole in which a confessional-revision
gravamen could be approved at one church assembly without automati-
cally being presented to the next broader assembly. The synod forgot the
wisdom of Synod 1976’s instruction that if approved, the next broader as-
sembly must then decide upon it. Thus, the unity and purity of the
church’s doctrine could be challenged locally without a proper check and
balance. The seed of congregationalism and individualism was sown.
3 Spaan, pp. 34-35.

4 Spaan, p. 30.
5 Acts of Synod 1976, pp. 66-70 (Art. 64).
6 Acts of Synod 1976, p. 69 (Art. 64, C, 3, c, 2-3. This is inferred from the explicit statement
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.

When the most recent form of subscription was ratified by Synod 2012,
known as the Covenant for Officebearers, this entire provision was re-
placed with “We also promise to present or receive confessional difficul-
ties in a spirit of love and fellowship with our brothers and sisters as to-
gether we seek a fuller understanding of the gospel. Should we come to
believe that a teaching in the confessional documents is not the teaching of
God’s Word, we will communicate our views to the church, according to
the procedures prescribed by the Church Order and its supplements. . . .
Further, we promise to submit to the church’s judgment and authority.”
This wording incorporates allusions to both gravamina. The confessional-
difficulty gravamen seems to be addressed in the phraseology about pre-
senting or receiving confessional difficulties. This is a call for discipleship
and growth as iron sharpens iron. The confessional-revision gravamen ap-
pears to be discussed with reference to the Church Order. But underlying
all of it is a call to submit to the broader body of Christ.
This brings one to the present version of the Church Order (2022). Church
Order Article 5 and its supplements deal with subscription and grava-
mina. It is important to remember that “no one is free to decide for oneself
or for the church what is and what is not a doctrine confessed in the stan-
dards. In the event that such a question should arise, the decision of the
assemblies of the church shall be sought and acquiesced in.” 8 Supplement,
Article 5, B, 2 reminds the church that a confessional-difficulty gravamen
is for “information and/or clarification,” not as a way for individuals to
take exception to the confessions or to synod’s pronouncements related to
them. Supplement, Article 5, C, 1 reminds the church that in a confes-
sional-revision gravamen the “burden of proof . . . rests upon the signa-
tory who calls upon the church to justify or revise its confessions.” Simply
saying “I disagree with synod’s decision(s)” is not enough. Proof that the
affirmation of the church is wrong and in violation of the Word of God is
needed.
However, the supplement to Article 5 reclaimed the wisdom of Synod
1976 by causing the approval of a confessional-revision gravamen by one
assembly to become an overture to the next broader assembly (Supple-
ment, Art. 5, C, 3), and such approvals do not become binding until the
synod adopts the gravamen revisions (Supplement, Art. 5, C, 6).
All of this background sets the stage for what follows: Gravamen are not
new. But their usage appears to be on the increase. As Henry DeMoor
noted in the Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary, “In our tradition
the submission of formal gravamina is rare. Aside from Boer’s challenge,
the only other notable statement of difficulty with the creeds was that of
Dr. Dietrich H. Kromminga.” 9 These occurred in 1976 and 1947, respec-
tively. However, following Synod 2022, The Banner reported on October
8Church Order 2022, Supplement, Article 5, A, 3.

9DeMoor, Henry. Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2020), p. 48.

19, 2022, that eight requests for exception had been sought by members of
the Council of Delegates. 10
On November 1, 2022, the Calvin Chimes reported that the Calvin Univer-
sity Board of Trustees “retained all faculty in the ‘pioneer cohort’—a
group of faculty who were the first to file statements of confessional diffi-
culty in response to decisions made at synod in June.” 11 And later in the
article it is reported that “about a dozen faculty filed gravamina.” This
makes for close to 20 gravamina in less than a year when the entire history
of the denomination considers this rare and the manuals and commen-
taries account for only two instances.
In addition, following Synod 2022, the denominational staff published a
listing of “Frequently Asked Questions about Synod 2022 and the Human
Sexuality Report.” 12 In this resource, gravamen and its plural, gravamina,
are mentioned 63 times discussing the two kinds of gravamina, who has
the right to decide upon them, and numerous other things. It is important
to realize that no other resource has been published following other syn-
odical decisions that inform officebearers on how to get around a synodi-
cal decision. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the FAQ docu-
ment explicitly tells officebearers that if a local congregation accepts their
gravamen, then it need not be disclosed to broader assemblies. 13 While
technically true for a confessional-difficulty gravamen, this is not true of a
confessional-revision gravamen. The FAQ page distorted the Church Order
instructions.
In summary, confessional-difficulty gravamina were never intended to be
long-standing, perpetual ways for an individual to take exception to a
doctrine or teaching of the church confessions. These were meant to clear
up confusion and bring clarity to an individual concerning the teaching of
the church. To persist with a confessional-difficulty gravamen is to deny
the corporate nature of one’s faith and to fail to submit to the church or to
hide the real intent of one’s gravamen, which is to seek confessional revi-
sion. If it is the former, then discipline is in order; if it is the latter, then
clarity and instruction are needed so that the church can properly address
the situation. Therefore, Classis North Cascades submits the following
overture.
III. Overture
Classis North Cascades overtures synod to establish a one-year time frame
for discipling officebearers, faculty, and staff members within our
churches, institutions, and agencies who have filed a confessional-diffi-
culty gravamen related to Synod 2022’s decisions regarding the confes-
sional nature of pronouncements in the Human Sexuality Report.
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.

That this may be implemented in an orderly fashion, the following points
should also be noted:
A. The assembly or board that receives the confessional-difficulty grava-
men will establish proper mentoring and pastoral care for each office-
bearer’s unique situation.
B. The one-year time frame will begin from the date of the gravamen’s fil-
ing or the date of synod’s approval of this overture, whichever is later.
C. If at the end of the one-year discipleship period, any officebearer con-
tinues to express difficulty with synod’s decisions, either (1) the office-
bearer will file a confessional-revision gravamen, which will be heard
by synod, or (2) the service, ministry, or job of said officebearer, fac-
ulty, or staff in the church, seminary, or university will be ended hon-
orably based on an inability to affirm “without reservation all the doc-
trines contained in the standards of the church as being doctrines that
are taught in the Word of God” (Church Order Supplement, Art. 5,
A, 1).
Grounds:
1. This is a compassionate way forward; it allows time for prayerful
study and reflection but also places an end to any independent or con-
gregational spirit that may be lurking in our midst.
2. This upholds the historic and recently reaffirmed understanding of hu-
man sexuality by Synod 2022.
3. This is consistent with what Church Order Article 29 clearly declares:
“The decisions of the assemblies shall be considered settled and bind-
ing, unless it is proved that they conflict with the Word of God or the
Church Order.”
4. This preserves the unity of the church and the church’s doctrine and
protects the church from independentism and congregationalism as
David Engelhard and Leonard Hofman declared in the 2001 Manual of
Christian Reformed Church Government: “The intent of Article 29 is
clearly to protect the unity of the church and denominational integrity
as over against independentism and congregationalism.” 14
5. This is a discipleship-based approach.
a. If an officebearer, faculty, or staff member has difficulty with the
decision of Synod 2022, then every assembly needs to engage in in-
tentional prayer and discipleship of these officebearers to bring
them back to a faithful and consistent confession.
b. Simply approving a confessional-difficulty gravamen without any
discipleship is a failure of the church to exercise her ministry and
leads to independentism or congregationalism.
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.

6. This reiterates the binding nature of the confessions and the decisions
of synod and will lead officebearers to clarify whether a confessional
difficulty exists or if what was truly sought was a confessional revi-
sion, which the entire church must decide upon per the supplement to
Church Order Article 5.
Classis North Cascades
J. Scott Roberts, stated clerk
OVERTURE 51
Hold Officebearers to Biblical and Confessional Standards

I. Preamble
Every day we struggle with the sin in our lives. We also struggle to hum-
bly uphold the standard to which our King has called us. Our God and
King hates sin, yet he has graciously set us free from a yoke of slavery to
sin. “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free” (Gal. 5:1). As a denomi-
nation we have clearly recognized sin in the various forms that adultery
and unchastity take (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922); yet we have many in our
corner of the church who refuse to recognize this in their life and ministry.
There are also those who seek to publicly teach according to the standard
that we as a body have agreed upon while privately modeling and teach-
ing a different standard. Just as all of Scripture is singular in its witness for
Christ, our lives should seek to be uniform in proclaiming our fallenness
and God’s gracious work in Jesus Christ and his kingdom as witnessed by
all of Scripture. We lie if we say we can teach one standard in one sphere
of life and another standard in a different sphere of life.
There are many in our denomination and denominational bodies, agen-
cies, and ministries who are seeking exception from the recognition of sin
that we as a body have agreed upon in the synodical decision of 2022.
They seek this exception by way of a confessional-difficulty gravamen,
which is not designed as a route for exception but as a route for clarifying
or being corrected in one’s beliefs in line with Scripture and the church’s
confessions. Brothers and sisters, if we continue to allow this practice, we
will surely become a hollow edifice that is the church in name only, as
surely as if we wish one another food and shelter and do not provide it
(James 2:14-17). If we do not call each other to seek after the standard
Christ has set for us, then we have given up the race and have allowed
each other to fall into sin rather than encouraging, refining, and building
one another up. If we cease to fight the good fight, we no longer recognize
God’s sanctifying grace over every sin in our lives. It is a sad sign of the
state of the practice of discipline in our denomination when we allow such
clear standards of Scripture to be easily overlooked for so long, thus fos-
tering great pain in those who need such large correction. It is better to

work the practice of discipline when the error is small and easily cor-
rected.
Are we so bad at holding each other to the standard of our highest author-
ity, Scripture, that we fear both giving and receiving discipline—no longer
seeking it in our own lives and ministries and in the lives and ministries of
others?
II. Background
The work of Synod 2022 maintained a faithful, biblical foundation in rec-
ognizing once again several areas of sexual sin that violate the seventh
commandment and constitute lust. This work aids us in seeking the model
Christ has set, building one another up in faithful discipleship of our
Lord, and revealing and confronting one another in our sins. However,
some in our denomination have set a stumbling block for many, not in a
matter of Christian liberty but in a matter that clearly violates the Spirit of
adoption that we have in Christ, our co-heir (Rom. 8:12-18).
After the decisions of Synod 2022, the denominational office provided
some FAQ responses that contribute to this stumbling block. Specifically,
Question 8 of the FAQ document accurately states that according to
Church Order (Supplement, Art. 5), a confessional-difficulty gravamen is
a “personal request for information and/or clarification of the confes-
sion.’” But the FAQ carries on, indicating that if a church council is “satis-
fied that the difficulty does not exclude the officebearer, then the grava-
men would stand.” This is not faithful to the signing of the Covenant of
Officebearers in that it allows officers to sign the covenant while holding
beliefs in direct conflict with those laid out by our standards. Confes-
sional-difficulty gravamina are not designed to stand as declarations of
exception but are a means by which the officer can seek personal correc-
tion or personal clarification to match Scripture and our confessions. A
gravamen is an action item, not a note to be recognized or let stand.
This kind of behavior allowed for in Question 8 of the FAQ has already
occurred within our body. An online Banner article from October 19, 2022,
explained that the Council of Delegates voted to allow its executive com-
mittee to grant exceptions to the Statement of Agreement. Also, an article
from the Calvin University Chimes from November 1, 2022, explains that
the Calvin University Board of Trustees voted to permit gravamina from
faculty to stand on this matter. This practice violates the signing of the
Covenant of Officebearers, or in the case of university faculty, the similar
Covenant of Faculty, by undermining the commitment to uphold the
standards of Scripture as witnessed to and explained by the confessions.
III. Goal
With this overture it is our goal that the church can maintain a consistent
witness regarding the definition of sin in our lives and with this consistent
standard pursue faithfully the sanctification in the Holy Spirit that God is
so graciously giving us.

IV. Overture
Classis Northcentral Iowa overtures Synod 2023 to take the following ac-
tions:
A. Inform all councils, classes, agencies, ministries, boards, broader as-
semblies, and other entities, that they are not to let stand gravamina
from officebearers that register exceptions to the beliefs of our denomi-
nation.
B. Develop a concrete course of action for judging confessional-difficulty
gravamina from officebearers, including a proposed timeline for the
inclusion or rejection of the candidate or appointee into ministry on the
basis of their conforming to confessional standards such that the issue
addressed in the gravamen is settled.
C. Inform the classes and future synods of the CRCNA that nominees and
appointees to the agencies, ministries, boards, broader assemblies, and
other bodies of the CRCNA must agree in full with the doctrines and
beliefs of the CRCNA and may not take exception to them and shall
not currently have a confessional-difficulty gravamen under the dis-
cernment of their governing council, board, or supervisory body.
Grounds:
1. Members of the church should not use instruments of church polity as
a workaround of the faithfully held beliefs of the church. Confessional-
difficulty gravamina are designed not as a means of exception to doc-
trine but a means of discipleship for officebearers and of maintaining
scripturally founded confessions.
2. Because gravamina are only part of a process, there needs to be a well-
defined follow-up for the filing of a gravamen. At the local council
level, this can be built up as part of the officer candidate training and
approval process with any difficulties addressed before the individual
is called into service. On the classical or synodical level, if the one
bringing the gravamen is already an officebearer, a time limit and defi-
nite decision need to be defined so that the matter can be judged in a
timely and concise manner rather than being let to stand indefinitely.
3. Appointing to offices, boards, committees, and councils only those
who are able to agree with our doctrines and beliefs will aid in main-
taining a consistent witness throughout our denomination. The office-
bearer who develops a difficulty while in office is wholeheartedly in-
vited to submit a confessional-difficulty gravamen in order to develop
discernment and judgment on any element of our beliefs which may be
unscriptural or which the officebearer needs aid in understanding or
living in submission to.
V. Conclusion
This difficulty our denomination is currently working through reflects the
work of the prophet Nehemiah. While God used him mightily to contrib-
ute to the revitalization of Jerusalem, the place where God’s name dwells

and his reign is represented, Nehemiah still had to work to reform God’s
people according to Scripture a second time. We as Christians are con-
stantly forgetting the pleasant lines God has given us to live within and
regularly need to seek correction and formation according to God’s Word.
We need to humbly seek to give and receive this correction throughout all
of the life and body of the church.
Classis Northcentral Iowa
Steven J. Mulder, stated clerk
OVERTURE 52
Require the Council of Neland Avenue CRC to Comply with

the Decision of Synod 2022 or Come Under Church Discipline
I. Background
Synod 2022 affirmed that “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108
mandment”; in so doing, synod declared this affirmation “an interpreta-
tion of [a] confession,” meaning “this interpretation has confessional sta-
tus” (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922).
In accordance with this affirmation, Synod 2022 instructed Neland Ave-
nue CRC of Grand Rapids, Michigan, “to immediately rescind its decision
to ordain a deacon in a same-sex marriage, thus nullifying this deacon’s
current term” (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 926).
Despite receiving this instruction, Neland Avenue CRC has chosen not to
rescind its decision. Instead, the Neland Avenue CRC council “unani-
mously voted to appeal the synod’s injunction to remove the deacon” (The
Banner, “Neland Avenue CRC to Appeal Denomination’s Order,” June 30,
2022).
II. Overture
Since Neland Avenue CRC has not rescinded its decision to ordain a dea-
con in a same-sex marriage, thus nullifying that deacon’s current term,
and since synod has already decisively settled its biblical and theological
commitments on this subject by way of adopting the Human Sexuality Re-
port (Acts of Synod 2022, p. 919), Classis Georgetown overtures Synod 2023
to do the following:
A. Set a specific date before this particular deacon’s term expires by which
Neland Avenue CRC must comply with the aforementioned ruling of
Synod 2022. Synod should do this only if this deacon is still in office at the
time Synod 2023 meets.
B. Require a letter of repentance from the council of Neland Avenue CRC
to the churches of the CRCNA, within which the council acknowledges

that it erred away from the shared standards which bind us together, par-
ticularly Scripture and the Heidelberg Catechism, and pledges not to re-
peat this same error in the future. Synod should set a specific date by
which Neland Avenue CRC’s council must submit this letter.
C. Communicate to Neland Avenue CRC that if their council does not
comply with these two instructions (or the second instruction only, if the
deacon’s term has already expired), synod, with the full cooperation of
Classis Grand Rapids East, will set in motion an appropriate process of
discipline for the officebearers of Neland Avenue CRC.
Grounds:
1. It is vital to maintain confessional unity in the CRCNA.
2. The Covenant for Officebearers requires those who sign it to affirm
that they will be “formed and governed” by the Belgic Confession, the
Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort.
3. The Covenant for Officebearers requires those who sign it to “promise
to submit to the church’s judgment and authority.”
4. “Church discipline for correcting faults” is one of the marks of the true
church (Belgic Confession, Art. 29).
Classis Georgetown
Glenda Tebben, stated clerk
OVERTURE 53
Require Confessional-Revision Gravamina on the Occasion of

Clear Disagreement with the Confessions
I. Background
Synod 2022 in its adoption of the Human Sexuality Report provided clear
biblical leadership when it comes to matters of sexuality. Synod recog-
nized as already having confessional status the understanding that answer
108 of the Heidelberg Catechism in the word “unchastity” condemns
adultery, polyamory, premarital sex, pornography, and homosexual sex,
all of which violate the seventh commandment. There was intense debate
and disagreement, however, on the floor of synod regarding homosexual
sex, and this disagreement persists within the CRCNA.
In an effort to bring clarity and peace to the situation, the Office of General
Secretary produced a document titled “Frequently Asked Questions about
Synod 2022 and the Human Sexuality Report.” In this document, a Church
Order device called a gravamen (plural gravamina) is brought forward as a
way for people to serve in good conscience as officebearers in the CRCNA
despite disagreement with a teaching from the confessions. While a con-
fessional-revision gravamen has a public path toward resolution in the
Church Order Supplement to Article 5 (either the denomination agrees

with the gravamen and changes the confession, or it does not), the confes-
sional-difficulty gravamen is harder to figure out. In Supplement, Article
5, the confessional-difficulty gravamen is called “a personal request for in-
formation and/or clarification of the confession,” and thus the matter is
kept quiet and confidential (Supplement, Art. 5, Guidelines and Regulations
re Gravamina, B, 2). The general secretary’s document treats the confes-
sional-difficulty gravamen as a way for one to quietly disagree with the
confessions on a point of doctrine indefinitely if one’s council permits. In
answer 8, the document says of the officebearer’s council, “If they are sat-
isfied that the difficulty does not exclude the officebearer, then the grava-
men would stand” (crcna.org/synod/hsr-faq).
Do gravamina get to “stand” indefinitely? We believe that they do not.
Gravamina are to be judged (likely only to allow for information and/or
clarification), withdrawn, or adopted as an overture on the way to revis-
ing an article in the confessions. The guidelines in Supplement, Article 5
present gravamina as processes that must have resolution. While it is true
that the guidelines do not specify what happens if the officebearer contin-
ues to have difficulty with a doctrine, the guidelines do state that “the per-
son 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”; and furthermore “no one is free to
decide for oneself or for the church what is and what is not a doctrine con-
fessed in the standards. In the event that such a question should arise, the
decision of the assemblies of the church shall be sought and acquiesced
in” (Guidelines, A, 1, 3). The Covenant for Officebearers clearly aims for
unity on the doctrines taught by our creeds and confessions. Gravamina
exist to preserve unity in doctrine. The confessional-difficulty gravamen is
“a personal request for information and/or clarification” to determine
whether or not an officebearer fully understands a point of doctrine or dis-
cerns whether or not his or her own views are compatible with the
church’s teaching on that point. To use the confessional-difficulty grava-
men to hide ongoing and determined disagreement as a quiet local option
is dishonest and constitutes a violation of the Covenant for Officebearers.
II. Overture
Therefore, Classis Georgetown overtures Synod 2023 to direct officebear-
ers who disagree with answer 108 in the Heidelberg Catechism (or any
other teaching in our creeds and confessions) to employ the confessional-
revision gravamen to seek resolution and not the confessional-difficulty
gravamen. Also, instruct the Office of General Secretary to amend the
“Frequently Asked Questions” document accordingly.
Grounds:
1. We are, and wish to remain, a confessional denomination.
2. The Covenant for Officebearers requires unity in doctrine, and gra-
vamina must be used to achieve that unity, not resist it.
Classis Georgetown
Glenda Tebben, stated clerk

OVERTURE 54
Prohibit Exceptions and Gravamina in All Agencies, Ministries,

Boards, Broader Assemblies, and Other Entities of the CRCNA
I. Background
For many years there have been discussions and disagreements in the
CRCNA over human sexuality, most of which have centered on the issue
of homosexual activity. Nevertheless, the denomination’s official stance
on this issue has remained unchanged since Synod 1973 adopted the posi-
tion that homosexual practice “is incompatible with obedience to the will
of God as revealed in Scripture.”
In 2016 the report from the Committee to Provide Pastoral Guidance re
Same-sex Marriage was considered by synod. Synod 2016 received the
majority and minority reports as information but recommended to the
churches “the pastoral guidance of the minority report . . . in conversation
and in keeping with the synodical decisions of 1973, 1999, and 2002” (Acts
of Synod 2016, pp. 917-18).
Additionally, however, Synod 2016 appointed a new study committee to
articulate a foundation-laying biblical theology of human sexuality (Acts of
Synod 2016, pp. 919-20). This committee’s work, often referred to as the
Human Sexuality Report (HSR), was published in November 2020 and in-
cluded, among many other things, an affirmation of the CRCNA’s long-
held position on the matter of homosexual activity. But because of the can-
cellation of Synod 2021, the report was not addressed officially until
Synod 2022.
Synod 2022 took several actions centered on the HSR. These actions in-
cluded recommending the HSR to the churches as providing a useful sum-
mary of biblical teaching regarding human sexuality. In addition, Synod
2022 affirmed that “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 “en-
compasses adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, polyamory, pornog-
raphy, and homosexual sex, all of which violate the seventh command-
ment”; in so doing, synod declared this affirmation “‘an interpretation of
[a] confession’ (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603). Therefore, this interpretation
has confessional status” in the CRCNA (Acts of Synod 2022, pp. 922).
Following this decision of synod, the Office of General Secretary pub-
lished an FAQ 1 document addressing the decisions of Synod 2022 regard-
ing human sexuality. In this FAQ, questions 6-11 appear to essentially al-
low for exceptions to be taken to Synod 2022’s decisions through the pro-
cess of submitting confessional-difficulty gravamina. But then question 12
goes on to say something that appears to contradict this. The FAQ docu-
ment has resulted in a great deal of confusion, and there remains a lack of
clarity in the denomination concerning Synod 2022’s decisions and their
ramifications.

