Let's Talk

Confessional Conversation After Synod 2024

Over the last several weeks, I have heard a number of CRC officebearers and members charge conservative officebearers with duplicity. “At Synod 2022,” they claim, “you conservatives said that affirming the confessionality of the church’s traditional teaching on homosexual sex would not shut down further discussion and debate. At Synods 2023 and 2024, however, you reneged on that promise. As of Synod 2024, CRC officebearers must now either publicly affirm that the traditional position is the teaching of God’s Word or resign. This does not feel like the room for further conversation that we were promised.”

In response, allow me to say upfront that I cannot defend every conservative who made reassurances at Synod 2022. There were numerous discussions at mealtimes, coffee breaks, and in dorms between people who had significantly different views. Obviously, I can’t speak in defense of all those conversations.

My recollection, however, (confirmed by rewatching the footage) is that all that was said at Synod 2022 was that there was a process in the Church Order for those who had ‘difficulties’ with the confessions (i.e., the gravamen process). And that that process was the appropriate channel for continuing conversation. Which is what I and the conservatives I know have always said: if you have a serious doubt about or a disagreement with the confessions, then the gravamen process is the appropriate way to discuss those doubts and disagreements with the church.

The problem that quickly became apparent following Synod 2022 was that officebearers were not all agreed on just what types of conversations the gravamen process permitted. Speaking generally, revisionists interpreted the gravamen process as making space for conversations that had a relatively low degree of denominational accountability. In contrast, conservatives understood the gravamen process as making space for conversations that had a relatively high degree of denominational accountability. In short, we were (and are) dealing with an unfortunate, but classic, case of miscommunication.  

So, while I obviously believe that the high-accountability interpretation of the gravamen process is more accurate, I can sympathize with revisionists when they say that they feel that conservatives have shut down the conversation. Because – in a sense – they are correct. The delegates at Synod 2024 – many of whom I would describe as conservative – did effectively shut down the type of conversation that the revisionists would prefer to have had. Its just that that’s not a type of conversation that was ever promised.

   As it is, however, there is still plenty of room for officebearers in the CRC to express their difficulties with the church’s confessions and, in particular, with the church’s teaching on marriage and unchastity. As laid out by Synod 2024, if an officebearer who signs the Covenant for Officebearers in good faith comes to have a serious doubt about a doctrine in the confessions, that officebearer may have up to three years to study and wrestle with the church’s teaching. For most officebearers (i.e., elders and deacons), this means that their time in office will likely expire before they come to the end of that time. They may then continue to wrestle with their doubts as regular confessing members under the guidance of the elders or they may overture synod to revise the confessions.

The same goes for ministers of the Word. After three years of studying and wrestling with a doctrine, they may either resign from office in order to continue wrestling as regular confessing members or they may submit a confessional-revision gravamen. It may even happen – as happened for Harry Boer in the late 1970s – that Synod agrees to appoint a study committee to reexamine the issue.  If so, then the minister could have at least an additional three years to study, wrestle, and discuss. In short, under Synod 2024’s decisions, officebearers could have up to at least 7 years to study and wrestle with the church’s teaching.  

Admittedly, during the time they are resolving their doubts, officebearers may not serve as delegates to classis, synod, or serve on denominational boards (including the Council of Delegates and the Board of Trustees of Calvin University). They must diligently work toward the resolution of their doubts. And they must continue to live, act, and teach in accordance with the confessions.

In short, Synod 2024 reaffirmed the CRC’s historic approach to being a confessional church. Some minor adaptation has taken place around the edges, but the substance of the CRC’s approach has not changed. As a result, our officebearers have the grace needed to wrestle and learn while at the same time honoring our denomination’s understanding of God’s Word. This may not be the type of conversation that some wanted, but Synod 2024 has made ample room for further conversation.