What happened in the RCA? In the words of one former RCA pastor, the RCA had gangrene in their right foot but amputated their left hand. “What would have made more sense is the progressives to go to the PCUSA or UCC if they were willing to leave,” said Bremer. “They were in the minority and had places to go. But they made it clear that this is not what they were going to do.” “The General Synod has repeatedly made statements that are more traditional in orientation about sexuality, but those are just statements,” said David Komline, associate professor of church history at Western Theological Seminary. “There are no mechanisms in place to hold people accountable to these statements.” “Our polity did not allow us to hold others accountable who were living in sin,” according to Gerbers, who was a delegate to General Synod in 2013, 2016, 2019 and 2021. Currently, the RCA website’s Statements of General Synod paint a picture of the RCA slowly and conflictedly coming into line with the revisionists’ position on sexuality. 

LGBTQ ideology has divided one church after another: Episcopal Church USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), Mennonite Church USA, United Methodist Church, Church of the Brethren, Reformed Church in America.
In this series, we will look at some of their stories. Each one shows how legitimizing alternative sexualities in the church is a mix of oil and water. It simply does not work. Another case in point: The Reformed Church in America
Of all the denominations that would have lessons for the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRC), the Reformed Church in America (RCA) would be at the top of the list. They have the same statements of faith and the same Dutch heritage. While sharing many similarities, they have distinct histories. The RCA has a long history of trying to maintain unity despite differences, reaching across doctrinal differences to cooperate with churches outside the Reformed tradition. The CRC has a long history of seeking biblical and confessional fidelity, careful selection of ecumenical partners. 
RCA and CRC Ancient History 
The RCA is one of the oldest denominations in America, officially beginning in 1628 in New York. They became independent from the Nederlands Hervormde Kerk (NHK) in 1792. Then, in 1834 the NHK went through a split called the Afscheiding. The government-run NHK was rampant with German rationalism and French skepticism. Modernism reigned in the universities and most pulpits. The Three Forms of Unity were official but were often denied or derided. Ministers only needed to agree with “insofar as” they agreed with God’s Word. Most sermons were moral essays, urging the good life without mentioning human sinfulness, necessity of new birth, conversion, atonement through Christ, justification by faith, or sanctification. The Afscheiding left the state church and began to meet on their own. Fines on gatherings were imposed and immigrants poured into the United States. The Afscheiding band following Albertus Van Raalte was accepted into the RCA in 1850. Some among the Van Raalte group were disappointed in that union as they were afraid that the RCA was much like the corrupt NHK in the Netherlands.1
In 1857, a small handful left the RCA and the CRC was born. At first, the CRC consisted of only four churches and one minister. Meanwhile, the Van Raalte immigrants were not on board with membership in the Masonic lodge. The Masons required an oath of secrecy and especially in the Netherlands were viewed as something of a cult. The RCAs in the eastern USA did allow its members to belong to Masonic lodges.2 In 1870, the RCA General Synod declared that Masonic membership was not a good practice but that it should not be forbidden by church law. 
The Masonic lodge controversy would come to a head in 1880. Four memorials (i.e. overtures) from the western RCAs asked that Masonic membership be banned by church law. Trying to take a middle road between the Masonic-affirming east and the anti-Masonic west, the RCA General Synod gave a similar conclusion to that of 1870. A mass exodus from the RCA ensued. The CRC ranks mushroomed. The Afscheiding churches in the Netherlands withdrew their endorsement of the RCA and thereafter encouraged immigrants to join the CRC. The CRC would gain entire congregations, families and key ministers from the RCA. By 1895, CRC membership surpassed the RCA’s Midwest sector. 
Thus, the RCA in the west (Michigan, Iowa, etc.) being settled by predominantly Afscheiding refugees has had a different character than the RCA in the east (New York, New Jersey). 
The RCA would continue to grow and its membership peaked in 1967 with 384,751 members. Thereafter it began a slow decline, primarily in the east. In the 2000s, the RCA west would also begin a decline but the RCA east was by this time far smaller than it had once been. By 2011, Zeeland Classis in Michigan had over 15,400 total members and averaged 8,888 worshipers. Whereas the entire Regional Synod of Albany (made up of six classes in New York) had nearly the same amount of total members with 15,700, and only worshiped at 6,451.3 Yet, at General Synod, Albany had six classes worth of votes and Zeeland only had one. The RCA east was overrepresented when it came to voting on pivotal matters. 
Enter Topic of Homosexuality
The first time the RCA made any statements on LGBT matters was its June 12-16, 1978 General Synod meeting at Columbia University. There delegates approved a paper titled, “Homosexuality: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal” (Minutes of General Synod 1978: pp.233-239). The paper presented a clear biblical rejection of homosexual acts but also affirmed the dignity of homosexual persons.
Some of the paper’s statements include the following:

Paul’s rejection of homosexual activity is beyond question.
When Paul rejects homosexual acts on the grounds that they are “against nature” he expresses and reaffirms the clear sense of Scripture: Human sexuality was created for heterosexual expression…When the subject of homosexuality is raised, the majority of modern opinion still seems to be: “People weren’t made to be that way.” If such opinion is expressed with fear, loathing or recrimination, as is often the case, it must be pitied and resisted. When the same statement is made in humility and with compassion, it may be considered biblical.
Heterosexuality is not only normal; it is normative. Homosexual acts are contrary to the will of God for human sexuality.
The homosexual invert [one who does not decide to become homosexual, but for whom genetic, hormonal, or psychosocial factors have influenced his or her sexual orientation] is no more to be blamed for his/her condition than a [child who is cognitively impaired]. It follows, then, that the church’s ministry to the invert may best begin with the attempt to lift a burden of guilt that need not be carried. Inverts may not idealize their orientation as a legitimate alternative, but neither should they blame themselves for their sexual orientation.
While we cannot affirm homosexual behavior, at the same time we are convinced that the denial of human and civil rights to homosexuals is inconsistent with the biblical witness and Reformed theology. 

While avoiding simplistic and obnoxious social crusades, the church must affirm through its preaching and pastoral ministry that homosexuality is not an acceptable alternative lifestyle. God’s gracious intent for human sexual fulfillment is the permanent bond of heterosexual love. This redemptive word must be spoken, with sensitivity, caring, and clarity to any person who would make a perverted sexual choice, and to society as a whole.
It is one matter to affirm that self-chosen homosexual acts are sinful. It is quite another to reject, defame, and excoriate the humanity of the person who performs them. This distinction has often been missed. It is possible and necessary on biblical grounds to identify homosexuality as a departure from God’s intent. However…there are no theological grounds on which a homosexual may be singled out for a greater measure of judgment. All persons bear within them the marks of the fall.

This position would be reaffirmed the next year in 1979, again in 1990 and also 1994.
The 1990 General Synod voted to adopt an official position on the issue of same-sex relationships, as some classes felt there was confusion within the church as to the status of the 1978 report. It was decided “To adopt as the position of the Reformed Church in America that the practicing homosexual lifestyle is contrary to scripture, while at the same time encouraging love and sensitivity towards such persons as fellow human beings” (Minutes of General Synod 1990: p461).
The 1994 General Synod adopted a resolution of humble repentance for insensitivity to those of a homosexual orientation who sought “self-acceptance and dignity” among other failings. Nevertheless, the prior orthodox statements were reaffirmed. General Synod “recognizes and confesses that the Reformed Church in America has failed to live up to its own statements regarding homosexuality.” General Synod “seeks to obey the whole of Scripture, demonstrating in its own life the same obedience it asks from others.” They called on the RCA to enter “a process of repentance, prayer, learning, and growth in ministry. This process will be guided by the basic biblical-theological framework presented in the previous statements of the General Synod” (Minutes of General Synod 1994: p375-376).
In 1997, General Synod did not discuss homosexuality, but did enter a “Formula of Agreement” with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), and the United Church of Christ (UCC). The RCA was thereafter in “full communion” with denominations farther to the left on the theological spectrum on a host of topics, including sexuality. For example, the UCC ordained its first openly gay person into ministry already in 1972. By 1985, the UCC General Synod declared itself “open and affirming” to LGBTQ persons by a 95% majority. The ELCA would open all ministerial offices to practicing LGBT people in 2009 and the PCUSA would do the same in 2011. 
In 2004, RCA General Synod affirmed “that marriage is properly defined as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.” The Commission on Church Order was asked to consider an amendment to the Book of Church Order that added the affirmation into the RCA’s church order (Minutes of General Synod 2004, pp. 332-333).
In 2005, the commission reported that it had considered an amendment to the Book of Church Order but did not feel it was appropriate, and gave six reasons why (Minutes of General Synod 2005, pp. 90-91). In its report, they said the 2004 statement on monogamous heterosexual marriage “does not carry the weight of definitive church teaching. The General Synod does not have among its powers the determination of what, finally, is the ‘teaching of the church.’” Additionally, they were “reluctant to use the church order as a means of addressing social issues currently before society and the church. The commission seriously questions whether the insertion of such a definition would, as proponents of the overture claim, ‘allow the Reformed Church to avoid the difficult and public schism being played out on the world scene.’ The placement of the definition within the church order would do little to reduce the heat of controversy across the church.” 
More pivotal, on June 17, 2005, General Synod deposed Norman Kansfield, the dismissed president of New Brunswick Theological Seminary, for presiding at his daughter’s lesbian wedding. “The church of Jesus Christ needs to be as inclusive as the arms of our Lord himself,” Kansfield said to delegates. This action would trigger the formation of the RCA’s LGBTQ lobby group, Room for All (RFA). Their website credited this event as the galvanizing force for RFA: 
Though, in the end, Norm was found guilty of violating the peace, unity and purity of the church, a period of “don’t ask, don’t tell” had ended. Through these events and others, the need was made clear for a voice of full inclusion, that a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach will not ultimately serve the church in communicating God’s love for all people. A small group continued to meet over the summer of 2005 to discern how best to move forward. In the fall a non-profit was incorporated in the state of New York under the name Room for All, in order to support, educate and advocate for the full inclusion of LGBT people in the RCA. 
The push for full affirmation of LGBTQ sexualities in the RCA would be continuous thereafter. 
In 2009, General Synod voted to “affirm the value of continued dialogue and discernment on the topic of homosexuality within the church, to state that our dialogical and discerning work is not done, and that legislative and judicial steps are not a preferred course of action at this time.” In the meantime, they recommended that “officeholders and ministers avoid actions in violation of the policies of the earlier statements of General Synod on ordination and relevant state laws on marriage, with sensitivity to the pastoral needs of all involved.”
The 2009 General Synod also voted for the Belhar Confession to be a full confession in the RCA, but two thirds of the classes would still have to approve it and the next General Synod would have to ratify the decision. On April 5, 2010, RCA announced that two-thirds of its classes concurred with the General Synod 2009 to approve the Belhar Confession. As an indication of events to come, the same month of the two-thirds majority, the Belhar Confession’s main author Allan Boesak spoke at Louisville Presbyterian Seminary, saying Belhar’s “demand for inclusivity goes well beyond the issue of race” to include “women, people with disabilities and those whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual.” Still, the 2010 General Synod made its first order of business to officially adopt the Belhar Confession. 
Read More
Related Posts:

Since the change of the definition of marriage, the PCUSA seems to have lost all counterbalance to contemporary progressive ideologies. Having lost its conservative contingent, the PCUSA appears to be in theological and moral freefall with few voices seeking to preserve any historic biblical understandings. On the first day of the 2016 General Assembly, the opening prayer was by a Muslim imam offered to Allah.

LGBTQ ideology has divided one church after another: Episcopal Church USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), Mennonite Church USA, United Methodist Church, Church of the Brethren, Reformed Church in America.
In this series, we will look at some of their stories. Each one shows how legitimizing alternative sexualities in the church is a mix of oil and water. It simply does not work. Another case in point: The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). 
The Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) was organized as a merger between two Presbyterian denominations that separated during the Civil War. The northern United Presbyterian Church in the USA (UPCUSA) and the southern Presbyterian Church in the United States officially joined together on June 10, 1983 in Atlanta, Georgia. The combined membership topped 3.1 million. Since then, developments in the PCUSA serve as yet another painful and profound illustration of two realities: first, that compromises on sexuality are invariably connected to a much broader erosion of biblical authority and faithfulness; and second, that competing visions of biblical sexuality cannot remain under the same denominational umbrella.  In short, it doesn’t work.
Signs of Decay
Signs of theological decay were already present prior to 1983. The southern Presbyterian branch had already shed members and churches into the Presbyterian Church in America in 1973. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church officially organized in 1981 out of concern that both northern and southern Presbyterians were no longer holding to their basic standards of belief. Ordination in the UPCUSA only required affirmation that the Bible is “God’s Word to you.” In 1974, UPCUSA ordination candidate Walter Wynn Kenyon informed the Pittsburgh Presbytery that he could not participate in women’s ordination services. The presbytery narrowly ordained him but in 1975 the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly overturned the presbytery. In 1981, the same court approved Mansfield Kaseman’s ordination despite his unwillingness to affirm the deity of Christ, the Trinity, bodily resurrection, the sinlessness of Jesus, and Christ’s death as an atonement for sin. In 1979 the UPCUSA church order was amended to mandate election of women elders in all sessions. Those who would not ordain women as elders were being denied ordination. Zeal for evangelism had significantly dried up. UPCUSA had 1400 missionaries in 1958, but only 300 in 1980. 
Nevertheless, a sizeable contingent decided to stick around and hold fast to orthodoxy in the “big tent” of the PCUSA. It would prove to be a long losing war of attrition. 
On June 18, 1984, the PCUSA Permanent Judicial Commission ruled in favor of Westminster Church of Buffalo and their open and affirming policy when the Western New York presbytery brought charges. The Commission ruled the denominational ban on gay clergy unconstitutional, saying the ban goes against “the constitutional power of each congregation to control the selection of its own officers for ordination. The Church is committed to inclusiveness, and segments of the membership cannot be excluded except by constitutional amendment.” The Commission would reverse this ruling in February of 1985. 
Orthodox stances on sexuality were reinforced at the 1985 General Assembly, which voted down an amendment to the church constitution that would have protected homosexuals from employment discrimination. Additionally, the General Assembly declared all homosexual acts are inherently sinful regardless of the nature of the relationship or the degree of commitment. 
“Fidelity and Chastity”
By 1993, exhaustion prevailed. A three-year moratorium on homosexual ordination was called. 1996 came and the orthodox won a tremendous victory when the General Assembly voted 313 to 236 to approve a report calling homosexual practice a sin and adding requirements to the constitution that officers must practice sexual “fidelity and chastity.” The majority of the 172 presbyteries would approve this the following March. 