For example, the Council of Delegates (COD), at its October 2022 meeting,
approved a “process for filing an exception to the COD Statement of
Agreement with the Beliefs of the CRCNA.” 2 Similarly, Calvin Univer-
sity’s board of trustees decided in October 2022 to retain faculty members
who filed a confessional-difficulty gravamen in response to Synod 2022’s
decisions concerning human sexuality. 3 In addition, some councils and
classes are considering confessional-difficulty gravamina as a way to grant
exceptions to officers who do not agree with Synod 2022’s decisions re-
garding human sexuality.
II. Overture
Classis Central Plains overtures Synod 2023 to take the following actions:
A. Inform all agencies, ministries, boards, broader assemblies, and other
entities of the CRCNA—including, but not limited to, all classes and
future synods, the COD, and the boards of trustees, faculties, and staff
members of Calvin University and Calvin Theological Seminary—that
members of these various bodies of the CRCNA may not register ex-
ceptions to the doctrines and beliefs of the CRCNA but must affirm,
without reservation, all the doctrines and beliefs of the CRCNA; nor
may these bodies grant such exceptions to their members.
B. Inform all agencies, ministries, boards, broader assemblies, and other
entities of the CRCNA—including, but not limited to, all classes and
future synods, the COD, and the boards of trustees, faculties, and staff
members of Calvin University and Calvin Theological Seminary—of
the following:
1. Current members of these various bodies of the CRCNA who have
submitted confessional-difficulty gravamina with their local coun-
cils must resolve the issue with their councils and/or classes by the
end of calendar year 2023 or step down from the denominational
body on which they serve.
2. Future members of these various bodies of the CRCNA who submit
confessional-difficulty gravamina with their local councils while al-
ready serving on one of these denominational bodies must resolve
the issue with their councils and/or classes within six months of fil-
ing a gravamen or step down from the denominational body on
which they serve.
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

3. In the above two situations resolve means that those who have filed
confessional-difficulty gravamina no longer have the doctrinal dif-
ficulty and are able to affirm, without reservation, their full agree-
ment with the doctrines and beliefs of the CRCNA.
4. No one having an active confessional-difficulty gravamen submit-
ted to their local councils may be appointed to serve on these vari-
ous bodies of the CRCNA.
C. Require all agencies, ministries, boards, broader assemblies, and other
entities of the CRCNA to remove any members of these bodies who
cannot or will not affirm, without reservation, their full agreement
with the doctrines and beliefs of the CRCNA in the time periods speci-
fied in B, 1 and B, 2 above, and who will not voluntarily remove them-
selves from the denominational bodies they serve.
D. Inform church councils that if an officer of the church has submitted a
confessional-difficulty gravamen to the council and is serving on an
agency, ministry, board, broader assembly, or other entity of the
CRCNA, or is being considered for appointment to such a denomina-
tional body, the council is required to inform that denominational
body of the officer’s gravamen, regardless of where the council and the
officer are in the process laid out in Church Order Supplement, Article
5.
E. Inform the classes and future synods of the CRCNA that nominees and
appointees to all agencies, ministries, boards, broader assemblies, and
other entities of the CRCNA must affirm their full agreement with the
doctrines and beliefs of the CRCNA, may not take any exceptions to
these doctrines and beliefs, and must not have a confessional-difficulty
gravamen submitted to their local council; rather, they must affirm,
without reservation, all the doctrines and beliefs of the CRCNA.
F. Instruct the Office of General Secretary to update the “Frequently
Asked Questions about Synod 2022 and the Human Sexuality Report”
to reflect items A-E above.
Grounds:
1. The tradition and polity of the CRCNA does not allow its officers to
take exceptions to the doctrines and beliefs of the denomination. By ex-
tension, this should not be permitted in any agencies, ministries,
boards, broader assemblies, and other entities of the CRCNA.
2. The opening paragraph of the COD Statement of Agreement with the
Beliefs of the CRCNA reads as follows: “We promise to do this work in
obedience to the revealed will of our Lord Jesus Christ and in full agree-
ment with what the congregations of the Christian Reformed Church in North
America confess.”4
4crcna.org/sites/default/files/cod_statement_of_agreement_with_beliefs_of_the_crcna_7-
17.pdf (emphasis added)

3. All officers of the CRCNA sign the Covenant for Officebearers—a cov-
enant in which we affirm “without reservation all the doctrines con-
tained in the standards of the church as being doctrines that are taught
in the Word of God” (Church Order Supplement, Article 5, A, 1).
4. “The decisions of the assemblies 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, emphasis added).
5. These actions not only address the response of some in the CRCNA to
Synod 2022’s decisions regarding human sexuality; they also address
the dangerous and harmful precedent that is being set by this re-
sponse. Thus, they serve as a safeguard against similar actions being
taken in the future, should there be disagreement with other decisions
of the assemblies and/or the doctrines of the church.
Classis Central Plains

Jonathan Spronk, stated clerk

OVERTURE 55
Do Not Accept Confessional Difficulties That Would Allow

What the Church Confesses to Be Sin; Officebearers Who
Cannot Agree with Our Beliefs Are to Resign or Be Released
I. Background
Synod 2022 set a faithful, biblical foundation by stating that we uphold the
confessional belief of Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement, and that
several areas of sexual sin violate the seventh commandment as well as
our confessions. This foundation has helped to teach us to walk alongside
of and care for those who struggle with matters of faithful living. The
problem is that our work has been hindered by some in our denomination
who have distracted us from this mission of concern.
The CRC denominational office has posted an FAQ document in the after-
math of synod’s decisions. 1 Question 8 of the FAQ document states that
according to Church Order (Supplement, Art. 5), a confessional-difficulty
gravamen is a “personal request for information and/or clarification of the
confession.” However, the FAQ goes on to state that if a church council is
“satisfied that the difficulty does not exclude the officebearer, then the
gravamen would stand.” This point of view is not stated in our Church
Order. It means that any officebearer can continue to serve in good stand-
ing even though he or she holds personal convictions against what our
confessions teach.
This inconsistency between private and public confessional beliefs has oc-
curred in other areas of the CRC as well. For example, the Council of Dele-
gates has voted to allow the council’s executive committee to grant excep-
tions to the Council of Delegates Statement of Agreement. 2 And the Calvin
University board has voted to allow gravamina from faculty to stand on
this matter. 3
The acceptance of gravamina in these areas has effectively undermined
the commitments made by Synod 2022 and by the Covenant for Office-
bearers. As a matter of integrity, officebearers make an oath before God
and the church that the confessions “fully agree with the Word of God”
and that “we heartily believe and will promote and defend their doctrines
faithfully, conforming our preaching, teaching, writing, serving, and liv-
ing to them.”
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/

II. Overture
To help our denomination carry out the critical ministry of bringing the
gospel to those struggling with sin, Classis Illiana overtures Synod 2023 to
do the following:
A. Inform all assemblies (councils, classes, and future synods) that they
are not allowed, under any circumstances, to accept any confessional-
difficulty gravamen from officebearers that would allow what the
church clearly knows to be sin, or the promotion of sin. This would in-
clude the list of sins that Synod 2022 recognized as violations of the
seventh commandment. We request that synod make the following
clarifying changes to Church Order Supplement, Article 5:
1. Revise point 1 under “A. Guidelines as to the meaning of affirming
the confessions by means of the Covenant for Officebearers” (italics
added):
1. The person signing the Covenant for Officebearers affirms with-
out reservation all the doctrines contained in the standards of
the church as being doctrines that are taught in the Word of
God. “Without reservation” means that the CRC does not allow any
exceptions to the confessions themselves or to what synod has deter-
mined to have confessional status.
2. Revise point 2 under “B. Regulations concerning the procedure to
be followed in the submission of a confessional difficulty-grava-
men” (italics added):
2. In all instances of confessional-difficulty gravamina, the matter
shall not be open for discussion by the whole church, since this
type of gravamen is a personal request for information and\or
clarification of the confession. A confessional-difficulty gravamen is
not to be used when one has settled convictions or objections to our
confessions. Hence this type of gravamen should be dealt with
pastorally and personally by the assembly addressed.
Grounds:
a. The CRC has never allowed exceptions to our confessions but af-
firms in the Covenant for Officebearers that all the doctrines con-
fessed fully agree with the Word of God.
b. A gravamen was never meant to allow the acceptance or practice of
beliefs contrary to what the church clearly knows to be sin.
c. A 1976 study committee report that led to these supplemental
guidelines said that if an officebearer has “settled convictions”
about the confessions, that is a different matter than if one has seri-
ous doubts about a point of doctrine. In that case, it “does not call
for a gravamen; it calls rather for an open and frank disclosure of
his difficulties by an officebearer to his consistory, hopefully lead-
ing to the removal of his doubts” (Acts of Synod 1976, p. 572).

B. Declare that no confessional difficulties will be accepted in the follow-
ing instances where Synod 2022’s confessional decisions on human
sexuality and penal substitutionary atonement may be objected to:
• by synod when delegates agree to the Public Declaration of Agree-
ment
• by the Calvin University board of trustees when faculty have con-
fessional difficulties with the Covenant for Faculty Members
• by the Council of Delegates executive committee when COD mem-
bers have confessional difficulties with the Statement of Agreement
• in instances where other iterations of the Covenant for Officebear-
ers are to be signed and/or agreed to, such as denominational staff
and denominational boards
Ground: The personal beliefs of delegates, COD members, faculty, and
staff should remain consistent with their public declaration and teach-
ing on these matters.
C. Declare that if those making these agreements (an officebearer, faculty
member, COD member, staff member, or board member) cannot per-
sonally agree with our confessional beliefs, including those of penal
substitutionary atonement and human sexuality, they are to either re-
quest a release from ministry or position from the appropriate body
(council, classis, or supervising body), or they are to be suspended and
released from their office or position by December 31, 2023.
Ground: In the past synod has upheld the authority over councils or
classes with regard to eligibility for office (see Church Order Articles
27-b and 83, Acts of Synod 1926, pp. 323-24; Acts of Synod 1980, p. 28;
Acts of Synod 1991, p. 771; Acts of Synod 1994, p. 520).
D. Request of classes that all ministers who submit their request for re-
lease from ministry because of confessional difficulties be released un-
der the status of one honorably released. Synod also encourages
churches to follow the guidelines from Pastor-Church Resources for
provisions of severance.
Ground: Ministers requesting release should be recognized as acting
with honor and integrity.
Classis Illiana
Laryn G. Zoerhof, stated clerk

OVERTURE 56
Call Churches to Repent of Affirming Same-Sex Relationships

I. Background
The Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of
Human Sexuality concluded that “the church’s teaching against sexual
immorality, including homosexual sex, already has confessional status.
According to our confessions, the church may never approve or even tol-
erate any form of sexual immorality, including pornography, polyamory,
premarital sex, extramarital sex, adultery, or homosexual sex. On the con-
trary, the church must warn its members that those who refuse to repent
of these sins—as well as of idolatry, greed, and other such sins—will not
inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11). It must discipline those who re-
fuse to repent of such sins for the sake of their souls (1 Cor. 5-6).” 1
Synod 2022 affirmed the committee’s findings. Synod 2022 adopted this
recommendation from the majority report of the Committee to Articulate
a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality: “That synod
affirm that ‘unchastity’ in Heidelberg Catechism Q. and A. 108 encom-
passes adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, polyamory, pornogra-
phy, and homosexual sex, all of which violate the seventh commandment.
In doing so, synod declares this affirmation ‘an interpretation of [a] con-
fession’ (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603). Therefore, this interpretation has con-
fessional status.” 2
All CRC officebearers promise to defend and teach the beliefs articulated
in our three Reformed confessions. The Covenant for Officebearers states
that “these confessions continue to define the way we understand Scrip-
ture, direct the way we live in response to the gospel, and locate us within
the larger body of Christ. Grateful for these expressions of faith, we prom-
ise to be formed and governed by them. We heartily believe and will pro-
mote and defend their doctrines faithfully, conforming our preaching,
teaching, writing, serving, and living to them.” 3
Multiple CRC congregations have publicly departed from the teaching of
our confessions regarding human sexuality. They have signed their names
to a list of “affirming” CRC congregations, meaning that they affirm
same-sex relationships. They have also provided position statements on
human sexuality. A list of these churches and their position statements
can be found at allonebody.org.
Seven of these churches explicitly endorse same-sex relationships in their
statements. The other four implicitly endorse same-sex relationships by
allowing their names on this public list of “affirming” churches.
CRC congregations cannot endorse same-sex relationships in light of the
CRC’s confessional position that homosexual sex constitutes unchastity.
1 Agenda for Synod 2022, p. 458.

3 Church Order Supplement, Art. 5.

Rather than celebrating, affirming, or welcoming same-sex sexual activity,
CRC congregations must call people to repent and embrace Christ for for-
giveness and renewal. These churches are not calling members who prac-
tice a homosexual lifestyle to repent of their sin and run to Christ for for-
giveness and renewal. Instead, they are affirming this sexually immoral
lifestyle. They are shepherding members the wrong way on the path of
discipleship.
The officebearers at these eleven churches cannot sign the Covenant for
Officebearers in good faith. They are not promoting or defending the
teaching of the CRCNA’s confessions concerning sexual immorality. They
are not conforming their preaching, teaching, writing, or serving to the
teaching of the confessions concerning sexual immorality. On the con-
trary, they are publicly affirming what God condemns according to our
confessions.
These churches must repent of teaching against sound biblical doctrine.
Synod must call them to rescind their public stance affirming same-sex re-
lationships. If they fail to repent, disciplinary action must be taken.
II. Overture
The council of Trinity CRC of Fremont, Michigan, overtures Synod 2023 to
do the following:
A. Call these eleven churches to repent of and rescind their public affir-
mations of same-sex relationships: Eastern Avenue CRC, Grand Rap-
ids, Michigan; Fellowship CRC, Edmonton, Alberta; First CRC, Grand
Rapids, Michigan; First CRC, Toronto, Ontario; Grace CRC, Grand
Rapids, Michigan; Loop CRC, Chicago, Illinois; Meadowvale CRC,
Mississauga, Ontario; Neland Avenue CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan;
Sherman Street CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan; The Road Church, Cal-
gary, Alberta; Washington D.C. CRC.
B. Appoint committees in loco to meet with these churches in a six-month
timeframe to oversee compliance with synod’s ruling by rescinding
their public affirmations of same-sex relationships. Synod will choose
the members of each committee in loco. Each committee in loco will con-
sist of four pastors from at least two neighboring classes. The commit-
tees will enforce synod’s ruling and call these churches to repent and
return to teaching sound doctrine regarding sexual immorality. If a
church fails to rescind their public affirmation of same-sex relation-
ships within six months, the committee in loco will recommend that
they begin the disaffiliation process. If the church refuses to disaffiliate,
the committee in loco will bring a recommendation to synod to disaffili-
ate the church from the CRCNA.
Grounds:
1. These churches are endangering the souls of their members by affirm-
ing same-sex relationships and not calling members to repentance.

2. These churches are openly rebelling against the teaching of the confes-
sions on sexual immorality.
3. The officebearers at these churches cannot sign the Covenant for Of-
ficebearers in good faith unless they rescind these affirmations of
same-sex relationships.
Council of Trinity CRC, Fremont, Michigan

Ron Folkema, clerk
Note: This overture was presented to Classis Muskegon at its February

meeting and was tabled.

OVERTURE 57
Require Council of Delegates to Reverse the Process of

Members’ Taking Exception to the Statement of Agreement
with the Beliefs of the CRCNA
I. Background
The Council of Delegates (COD) is an ecclesiastical body that provides
governance in the interim of synod. The membership of the COD includes
one delegate from each of the 49 classes, as well as seven at-large mem-
bers.
The COD met October 12-14, 2022, and approved a process for delegates
to request an exception to the confessions of the CRCNA. 1 When a dele-
gate requests an exception, the council’s executive committee will decide
whether to grant it, based on the centrality of the belief for which the ex-
ception is sought and the member’s agreement not to publicly contradict
or teach against the synodical position.
The executive committee’s decision would be final and be documented in
executive session minutes. Public minutes note only the number of excep-
tions requested and how many were granted or denied. Subsequently, the
petitioner would enter their name in the Statement of Agreement signa-
ture book with an asterisk next to their name. The written exception
would be kept in a confidential file until the member concludes service on
the Council of Delegates.
This decision creates a process for exemptions first described in the COD
Governance Handbook in February 2019, where individual members of
the COD are granted “the privilege of indicating any personal exemptions
from specific points contained within the Creeds, Confessions, and Con-
temporary Testimonies.” 2
Is the intent of this policy to allow a disunity of belief within the COD? It
would be illogical to create an exception policy, only to then deny the ap-
plicants.
II. Overture
Classis Minnkota overtures Synod 2023 to require the Council of Dele-
gates to immediately reverse the approval of a process for members of the
COD to take exception to the COD Statement of Agreement with the Be-
liefs of the CRCNA and call its members to uphold and heartily affirm the
CRCNA’s confessions by amending the COD Governance Handbook,
bringing its exceptions policy into alignment with the CRCNA Church Or-
der, which requires resolution of gravamen issues.
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.

Grounds:
1. The COD executive committee is nowhere in our Church Order
granted the authority to allow gravamen or confessional-difficulty ex-
ceptions. That power is granted only to councils, classes, and, ulti-
mately, synod. 3
2. The exceptions process that was laid out is not at all transparent. Clas-
ses will not even know if the delegate that represents them in the COD
has an exception on file unless the delegate chooses to inform them.
3. This decision is bad for covenantal unity. We are a denomination
united not around ethnicity or politics or culture but around a com-
mon set of beliefs. Now this would allow for a secret list of representa-
tive delegates who do not agree with our common set of beliefs. Of
what use then is a covenant? What will then unite our church, if not
our beliefs?
4. Granting exceptions to delegates who disagree with the confessions is
an illegitimate and incorrect use of Church Order when it comes to
gravamen. Synod (our broadest assembly) has made a decision that is
binding on all members of the CRCNA. Exceptions (or gravamina) are
designed to allow for a process to play out where an individual can ex-
press concern regarding a teaching that the CRC holds. But this pro-
cess must result in one of the following conclusions:
a. Clarification is provided, resolving the difficulty in the heart of the
delegate.
b. The confession is revised.
c. The gravamen is denied.
Notice how in each case there is a resolution to the matter. Our Church
Order does not give the possibility for someone to simply “opt out” of
believing in certain parts of the confessions. Rather, it lays out a
process for handling a difficulty of belief, with a resolution being the
result, not a secret list of people who don’t believe the same thing as
everyone else. This would be completely destructive to covenantal
unity, which is a unity of belief.
5. The COD serves synod by providing “governance by means of the au-
thority delegated to it by synod.” 4 How can the COD serve synod
when it is granting for its own members immunity to the decisions of
synod, from which it derives its delegated authority?
6. The COD itself has recognized in the past a lack of authority to act of
its own accord. During the COVID-19 pandemic years when synod
could not meet, the COD refused to make decisions regarding confes-
sional and disciplinary matters, correctly understanding themselves
not to have the proper authority to do so. To quote Paul De Vries, the
first chair of the COD, when he addressed Synod 2018: “We have no
3 CRCNA Church Order, Art. 5.

4 crcna.org/welcome/governance/council-delegates

authority other than the authority you [synod] give us. . . . The im-
portant distinction is that ultimately the authority resides with you. . . .
We follow your instruction. When we don’t, call us.” 5
Classis Minnkota
5 “Council of Delegates’ Authority Comes from Synod,” The Banner, June 11, 2018.

OVERTURE 58
Clarify the Usage of Confessional-Difficulty Gravamina
Classis Minnkota overtures Synod 2023 to clarify the usage of confes-

sional-difficulty gravamina by amending the Guidelines and Regulations re
Gravamina in Church Order Supplement, Article 5 (as described below),
and by declaring that these revisions and clarifications also apply to all
previously granted gravamina.
Grounds:
1. In the wake of Synod 2022’s decision regarding Heidelberg Catechism
Q&A 108, many CRCNA officebearers, denominational agency em-
ployees, and Calvin University professors and board members have
utilized the confessional-difficulty gravamen to effectively exempt
themselves from the denomination’s position on the confessional sta-
tus of human sexuality.
2. The use of confessional-difficulty gravamina to secretly shield settled
personal convictions that are contrary to our confessions eviscerates
the quia confessional subscription 1 that previous synods have consist-
ently affirmed and shatters any sense of unity within our diverse de-
nomination.
3. Confessional-difficulty gravamina should be a rarely utilized mecha-
nism designed for short-term periods of guided discernment. A confes-
sional-difficulty gravamen should always result in either a resolution
of the difficulty, an upgrade to a confessional-revision gravamen, or
the resignation of the subscriber from ordained office. If confessional-
difficulty gravamina are allowed to remain unresolved, the result is
threefold: First, officebearers are allowed to remain in confusion or er-
ror of belief; Second, the public witness and oath of the officebearer is a
false witness; and Third, the presumed and practiced unity of the
church is seriously undermined, on this topic and potentially a host of
other beliefs.
Classis Minnkota specifically overtures Synod 2023 to adopt the following
changes to the Guidelines and Regulations re Gravamina section of the
Church Order supplement (pp. 14-16 of the Church Order and Its Supple-
ments 2022) and immediately to implement them in the 2023 session.
The proposed additions to the text of the Supplement are indicated by un-
derlining:
Guidelines and Regulations re Gravamina
Synod declares that gravamina fall into at least two basic types:
1A quia confessional subscription is one that stipulates that the doctrines of our confes-
sions fully agree with the Word of God.

1. A confessional-difficulty gravamen: a temporary gravamen in
which a subscriber expresses personal difficulty with the confession
but does not yet call for a revision of the confessions, and
2. A confessional-revision gravamen: a gravamen in which a sub-
scriber makes a specific recommendation for revision of the confes-
sions.
A. Guidelines as to the meaning of affirming the confessions by means
of the Covenant for Officebearers:
1. The person signing the Covenant for Officebearers affirms with-
out reservation all the doctrines contained in the standards of
the church as being doctrines that are taught in the Word of
God.
2. The signatory does not by affirming the confessions declare that
these doctrines are all stated in the best possible manner, or that
the standards of our church cover all that the Scriptures teach
on the matters confessed. Nor does the signatory declare that
every teaching of the Scriptures is set forth in our confessions,
or that every heresy is rejected and refuted by them.
3. A signatory is bound only to those doctrines that are confessed,
and is not bound to the references, allusions, and remarks that
are incidental to the formulation of these doctrines, nor to the
theological deductions that some may draw from the doctrines
set forth in the confessions. However, no one is free to decide
for oneself or for the church what is and what is not a doctrine
confessed in the standards. In the event that such a question
should arise, the decision of the assemblies of the church shall
be sought and acquiesced in.
B. Regulations concerning the procedure to be followed in the submis-
sion of a confessional-difficulty gravamen:
1. Ministers (whether missionaries, professors, or others not serv-
ing congregations as pastors), elders, or deacons shall submit
their “difficulties” to their councils for examination and judg-
ment. A confessional-difficulty gravamen may be granted by
the council for up to six months in order to give the subscriber
the time and resources to resolve the difficulty.
a. During this discernment period
1) the matter shall not be open for discussion by the whole
church, since this type of gravamen is a personal request
for information and/or clarification of the confession.
Hence this type of gravamen should be dealt with pasto-
rally and personally by the assembly addressed.
2) both the subscriber and the council have responsibilities:

a) The council shall provide
i. reasonable time and resources for the subscriber to
resolve the difficulty.
ii. pastoral support and care to the subscriber.
b) The subscriber
i. will submit a study plan to the council for resolv-
ing the confessional difficulty.
ii. will diligently seek to resolve the difficulty, ob-
taining competent biblical-theological counsel if
necessary.
iii. will provide regular updates to the granting coun-
cil.
iv. shall not accept any ecclesiastical delegations or
appointments.
v. shall remain under the supervision of the granting
council.
b. If the subscriber resolves the confessional difficulty within
the discernment period and is able to affirm without reserva-
tion all the doctrines contained in the standards of the
church as being doctrines that are taught in the Word of
God, the gravamen will expire.
c. If the subscriber has not resolved the confessional difficulty
within the six-month discernment period, the subscriber
may either
1) file for a confessional-revision gravamen as described in
section C, or
2) submit to church discipline, as described in Articles 78-
81, or
3) resign from office.
2. Should a council decide that it is not able to judge the gravamen
submitted to it, it shall submit the matter to classis for examina-
tion and judgment. If the classis, after examination, judges that
it is unable to decide the matter, it may submit it to synod, in ac-
cordance with the principles of Church Order Article 28-b.
C. Regulations concerning the procedure to be followed in the submis-
sion of a confessional-revision gravamen:
1. The basic assumption of the church in requiring affirmation of
the Covenant for Officebearers is that the doctrines contained in
the confessions of the church fully agree with the Word of God.
The burden of proof, therefore, rests upon the signatory who
calls upon the church to justify or revise its confessions.

2. Ministers (including missionaries, professors, or others not serv-
ing congregations as pastors), elders, or deacons shall submit
their gravamina calling for revision of the confessions to their
councils for examination and judgment. Should the council de-
cide that it is not able to judge the gravamen submitted to it, it
shall submit the matter to classis for examination and judgment.
If the classis, after examination, judges that it is unable to decide
the matter, classis may submit it to synod, in accordance with
the principles of Church Order Article 28-b.
3. If the gravamen is adopted by the council and the classis as its
own, it becomes an overture to the broader assemblies, and
therefore it is open for discussion in the whole church.
4. If the gravamen is rejected by the classis, it may be appealed to
synod; and when the constituted synod declares the matter to
be legally before it for action, all the signers of the Covenant for
Officebearers shall be free to discuss it together with the whole
church until adjudicated by synod.
5. Since the subscriber has the right of appeal from the judgment
of a council to classis and from classis to synod, the mere fact
that the matter is being appealed shall not be a reason for sus-
pending or otherwise disciplining an officebearer, provided
other provisions of the Church Order are observed.
6. A revision of the confessions shall not be adopted by synod un-
til the whole church membership has had adequate opportunity
to consider it.
Classis Minnkota

OVERTURE 59
Instruct Classes to Begin the Process of Special Discipline
Classis Minnkota overtures Synod 2023 to instruct Classes Grand Rapids

East, Alberta North, Toronto, Northern Illinois, Alberta South/Saskatche-
wan, and Hackensack to begin the process of special discipline pursuant
to Church Order Articles 82 and 83 upon its constituent churches that
publicly and proudly proclaim their acceptance of blatant heterodoxy and
their willingness to appoint officers (pastors, elders, and deacons) who do
not meet the biblical requirements articulated in Church Order Articles 3
and 5.
Grounds:
1. In early February 2023, the All One Body organization (A1B) promi-
nently posted a list of “eleven churches of the CRCNA [that] are on
record as welcoming and affirming those who identify as LGBTQIA+.”
A1B published this list in the hope “that these exemplars will encour-
age your congregation and provide useful language and supporting
rationale for your own affirming stance.” 1 By their own admission,
A1B applauds the rebellion of these churches and proudly presents
them as a model for other churches to sow disunity and disregard for
what synod overwhelmingly declared to be sinful (ironically the very
next headline on their homepage declares, “The CRC declares same-
sex marriage sinful”).
2. The statements made by the churches in this document are an egre-
gious and public violation of Church Order Articles 5 (Covenant for
Officebearers) and 86 (Church Order must be observed). Their state-
ments are blatant in that they are not only published openly and una-
shamedly but done in such a way as to garner attention to their insub-
ordinate and schismatic stances. Their statements are heterodox in that
they significantly deviate from the biblical truth our denomination re-
cently labored to determine that our confessions have always articu-
lated.
3. The church is obligated to practice “church discipline for correcting
faults” (Belgic Confession, Art. 29). If synod abdicates this role by ig-
noring this sort of disregard for biblical orthodoxy and confessional fi-
delity, it will signal that the Christian Reformed Church in North
America no longer meets the requirements to be considered a true
church.
4. Church Order Article 83 states, “Special discipline shall be applied to
officebearers if they violate the Covenant for Officebearers, are guilty
of neglect or abuse of office, or in any way seriously deviate from
1 allonebody.org (accessed Feb. 9, 2023).

sound doctrine and godly conduct.” The blatant heterodoxy demon-
strated by these churches meets all three of the listed requirements for
special discipline.
5. Church Order Article 27-b assigns the classis authority over the coun-
cils of its constituent churches; therefore synod, which has authority
over the classes, must instruct classes to discipline when their churches
promote blatant heterodoxy, and hold the classes accountable for exer-
cising discipline.
6. The blatant heterodoxy these churches promote is not the welcoming of
LGBTQIA+ sinners, for the primary mission of the church is to wel-
come sinners to repentance and grace. Rather, it is these churches' af-
firming message that people need not repent from unchastity that re-
quires corrective discipline. In addition to our confessional and Church
Order obligations, Christ’s command to love our neighbors necessi-
tates discipline for churches that continue to mislead hurting im-
agebearers of God by affirming behaviors and lifestyles deemed sinful
by Scripture and our confessions. Such proclamations put people at
risk of losing their eternal inheritance (Eph. 5:3-5). It would be the an-
tithesis of loving for synod to turn a blind eye to such teaching and
counsel coming from congregations that identify as Christian Re-
formed.
The apostle Paul commands us, both individually and corporately as
the church, to “watch out for those who cause divisions and put obsta-
cles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned.
Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord
Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they de-
ceive the minds of naive people” (Rom. 16:17-18).
7. As of February 9, A1B’s compilation of “LGBTQ+ Affirming Churches
in the CRC” includes the following churches: 2
Classis Alberta North Classis Hackensack

Fellowship CRC Washington D.C. CRC
Classis Alberta South/ Classis Northern Illinois
Saskatchewan Loop Church
The Road Church
Classis Toronto
Classis Grand Rapids East First CRC
Eastern Avenue CRC Community CRC of
First CRC Meadowvale
Grace CRC
Neland Avenue CRC
Sherman Street CRC
2“LGBTQ+ Affirming Churches in the CRC,” 20828366-554462298364268771.pre-

view.editmysite.com/uploads/2/0/8/2/20828366/compilation_affirm-
ing_church_model_statements__rev.02.08.2023.pdf

It must be noted that the published list was compiled by A1B using infor-
mation posted on each church’s website. Not all of the churches may ap-
preciate being included on this list, and not all of the quotations attributed
to these churches contain explicitly sinful affirmations, but rather vague
insinuations. Further clarification would be required from each church. To
be clear, Classis Minnkota is not requesting that synod discipline these
particular congregations, rather we are reminding synod that it has a re-
sponsibility to instruct these classes to begin the process of special disci-
pline, which would necessarily include proper due diligence and investi-
gation, and to hold the classes accountable for fulfilling this duty.
Classis Minnkota requests that other classes whose constituent churches
publicly announce their sinful insubordination subsequent to the filing of
this overture be included in synod’s instruction.
Classis Minnkota
OVERTURE 60
Amend Church Order to Define Gravamina

I. Purpose of overture
The purpose of this overture is to amend the Church Order to define
gravamina so that they may not be misused. This misuse will cause serious
division. A proper definition will provide unity.
II. Background
In the CRC, gravamina were never intended to be used as a means to
disagree with our unified confessional documents. They are merely a
means to call “upon the church to justify or revise its confessions”
(Supplement, Art. 5, C, 1). They are not a means to disagree with the
confessions. This is obvious, since “the person signing the Covenant of
Officebearers affirms without reservation all the doctrines contained in the
standards of the church” (Supplement, Art. 5, A, 1). It is impossible to
affirm our confessions without reservation while disagreeing with them
(by means of a gravamen or otherwise). Affirming without reservation
and disagreeing are contradictory. However, some in the CRCNA are
seeking to use gravamina in a way that would be detrimental to the unity
of the faith—namely, allowing persons of same-sex activity to become
members and officebearers in the CRCNA, though this is not the only way
one might use gravamina to undercut unity.

III. Overture
Classis Greater Los Angeles respectfully overtures Synod 2023 to amend
the Church Order Supplement, Article 5, section B, by adding the follow-
ing:
3. A confessional-difficulty gravamen (or a confessional-revision gra-
vamen) does not exempt anyone from affirming all of the doctrines
contained in the confessions without reservation. Rather, it is an ex-
pression to the local governing body of “personal difficulty,” not
disagreement. As such, the difficulty should attempt to be re-
solved. If the signatory cannot resolve this difficulty and his or her
conscience bars him or her from signing the CRCNA confessional
documents without reservation, he or she may not serve as an of-
ficebearer in the CRCNA.
Grounds:
1. Gravamina were never intended to allow members or officebearers to
disagree with the CRCNA confessional documents.
2. Using gravamina in this way will cause a schism in the CRCNA.
3. Using gravamina in this way will unnecessarily burden the conscience
of CRCNA churches who hold to the traditional view on human sexu-
ality.
4. Using gravamina in this way will prevent CRCNA churches from
reaching those in the community who expect biblical teaching that pre-
sents the traditional view on human sexuality, which was confirmed at
Synod 2022.
Classis Greater Los Angeles

Sandi Ornee, stated clerk

OVERTURE 61
Withhold Denominational Funding from Calvin University

until Faculty and Staff Adhere to CRCNA Covenantal
Standards
I. Background
On October 28, 2022, Calvin University’s board of trustees voted to allow
faculty members with confessional difficulties on human sexuality to re-
main in good standing within the institution. The board decision was
characterized as “respectful of the university’s covenantal partnership
with the Christian Reformed Church in North America, consistent with
confessional commitment, congruent with existing policies and proce-
dures, supportive of academic freedom, and reflective of constructive en-
gagement.” 1
This has allowed faculty who have filed a gravamen the continued ability
to teach, work for, and minister to students, while at the same time allow-
ing those same faculty to hold positions in opposition to our confessions.
Furthermore, the board’s decision is, in fact, contrary to confessional com-
mitment and negates the authority structure set in place for how a grava-
men is to be handled by the institution.
II. Overture
Classis Heartland overtures Synod 2023 to withhold all denominational
funding from Calvin University beginning on September 1, 2024, with the
provision that the university will be funded after this date upon the full
adherence, without exception, to our covenantal standards by all faculty
and staff members of Calvin University.
Grounds:
1. Synod 2022 affirmed the Christian Reformed Church’s traditional un-
derstanding of unchastity as found in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108,
and this understanding has confessional status. 2 This decision was
made by the majority of classes at synod, and it is considered “settled
and binding.” 3 As this is the position of the Christian Reformed
Church, the decision made by Calvin University’s board of trustees, as
outlined above, directly opposes the understanding of the Christian
Reformed Church. Therefore, Calvin University can no longer be
funded by the Christian Reformed Church because the covenantal rela-
tionship shared between the institutions has been severely damaged.
2. The decision by Calvin University’s board of trustees is contrary to the
position taken by 74 percent of the delegates to synod that represented
1 crcna.org/news-and-events/news/calvin-board-responds-synod-2022
3 Church Order, Article 29.

much of the denomination. 4 As the action by the board of trustees is in-
compatible with the Christian Reformed Church, Calvin University
and the values and beliefs it holds are no longer representative of the
denomination.
3. The Calvin Faculty Handbook states, “Under the authority of Synod,
the Church assigns authority for the life of the University to the Board
of Trustees. The Board of Trustees, in turn, assigns authority within the
University’s governance system, in which decisions about personnel
and confessional interpretation are assigned to the Professional Status
Committee (PSC).” 5 Thus, authority for the registering of a gravamen
falls ultimately under the authority of synod. As neither synod nor the
Council of Delegates has received or reviewed any gravamen of either
the confessional-difficulty nature or the confessional-revision nature,
Calvin University has not adhered to the necessary policies and proce-
dures, thereby further illustrating Calvin University’s desire to no
longer be overseen by the denomination.
4. A confessional-difficulty gravamen is intended to be “a personal re-
quest for information and/or clarification of the confession.” 6 In the
case of a confessional-revision gravamen, “the burden of proof, there-
fore, rests upon the signatory who calls upon the church to justify or
revise its confessions.” 7 In both cases, gravamina are intended to bring
clarity and/or change our confessions. Calvin University faculty and
staff have not used gravamina in this manner but have utilized them
merely as a way of showing disagreement with the covenantal stand-
ards to which they must subscribe. Calvin University’s board of trus-
tees’ decision to allow gravamina to be used in this manner further
shows Calvin University’s opposition to adhere to the Christian Re-
formed Church’s confessional standards.
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.
6 Church Order Supplement, Article 5, B, 2.
7 Church Order Supplement, Article 5, C, 1.

OVERTURE 62
Restrict Delegates Who Have Not Signed the Covenant for

Officebearers without Exception or Reservation
Classis Iakota overtures Synod 2023 to restrict any delegate who has not
signed the Covenant for Officebearers without exception or reservation in
their local church or classis from being seated or recognized as a delegate
at synod.
Grounds:
1. It is impossible to do the work of Christ Jesus as officebearers in the
Christian Reformed Church if officebearers are not willing to submit
their life and doctrine to the clear teaching of God’s Word and its sum-
mary in our creeds and confessions as agreed on in covenant with one
another.
2. It is this covenantal foundation that gives us the wisdom and clarity of
the Holy Spirit for any subsequent discussions and decisions made in
and for the faithful unity of the body of the church before the face of
Christ Jesus, our living head and Savior.
3. This is in accordance with a reasonable interpretation of Church Order
Article 5.
Classis Iakota
Bernard Haan, stated clerk
OVERTURE 63
Prohibit Officebearers Who Have Submitted Confessional-

Difficulty Gravamina from Being Delegated to Higher
Governing Bodies
Classis Iakota overtures Synod 2023 to prohibit officebearers who have
submitted confessional-difficulty gravamina to their local councils from
being delegated to higher governing bodies—namely, classis and synod.
Grounds:
1. A gravamen is always a stated question asking for a clarifying re-
sponse. A confessional-difficulty gravamen is not a declaration of per-
mitted dissent toward the rest of the local body or the broader classical
and denominational bodies.
2. For the sake of the integrity of the covenant between officebearers at
the classical and synodical levels, those seated at those delegations
need to have full assurance that their fellow delegates do not harbor

reservations about the confessions that would threaten their confes-
sional covenant. Likewise, the confessing members of the denomina-
tion should have the assurance that those leading and making deci-
sions on behalf of synod (in denominational offices) are fully, and
without reservation, committed to the doctrinal standards that form
the covenant bond of unity in the denomination.
3. Without confessional covenantal integrity it is impossible to do the
work of Christ Jesus as officebearers in the Christian Reformed
Church.
Classis Iakota
OVERTURE 64
Remind and Instruct Churches and Institutions about Rules for

Confessional-Difficulty Gravamen
I. Background
Synod 2022 met, debated, and affirmed most of the recommendations of
the Human Sexuality Report. This report provided clear ethical guidance
for what constitutes holy and healthy Christian sexual expression. It also
gave clear missional guidance and explains how the gospel provides re-
demptive affirmation and hope for those questioning their sexuality or liv-
ing in sin.
Synod 2022 also reaffirmed the 1973 synodical ruling on homosexualism.
Since 1973 the CRC’s position has been that homosexualism (homosexual
sex) is sinful. Synod also added clarity to the definition of “unchastity” in
Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108, which asks, “What is God’s will for us in
the seventh commandment?” (“You shall not commit adultery”—Ex.
20:14; Deut. 5:18). The catechism answers the question by saying, in part,
“God condemns all unchastity.” Synod 2022 clarified that “unchastity”
has always included “adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, poly-
amory, pornography, and homosexual sex”—and that, therefore, this in-
terpretation has always had confessional status.
Since this ruling of synod, some pastors, professors, teachers, and office-
bearers have filed a confessional-difficulty gravamen. A confessional-diffi-
culty gravamen is a dissent or a personal disagreement in an area of the
confessions which is submitted to their church’s council, or other govern-
ing authority for teachers and professors. Our church guidelines do not
permit that a council or governing authority simply "accept" these and
continue to allow that person to continue to serve at the local level, even if

that person agrees not to publicly teach or advocate against the confes-
sional position. Regardless, there is a concern that this may be happening,
and, if this is the case, it is critical to correct this misuse of our guidelines.
II. Overture
Therefore, Classis Southeast U.S. overtures Synod 2023 to do the follow-
ing:
A. Remind church councils that the filing and acceptance of a confes-
sional-difficulty gravamen does not allow a person to teach or advo-
cate against the confessional position to which they dissent or with
which they have a personal disagreement. Any officebearers who do
so should be disciplined.
B. Instruct the boards and presidents of both Calvin University and Cal-
vin Theological Seminary to remove from their position any teacher or
professor who files a confessional-difficulty gravamen pertaining to
the CRC's position regarding the sin of "unchastity" in Heidelberg Cat-
echism Q&A 108, if such teacher of professor, upon receiving infor-
mation and clarification, does not heartily believe, defend, and pro-
mote the CRC's position. Further, any teachers or professors who do
not promote and defend this position in their preaching, teaching,
writing, serving, and living should be removed from their position.
C. Declare that anyone who has filed a confessional-difficulty gravamen
shall not be delegated to a broader assembly, including classis and
synod until such time as they are able to heartily believe, defend, and
promote the CRC's position.
D. Instruct the church councils to remove from their position any minister
of the Word or commissioned pastor (together, "ministers") who files a
confessional-difficulty gravamen pertaining to the CRC's position re-
garding the sin of "unchastity" in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108, if
such ministers, upon receiving information and clarification, do not
heartily believe, defend, and promote the CRC's position. Further, any
ministers who do not promote and defend this position in their preach-
ing, teaching, writing, serving, and living should be removed from
their position.
Grounds:
1. There is currently a large potential for the misuse of the confessional-
difficulty gravamen within our denomination. In a January 18, 2023,
Banner article, Kathy Smith indicates that "the process of submitting a
confessional-difficulty gravamen does not offer a 'local option' . . .
There is an expectation that the officebearer will continue to uphold
the confession of the church and the interpretations of the confessions."
Therefore, the gravamen is not allowed to be used as a method for con-
tinuing in a position while holding a disagreement with a confession.

Rather, as Kathy Smith goes on to state, "The guidelines say that a con-
fessional-difficulty gravamen 'is a personal request for information
and/or clarification of the confession.'"
2. The original intention of a gravamen was never meant to be wide-
spread. A July 1, 2022, Banner article stated that a gravamen is "exceed-
ingly rare" and indicated that Henry DeMoor noted that the church is
not set up to handle large numbers of gravamina, going on to state that
it would likely “lead to significant chaos."
3. To not hold our pastors, teachers, and professors firm on our confes-
sional teaching can degrade the upbringing of our covenant children
and harm future generations. Therefore, we cannot allow anyone a
pulpit or classroom who cannot, in good conscience and in an honest
manner, fully defend and promote all of our creeds and confessions.
Furthermore, it is not sufficient for any pastor, teacher, or professor to
abstain from teaching on certain topics or sections of our creeds or con-
fessions, since our congregations and students need to be instructed on
all that is necessary for the edification of the body of Christ.
4. Delegates to classis and synod are required to reaffirm their commit-
ment to the confessions of the church. It is disingenuous for them to
publicly affirm their commitments to the confessions at a broader as-
sembly without revealing their reservations. And it is inappropriate
that people who harbor significant confessional reservations be
granted the right to debate and rule on the very matters about which
they harbor reservations, unless they choose to file a confessional-revi-
sion gravamen laying out their reservations and asking that the confes-
sions be changed.


OVERTURE 65
Redistrict the Churches of and Complete the Work of Classis

Grand Rapids East
I. Introduction
Synod 2022 received over a dozen overtures and communications related
to the covenant-breaking activities of Neland Avenue CRC and Classis
Grand Rapids East (GRE). In response to these many overtures, the advi-
sory committee assigned to digest them came to the floor of synod with a
unified report, which was subsequently adopted by more than a two-
thirds majority of synod. Synod instructed Neland Avenue CRC to termi-
nate the term of the deacon in question. Synod also formed an in loco com-
mittee to oversee Neland’s compliance and to admonish and bring correc-
tion to Classis GRE.
In response to these actions, the Council of Neland Avenue CRC voted to
appeal the decision of synod, 1 for which our Church Order gives no right
or mechanism. The in loco committee has been meeting faithfully and
pleading with Neland Ave. CRC and Classis GRE. So far, those efforts
have not been met with any public repentance or reform. Instead, some
churches in Classis GRE seem to have amplified their defiance, with four
congregations now declaring themselves fully “welcoming and affirm-
ing.” 2 It is stated that they can do so because Classis GRE is a “safe classis”
for such positions to be taken in. 3
At the time of this overture's original adoption, the in loco committee's fi-
nal report is still forthcoming. However, due to the agenda deadlines of
both Classis Zeeland and synod, this overture had to proceed before those
findings were publicized. We continue to pray for Neland Avenue CRC
and Classis GRE, and we long to hear word of their public repentance and
restoration, making this whole overture unnecessary. Yet, short of that
work of God, we would ask Synod 2023 to consider this overture, as an-
other possible option, alongside that coming report, in response to the ac-
tions of Classis GRE.
II. Biblical and confessional foundation
In Galatians 6:1-2, God's Word gives us guidance on how we are to rescue
those caught in sin: “If anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are
spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on your-
self, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the
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.

law of Christ” (ESV). From this text we see the mutual accountability and
responsibility we hold toward one another within the body of Christ. Yet
God's Word also warns of the infectious nature of sin. It warns that those
who bring correction must watch themselves, that they not be tempted to
either fall into the same trap or the trap of pride, thinking they are any
better than the one entrapped by sin. As the faithful saying warns, “There,
but for the grace of God, go I.”
Similarly, Article 28 of the Belgic Confession states that all are duty-bound
to join the church, and “unite themselves with it; maintaining the unity of
the Church; submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof;
bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ; and as mutual mem-
bers of the same body.” Christians are accountable to one another! Just as
believers should be united and submit, as members of one body, so also
churches, in covenant with one another, should remain submissive and
united.
The Christian Reformed Church has been and continues to be a confes-
sional church from its founding, as expressed by our current Covenant for
Officebearers. When we make these vows to God and one another, we are
declaring and affirming that our confessions fully agree with the Word of
God. When the issue of homosexual sex and relationships came to Synod
2016, synod commissioned a committee (the Committee to Articulate a
Foundation-Laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality) and charged
that committee with determining if our teachings on human sexuality
were “status confessionis.” Following their five-year exploration of the
topic, the committee recommended—and the Acts of Synod 2022 de-
clared—that homosexual sex is included in what Answer 108 of the Hei-
delberg Catechism summarizes as “unchastity.” Therefore, openly living
in or promoting unchaste behavior has never been permitted in our de-
nominational fellowship. There is no way for a CRC church to either de-
clare itself or act in an “open and affirming” manner and remain in cove-
nant with this denomination.
III. Historical precedent
Our ecumenical partner, the Reformed Church in America (RCA), has ex-
perienced firsthand the results of withholding accountability on matters of
sexuality and marriage. Long story short, the RCA general synod was un-
able or unwilling to hold its classes and congregations to the RCA's teach-
ing that marriage is between one man and one woman. Defections acceler-
ated in 2021 after the general synod voted to develop a future restructur-
ing plan and provided a streamlined process for dissenting churches to
leave the denomination. Two new denominations have since organized
from RCA defections: the Kingdom Network, USA, and the Alliance of
Reformed Churches. Our neighboring RCA classis has seen massive defec-
tions. In 2015 the Zeeland Classis RCA had 23 organized and emerging
congregations. Today nine established and one emerging congregations
remain, and four of these are also in the process of leaving the RCA. The
RCA split over marriage and sexuality is a familiar one. The Episcopal

Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.), Mennonite Church USA, Church of the Brethren, and United
Methodist Church all have similar stories of massive defections after the
highest body of authority took the “agree-to-disagree” route.
In the CRCNA, Article 39 of our Church Order governs the classes of our
denomination and speaks of their function within this body of believers.
Article 39, in line with Galatians 6 and Belgic Confession Article 28, states
that the churches within a classis are to “offer one another mutual support
and accountability” and “sustained connection to the wider denomina-
tion.” The challenge comes when a classis is not living out the responsibil-
ity of holding its churches accountable to our shared understanding of
God's Word. Rather, when acting in a rebellious and divisive manner
within the denomination, such a classis is not aligned with our Church Or-
der or serving its purpose.
While the situation at Neland Avenue CRC and Classis GRE presents our
denomination with a distressing example of covenant breaking, both by
sins of commission first and then of omission in response, our Church Or-
der is not without recourse here. Article 39 says, “The organization of a
new classis and the redistricting of classes require the approval of synod.”
The supplement to Church Order Article 39 explains: “Any request for
transfer to another classis may include grounds that go beyond the sole
matter of geographic proximity; synod is at liberty to consider such
grounds in its disposition of the request.” While the historic geographical
alignment of the churches of Classis GRE was logical, for the health and
unity of the church it is now incumbent to alter this configuration. As our
Church Order makes clear, synod has the authority to redistrict classes
when petitioned to do so. As evidenced by the overtures and communica-
tions submitted to synod over the past three years, there is a problem with
Classis GRE's recent behavior. For the health of both the congregations of
Classis GRE and the broader body, these issues must be addressed. We
must take seriously the vows we have made before God and to one an-
other.
IV. Overture
Therefore Classis Zeeland overtures Synod 2023 to do the following:
A. Redistrict churches currently in Classis Grand Rapids East, moving
them immediately to new (and geographically approximate) classes
and giving these churches dual classical affiliation from the close of
this synod until March 15, 2024.
Ground: For these congregations to be better united to the Christian Re-
formed Church and to experience the loving accountability that we
owe them, they shall immediately become members of their new clas-
ses.
B. Redistrict the current churches of Classis Grand Rapids East in this
manner:

1. First CRC, Grace CRC, and Madison Square CRC (with all of her
campuses) to Classis Grand Rapids North.
2. Plymouth Heights CRC, Shawnee Park CRC, Seymour CRC, Wood-
lawn CRC, and the emerging congregation of Living Water to Clas-
sis Grand Rapids South.
3. Calvin CRC, Celebration Fellowship CRC, Church of the Servant
CRC, Eastern Avenue CRC, and Sherman Street CRC to Classis
Thornapple Valley.
4. Boston Square CRC, Fuller Avenue CRC, Neland Avenue CRC, and
Oakdale Park CRC to Classis Grandville.
Grounds:
a. If this denomination is to effectively shepherd these congregations
going forward, it will be critical for the churches that are out of line
to be split up and for new relationships and opportunities for ac-
countability and mutual discipleship to be forged.
b. These five classes are part of the same region (Great Lakes – Grand
Rapids – Metro), and have the same Calvin Theological Seminary
and Calvin University board members (CTS Region 11, CU Region
4).
C. Declare that Classis Grand Rapids East will complete its work on
March 15, 2024, and be dissolved.
Ground: By failing to lovingly correct Neland Avenue CRC, and now
permitting at least four different congregations to declare themselves
“affirming,” defying the long-held teachings of our denomination, it is
clear that this classis is no longer effectively serving the body. As such,
its ministries and good work should be completed or transitioned to
the new classes, as GRE deems best.
D. Remind the four receiving classes that should a council of an incoming
church remain obstinate and refuse to bring their teaching and prac-
tices in line with our denomination, after what the receiving classis be-
lieves is sufficient time, under Articles 27-b and 83 of the Church Or-
der, the classis does have the power to remove the entire sitting coun-
cil of a congregation in rebellion and to assist that congregation in
electing a new slate of officebearers.
Ground: A study committee at Synod 1926 found that when a majority
of a consistory is worthy of special discipline (Supplement, Arts. 82-
84), “there is no remaining consistory to invite a neighboring consis-
tory. . . . Naturally only the classis, under which such an unfaithful
consistory resorts, can, as the next broadest assembly, exercise the nec-
essary discipline" (Acts of Synod 1926 [English], p. 325).
Classis Zeeland

OVERTURE 66
Require All Delegates to Synod 2023 to Sign the Covenant for

Officebearers
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
OVERTURE 67
Amend Rules for Synodical Procedure to Suspend Delegates

Whose Classes Have Not Adequately Implemented Discipline
Classis Minnkota overtures Synod 2023 to add and immediately enact a

provision to the Rules for Synodical Procedure stipulating that delegates
from classes that have not adequately implemented discipline ordered by
previous synods be suspended from full delegate privileges, including,
but not limited to, voting, advisory committee assignments, and speaking
from the floor. Overtures from suspended classes shall not be considered.
These restrictions shall also apply to the classis’ delegates to the Council of
Delegates and all other denominational standing and study committees
until such time that full privileges are restored to the classis by synod.
Grounds:
1. The synod, and the Council of Delegates that acts on synod’s behalf
when it is not in session, is a deliberative body representing the
churches of all the classes (Church Order, Art. 45).

2. A primary function of the classis is to hold constituent churches ac-
countable to the Word of God as interpreted by the Three Forms of
Unity (Church Order, Art. 39; Belgic Confession, Art. 29).
3. Delegates from classes that have not implemented synodical instruc-
tions to discipline constituent churches have abdicated their responsi-
bilities set forth in the Covenant for Officebearers and the Credentials
for Synod form. When this disregard is not the product of ignorance or
omission, it constitutes insubordination and disintegrates unity and
trust among the classes.
4. Delegates from insubordinate classes should not be given the oppor-
tunity to vote on decisions, policies, or positions that obligate other
congregations and classes when they do not submit to synodical deci-
sions, policies, or positions themselves. These classes are in effect at-
tempting to “lord it over” other churches and classes by forcing their
own will rather than submitting to deliberated decisions (Church Or-
der, Art. 85).
5. Church Order Article 27-b provides synod the authority to discipline
classes. Suspending the privileges of delegates from an insubordinate
classis is a reasonable act of discipline.
6. According to the Rules for Synodical Procedure, section VIII, N, the
“Rules for Synodical Procedure may be suspended, amended, revised,
or abrogated by a majority vote of synod.” In other words, synod may
amend or change its rules at any time while it is constituted and in any
way the majority sees fit.
7. The apostle Paul does not mince words as to how Christians ought to
relate to those who refuse to repent from sinful behavior, warning us
to “not be partners with them” (Eph. 5:7).
Classis Minnkota requests the following:
A. That synod add the following paragraph to the duties of the president
pro tem in the Rules for Synodical Procedure (section I, D), immediately
after declaring the synodical assembly to have opened (paragraph 2)
and before synod selects officers (paragraph 3):
The president pro tem shall read discipline instructions given to
particular classes by the previous synod and request that a dele-
gate(s) from these classes present a brief response as to how the
disciplinary instructions have been implemented. As its first order
of business, synod shall vote to determine the adequacy of the clas-
sis’ implementation of disciplinary instructions. Delegates from
classes deemed to have inadequately responded to disciplinary in-
structions shall be suspended from advisory committee participa-
tion, as well as voting and speaking privileges. Such suspension
will also carry over to the classis’ delegates to the Council of Dele-
gates and all standing denominational committees. This suspen-
sion shall remain in effect until such time that synod declares that
its disciplinary instructions have been adequately implemented.

B. That synod declare these provisions immediately effective upon syn-
odical approval and applicable to Synod 2023.
C. Due to the concern that disciplinary instructions given by Synod 2022
have not been adequately implemented, that this overture bypass the
advisory committee process and be considered by the full body as the
first order of business for Synod 2023.
Classis Minnkota
OVERTURE 68
Shepherd Congregations into Another Denomination

I. Background
The issue of human sexuality has been a matter of contention throughout
all of human history, and now in our own day it has become very much
entangled with national laws, ordinances, and public pronouncements by
individuals of all stripes. Culturally our Western society has seen a dra-
matic shift in terms of how it understands how the sexes are to relate, in
terms of intimacy, sexuality, and legality. This broader cultural shift has
made inroads into the Christian church here in the West, including the
CRCNA, particularly with regard to persons who identify as LGBTQ+.
This has created increased tensions and divisions that all other well-estab-
lished denominations have been unable to navigate. We have fundamen-
tal disagreements about what is and isn’t sin, about the role of special rev-
elation in relation to general revelation, and about what God-honoring hu-
man sexuality looks like.
Humility teaches us that the CRCNA is not made up of a different sort of
church member but that we as churches here in Canada and the United
States are also affected by this growing rift and division. Our recent syn-
ods and Council of Delegate meetings have been the occasion of these ten-
sions and divisions, to the point where an individual congregation and
classis have recently been publicly admonished for their position on the is-
sue of human sexuality. This is not a tension or a division evidenced in
only one small locale of West Michigan; it is in fact evidenced throughout
many of our churches and classes in both nations. And this division is
only increasing as churches diverting from the CRC’s confessional posi-
tion on sexuality are now making it public that they wish to be identified
as “open and affirming” congregations.
We truly believe that these congregations have come to these positions af-
ter much discussion and wrestling together regarding the direction they
believe they (in good conscience) must go when it comes to ministering to
our LGBTQ+ neighbors and fellow members. We take them at their word
that they firmly believe they are most honoring God and loving their
neighbor by moving in this new direction. And all attempts by our synod

or their classis to force them to back away from these matters of con-
science would do a disservice to them as congregations at this point.
II. Overture
Therefore, in acknowledging that some Christian Reformed Church office-
bearers, along with a majority of their congregations, are no longer able to
in good conscience subscribe to the Covenant for Officebearers with the
CRC’s confessional position on human sexuality, and not wishing to see
acrimonious rancor and God-dishonoring hostilities grow in our beloved
denomination and our communities of faith, and not wishing to see a pub-
lic fight ensue over church assets, the council of Moline Christian Re-
formed Church overtures Synod 2023 to do the following:
A. Create two parallel ad hoc committees (one in Canada and one in the
United States), made up of knowledgeable members of the CRC hold-
ing to diverse viewpoints on human sexuality, to help shepherd into
another existing denomination in a grace-filled way those congrega-
tions who can no longer in good conscience remain a part of the CRC
because of matters of human sexuality.
1. These two parallel committees would be knowledgeable of national
church bodies that are available and might be a “good fit” in their
own national contexts.
2. These committees would be knowledgeable about matters of tax
laws and legalities related to Articles of Incorporation and church
separations.
3. These committees are to be created and are to be in place by Sep-
tember 2023, with special offerings requested of the churches of our
denomination (above and beyond existing ministry shares) to help
finance the travels and stays of these committee members while
they meet with these churches.
4. These committees would develop a working relationship with the
leadership teams of existing classes in their national contexts, work-
ing with these classes to help them facilitate a “bless and release”
with those congregations in these classes who now need to look for
another denominational home.
B. These ad hoc committees are empowered to engage in conversation
with congregations or classes they are contacted by or officially made
aware of, without prejudice and in good faith, who might benefit from
this counsel and assistance.
C. These ad hoc committees will be in place until a future synod deems
their necessary work having come to a conclusion, at which time they
will be disbanded.
Council of Moline (Mich.) CRC
Bruce Jager, clerk
Note: This overture was submitted to the March 9, 2023, meeting of Classis
Grand Rapids South but was not adopted.

OVERTURE 69
Enable Listening to Facilitate Discernment

I. Introduction
Synod 2022 knew there was significant opposition to the “confessional sta-
tus” recommendation in the Human Sexuality Report (HSR). Indeed,
many classes, congregations, and members had written overtures asking
synod not to adopt that recommendation. 1 Yet by a majority vote on June
15, 2022, Synod 2022 decided to affirm that “unchastity” in Heidelberg
Catechism Q&A 108 encompasses “homosexual sex” and named that in-
terpretation explicitly as having “confessional status.”
While many congregations are already aligned with this decision, other
communities are experiencing significant impacts. 2 Churches that have
held space for diverse views on same-sex marriage are feeling frustrated.
Officebearers who had previously considered themselves fully in agree-
ment with the confessions are now needing to write gravamina because of
this adopted interpretation. The postures of some churches towards others
have changed, affecting regional communities like classes. 3
II. Proposed actions for this turbulent time
This is a turbulent time. No matter what decisions Synod 2023 makes, the
CRC is likely to change: churches may seek realignment; some may leave;
membership may be impacted.
In order to navigate this change wisely and reduce the amount of harmful
impacts, we believe it is time to listen. The following actions are intended
to help us listen well.
A. Action 1: Permit those who disagree to articulate their position collaboratively
The gravamen process was intended to equip individual officebearers to
express their confessional difficulties as those difficulties arose. It was not
created for a time when potentially hundreds of officebearers 4 found
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

themselves with the same confessional difficulty all at the same time. Do
we want all these officebearers to correspond with synod individually?
But officebearers who have submitted confessional-difficulty gravamina
do not know if they can openly discuss their disagreement with one an-
other as each one considers if they desire to write a confessional-revision
gravamen. This could mean that future synods will need to process indi-
vidual confessional-revision gravamina from officebearers for years to
come. Given this unusual circumstance that so many officebearers are
simultaneously challenged by the same confessional interpretation, we
consider it wise to explicitly permit them to collaborate if they desire to do
so.
B. Action 2: Equip churches to discern their hopes for covenant community
Many churches have been shaped by the assumption that there was
“room for respectful disagreement” around our CRC position on homo-
sexuality, 5 and they likely desire a covenant community that fits with this
orientation. Other churches desire to be in a covenant community that
holds the same conviction around same-sex marriage. In this turbulent
time, it is wise for synod to invite the churches to discern and articulate
their hopes for a covenant community. 6
We imagine that Pastor Church Resources could create a helpful toolkit to
equip churches and councils to discern these hopes. This toolkit would
support local congregations as they discern how to respond to the survey
proposed in Action 3.
C. Action 3: Gather feedback from the churches and share feedback transparently
It will be helpful for the CRCNA to know the hopes of its member
churches. We imagine the Office of General Secretary, in consultation with
Pastor Church Resources, could develop a set of questions that allows lo-
cal churches to express what sort of covenant community they desire. The
resulting survey data should be transparently shared, and it could serve
as the basis for future overtures, enabling a future synod to consider the
most wise way to navigate our turbulent circumstances. 7
While there may be many more aspects helpful to know from each church,
River Park Church considers these three things to be of key importance as
we consider covenant realignment.
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-
ing meeting in October 2022.

7 River Park Church does not know what future suggestion makes the most sense, but al-
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.

1. Your church—How would you identify your local church when it
comes to perspectives on human sexuality?
a. When it comes to perspectives on same-sex marriage, is your
church strongly “traditional,” a mix of “traditional” and “af-
firming” members, or strongly “affirming”?
b. When it comes to who is allowed on council, does your church
allow only those with a “traditional” perspective, both “tradi-
tional” and “affirming” perspectives, or only an “affirming”
perspective, and does your church desire to welcome same-sex
married persons to be on council?
2. Whom to covenant with—Of the various types of churches (mixing
1, a-b above, there are likely at least five reasonable types that
should be named explicitly), which ones are you willing to be in
covenant community with?
3. Larger assemblies—If you choose to be with churches different from
your own, what does “making room for respectful disagreement”
look like when you are together (i.e., who can be delegated to clas-
sis)?
D. Action 4: Invite CRC institutions and ministries to articulate their challenges
and hopes
Undoubtedly, some of our CRC institutions are feeling caught in the mid-
dle of this current turbulence. Calvin Theological Seminary and Calvin
University are both in covenant with the CRC and may be experiencing
impacts from Synod 2022. 8 Our CRC ministries have also recently experi-
enced variations in support. Synod should invite these (and other) institu-
tions and ministries to create their own discernment process and, if they
desire, communicate some of their results with synod.
E. Action 5: Leave discipline local for the present time
While we are naming this as the final action, this action enables some of
the other actions. If synod is going to invite officebearers to collaborate as
they write confessional-revision gravamina (or one gravamen together),
those officebearers need to be able to discern this action with their local
council and trust that speaking openly will not enact synodical-level disci-
pline. If we are assuming that there will be some covenant realignments
(perhaps a “gracious separation”), local councils will need to be able to
have healthy, open dialogue about their hopes without synod preempting
those realignments by way of synodical-level discipline. That does not
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.

mean that we turn our back on Belgic Confession Article 29 and abandon
the third mark of the true church. It does mean that, for the present time,
we keep discipline at the level of the local church in matters related to the
“confessional status” decision of Synod 2022.
III. Overture
Therefore, River Park Church overtures Synod to consider the following
actions designed to help us listen well:
A. That synod explicitly permit those who wish to write confessional-re-
vision gravamina in response to the “confessional status” decision of
Synod 2022 to collaborate.
Grounds:
1. The “confessional status” decision of Synod 2022 potentially put
hundreds of officebearers into a place of disagreement with a con-
fessional interpretation—all at the same time. The gravamen pro-
cess was not intended for such high numbers.
2. Permitting collaboration allows those who disagree to articulate
their “best biblical and confessional case” together, rather than us-
ing time and resources to each write their own.
3. Without granting permission to collaborate, future synodical agen-
das may be filled with responding to confessional-revision gravam-
ina from potentially hundreds of individual officebearers.
4. Explicit permission by synod is clarifying at a moment when we
are unfamiliar with what amount of collaboration is allowed and
when there is anxiousness about synod enacting discipline.
B. That synod ask Pastor Church Resources to create a toolkit intended to
equip churches to discern their hopes for covenant community. This
should be done as soon as possible.
Grounds:
1. If the CRCNA is approaching a time of covenant realignment, it is
helpful for each church to discern what they hope for in a covenant
community.
2. While no church would be required to use the toolkit, some
churches may desire a process to help them discern how to respond
to the survey (item C).
C. That synod ask the Office of General Secretary to create a survey that
will gather feedback from the churches, and then share that feedback
transparently. This should be done as soon as possible, with results
shared transparently by November 1, 2024, allowing overtures re-
sponding to the survey to come to Synod 2025.

Grounds:
1. In order to discern potential covenant realignments, we need to lis-
ten to the local churches.
2. The transparency should be sufficient so that people can identify
national and regional alignments.
3. Sharing the results transparently will allow everyone to see the va-
riety within the CRCNA and then potentially propose ways for-
ward in this turbulent time.
D. That synod invite institutions and ministries connected to the CRCNA
to articulate their challenges and hopes in this turbulent time.
Grounds:
1. “Inviting” means that each institution and ministry can discern if
they want to do this, and how to do so fittingly.
2. Listening to our institutions and ministries may help us to discern a
way forward.
E. That synod refrain from enacting any synodical-level discipline if that
discipline pertains to the decision of Synod 2022 regarding “confes-
sional status.” This should stay in place until covenant realignment is
discerned.
Grounds:
1. Many churches and officebearers have “in good faith” operated un-
der the belief that our CRCNA position on homosexuality did not
have confessional status (see Appendix 1).
2. As the CRCNA discerns covenant realignments, it is better to leave
any discipline to the discernment of the local church.
3. It is better to allow the local church to go through a process of dis-
cernment for realignments rather than synod forcing realignment
by way of synodical-level discipline during this process.
Council of River Park CRC, Calgary, Alberta

Joanne Spronk, clerk
Note: This overture was submitted to the winter meeting of Classis Alberta
South/Saskatchewan but was not adopted.

APPENDIX
I. Two distinct visions of a covenant community

When it comes to perspectives on human sexuality in the CRC, and partic-
ularly homosexual sex within a same-sex marriage, we in the CRCNA not
only disagree on the topic but we also disagree on how much that disa-
greement matters.
We disagree on the topic. This overture will use the words “traditional”
and “affirming” as we talk about two different perspectives with respect
to homosexual sex within a same-sex marriage. For the purposes of this
overture, we will define these words in this way:
“traditional” 9—a person holding a “traditional” perspective believes
that “faithful sex” which God approves only happens within a cove-
nant marriage between one man and one woman, only between two
persons of the opposite sex.
“affirming” 10—a person holding an “affirming” perspective believes
that “faithful sex” which God approves only happens within a cove-
nant marriage between any two persons, including between persons of
the same sex.
Thus, these two perspectives disagree on whether God views “homosex-
ual sex” within a same-sex marriage as a faithful Christian action.
But in the CRCNA we also disagree on how much that disagreement
matters. And this overture focuses more on the conflict arising from that
second disagreement. It is becoming apparent that there are two distinctly
different Visions 11 of how the covenant community of the CRC should be
shaped.
Vision 1—There is room for respectful disagreement on the topic of
homosexual sex. Most of those who desire Vision 1 are deeply dis-
tressed by the “confessional status” decision of Synod 2022 because
that decision removes room for respectful disagreement.
Vision 2—There is no room for any open disagreement on the topic of
homosexual sex. Some of those who desire Vision 2 were openly con-
sidering leaving the CRC if the “confessional status” recommendation
to Synod 2022 were voted down.
A majority of the current conflict in the CRC is not between the “tradi-
tional” and “affirming” persons. Indeed, many churches in the CRC are
currently flourishing and have both “traditional” and “affirming” office-
bearers and members in that same community. The conflict is occurring
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.

because some desire the CRC to be a Vision 1 covenant community and
others desire the CRC to be a Vision 2 covenant community.
The CRC has a long history of saying that our CRC position on homosexuality
has not been confessional
In 2010, Dr. Henry DeMoor’s Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary
was published by the Christian Reformed Church. This commentary has
been a required textbook in all CRC Church Polity classes at Calvin Theo-
logical Seminary (CTS) since its publication. 12 As Dr. DeMoor discusses
the “settled and binding” nature of synodical decisions (Church Order,
Art. 29), he brings to the discussion the CRC’s position on homosexuality.
Here is what Dr. DeMoor writes:
It is significant, for example, that Synod 1973 twice framed all of its
“statements” on homosexuality, including its “ethical stance,” as “pas-
toral advice” (Acts of Synod 1973, p. 51). It intentionally avoided refer-
ring to them as an “interpretation” of the Heidelberg Catechism’s use
of the term “unchastity” in Lord’s Day 41. The possibility that this
creed meant to include what the synod referred to as “homosexual-
ism” is not denied. . . . It is just that the assembly chose not to be that
resolute. It merely wanted to establish the “ground rules” for how all
officebearers within the CRCNA ought to approach their pastoral re-
sponsibilities to those struggling with same-sex orientation. It expected
a “healthy respect” for its decisions, not creedal attachment. Office-
bearers would not be subject to dismissal from office based on unor-
thodox views, but only on disrespect for what the synod decided.13
Dr. DeMoor writes that Synod 1973 “intentionally avoided” giving confes-
sional status to our CRC position on homosexuality. In other words, CTS
has been teaching that Synod 1973 was leaving “room for respectful disa-
greement.”
And this was not just being taught in the Church Polity course at CTS, it
was what CTS told to anyone who asked. If one sent an email to CTS ask-
ing, “How does our CRC position on homosexuality function for office-
bearers?” CTS would reply that the CRC position is one of pastoral advice
and does not have confessional status. 14
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

It is hard to know how long this position has been taught. Did Dr.
DeMoor teach his students that the CRC has room for respectful disagree-
ment before 2010? Probably; we do not imagine he first thought that
thought when he published his commentary. But we know for sure that
CTS was teaching that the CRC’s position on homosexuality did not have
confessional status from 2010 forward.
Thus, for the purposes of this overture, we will simply say what seems
to be a verifiable fact: “For over a decade CTS has taught that the CRC po-
sition on homosexuality is not confessional both in the classroom and to
anyone who asked.”
Synod 2022 directly contradicts what CTS has been teaching for over a decade
So what happened next? CTS has been openly and widely teaching that
the CRC’s position on “homosexual sex” did not have confessional status.
Then by a majority vote, Synod 2022 decided to affirm that “unchastity” in
Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 encompasses “homosexual sex.” It is now
clear to all in the CRCNA that this interpretation of “unchastity” in Q&A
108 has confessional status in the CRCNA.
In other words, Synod 2022 directly contradicted what CTS has been
teaching for over a decade.
Two distinct Visions of what shapes our covenant community
Again, our experience is that the major conflict in the CRC is not around
the different perspectives: “affirming” or “traditional.” The major conflict
in the CRC at present is around Visions of how a covenant community
deals with that difference in perspectives. It may help to see the conflict by
drawing out the opposing implications of these Visions.
II. Opposing implications of Vision 1 and Vision 2
Many of our churches and institutions—even our members and office-
bearers—have been living with an assumption of how the CRC is shaped,
an assumption based on either Vision 1 or Vision 2. As a denominational
community, we have not been openly articulate about which Vision
shapes the CRC until the decision of Synod 2022. For many, living with an
assumption of Vision 2, there was no surprise when the HSR recom-
mended that synod declare that the church's teaching on homosexual sex
“already” has confessional status. For others, this recommendation was
not only a surprise; it was deeply concerning—because adopting that rec-
ommendation would disrupt their Vision 1 community.
Paralleling the following five implications might help us to see the vast
difference between how Vision 1 and Vision 2 play out.
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.”

Reasonable implications from believing that the CRC position is not confessional
Let us ask, “What might be some common-sense implications of believing
that the CRC position on homosexuality is not confessional?” Here are
five implications that some have believed are reasonable: 15
Implication 1—There is room for open, respectful disagreement with
the CRC’s position.
Implication 2—An openly “affirming” officebearer can be fully “con-
fessional.” 16
Implication 3—An openly “affirming” pastor can accept a call into the
CRC “in good faith.”
Implication 4—An openly “affirming” CRC member could be an of-
ficebearer “in good standing.”
Implication 5—An “affirming” officebearer would not need to submit
a gravamen.
Reasonable Implications that follow from Synod 2022’s “confessional status” de-
cision
While Synod 2022 did not provide insight into what consequence would
follow from their “confessional status” decision, certainly some who are
speaking out since Synod 2022 would say the following are reasonable im-
plications of that decision 17 (the following implications are exactly the
same as the ones listed above except for the changes that we have signi-
fied in bold):
Implication 1—There is not room for open, respectful disagreement
with the CRC’s position.
Implication 2—An openly “affirming” officebearer can not be fully
“confessional.”
Implication 3—An openly “affirming” pastor can not accept a call into
the CRC “in good faith.”
Implication 4—An openly “affirming” CRC member could not be an
officebearer “in good standing.”
Implication 5—An “affirming” officebearer would not need to submit
a gravamen.
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).

Are we at an impasse?
For those who were living out Vision 1 in their local church community,
the “confessional status” decision of Synod 2022 is a stunning reversal of
what it means to be in the CRC covenant community. The change of im-
plications is immensely impactful for their local church—and that impact
hurts them.
At the same time, it has also become apparent that many in the CRC de-
sire Vision 2 and strongly affirm the implications listed above. To many,
the decision to make this “confessional” is a necessary decision to keep the
church on the right path.
To some, being a Vision 1 community is a central conviction to what it
means to be a faithful church. To others, being a Vision 2 community is
just as central a conviction.

OVERTURE 70
Commit to Love, Charity, and Grace in Disagreement; Equip

Congregations to Minister Pastorally with LGBTQ+ People
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

OVERTURE 71
Prevent and Reduce Harm to LGBTQ+ Persons

I. Background
A. LGBTQ people experience four times more interpersonal violence than
non-LGBTQ people, according to UCLA's Williams Institute. 1
B. 2022 has been marked by an increase in threatening and intimidating
language by white nationalist groups such as the Patriot Front and
Proud Boys. 2
C. Children’s hospitals in Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Ohio have faced
a barrage of harassment, including bomb threats, after coordinated at-
tacks by anti-trans groups. 3 138F
D. Anti-LGBT+ mobilization—including demonstrations, political vio-

lence, and offline propaganda activity like flyering—increased by over
four times from 2020 to 2021. ACLED data indicate that 2022 is on
track to be worse than last year. For example:
1. Incidents of political violence targeting the LGBT+ community this
year have already exceeded the total number of attacks reported
last year.
2. Nine times as many anti-LGBT+ demonstrations were reported in
2021 relative to 2020. At least 15 percent of these demonstrations
turned violent or destructive last year.
3. Far-right militias and militant social movements increased their en-
gagement in anti-LGBT+ demonstrations sevenfold last year, from
two events in 2020 to 14 in 2021.
4. Their engagement in anti-LGBT+ events in 2022 is on track to either
match or outpace their activity in 2021. 4
E. On November 19, 2022, a mass shooting took place at Club Q, an
LGBTQ-friendly nightclub in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Five people
were killed, and nineteen were injured.
F. The HSR report of 2022 itself named facts about the harms done to the
LGBTQ+ community, acknowledged that the CRC has failed them,
apologized for wrongs done, and called for wholesale change in the
way the church relates to persons struggling with their sexual identity
or identifying as members of that community. “Tragically, the church’s
response to the confusion, questions, and sexual turbulence of a des-
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

perate world, and even of its hurting members, has often been si-
lence” (Report of the Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Bib-
lical Theology of Human Sexuality, Agenda for Synod 2022, p. 320; Acts
of Synod 2022, p. 906, emphasis added). Synod 2022 apologized again,
repeating apologies made in 1973 and 2016, based on the recognition
that CRC churches have contributed to the harms that have been done
in the past.
II. Overture
Classis Grand Rapids East overtures Synod 2023 to prevent and reduce
the harming of LGBTQ+ persons by our churches in particular and society
in general by such ways and means as the following:
A. Call all churches of the CRCNA to love their LGBTQ+ members and
neighbors by protecting them from unloving and hateful speech as
well as violent actions.
B. Provide all churches of the CRCNA with a list of resources and partner
organizations that will equip them to answer the call stated above.
C. Issue a public condemnation of all violence in word and deed against
LGBTQ+ persons in our families, churches, and communities.
Grounds:
1. All expressions of harm to our LGBTQ+ neighbors are a sinful denigra-
tion of the image of God in which all people are created (Gen. 9:6).
2. “Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the
law” (Rom. 13:10).
3. James 3:10 reminds us that we cannot, with the same mouth, bless our
Lord and Father while also cursing those who are made in his likeness.
4. “Q. What is God’s will for you in the sixth commandment?
“A. I am not to belittle, hate, insult, or kill my neighbor—not by my
thoughts, my words, my look or gesture, and certainly not by actual
deeds—and I am not to be party to this in others; rather, I am to put away
all desire for revenge. I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself
either. Prevention of murder is also why government is armed with the
sword” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 105, emphasis added).
5. “Q. Does this commandment refer only to murder?
“A. By forbidding murder God teachers us that he hates the root of
murder: envy, hatred, anger, vindictiveness. In God’s sight all such are
disguised forms of murder” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 106).
6. “Q. Is it enough then that we do not murder our neighbor in any
such way?
“A. No. By condemning envy, hatred, and anger God wants us to love
our neighbors as ourselves, to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merci-
ful, and friendly toward them, to protect them from harm as much as we

can, and to do good even to our enemies” (Heidelberg Catechism,
Q&A 107, emphasis added).
7. The decision of Synod 2022 to elevate the interpretation on “unchas-
tity” to confessional status, depending on application, also could cause
harm to LGBTQ+ persons.
Classis Grand Rapids East

Robert A. Arbogast, stated clerk
OVERTURE 72
Depose Council of Neland Avenue CRC; Instruct Classis Grand

Rapids East to Oversee the Process
I. Background
For the past three and a half years, Neland Avenue Christian Reformed
Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan, has refused to discipline an office-
bearer living in public sin (as affirmed by Synods 1973, 1980, 2002, 2004,
2016, and 2022). The council of Neland Avenue CRC has chosen to ignore
numerous communications from individuals, churches, classes, and even
the Council of Delegates. What is more, Larry Louters, then president of
Neland Avenue CRC, made a speech at the end of Synod 2022 stating that
the council in good conscience would likely not remove this officebearer
who is currently living in sin. Classis Grand Rapids East (GRE) has like-
wise known of this public matter, received numerous communications,
and refused to act by bringing the loving discipline that is needed. This
behavior by our sister church/churches is largely unprecedented in our
denomination’s history and is an attack upon the covenant bonds that
unite us. This church and classis have broken covenant with the body of
churches within the Christian Reformed denomination who have will-
ingly submitted to the governance of synod and one another.
There are several places within the Bible and within our confessions that
talk about discipline. Familiar texts like Matthew 18:15-20 clearly outline
the critical nature of discipline. These very steps outlined in this passage
have been taken with Neland Avenue CRC. In 1 Corinthians 5:3-5, it is
clear that when a brother was caught in sexual sin, the apostle Paul said to
cast the sinful brother out of fellowship in order for two things to happen.
The first was to give the sinful individual an opportunity to repent, and
the second was for the protection of the others within the body. Discipline
is not optional for the Christian church.
In Lord’s Day 31, Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 85 lays out its teaching on
the necessity of discipline, as one of only two “keys of the kingdom.” As
critical as the preaching of the holy gospel is, the catechism argues that the

regular, faithful, and loving exercise of church discipline, toward repent-
ance, is equally needed. The Belgic Confession in Article 29 talks about the
three marks of the true church, which include the preaching of the gospel,
the pure administration of the sacraments, and the necessity of discipline.
Since the Council of Neland Avenue CRC and Classis GRE have refused
to exercise discipline, it falls to synod to initiate disciplinary action in or-
der to protect the integrity of God’s Word, the creeds and confessions, and
the Christian Reformed Church.
II. Overture
Therefore, Classis Southeast U.S. overtures Synod 2023 to do the follow-
ing:
A. Depose the council of Neland Avenue Christian Reformed Church and
place the church under the supervision of a neighboring council.
Grounds:
1. The officebearers of Neland Avenue CRC have failed to keep the
vows they made in the Covenant for Officebearers and have not
taught and acted in accordance with our confessions, as they prom-
ised.
2. The officebearers of Neland Avenue CRC have ignored the decision
of Synod 2022 and have explicitly stated that they will not admon-
ish the deacon who is in sin.
3. The officebearers of Neland Avenue CRC refuse to discipline a dea-
con who continues to live in sin and admits openly of their sinful
lifestyle which goes against the very confessions they signed as an
officebearer.
4. Neland Avenue CRC had the option to overture their classis and
synod before installing this deacon involved in the sinful lifestyle.
They refused to follow church polity and are now continuing to re-
fuse to follow church polity.
5. We are compelled to protect the integrity of the denomination, the
creeds and confessions, and God’s Word stated in Matthew 18:15-
20 and 1 Corinthians 5:3-5.
B. Instruct Classis Grand Rapids East to oversee this process, and, if it is
not completed by year-end 2023, disallow Classis Grand Rapids East
from seating any delegates at synod until this declaration is carried
out.
Grounds:
1. Classis Grand Rapids East has refused to initiate discipline against
Neland Avenue CRC even though it has acted outside our creeds
and confessions and God’s Word.
2. Classis Grand Rapids East has created confusion among its own
classis, causing division, since they have chosen to allow one of

their own churches to operate outside the bounds of Scripture and
the creeds and confessions.
3. Classis Grand Rapids East has taken a position of support for
Neland Avenue CRC although they are clearly holding to a stance
different from that of the denomination on the topic of homosexu-
ality. The CRC cannot allow a classis that will not support the rul-
ing of synod to be seated at that same ruling body to which they do
not submit.

OVERTURE 73
Clarify Distinctions in Synodical Decisions (Deferred from 2021)

I. Background
The November 2020 Banner article titled “Woman in Same-Sex Marriage
Installed as Deacon” noted that the council of Neland Avenue CRC in
Grand Rapids, Michigan, does not believe it has “crossed any line of or-
thodoxy, only pastoral advice” and “that all synodical reports and deci-
sions related to homosexuality have been pastoral advice given to the
churches.” It is not clear to us that this distinction is a valid one—and if it
is not, the decision of Neland CRC to break covenant is based on an incor-
rect understanding of the nature of synodical reports.
There is some history of a discussion. Synod 1973 appointed a committee
“to study the use and function of synodical pronouncements on doctrinal
and ethical matters, and their relation to the confessions” (Acts of Synod
1975, p. 595). That committee reported to Synod 1975, and its report states,
“Guidelines for study, pastoral advice, and other decisions of this nature
allow for varying measures of agreement. Officebearers are expected to
‘abide by’ certain specified deliverances of synod as well as to synodical
decisions in general” (p. 602). The report seems to suggest that, although
we may not all agree on the pastoral advice offered in synodical reports,
as officebearers we are expected to abide by them—and so they are bind-
ing in some respect.
Further, the second recommendation of that report states, “Synodical pro-
nouncements on doctrinal and ethical matters are subordinate to the con-
fessions and ‘shall be considered settled and binding, unless it is proved
that they conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order’ (Church Or-
der, Art. 29). All officebearers and members are expected to abide by these
synodical deliverances” (p. 603).

Noting that the report to Synod 1975 still lacked clarity, Synod 1995 ad-
dressed the issue of clarifying what “settled and binding” means. A ma-
jority and minority report were presented, but both were defeated.
As a denomination, we are in need of such clarity.
II. Overture
Classis Chatham overtures Synod 2021 to clarify the distinctions in catego-
ries of synodical pronouncements, decisions, reports, positions, and ad-
vice and the extent to which they bind the churches.
Grounds:
1. We are concerned that other churches may also make decisions based
on an incomplete knowledge of which synodical decisions are binding
and which are not.
2. This needs to be addressed separately from reports on the floor of
synod because this is a matter of some urgency as other congregations
wrestle with different issues.
3. As churches have conversations, they need to have strong, biblically
supported guidance from the denomination.
4. Churches need to understand the clear boundaries of our synodical de-
cisions as we move forward in covenant with one another.
5. Synod has not clearly articulated what it means that synodical deci-
sions are considered settled and binding.
Classis Chatham
Ron Middel, stated clerk
OVERTURE 74
Adopt an Additional Supplement to Church Order

Articles 82-84 (Deferred from 2020)
I. Observations
The Reformed churches in continental Europe determined that mutual
support and accountability were an important part of being Christ’s
church, so in the mid-16th century the idea of church officebearers signing
a “Form of Subscription” began to take root. The Synod of Dordrecht 1574
determined that its officebearers must “attest” to the Reformed confes-
sions, but it took the great Synod of Dort of 1618-19 to formally require all
officebearers in the Dutch Reformed Churches to subscribe to a “Form of
Subscription.” In signing this form, officebearers were vowing before God
and his people, in part, to hold one another accountable for their faith and
doctrine, both lived out and taught. The Christian Reformed Church, at its

inception as a denomination, also included the requirement that its office-
bearers sign a Form of Subscription. We took those promises seriously, in-
cluding the pledge that “we are prepared moreover to submit to the judg-
ment of the council, classis, or synod, realizing that the consequences of
refusal to do so is suspension from office.” Synod 2012 adopted an up-
dated Form of Subscription, referred to as the Covenant for Officebearers
in the Christian Reformed Church, by which all officebearers serving the
church likewise vow: “We promise to submit to the church’s judgment
and authority. We honor this covenant for the well-being of the church to
the glory of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
Church Order Article 82 states, “All officebearers, in addition to being
subject to general discipline, are subject to special discipline, which con-
sists of suspension and deposition from office.” Article 83 states, “Special
discipline shall be applied to officebearers if they violate the Covenant for
Officebearers, are guilty of neglect or abuse of office, or in any way seri-
ously deviate from sound doctrine and godly conduct.” But what does
this look like, when officebearers in one congregation or even in one clas-
sis might be lax in or refuse to hold its officebearers accountable to the
confessional decisions of synods? There appears to be sufficient ambiguity
in the Church Order to cause a paralysis of action in officebearers being
able to hold one another accountable to the vow each made when signing
the Covenant for Officebearers upon their ordination. What role does an-
other council or classis have in helping to encourage or move forward spe-
cial discipline when made aware of a failure in another council or classis
to uphold our covenant together? Greater clarity is necessary.
We do have some guidance from past actions of synods. A brief study of
the history of synodical decisions shows us that classes and synods have
intervened in the decisions of local congregations, even when those deci-
sions did not originate in the council itself. Synods in the past have de-
cided that it is permissible for a broader assembly to step in and impose
special discipline on a narrower assembly, even if no one in a narrower as-
sembly of the offending party has requested such intervention. Many of
these decisions were highlighted by the Judicial Code Committee back in
1993, based on an appeal it received and then passed on to synod, about
the ability of other assemblies to enforce the Form of Subscription’s cove-
nanted responsibilities (see Acts of Synod 1993, pp. 523ff.).
1. Classis Muskegon deposed the minister and entire consistory of one of
its churches in 1919 (with synod’s later approval of the synodical dep-
uties’ work) when the consistory refused to depose its minister (see
Acts of Synod 1993, p. 526).
2. Synod 1926 upheld Classis Grand Rapids West in its actions deposing
a minister and the majority of his consistory. Synod stated that “Article
36 of the Church Order [currently Article 27-b] gives the classis juris-
diction over the consistory” (Acts of Synod 1926, p. 142).
3. Synod 1980 considered an appeal from elders of a church in Classis
Huron who had been deposed by the classis. They found that the

broader assembly of the classis was not guilty of abusing their God-
given authority over the narrower assembly of the consistory by lord-
ing it over them based on the following grounds:
a. Classis did not exceed its authority when it engaged itself with
the situation at Goderich CRC. Christ gave authority to the
church as a whole and thereby entrusted authority to the occa-
sions of its exercise in classis and synod as gatherings of the
churches to maintain the unity of the congregations in both
doctrine and discipline.
b. The gathering of churches and their representatives in Jerusa-
lem set a pattern of authoritative decisions, which pattern is fol-
lowed in principle in the deliberations and decisions of the ma-
jor assemblies.
c. To contend that Classis Huron had no proper jurisdiction over
the Goderich Consistory proceeds on a mistaken conception of
the relation of the minor assembly to the major assembly. The
same authority, constituting the same standards and the same
goals, is applied by the several assemblies. Classis Huron ad-
hered to the correct use of the authority delegated to them by
Christ.
d. In the application of Article 17 (re the release of a minister) to
the Goderich situation, it is in order that a classis act when a
consistory fails to do so (Art. 27). Classis Huron’s action was
within the range of the delegated authority.”
(Acts of Synod 1980, pp. 28-30)
4. Synod 1982 concurred with Synod 1980’s ability to have authority over
a consistory (Acts of Synod 1982, pp. 55, 628-629).
5. Synod 1991 upheld the action of Classis Lake Erie in suspending the
entire council of a church, and instructed the classis to immediately
complete the discipline proceedings and deposition of an elder and a
deacon (Acts of Synod 1991, p. 771).
6. Synod 1993 heard an appeal from a church in Classis Hudson when
the classis suspended and deposed its minister. Synod did not sustain
the appeal. Some of the grounds included the following:
a. The Church Order does not specify that the local council is the
only body that may initiate and impose special discipline.
b. Synodical precedents establish the authority of a classis to sus-
pend and depose a minister without request or appeal from a
member of the council or congregation of the church involved
under circumstances such as those present in this matter.
7. Synod 2004 instructed Classis Toronto to urge one of its churches to act
in accordance with the guidelines of the reports on homosexuality of
1973 and 2002 (Acts of Synod 2004, p. 632). Synod 2005 appointed an in

loco committee, and Classis Toronto passed their recommendation,
stating that the biblical/ethical guidelines of Synod 1973 and Synod
2002 are considered settled and binding, and that the actions of First
CRC of Toronto constituted a breaking of the denominational covenant
(Agenda for Synod 2006, p. 459). Synod 2006 approved the work of the
In Loco Committee after the church agreed to conform to the denomi-
nation’s position (Acts of Synod 2006, p. 653).
More recently, Synod 2019 showed us the need for greater clarity in this
manner, as it was confronted with a situation in which a minister was
teaching Kinism and was not being disciplined for that false teaching by
his council. Such teaching was doing great damage not only to that local
congregation but also to our entire denomination. The classis had slowly
begun a process of investigation, after this pastor had been publicly advo-
cating this position for years, though it was contrary to what he had
vowed to uphold when he signed the Covenant for Officebearers. But the
question was raised, asking, What if a majority of this classis’ delegates
were also sympathetic to Kinism? What options would be available to an-
other classis in the CRCNA to hold that officebearer accountable to the
Covenant for Officebearers if his own council and classis refused to do so?
This pastor’s teaching was damaging the witness and reputation of our
entire denomination. Synod 2019, beginning to acknowledge that, adopted
the following guidance for the churches:
That synod, given the recent history of Kinist teaching in a particular
church of the CRCNA, admonish councils and classes to promote con-
fessional fidelity and mutually to pursue special discipline of an officebearer
[emphasis added] who is found to hold views contrary to our stand-
ard. (Acts of Synod 2019, p. 818)
Synod 2019 was presented with many recommendations for how we as a
denomination might go about protecting our members and churches from
abuse of power. In the process of wrestling with this, we were reminded
how we are stronger together than apart, particularly when dealing with
the matter of abuse. We need mutual accountability, and we need fellow
brothers and sisters in other classes to hold one another accountable to the
vows made in the Covenant for Officebearers when it comes to matters of
abuse.
Synod 2019 saw a greater need, both with Kinism and the abuse of power,
to broaden the contact that we have with one another, both on a congrega-
tional and a classical level. The need is great and pressing in this current
age. We see the importance of clarifying this in our Church Order, detail-
ing what it means to continue to covenant together as fellow officebearers
in our respective classes when there is a failure to abide by the vows we
have made in signing the Covenant for Officebearers.
There is clear scriptural instruction, Church Order mandate, and historical
precedent that we should hold one another accountable to these mutual
vows to Christ and his church, so that the honor of Jesus would be upheld

and that the witness of his church, as represented in the Christian Re-
formed Church, would not be tarnished. The Church Order foundation, in
Article 1, is that we are in “complete subjection to the Word of God.” The
Church Order has always been intended as a means to that end and must
never be allowed to be used as an excuse for permitting such gross recent
affronts as Kinism or abuse of power to continue on technicalities. Let us
hold ourselves to high standards and ensure that our Church Order not
only allows but also encourages and enables us to live up to our covenant
responsibilities.
II. Overture
Therefore, Classis Zeeland overtures Synod 2020 to adopt the following
addition to Church Order Supplement, Articles 82-84:
To carry out our mutual, covenanted responsibility, any narrower assembly
may make a formal appeal to a broader assembly regarding the action or inac-
tion of another assembly when an officebearer is deemed to be in violation of
the Covenant for Officebearers. Such an appeal may proceed only after the per-
ceived violation has been communicated to the council and classis of the office-
bearer. Synod shall be the final body of appeal in all matters.
Grounds:
1. There is consistent historical precedent in the CRCNA for broader as-
semblies to hold narrower assemblies accountable to the Form of Sub-
scription/Covenant for Officebearers as an expression of our vows to
covenant together as a Reformed denomination.
2. There is a pressing need for clarity to define the ability of one classis to
hold another classis accountable to the enforcement of the Covenant
for Officebearers, which all officebearers in all classes have signed, for
the sake of our common witness and testimony in this world.
3. Synod is the final body to appeal to and is the proper avenue to appeal
to, in carrying out our covenanted responsibilities.
4. Synod is the appropriate authoritative body that determines whether it
will instruct a classis to a certain point of action regarding the imposi-
tion of special discipline on an officebearer within that classis, so synod has
the ultimate authority to enforce that (Church Order Art. 27-b).
5. The appointment of synodical deputies (Art. 48) recognizes the vital
importance and value of other classes, with synodical approval and
authority, to speak into certain decisions of another classis, and has
been deemed by synods past not to be an instance of one body “lord-
ing it over” another body (Acts of Synod 1980, p. 28).
Classis Zeeland

OVERTURE 75
Evaluate Polity to Clarify Relationship of Assemblies
Classis Zeeland overtures synod to appoint a study committee to evaluate

our church polity in light of the Scriptures, our theology, and our history,
with the goal of clarifying the relationship between the council, classis,
and synod. This should take particular note of the authority of the church
and its various assemblies in light of the issue of discipline and excommu-
nication on the local level, and church discipline and disaffiliation at the
classical and synodical levels. The biblical and theological underpinnings
should be analyzed first, turning then to recommendations for a proper
polity that is biblically faithful and historically informed and addresses
the issues the church is facing today. Based upon those conclusions, rec-
ommendations for structural changes should follow, including recommen-
dations for changes to Church Order that reflect the biblical and theologi-
cal and polity conclusions.
Grounds:
1. There is considerable confusion over the nature and authority of
church assemblies today. This is causing chaos in the church and must
be addressed.
2. These difficulties are deep and serious and can only be appropriately
addressed by agreement at the biblical and theological level first, and
then applied to our polity, Church Order, and practice.
3. Local churches and classes lack the time and resources to handle such
an extensive biblical, theological, and historical task. It involves all our
churches, so it must be addressed at the synodical level.
4. The task is significant in both weight, content, and impact, and it re-
quires a full study committee to do it justice.
Classis Zeeland

OVERTURE 76
Appoint a Task Force to Develop Church Order Procedures to

Discipline Officebearers, Including Disaffiliation Initiated by a
Major Assembly (Deferred from 2022)
I. Overture
Classis Hackensack overtures Synod 2022 to appoint a task force to de-
velop Church Order procedures to discipline officebearers, including dis-
affiliation of a consistory or classis initiated by a major assembly.
Grounds:
1. The church is enjoined with the responsibility to bring those who wan-
der away back to the truth of God (James 5:19-20)—and when gentle
appeals are ignored, to exclude them and pray for them (Matt. 18:15-
17; Gal. 6:1-10; 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 1 Tim. 5:19-21).
2. We lack a published mechanism for major assemblies to use in re-
sponding to gross theological error.
3. Past practice and appeals confirm that major assemblies have authority
to depose officebearers in local churches.
4. Clarifying our discipline would bring consistency to our Church Order
in how we discipline erring consistories and classes.
II. Background
Our present Church Order does not accurately reflect the teaching of Holy
Scripture and the Reformed confessions with respect to ecclesiastical disci-
pline. We confess that discipline is one of the marks of the true church
(Belgic Confession, Art. 29). Our polity has provisions for accountability at
the congregational level: members are accountable to elders (Church Or-
der Art. 81), officebearers are accountable to one another (Art. 82-84).
These are faithful elaborations of the principles of discipline provided in
Matthew 18 and other passages. Principles of good, restrained discipline
are spelled out at the congregational level. Local consistories are able re-
spond to correct erring members and officebearers. They can call members
to repentance and, as a last resort, exclude them.
However, these principles are opaque for a consistory and classis. Our
polity includes appointment of classis counselors and visitors (Art. 42),
and synod appoints deputies (Art. 48) to maintain sound doctrine. These
roles help our churches abide by good order. Those appointed as counse-
lors, visitors, and deputies have advisory roles to classis or synod. Where
a local consistory can exclude confessing members (Art. 81), comparable
provisions are not delineated for classis and synod. The authority of
broader assemblies is recognized (Art. 27), and the principles of mutual
submission and restraint are also expressed (Art. 85).

Christian Reformed churches agree that ecclesiastical authority is original
to the local church council, and the authority of major assemblies is dele-
gated (Art. 27). By joining a broader assembly, officebearers of a local
church relinquish some authority. What appears absent in the delegation
of this authority is a clear process for discipline by a major assembly.
Our Church Order provides little guidance of what to do when those who
err ignore admonition and discipline of broader accountability. However,
past classical and synodical actions reveal an established practice:
• In 1924 Classis Grand Rapids West deposed the consistories of First
CRC in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and Hope CRC in Grandville, Michi-
gan; Synod 1926 upheld the decision of classis.
• In 1980 Classis Huron deposed Rev. Wiebo Ludwig and four other
consistory members of Trinity CRC in Goderich, Ontario; Synod
1982 upheld the decision of classis.
• In 1991 Classis Lake Erie deposed officebearers of Washington (Pa.)
CRC; Synod 1991 ruled that classis acted within its authority.
Synods have repeatedly affirmed the principle that a classis has authority
to depose a consistory (additional cases are noted in Henry De Moor’s
1986 Equipping the Saints doctoral dissertation). Although precedents exist,
our Church Order does not regulate the practice.
Further, there is no precedent for the disaffiliation of a classis by synod.
The silence of our Church Order on this important aspect of discipline af-
fects both local congregations and broader assemblies. Local consistories
and officebearers may be denied due process because no discernible pro-
cess exists. Without a uniform standard, broader assemblies are open to
charges of inconsistency and injustice. Developing a clear standard for the
disaffiliation of a consistory or classis initiated by a major assembly would
ensure such separations are handled fairly.
Specifying the disciplinary procedures available to a major assembly
would equip delegates of classes. The most recent synod passed a motion
to “admonish councils and classes to promote confessional fidelity and
mutually to pursue special discipline of an officebearer who is found to
hold views contrary to our standard” (Acts of Synod 2019, pp. 818-19). This
was synod’s response to years of heresy being taught in a local church and
of the classis failing to act. Delegated officebearers rely on the Church Or-
der as part of the discernment process. Our Church Order needs to ade-
quately guide our officebearers in critical situations of how church disci-
pline functions at the classis and synodical levels.
Classis Hackensack
Sheila E. Holmes, stated clerk

COMMUNICATIONS
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).
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Communications 599

5. That the apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
wrote, “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a
man” and then grounded this argument in the good created order
(1 Tim. 2:12-13). The church, therefore, should not ordain women to
its authoritative offices.
6. That the purpose of spiritual gifts is not self-fulfillment but service
to God and others, to the end that God receives all the glory (1 Cor.
12:7; 14:26).
7. That the CRCNA’s 1995 decision to open all offices to women is
contrary to Scripture.
B. We also offer the following observations:
1. That even though Synod 1995 declared that both complementarian
and egalitarian views are faithful interpretations of the Word of
God, synodical practice since that time has become markedly egali-
tarian, making it difficult for complementarians to participate in
good conscience.
2. That the complementarian position is held by many male and fe-
male members and by other officebearers, churches, and classes in
the CRCNA.
3. That the CRCNA’s 1995 decision to open all offices to women has
resulted in offense, division, strife, loss of members, and our expul-
sion from NAPARC in 1997.
4. That celebration of the egalitarian position and practice through
video and song (as done at Synod 2018) causes offense and pricks
the consciences of those who hold to the historic complementarian
position regarding women in church office.
As members of the body of Christ in the CRCNA, Classis Minnkota does
not present this communication in order to offend our brothers and sisters
who hold to the egalitarian view; rather we wish to explain that our con-
victions are rooted in the Word of God. Though under protest, we con-
tinue to participate because we love the CRCNA and seek God’s blessing
upon our denomination.
Classis Minnkota
COMMUNICATION 2
The Abuse of Power committee of the Council of Delegates has proposed

the adoption of the Code of Conduct along with the practice of requiring
officebearers to sign this code upon entry into office. While misconduct
600 Communications AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

and abuse, sexual and otherwise, are a plague on the church and the gos-
pel, additional forms and subscriptions only provide redundancy on a
standard that is not being held, as currently in our behavior with the Form
of Subscription.
As the officebearers of the church submit to Scripture and covenant with
one another in the Covenant of Officebearers, we join together under the
calling of “Be perfect . . . as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48)
and “An overseer must be above reproach” (1 Tim. 3:2). As such, we are
called to flee from abuse and to chastise our brothers and sisters for their
abuses in a spirit of humility. Our common understanding of Scripture
that we agree to in the Three Forms of Unity already condemns sin and
calls for justice. We do not need additional rules; we need follow-through
of discipline and reconciliation to become the regular practice of the
church. In practicing what we already affirm, the Code of Conduct be-
comes unnecessary.
Rev. Steve Mulder, stated clerk
COMMUNICATION 3
Classis Holland
We, Classis Holland, wish to submit the following communication to

Synod 2023, offering our reflections to our fellow officebearers and sister
churches after a year of difficult and challenging ministry trying to navi-
gate differences of conviction on matters related to human sexuality.
We wish to speak in four ways: (1) heeding the call of Synod 2022; (2)
words to those who agree with Synod 2022; (3) words to those who disa-
gree with Synod 2022; and (4) an appeal for listening, reform, and unity.
I. Heeding the call of Synod 2022
A. We desire to express our gratitude for the work of Synod 2022 specifi-
cally, and for the Human Sexuality Report (HSR) more generally. In
our present moment, the challenges in the area of human sexuality are
immense and confusing. The church’s past and present are littered
with failure to offer a distinctive life and voice in this arena. The deci-
sions before Synod 2022 were significant, and its tasks daunting. While
we have come to believe that some of its decisions were imperfect (see
the Classis Holland overture “In Pursuit of Scriptural and Confessional
Unity”), we also believe it did its work faithfully, generously, and well
guided by Word and Spirit. As Synod 2022 recognized, the HSR pre-
sents a robust challenge to all of us about what it means to live a “holy
and healthy Christian sexual life” for both married and single persons
(Agenda for Synod 2022, p. 315) and to be the sort of community that
makes a Christian sexual ethic feel not only beautiful but livable. In its

decisions and in its spirit Synod 2022 followed the HSR in calling us to
a much larger work than a myopic focus on a single issue (Agenda for
Synod 2022, pp. 316-27)—nothing short of the reformation and renewal
of our congregations around the Word, sacrament, and discipleship
(Acts of Synod 2022, p. 906). We yearn for the churches of the CRCNA
to heed this call and to begin and continue this work—for the good of
struggling marriages, for the good of people addicted to pornography,
for the good of cohabiting couples, for the good of people living celi-
bate lives, and for the good of our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters.
B. In the CRCNA at present, we have very different visions at play in
how to bring this about, which were on display at synod itself. In one,
we have a clear vision of what we might call confessional return as the
way forward. At its best, such a vision rightly emphasizes the im-
portance of doctrinal continuity, of maintaining identity and coherence
across time, and of fidelity to Scripture through the lens of our Re-
formed confessions. In the other, we have an equally clear vision of
what we might call liberative progress as the way forward. At its best,
such a vision sees real problems that require the church to adapt and
develop; forces the church to ask new, hard, pressing questions; and
seeks answers via an approach to Scripture that remains open to the
Spirit’s leading the church into new insight, albeit in ways faithful to
Scripture. Each of these visions, of course, has its own danger as well.
Confessional return, in its zealous defense of the true gospel and his-
toric orthodoxy, can easily degenerate into a sort of comfortable tradi-
tionalism—a way of “moving forward” that doesn’t move at all but is
rather wedded to the past and unwilling to engage the present for the
sake of the future, a way of “tying up heavy loads” without “lifting a
finger to move them” (Matt. 23:4). Liberative progress, on the other
hand, in its zealous pursuit of the causes of liberation, progress, and
inclusion (and of change itself), can easily be “tossed to and fro, carried
here and there by every wind of teaching” (Eph. 4:14) and therefore
run headlong into falsehood and error—a way of “moving forward” in
which “forward” takes its keynotes not from Scripture but elsewhere.
What are we to do with these seemingly conflicting visions, with all of
their accompanying strengths and weaknesses?
C. Speaking of these as separate “visions,” however, and as if such vi-
sions are hermetically sealed in separate groups, masks a deeper real-
ity: most of us identify with aspects of both, and we toggle back and
forth, depending on the issue. Moreover, at any given time, we may
find ourselves in general agreement on a position first with certain
people and then with others (confessional return here, liberative pro-
gress there), but sometimes for very different reasons from those moti-
vating those certain people. What all of this means is that generaliza-
tion is nearly impossible—and dangerous. We are all individually (and
as individual churches) prone to the strengths and weaknesses (or sins
and virtues) described above. We may each have our tendencies, but
we are not immune from any of them—not immune from justifying

ourselves by appeal to the obvious falsehood or immorality of the posi-
tion we oppose. 1 Each of these visions, and so each of us, can be deeply
culturally assimilated in ways that we can’t see. Each of us, first here
and then there, can baptize ways of being in the world that are at odds
with Scripture and our Reformed confessions. Each of us can operate
from deeply rooted pride, the desire to stand in God’s place, the desire
to be God—that original human sin (Gen. 3:1-7). Until we recognize
this, and learn to respond in repentance and humility, we will not and
cannot be one.
What does all of this mean, then? How might we try, quite practically,
to live together with scriptural and confessional integrity, along with a
healthy realism about some of the challenges of confessional identity
today? How shall we (all of us) humble ourselves, so as to be eager “to
maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3)—a
unity that is so precious to Jesus (John 17:20-23)?
II. To those who agree with Synod 2022
We wish to speak first to those who agree with Synod 2022’s decisions.
First, a simple observation: we believe this moment calls for deep pa-
tience, a fruit of the Spirit that Scripture repeatedly enjoins on us (Gal.
5:22; Col. 3:12). In any difficult period of discernment, patience is a prereq-
uisite. 2 The past fifty years—not just in the CRCNA, but in every religious
tradition of the Western world—have been nothing if not a difficult period
of theological and moral discernment on the question of same-sex mar-
riage. Patience does not require one to act as if this is a completely novel
or open question, nor that this will be a perennially open question. It
simply requires an acknowledgment, easily made by simple observation
of the church all over the West, that whatever our theological pronounce-
ments may declare, at a functional level, the matter is clearly not settled
yet.3 There is more work to do—deep work of teaching, catechesis, disci-
pleship, and discernment—and if those who agree with Synod 2022 are
asking for humble submission from those who disagree (see section III be-
low), then a similar humble patience is required of those who are asking
for it, as together we seek to “bear with one another in love” (Eph. 4:2).
What will such patience practically look like? We wish to say four things
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.

to Synod 2023 by way of recommendation, trusting synod to discern spe-
cific ways forward with respect to each.
A. First, some members in our church bodies will feel they cannot stay, or
will go through a long period wondering if they can stay. Throughout
this process, and if it ends in departure, we urge churches to treat
those who leave with compassion, love, dignity, and respect. If we do
have to separate, let us grieve this, and pray that it is temporary. Inso-
far as it depends on us, let us “live peaceably with all” (Rom. 12:18).
B. Second, we simply note that in the CRCNA we have very high stand-
ards of confessional agreement for both officebearers and members,
with the only real difference being differing degrees of responsibility
for the teaching, defense, and promotion of our confessional stand-
ards. 4 This is very challenging, not least in a time when new members
are regularly joining our churches from outside the Reformed tradi-
tion, but also when all of our members are increasingly shaped (online
and personally) by a wide array of Christian traditions, and where
much of this (not all) is to our benefit and to be celebrated. Yes, we do
not wish to empty our confessional identity, and yes, it is our joy and
responsibility to catechize young and old, new and longtime members
in the riches of the Reformed tradition. But it is also our joy and re-
sponsibility to learn from other traditions and to have our own scrip-
tural blind-spots corrected, as we desire chiefly to subject ourselves to
the Word of God and be reformed according to it. Confessional com-
mitment ought never be a means of avoiding the gaze of God’s Word.
Insofar as that reformation may come from unexpected places, through
voices outside us, we would like to find ways to make space for it—for
vital questions, vital dialogue, even vital disagreement of certain
kinds—within a robust confessionalism. To this end, while we believe
that the church’s ordained offices should continue to be held to the
high confessional standards spelled out in the Covenant for Officebear-
ers, we suggest that perhaps it is time, both out of openness to scrip-
tural reform and in accommodation to present reality, to make some
careful distinctions in our confessional expectations for members. We
do not pretend to have charted a way forward here, but we urge synod
to consider this.
C. Third, we wish to urge a generous posture toward the use of confes-
sional-difficulty gravamina (Church Order Supplement, Art. 5), provided
the officebearer commits to serving with integrity in light of the prom-
ises made in the Covenant for Officebearers. 5 To be sure, we recognize
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).

the possibility for the abuse of such gravamina, 6 but we also see a simi-
lar possibility of abuse in rejecting all such gravamina on this topic, or
in foreclosing their possible use on this doctrinal/moral topic from the
outset. The Covenant for Officebearers asks two things of someone
with a confessional difficulty: (1) to present it “in a spirit of love and
fellowship with our brothers and sisters as together we seek a fuller
understanding of the gospel,” and (2) to “promise to submit to the
church’s judgment and authority.” Notice what it does not ask—
namely, to agree with the church’s judgment, but rather to submit to it.
As we read it, this should allow someone with a private disagreement
to serve, so long as (1) they will not teach, disciple, care, or counsel
against the church’s teaching, and (2) if called upon in private or pub-
lic, they will teach the church’s doctrine and not their own private be-
lief. If churches will not allow this—that is, if they refuse a priori to
grant a confessional-difficulty gravamen in this area of doctrine and
teaching, even if the officebearer submits to the church’s judgment and au-
thority, as expected in the Covenant for Officebearers—then this seems to
us abusive in its own right, and an abject failure to humbly and pa-
tiently “bear with one another in love” (Eph. 4:3) and to “pursue what
makes for peace” (Rom. 14:19). If a provision exists in the Church Or-
der for a confessional difficulty, then that provision should be availa-
ble regardless of the difficulty, at the judgment and discretion of the lo-
cal church in consultation with the officebearer.
D. Fourth, we come to the matter of discipline. As will soon be clear, we
believe in the church’s right authority to engage in godly, humble, and
patient discipline (see section III, B) as an exercise in love for those
who err and as an act of faithful discipleship, calling all members ever
more deeply into Christ’s body (Church Order, Arts. 78-81). Such disci-
pline is a mark of the true church (Belgic Confession, Art. 29). The
church should not be cavalier about sin or error. But we would also
like to urge great caution on the church in this area. When it comes to
matters of sexuality, marriage, family, and the body, the errors of life
and doctrine that pervade the church are legion. Insofar as we have
idolized marriage, sex, and the nuclear family at the expense of the ec-
clesial family; insofar as we have failed to articulate a robust theology
of celibacy and the beauty of chastity; insofar as we have looked past
other areas of overt sexual sin (pornography, cohabiting heterosexual
couples, sexual violence and abuse, no-fault divorce, etc.), or not ques-
tioned the sexual practices of the heterosexual mainstream (contracep-
tion, any and all sexual acts within marriage, etc.); and insofar as we
have tolerated any number of other areas of nonsexual sin, we have
failed to engage in all of these areas in a program of faithful discipline
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.

that calls Christ’s straying children back into the body. All of the above
are, or may well be, errors of life and doctrine that need correction. To
begin a program of discipline with sexually active or married LGBTQ+
members, or with those who err in doctrine in this area, after all we
have tolerated and overlooked, would be hypocrisy of the worst kind.
Again, the first step here is repentance. Let us “foster a spirit of love
and openness within [our] fellowship[s]” so that all of us “erring mem-
bers may be led to repentance and reconciliation” (Church Order, Art.
79) and so that all of us may be called back to Christ’s body from which
we have strayed. Perhaps then, with the log pulled from our own eye,
we will be in a position to see more clearly the speck in our brother’s
or sister’s eye (Matt. 7:3-5), at which point we will be invited to remove
it and restore them, but with a “spirit of gentleness” (Gal. 6:1).
E. In sum, if those who agree with Synod 2022’s decisions will not be pa-
tient with those who do not, if we will foreclose even the possibility of
confessional-difficulty gravamina, and if we will engage in discipline
on this topic where we do not elsewhere, we will rightly deserve the
label hypocrites. More seriously still, it will be very hard to avoid the
conclusion that sex has become so theologically defining an issue for
us that it constitutes a new de facto “mark” of the church—an idol
worth breaking Christ’s body over.
III. To those who disagree with Synod 2022
Having spoken to those of us who agree with Synod 2022’s decisions,
what would we say to those of us who disagree? Again, four things:
A. First, a word about interpreting Synod 2022. A great deal has been sug-
gested about synod’s motivations, much of it uncharitable. While no
human gathering of any kind is perfect, we wish to say the following.
We believe that Christ speaks to and governs his church by Word and
Spirit. In our polity, this comes through our ordained offices and so
through our assemblies (council, classis, synod). But the idea goes right
back to Scripture (Matt. 16:18-19; John 20:19-23; Eph. 4:11-14; 1 Tim.
4:6-16; 2 Tim. 1:13-14). In Synod 2022’s decisions, we believe Christ
spoke to and governed his church by Word and Spirit. When it comes
to sexual ethics, synod sought to safeguard our denomination from er-
ror by calling us away from a sort of reform that, at the end of the day,
would have been false, easy, and all-too common: a simple reaffirma-
tion of our cultural idols of marriage, sex, and family, now simply ap-
plied to same-sex relationships. This would not have involved a radi-
cal reimagination of our life together but a quite common one—one
that imagines marriage and sex as the greatest gifts we could offer our
LGBTQ+ members. Synod thus clarified the scriptural and confessional
boundaries for true reform, 7 and so also the “one, holy, catholic, and
apostolic” grounds on which we will seek to reimagine and order our
7Even as it did not overprescribe answers to vital conversations we will need to have
about creative ministry within those boundaries.

life together. With the authority we delegate to this highest of our as-
semblies, the church spoke at synod and called our churches and her
members to this newly reimagined path and away from others.8 It is
this path that we desire to follow together.
B. Second, a word about authority. While not the only role, this is a re-
sponsibility we expect our synod (and other assemblies) to exercise in
our polity—to guard our life and teaching (1 Tim. 4:16) and to care for
the church through discipline (Church Order, Arts. 78-84). This is not
inherently judgmental, punitive, or “Pharisaism” by another name. If
there are things that threaten the church and her members—be they
schism, immorality, falsehood, or apathy—we should protect each
other from such things. Moreover, in a special way, the ordained lead-
ers of the church are called to protect Christ’s church and her members
from such things and to build her up in her unity (Eph. 4:11-13), holi-
ness (1 Cor. 5:1-13), catholicity (2 Tim. 1:13-14; 4:1-5), and apostolicity
(Matt. 28:18-20). If ordained leaders do not do this, they will be held ac-
countable (James 3:1). The good shepherd lays down his life for the
sheep and does not flee when danger threatens the sheep (John 10:11-
15). Those who are shepherds of the flock under the good shepherd
must follow his pattern (1 Pet. 5:1-11). Functioning at its best, this is
what authority in the church is for—to protect, care for, and build up
the body in the above ways until we attain “to the measure of the stat-
ure of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-13). When done with humility
and love, such discipline calls churches and members back to that
body wherein alone we can grow together in the church’s marks. 9 This
is what Synod 2022 tried to do—to clarify right teaching, correct error,
and restore erring churches and members to faithful obedience and full
fellowship (Church Order, Art. 78). Such is the way enjoined on us by
Jesus himself (Matt. 16:13-20; 17:15-19), and practiced by the apostles.
C. Third, a question, rooted in a fragile hope. All of the above leaves a
major question open before those of us who disagree with Synod
2022’s decisions: will we stay and heed the voice of the church? Or stay
and simply disregard or object to the church’s teaching? Or, in the
name of love, justice, and/or conscience, will we leave? For our part,
we urge those who disagree to stay and heed the voice of Christ
through the church. It is no secret that the church, not least the
CRCNA, has failed her LGBTQ+ children. If we have learned anything
8 Quoting Jeremiah, the HSR invites us to walk in the “ancient paths, where the good way
lies” (6:16), and calls this a “new-old way” (Agenda for Synod 2022, p. 322)—perhaps a
“new path” that is, in fact, a very old path, which hasn’t been trod in centuries and which
will surely challenge us all as we seek to walk on it together.
9 Such authority, of course, given by Christ, must reflect the servant character of Christ
(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).

since 1973, surely it is that the church is painfully slow in reforming it-
self into the sort of community where God’s LGBTQ+ children can
know themselves as God’s beloved, leading lives that are “transparent
to Jesus.” 10 Without the whole body, and the gifts, passions, and in-
sight we all bring to the table, it is difficult to see how reform—any re-
form—ever takes place in the CRCNA. To the degree that this comes at
the expense of our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters, it will be one more
immense theological and moral failure. We are not asking, then, for
those of us who disagree to give up our love, commitment, and un-
ceasing commitment to see our LGBTQ+ neighbors, friends, and family
flourish in Christ—far from it! 11 We all (should) desire the same. What
we are asking those who disagree to give up is the belief that same-sex
marriage and sex are the means of that flourishing. In fact, what we are
asking all of us to give up is the mistaken belief, so prevalent in Chris-
tian circles, that marriage and sex generally are the means to Christian
flourishing—to a full and complete life. In other words, what we are
asking for is humility, from all of us—first toward God and his Word,
then toward one another. Rather than settling for culturally acceptable
norms as the solution to our shared failures, we need each other so that
together we might “reimagine our life together” for the good of all of
God’s children.
D. Finally, a word of challenge. We recognize that, for those who disagree
with Synod 2022, these convictions are deeply rooted and touch on
things that feel essential. In section II above we tried to offer sugges-
tions as to how the CRCNA could navigate our deep differences of
conviction in an effort to preserve and maintain what unity we can,
even if this will not in the end involve the church endorsing alternative
teaching in this area. Now, however, we wish simply to offer a chal-
lenge to those of us who disagree with Synod 2022, and to suggest
what it might look like for us to earnestly seek and prioritize unity,
given our disagreement. We say this: liberalism (the freedom and
rights of the individual) and pluralism (the coexistence of groups of
varying and conflicting belief), which we are steeped in as Westerners,
simply cannot ground ecclesial unity. There is authority in the church
beyond the individual and (we say in our polity) beyond the local
church. This authority, which we give to our assemblies (council, clas-
sis, synod), helps ground our unity—to keep us of “one soul and one
mind” (Belhar Confession, Art. 2; cf. 1 Cor. 1:10). As countercultural as
this may be, then, our unity cannot be located in the freedom of our in-
dividual consciences, judgments, or interpretations but in our “com-
plete subjection to the Word of God and the Reformed creeds as a true
10The language is that of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.

11Of course, if you are “our LGBTQ+ neighbors, friends, and family” (and so are “us”), we
are also not asking you to give up your unceasing pursuit of flourishing as God’s beloved
either. In fact, if we are honest, it is many of you who are most responsible for teaching
us that Christians today have for too long overidentified this flourishing with such
“earthly goods” as marriage and sex, rather than with the “heavenly goods” of Christ
and his church.

interpretation of this Word, acknowledging Christ as the only head of
his church” (Church Order, Art. 1). Christ is our head and the source of
our unity. Complete subjection to God’s Word, viewed through the
prism of our confessions, as read and interpreted by our rightly or-
dained assemblies (council, classis, synod) and wrestled with all to-
gether—this is how we grow up in Christ, and so grow together in
unity (Eph. 4:11-16). In light of this, we do not want to settle for cele-
brating theological diversity for diversity’s sake, nor for simply coex-
isting amidst difference. 12 We want something better, deeper, and
truer—to be of “one soul and one mind,” together. Perhaps that feels
impossible right now; perhaps some of us feel we cannot, in good con-
science, give up our belief to the contrary. In that case, what we are
asking is that those who disagree with Synod 2022 agree to submit to
and live within the church’s teaching, and not teach, disciple, care, or
counsel against it, as we promise in the Covenant for Officebearers. 13
May we ask that? And if we may not—if some of us must leave over
this, or openly disregard this teaching, thus knowingly causing dissen-
sion—then it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that for some of us,
the goodness and rightness of same-sex marriage and homosexual sex
is of such central importance that it exceeds our belief in the unity of
the church. If this is the case, then sex (or perhaps “sexual liberation”)
will once again have become a new de facto “mark” of the church—an
idol over which to break the church’s unity.
We have tried in the paragraphs above to speak directly to those of us
who agree and those of us who disagree with the HSR and Synod
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.

2022’s decisions. We can speak this way because we are those people.
These disagreements exist in our churches, on our councils, between
our pastors, and among our members. We are seeking earnestly to be
the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church” that Christ has made us,
but it is painful and hard. At times it feels hopeless. We close, then,
with a few paragraphs that speak to all of us together.
IV. An appeal for listening, reform, and unity
A. One of the questions before us, it seems, is this: will we listen to each
other? Will we listen to those who disagree with Synod 2022—voices
that cry in the ecclesial wilderness that we have harmed our LGBTQ+
members for too long? And will we listen to those who agree with
Synod 2022—voices that cry in the cultural wilderness that same-sex
marriage and sex are not the answer to who God’s LGBTQ+ children
are, but Christ and church are? Both “visions” with which we began, in
their most dangerous form, have made an idol of sex, and we are cur-
rently bashing the church upon the rock of this idol. 14 The possibility
for true reform, in other words, depends on our ability—our willing-
ness—to allow our idols to be smashed, to repent, to humble ourselves,
and to patiently listen to one another, bear with one another, and sub-
mit to one another, and finally to God, together. Forsaking all others, it
depends on an ecclesiology far more robust than we currently em-
ploy—an ecclesiology present in our confessions and Church Order
and absent in our practice. If we were to recover such an ecclesiology,
then, and only then, God willing, as we speak and listen to each other,
might we “reimagine our life together around the Word, sacrament,
and discipleship.” Then, and only then, if the Spirit wills, might we see
true reform of the sort that would be good news for all God’s children.
B. The paragraph above is only partially correct. As Reformed Christians,
what we should have said is that the possibility for true reform de-
pends firstly and always on God—and God’s willingness—to smash
our idols, soften our hearts, unstop our ears, and open our eyes. Then,
and only then, will it also depend on our Spirit-empowered capacity to
surrender ourselves to a word from outside of us—the Word of God,
in all its beauty and challenge. When God’s people dwell together in
unity across previously unconquerable divides—Jew and Gentile,
slave and free, male and female, all now “one in Christ Jesus” through
baptism and the Spirit (Gal. 3:27-28)—that is a sign that God’s new age
has arrived, a sign that the folly of the cross has conquered the “wis-
dom” of the world, a sign of the manifold wisdom of God that reveals
all earthly “wisdom” as folly. But when God’s people divide, and in
dividing give themselves over to “enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger,
rivalries, dissensions, and divisions” (Gal. 5:20)—when God’s people
give themselves over to the “works of the flesh”—that is a sign that
God’s people are living in the old age; it empties the cross of its power,
14 See Jessica Martin’s prescient critique along these lines in her Holiness and Desire (Nor-
wich: Canterbury, 2020), pp. 98-103.

and it’s a sign to the “rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms”—
those hostile powers that seek to deceive, divide, and destroy—that
they do, in fact, still have power (on all of the above, see 1 Cor. 1:18-
2:16 and Eph. 3:1-13). This is the Word of God—a word that speaks to
us, from outside of us. Thanks be to God. In Christ, by the Spirit, we
know to which age we belong, and we know the way there. But we
need help. The gate is narrow, and the way is hard, but it leads to life
(Matt. 7:14). Lord, have mercy upon us.
Classis Holland
Calvin Hoogstra, stated clerk
COMMUNICATION 4
Council of Fellowship Christian Reformed Church, Toronto,

Ontario
The majority of Fellowship CRC’s members are troubled by portions of

the report of the Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical
Theology of Human Sexuality (HSR), specifically over the implications for
individuals in covenantal same-sex unions. Synod’s decision to interpret
confessional status on this matter is a step too far. We therefore feel
strongly that an official communication from our church to Synod 2023 is
necessary.
The history of this document is that Fellowship submitted an overture to
Classis Toronto. Our overture was taken up by a pre-advice committee,
which wrote the following: “The pre-advice committee consisting of dele-
gates from Alliston CRC and Holland Marsh CRC advise Classis Toronto
to not accede to the overture from Fellowship CRC. Instead, we recom-
mend that the council of Fellowship CRC reformulate their overture into a
communication so that they can share with synod how synod’s decisions
have impacted their congregation.” At their meeting on February 22, 2023,
Classis Toronto accepted the advice of this committee, did not accede to
our overture, and recommended that we send a communication to synod.
Therefore, we have reformulated our overture into a communication, as
follows.
We would like to communicate the following:
• We lament the damage this interpretation has done, is doing, and
will do to the CRCNA. This is particularly lamentable because (1)
the disunity was predictable, (2) the disunifying action seems to
have been intentional, and (3) unity is so easily achievable (i.e., by
removing confessional status and respecting congregational auton-
omy on this question).
• We lament that requiring everyone to affirm their agreement with
this interpretation of the HSR and the Heidelberg Catechism is

causing great difficulty, is precluding further discussion, and is
making the entire discussion that much more intractable. We have
already lost members to synod’s decision, and we know we will
lose more. We are a small church, and losing members over this is-
sue is painful. This also presents a major stumbling block for some
of our lifelong members, who had lived and served well under the
terms and spirit of Synod 1973’s decisions.
• We want you to know that our outreach to our neighborhood is
based on offering a place of welcome, belonging, and unconditional
acceptance, both in Sunday worship and in our relationships
throughout the week. It should not include prejudging people
based on their personal behavior or beliefs—but that is what Synod
2022’s decision is asking us to do. This confessional interpretation
will serve as an effective barrier to entry. This is not only true for
LGBTQ+ individuals; straight individuals whom we encounter here
in the city of Toronto are long past judging others on their sexual
orientation and are typically put off by institutions (especially
churches) which make this a requirement of entry.
• We lament that one marginalized group is excluded from the
CRC’s advocacy efforts, a fact which greatly weakens our overall
advocacy for all peoples. We are proud supporters of a denomina-
tion which says that it advocates actively for the rights of all mar-
ginalized people, yet is in fact further marginalizing LGBTQ+ indi-
viduals. This discrepancy will cause our LGBTQ+ members, espe-
cially the youth, to experience further rejection, isolation, and harm
by the church.
• Because of the points above, we fear that we will be unable to con-
stitute a council after Synod 2023, if synod does not reverse the con-
fessional interpretation. This is based on the fact that several exist-
ing council members have stated they can no longer serve as an of-
ficebearer if Synod 2022’s decision on confessional status is not re-
versed, and on the number of other members who have stated that
they will not serve.
We respectfully submit this communication to Synod 2023, and we thank
you for your consideration of it.
Council of Fellowship CRC, Toronto, Ontario

Patricia de Bruyn, clerk
Note: This communication was presented as an overture to the meeting of

Classis Toronto on February 22, 2023, but was not adopted.

UNPROCESSED COMMUNICATION
AND OVERTURE
UNPROCESSED COMMUNICATION
Council of New Hope CRC, Lansing, Illinois
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
1Council of Delegates Minutes 2-23, COD 6273, Appendix, p. 17-18.

2Dr. Zachary King, general secretary of the CRCNA, in “A Pastoral Letter to the CRC,”
Dec. 13, 2022.

employee morale and retention, and hinder the implementation of the
CRCNA’s Ministry Plan and our overall kingdom witness.
These overtures do not bear good fruit, but instead they come with a deep
cost. Classes that have enacted these overtures are banning gifted pastors,
officebearers, employees, and leaders from the work of the church. These
overtures require us to forcibly remove individuals from their God-given
ministry callings, service, and employment in the CRCNA. By doing so,
classes and churches are closing the door on any and all conversation on
this topic. This is not a messy reformation but a posture that feeds discord,
division, suspicion, and distrust and negatively limits our reach and pro-
foundly deadens our mission and witness in the world.
Let us heed the recent words of our general secretary, Dr. Zachary King,
in his letter to the denomination of December 13, 2022, to seek unity
through the bonds of peace. Instead of looking for quick fixes that sow an-
ger, discord, dismissal, division, and disunity, let us do the hard work that
seeks unity through the bonds we do share: a rich and deep Reformed the-
ology, life, and witness.
For the advancement of the church, synod should not accede to these
overtures. Instead, synod should seek unity through methods that define
how pastors, officebearers, agency leaders, and employees may fully par-
ticipate in our institutions so that the work of the church may be blessed.
The implementation of any measure that forcibly removes individuals
from our denomination on the basis of their having filed exceptions or
gravamina will inflict deep, irreparable wounds on the church.
Our general secretary is pastorally guiding us in postures of humility, mu-
tual submission, and unity. Let’s listen and follow the leading of the Holy
Spirit and do that instead.
In humility and service to the church of Jesus Christ,
Council of New Hope CRC, Lansing, Illinois

Jill Feikema, clerk
Note: This communication was submitted in response to a decision made

at Classis Illiana’s winter meeting in 2023 and thus could not be processed
through the classis before the March 15 deadline for submitting communi-
cations to synod. It is therefore an unprocessed communication submitted
to Synod 2023 as information according to the Rules for Synodical Proce-
dure (V, B, 7).

APPENDIX
Council of Delegates
February 2023 - COD 6273 – Appendix, pp. 17-18
Process for Submitting and Addressing Exceptions to the COD Statement
of Agreement with the Beliefs of the CRCNA
Note: The following are guidelines adopted by the COD for the COD Exec-
utive Committee and not intended to be an official COD policy.
The COD in October 2022 adopted the following steps to help guide COD
members and the Executive Committee in processing exceptions to the
Statement of Agreement going forward:
1. Like other denominational boards, the COD has established its own
policy (Appendix P of the COD Governance Handbook) to indicate
and process the concerns and difficulties of its members regarding con-
fessional statements and their interpretations. Because not all COD
members are officebearers (ministers of the Word, commissioned pas-
tors, elders, and/or deacons), the process for COD members to file ex-
ceptions to the COD Statement of Agreement with the Beliefs of the
CRCNA is independent from the Church Order gravamen process
(filed with the local council by officebearers; cf. Supplement, Article 5).
In fact, the Statement of Agreement is similar but not identical to the
Covenant for Officebearers. Similar to other denominational boards,
the COD has established its own process; and so if a member has filed
a personal gravamen with the local council, they should also consider
filing an exception with the COD.
2. COD members send a personal, written notice of their exception to the
Statement of Agreement to the General Secretary.
3. The General Secretary seeks any clarification that might be needed and
places the correspondence on the agenda of the next COD Executive
Committee meeting. Such submissions are considered to be confiden-
tial documents and are not open to discussion beyond the COD Execu-
tive Committee, the deciding body.
4. A COD Executive Committee member has a private conversation with
the petitioner to hear concerns and affirm the bullet points that follow
in the approved process.
5. If still a valid submission, the COD Executive Committee makes a deci-
sion regarding the submitted exception (to accept or not accept) and
communicates its decision to the COD member. Criteria to guide the
review and decision include the following:
• The centrality of the belief for which the exception is sought to the
core teachings of the ecumenical creeds and Reformed confessions.
• The petitioner’s willingness to “present” confessional difficulties
“in a spirit of love, fellowship, and submission” (Church Order Art.
5 and its Supplement).

• The petitioner’s recognition of the binding nature of the matter for
which he/she is seeking an exception, and their willingness to not
publicly contradict, teach, or act against the matter for which they
are seeking an exception.
6. Any decision by the Executive Committee regarding an exception filed
is to be minuted in executive session minutes with grounds. Public
minutes will give the number of exceptions requested, how many of
the requests were granted and/or denied, and the specific confessional
reference the exception addressed (e.g., Canons of Dort, First Main
Point of Doctrine, Art. 3)
7. If the submitted exception is accepted by the Executive Committee, the
petitioner enters their name in the Statement of Agreement signature
book with an asterisk. The written exception is kept in a confidential
file in the Office of General Secretary until the COD member concludes
service on the COD.
8. If the COD Executive Committee does not accept the request for an ex-
ception filed by a COD member, the decision is communicated with
the COD member, who may withdraw the exception, may resign from
the COD, or may be removed from membership on the COD.
9. COD members are exhorted that sharing the presence of an asterisk
next to a signature with anyone outside of the membership of the COD
contravenes the Code of Conduct.
Note: COD members who have had exceptions accepted by the COD Exec-
utive Committee may choose to share that fact with the classis that nomi-
nated them, but are not obligated to. The decision of the COD Executive
Committee is final and follows adopted procedures in the COD Govern-
ance Handbook for delegates who are appointed by synod, and is not
open to review by classes.
Adopted by the Council of Delegates
October 2022

COMMUNICATION OF UNPROCESSED OVERTURE
Councils of High River (Alta.) CRC; Covenant CRC, Calgary,

Alberta; Nobleford (Alta.) CRC; and Granum (Alta.) CRC
I. Introduction
At its June 2022 meeting the synod of the Christian Reformed Church in
North America adopted the following resolutions:
That synod affirm that “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q. and
A. 108 encompasses adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, poly-
(Acts of Synod 2022, p. 922; emphasis added)
That synod declare that Church Order Article 69-c1 is to be interpreted
in the light of the biblical evidence laid out in this report.
Despite synod adopting these conclusions from the report of the Commit-
tee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexual-
ity, it is apparent that there are officebearers within the denomination, and
also within Classis Alberta South/Saskatchewan, who do not agree and
thus are currently functioning in contravention of the CRCNA’s Covenant
for Officebearers. This has been made clear through comments on the
floor of the October 2022 and March 2023 meetings of Classis Alberta
South/Saskatchewan, the public writings of certain individuals, the web-
site of at least one congregation within our classis, 2 and the website of All
One Body, which, at the time of this writing, lists eleven congregations in
the CRCNA who desire to be known as “affirming.” 3
II. Biblical background
While addressing the subject of marriage and divorce, the Lord Jesus
Christ summarized the teaching of Scripture, saying, “But from the begin-
ning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’” (Mark 10:6–8). This
clear teaching of Jesus was based on God’s Word in Genesis:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created
him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And
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

God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. . . .”
(Gen. 1:27–28)
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to
his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Gen. 2:24)
In giving the additional command “What therefore God has joined to-
gether, let not man separate” (Mark 10:9), Jesus further clarified that God’s
purpose in creating people as male and female was to provide, as we read
in the CRCNA Form for the Solemnization of Marriage, “a setting within
which we may give loving and tender expression to the desires God gave
us,” and “a secure environment within which children may be born and
taught to know and serve the Lord.”4 This is consistent with God’s Word
in Malachi 2:15:
Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union?
And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. . . .
Further, we believe that God’s Word teaches that there are only two sexes,
male and female (Gen. 1:27; Mark 10:6; Matt. 19:4), which were specifically
designed and created by God to biologically complement one another so
that by his blessing and grace they might fulfill his plan for them to “be
fruitful and multiply” through the bearing of children within the covenant
of marriage (Ps. 127:3; Mal. 2:15). To speak of more than two sexes (or
“genders” 5) contradicts and distorts the clear teaching of Scripture about
God’s purpose for creating people as male and female.
We also believe that, according to the Scriptures, marriage is a covenant
before God in which a man and a woman promise to remain united to-
gether and faithful to one another until death (Mark 10:6-9; Mal. 2:13-14).
Sexual relations are to be enjoyed only between male and female, and only
within the context of this lifelong covenant of marriage (Mal. 2:15; Mark
10:7-9; Heb. 13:4). Any and all expressions of sexuality outside of this life-
long covenant of marriage between a man and a woman 6 are sins against
the clear commands of God, which, together with all other sinful acts,
must be repented of if those who engage in them would not be regarded
as excluded from the kingdom of God (Acts 17:30-31; Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor.
6:9-11; 2 Thess. 1:5-10).
4 CRCNA Form for the Solemnization of Marriage (1979), crcna.org/resources/church-re-
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.

III. Communication
Therefore, the councils of High River, Covenant, Nobleford, and Granum
Christian Reformed churches communicate their desire for Synod 2023 to
not seat, or allow to remain seated, any delegate or adviser who will not
affirm or reaffirm the Covenant for Officebearers in keeping with the deci-
sions of Synod 2022 on human sexuality, to the current and all subsequent
meetings of synod, together with the meetings of all denominational and
classical assemblies, agencies, boards, and committees, regardless of
whether any such officebearer has submitted a gravamen or exception to
his or her local council or board.
Grounds:
1. The Covenant for Officebearers states: “We . . . affirm three confes-
sions—the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Can-
ons of Dort—as historic Reformed expressions of the Christian faith,
whose doctrines fully agree with the Word of God. These confessions
continue to define the way we understand Scripture, direct the way we
live in response to the gospel, and locate us within the larger body of
Christ. Grateful for these expressions of faith, we promise to be formed
and governed by them. We heartily believe and will promote and de-
fend their doctrines faithfully, conforming our preaching, teaching,
writing, serving, and living to them” (emphasis added).
2. Given that according to Church Order Article 26 the authority of coun-
cils is original and the authority of the major assemblies is delegated,
and also that Church Order Article 5 does not specify a process for ad-
dressing a confessional-difficulty gravamen to a broader assembly, it is
unacceptable to expect local councils to delegate any of the original au-
thority entrusted to them by Christ by endorsing delegates to a
broader assembly who, far from believing, promoting, and defending
the doctrines of God’s Word, have signed the Covenant for Officebear-
ers with personal reservations and exceptions which may remain un-
known to the delegating assembly.
3. Christ commands faithful officebearers in his church to love and en-
courage those who struggle with sin by the preaching of the gospel so
that by the grace of God they may turn from sin, trust in the Lord Jesus
Christ alone for salvation, and find forgiveness and life in his name
(Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 2:24-26).
4. Those who excuse and openly teach as acceptable and blessed that
which God’s Word clearly defines as sin, including (but not limited to)
all forms of sexual immorality, are not promoting and defending the
teachings of God’s Word and therefore have broken faith with the
Lord and with his church and cannot by the simple expedient of sub-
mitting a confessional-difficulty gravamen or exception to a local coun-
cil or board, be deemed to be keeping covenant with the Lord and with
his church. Rather, such officebearers are worthy of church discipline

and should not be delegated to the major assemblies of the church (Isa.
5:20; Jer. 6:13-15; Matt. 18:6; 2 Pet. 2:1-22; Jude 1-16; Rev. 2:14-16, 20-23).
Council of High River (Alta.) CRC
Martha de Klerk, clerk
Council of Covenant CRC, Calgary, Alberta
Debra McIntosh, clerk
Council of Nobleford (Alta.) CRC
Clarence Slomp, clerk
Council of Granum (Alta.) CRC
Tjapko Detmers, clerk
Note: This unprocessed overture is submitted as a communication for in-
formation to Synod 2023 according to the Rules for Synodical Procedure
(V, B, 7).

APPEALS
APPEAL 1
Council of the Christian Reformed Church of St. Joseph,

Michigan
The council of Christian Reformed Church of St. Joseph, Michigan, appeals

to synod the decision of Classis Holland during its meeting of October 6,
2022, where it found that suspended members do, in fact, have standing to
file overtures, even though the local consistory had judged otherwise.
Grounds:
1. No Church Order grounds were given for this decision.
a. Rather, the opinion of Kathy Smith (adjunct professor of church
polity at Calvin Theological Seminary) was verbally shared with
the delegates (it was not given in writing nor with reference to any
Church Order article or previous decisions of synod to substantiate
it) that suspended members do have standing from which to sub-
mit overtures.
b. We respect Kathy Smith's opinion, but it is simply an opinion, and
it does not align with the clear implication of the Church Order.
2. The clear implication of the Church Order was ignored.
a. The Church Order Supplement to Articles 78-81 states,
A person who persistently rejects the admonition of the consis-
tory shall be suspended from the privileges of membership.
The privileges of confessing membership include but are not
limited to presentation of children for holy baptism, the right to
vote at congregational meetings, and eligibility to hold office.
b. The phrase, “The privileges of confessing membership include but
are not limited to” (emphasis added) plainly states that not all privi-
leges of membership that can be suspended are listed here. As an
example, the privilege of taking communion is not listed here but is
often a privilege of membership that is suspended in many such sit-
uations.
c. The question then becomes “Who decides which privileges are sus-
pended and which are not?” This the Church Order gives clearly to
the local consistory (Art. 81-a).
d. The local consistory had already determined that the suspended
members did not currently have this privilege.
AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Appeals 621

3. The confidentiality of the parties involved was breached on the floor of
classis during the discussion period by a member of the Classis Execu-
tive Team (CET) itself.
a. The CET had stated that no names would be used so that a clean
decision on the question at hand, "Does a suspended member have
standing to submit an overture?" could be decided on its own mer-
its.
b. However, a pastor and member of the CET, during discussion, read
to the delegates a portion of a letter purportedly from Kathy Smith
to the members in question where the name of the church was men-
tioned repeatedly. While he was warned by the chair, "be careful,"
more than once, the pastor persisted, and the identity of the church
was known to all.
We ask the following:
A. That synod reverse the decision of Classis Holland in this matter.
B. That synod affirm the authority of the local consistory in making this
decision.
C. That synod instruct Classis Holland to admonish the member of the
CET for his behavior in this matter.
Council of the Christian Reformed Church of St. Joseph, Michigan

Keith Lubbers, chair of council
APPEAL 2
Council of Neland Avenue CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan

I. Background
The council of Neland Avenue CRC has received the instruction from
Synod 2022 “to immediately rescind its decision to ordain a deacon in a
same-sex marriage, thus nullifying this deacon’s current term.” The coun-
cil expresses its sorrow that its decision to ordain a deacon in a same-sex
marriage has caused consternation and pain for many in the CRC. The
council also assures synod that the decision to ordain this person was
made only after a great deal of prayer, of listening to Scripture and to the
Spirit and each other, and of giving careful attention and respect to the
polity of the Christian Reformed Church. (The years-long conversation
that preceded the council’s decision is explained extensively in Communi-
cation 6 [Deferred Agenda for Synods 2020-2021, pp. 594-616] and in Over-
ture 55 [Agenda for Synod 2022, pp. 663-80]. Rather than repeat that infor-
mation here, the council asks that readers of this appeal also read those
documents as important background material.)
622 Appeals AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

Because Neland has spent significant time reflecting on its commitment to
the denomination, to the Spirit’s leading, and to caring for one another,
the council testifies to three certainties: Neland feels a strong covenantal
relationship to and with the Christian Reformed Church; the council does
not agree that Neland’s decision to ordain a deacon in a same-sex mar-
riage constitutes breaking covenant with the denomination we love; and
the council “believes that in the call of the congregation God himself is
calling this deacon to this holy office” (CRC Form for the Ordination of El-
ders and Deacons).
Church Order Article 30-a states, “Assemblies and church members may
appeal to the assembly next in order if they believe that injustice has been
done or that a decision conflicts with the Word of God or the Church Or-
der. Appellants shall observe all ecclesiastical regulations regarding the
manner and time of appeal.” Henry DeMoor’s Christian Reformed Church
Order Commentary notes that for a decision of synod, the next assembly in
order is a subsequent synod (p. 176). Hence, the council of Neland Avenue
CRC appeals the decision of Synod 2022 quoted above to Synod 2023.
II. Neland Church’s response to synod
After prayerful consideration of Synod 2022’s instruction to Neland Ave-
nue CRC to rescind this ordination, the council has decided it must appeal
this decision of synod for the following reasons. These demonstrate that
synod’s decision conflicts with the Church Order and with ecclesiastical
regulations contained in previous synodical decisions.
A. Reason 1
Articles 3 and 4 of the Church Order give local church councils the right to
nominate those who are presented to the congregation as ministers, el-
ders, deacons, and commissioned pastors. Supplement, Article 3-a (item 3)
elaborates upon this right when, in the context of differing convictions
about women in office, it declares, “Every classis shall respect the preroga-
tive of its constituent churches to call and ordain officebearers according
to their own biblical convictions.” While synodical positions certainly en-
ter into councils’ consideration of who is best qualified to serve in office,
the final judgment as to who is qualified to serve is the local council’s
alone. At the time of this deacon’s nomination, election, and ordination,
the denomination had only a synodical position, not a confessionally bind-
ing interpretation of the word “unchastity” in Q&A 108 of the Heidelberg
Catechism.
B. Reason 2
Synod has identified the local council or consistory as the appropriate
body for decision making in complex pastoral situations. In its “Report on
Divorce and Remarriage,” Synod 1980 shifted the burden to the local con-
sistory for discerning appropriate actions in complex pastoral situations,
“for it has the most intimate and accurate knowledge of the situation”
(Acts of Synod 1980, p. 484). For years before that 1980 decision, synod had

attempted to draw straight lines of application from synodical positions to
individual pastoral situations in local churches. Synod 1980 acknowledged
that individual pastoral situations are too complex for synod to knowl-
edgeably address from the distance of synod. Instead, local councils or
consistories must be trusted to apply synodical positions in their ministry
context.
Just one aspect of the local complexity in Neland’s situation is the fact that
this particular deacon had already successfully served three previous
terms as deacon. Her prior service had confirmed her spiritual gifts and
Christian maturity. While synod’s only knowledge about this person was
that she is in a same-sex marriage, Neland Church experienced this dea-
con’s full life and leadership long before her marriage. In the words of
Synod 1980, Neland Church had “the most intimate and accurate
knowledge of the situation” from which to make its pastoral judgment.
C. Reason 3
While synod’s instruction to Neland Avenue CRC to rescind its decision
to ordain this deacon makes no explicit mention of discipline, such an ac-
tion really amounts to a process of discipline against this deacon. Church
Order Article 80 clearly gives this responsibility to the local consistory
for general discipline of members, and to the council for special disci-
pline of officebearers (Supplement, Articles 82-84). According to CRC
polity, synod (as a broader assembly) cannot instruct a classis or a council
to exercise discipline, except upon appeal.
This limitation upon synodical jurisdiction has been tested several times,
most recently in 2015, when Classis Minnkota overtured synod “(1) to in-
struct the consistories of Eastern Avenue CRC (Grand Rapids) and Calvin
CRC (Grand Rapids) to exercise discipline with respect to those in their
congregations who are publicly advocating homosexual practice through
their membership in All One Body, in accordance with the provisions of
Church Order Article 81-a; and (2) to admonish the consistories of Eastern
Avenue CRC and Calvin CRC for hosting meetings of a group whose
goals and purpose promote behavior that synod has declared to be sinful”
(Agenda for Synod 2015, p. 427).
Synod 2015 did not accede to the overture for the very reasons stated
above: that “synod cannot instruct a classis or a council to exercise disci-
pline, except upon appeal” and that “the discipline of church members is
the responsibility of the local council” (Acts of Synod 2015, p. 674). Synod
2015 cited the Acts of Synod 1988 (p. 613, also quoted in the Manual of CRC
Government on p. 277) in saying that if a council is concerned about the
views of an officebearer in another church or classis, it can communicate
its concerns to that officebearer’s council—but if that officebearer’s council
does not take any action regarding those concerns, the matter ends. (The
exact quote from Synod 1988 reads as follows [note: in 1988, the term “con-
sistory” was used for what we refer to as the “council” today]: “b. When
a consistory judges that it has sufficient grounds of suspicion against an of-

ficebearer not under its supervision, it may communicate such to that of-
ficebearer’s consistory or the synodical board under which the office-
bearer serves. If the officebearer’s consistory and/or synodical board then
judges that the grounds of suspicion are insufficient to require further ex-
planation, the procedure ends. If the suspicions are judged to be sufficient,
the consistory must follow the regulations of the Church Order.”)
In the absence of an appeal to the next assembly in order (per Church Or-
der Article 30), classis and synod do not have the right to reach into the lo-
cal church to impose or instruct discipline.
This limitation and precedent were pointed out and ignored during the
plenary session of Synod 2022. In that same plenary session, synod was in-
formed that the advisory committee was also made aware of this limita-
tion but ignored it.
D. Reason 4
The three grounds above—the right of the local church to select officebear-
ers, the synodically recognized priority of the local church in assessing
pastoral complexities, and the responsibility of the local church for church
discipline—are all part of the important tension in Reformed church polity
between the original authority of the council and the delegated authority
of broader assemblies. This tension between synodicalism and congrega-
tionalism, a tension that asserts restraints upon synodical authority as well
as restraints on the autonomy of the local church, is not, in Reformed pol-
ity, a problem to be solved but a tension to be embraced.
Church Order Article 27-a frames this tension and the resulting restraints
upon respective assemblies: “Each assembly exercises, in keeping with its
own character and domain, the ecclesiastical authority entrusted to the
church by Christ; the authority of councils being original, that of major as-
semblies being delegated.”
Synod 2022’s instruction to Neland CRC seriously affects this necessary
balance between the original authority of the local council and the dele-
gated authority of major assemblies by ascribing a policing function to
synod that it does not, and should not, have. To ascribe such a role to
synod could cause much harm to the appropriate relationship between the
churches and our major assemblies. Previous synods could foresee the
chaos that would result in the denomination if any local church could
overture synod to instruct any other local church in its internal affairs, in-
cluding whom it elects to office, how to adjudicate pastoral complexities,
and/or how to administer church discipline. Synod 2022’s decision could
lead to many questionable and unnecessary disputes that would not serve
our churches or our denomination well. Will synod now accede to an
overture from a church or classis that demands synod reach into another
church that, in their estimation,
• failed to discipline someone according to their interpretation of the
CRC’s position on divorce and remarriage (Synod 1980 Divorce
and Remarriage report)?

• failed to require infant baptism of its church members (Church
Order, Art. 56)?
• fails to instruct its youth in the Heidelberg Catechism (Church
Order, Art. 63)?
• failed to adequately warn a couple about the moral hazards of in-
vitro fertilization (Synod 2003 report on Life Issues)?
• is not pledging enough of its budget to contribute to denomina-
tional ministries (Church Order Supplement, Art. 35-a; Synod 2019
Reimagining Ministry Shares report)?
The CRC’s Church Order currently respects the relative autonomy of the
local church as it struggles with matters like these and protects the local
church from undue interference from others in the denomination. Indeed,
the Church Order’s concluding article emphasizes the important principle
that “no church shall in any way lord it over another church, and no of-
ficebearer shall lord it over another officebearer” (Art. 85). Neland Avenue
CRC believes these protections are extremely important for the orderly
function of the church and appeals Synod 2022’s instruction to Neland not
just because of its impact upon Neland but also because of the precedent it
sets for synod overreaching into the affairs of the local church.
III. Appeal
Neland Avenue Christian Reformed Church appeals to Synod 2023 the
following decision made by Synod 2022: “That synod instruct Neland Av-
enue CRC to immediately rescind its decision to ordain a deacon in a
same-sex marriage, thus nullifying this deacon’s current term” (Acts of
Synod 2022, p. 926).
Grounds:
1. Articles 3 and 4 of the Church Order give councils the right to nomi-
nate those who are presented to the congregation as ministers, elders,
deacons, and commissioned pastors. While synodical positions cer-
tainly enter into councils’ consideration of who is best qualified to
serve in office, the final judgment as to who is qualified to serve is the
local council’s alone.
2. Synod has identified the local council or consistory as the appropriate
body for decision making in complex pastoral situations, “for it [coun-
cil or consistory] has the most intimate and accurate knowledge of the
situation” (Acts of Synod 1980, p. 484).
3. While synod’s instruction to Neland Avenue CRC to rescind its deci-
sion to ordain this deacon makes no explicit mention of discipline,
such an action really amounts to a process of discipline against this
deacon. But Church Order Article 80 clearly gives this responsibility to
the local consistory for general discipline and to the council for special
discipline (Supplement, Articles 82-84); in addition, according to CRC
polity, synod (as a broader assembly) cannot instruct a classis or a

council to exercise discipline, except upon appeal (Acts of Synod 2015,
p. 674).
4. The polity of the Christian Reformed Church has always valued a the-
ological tension between synodicalism and congregationalism, a polity
that asserts restraints upon synodical authority as well as restraints on
the autonomy of the local church. Our Church Order is a finely tuned
document that carefully balances limited synodical authority and relative
local autonomy. Church Order Article 27-a identifies this balance and
the resulting restraints upon respective assemblies: “Each assembly ex-
ercises, in keeping with its own character and domain, the ecclesiasti-
cal authority entrusted to the church by Christ; the authority of coun-
cils being original, that of major assemblies being delegated.”
IV. Action requested
Neland Avenue CRC requests that Synod 2023 sustain this appeal. Sus-
taining it will rightly recognize the Church Order’s provisions for the local
church to select officebearers, to address complex pastoral situations, and
to administer church discipline; and it will protect the balance in our
Church Order between appropriate synodical authority and relative local
autonomy.
Council of Neland Avenue CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Laurel VandenBerg, clerk

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

Agenda For Synod 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agenda For Synod 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agenda for Synod 2023

© 2023 Christian Reformed Church in North America

Council of Delegates of the Christian Reformed Church in North America

Reports of Agencies, Institutions, and Ministries

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Contents 3

Denominationally Related Educational Institutions

4 Contents AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Contents 5

6 Contents AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Contents 7

Unprocessed Overtures or Communications

8 Contents AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Preface 9

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Announcements 11

12 Announcements AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

*Synod will adjourn no later than 3:00 p.m. on Thursday.

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Announcements 13

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Delegates to Synod 15

Grand Rapids East

Grand Rapids South

16 Delegates to Synod AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Delegates to Synod 17

18 Delegates to Synod AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Delegates to Synod 19

20 Delegates to Synod AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 21

The Council of Delegates (COD) of the Christian Reformed Church in

1 Bradshaw, P., R. Hayday, R. Armstrong, "Non-profit Governance Models: Problems and

Prospects," paper originally presented at ARNOVA Conference, Seattle, Washington, 1998.

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 23

24 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 25

26 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 27

28 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 29

30 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 31

32 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 33

34 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 35

36 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 37

38 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 39

40 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 41

42 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 43

44 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 45

46 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 47

48 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 49

50 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 51

52 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023

AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023 Council of Delegates Report 53

Council of Delegates of the

Code of Conduct Review Team Report

54 Council of Delegates Report AGENDA FOR SYNOD 2023