The official wording was as follows:
“Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage of a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of Word and Sacrament.”
The “fidelity and chastity” amendment brought plenty of angst. Chris Glaser, a homosexual leader of the Presbyterians for Lesbian & Gay Concerns called the vote “spiritual abuse.” Rev. Myra Kazanjian of Pittsburgh said, “We are asking people again: ‘Don’t ask. Don’t tell. Let’s live our lives in secrecy.’ I don’t believe that is the Gospel.” Kazanjian was among 300 people who marched through the hall at the Albuquerque Convention Center to protest the vote. After the vote Friday, hundreds of gay and lesbian church members and leaders gathered to sing, “We Are Staying in the Church of God.” 
“A lot of people will leave,” said Sandy Martin, an elder from Pittsburgh. “I don’t think they realize what kind of pain they bring to gays and lesbians. One of the things that could happen is the church could split on the issue.”
But the PCUSA would not split over drawing firm lines. The 1997 General Assembly gave final approval to the “fidelity and chastity” amendment. 
Meanwhile, Theological Decline Was Evident on Other Fronts
At the Peacemaking Conference in 2000, Rev. Dirk Ficca delivered the keynote address, “Uncommon Ground: Living Faithfully in a Diverse World,” suggesting that there are many paths to God. At one point Ficca asked rhetorically, “What’s the big deal about Jesus?” Conservatives would raise an outcry. A month later an explanatory letter would be sent and the 2002 General Assembly would approve a statement saying “Jesus Christ is the only Savior and Lord… No one is saved apart from God’s gracious redemption in Jesus Christ.”
The 1992 General Assembly adopted a pro-choice position on abortion, saying that each situation is different and that no laws should restrict it. By 1998, the General Assembly granted a “Relief of Conscience” program for congregations to not have their mandatory medical dues go to cover abortions. PCUSA medical insurance would continue to provide coverage for abortions.
Read More
Related Posts:

Synod, the last two years especially, feels like war. The differing visions for the CRC’s future and the underlying theologies behind the opposing visions collide each year at synod. The conflict does not feel like a friendly game of basketball between family members. The conflict feels like a desperate fight for the soul of the church. The viewpoints are so different that despite the verboten descriptors, there will be winners and losers. The losers will find themselves in a CRC so intolerable that they will have to leave. At synod, the gloves come off because the future of the church is at stake.

Anyone who watched the final day of Synod 2023 in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) would have been stunned. The log jam of recommendations still to reach the floor led to the decision to postpone the remaining business to 2024. Highly important but contentious topics remained until the following year.
The differing factions within the CRC are increasingly visible at synod. “Conservative” and “liberal” descriptors are so politically charged that matters of Christ’s church become conflated with current political interests. A better term for the conservative faction is confessionalist. Exemplified by “The Abide Project,” these stress confessional identity and hold orthodox views on marriage and sexuality. The liberals would better be called revisionists. “All One Body” would fit into this group. They are more open to revising traditional church stances and new movements of what the Holy Spirit might be doing. They are either in favor of full LGBTQ inclusion or are open to the idea. Then there are moderates who often feel caught in the middle. Their organization is the CRCNA agencies and offices. They tend to be loyal to the CRC brand and averse to ecclesiastical conflict.
Synod 2022
The most contentious matters of Synod 2023 concerned matters from last year. Synod 2022 was a significant blow to the affirming (revisionist?) movement within the CRC. Synod had overwhelmingly voted to “affirm 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. In so doing, synod declares this affirmation ‘an interpretation of [a] confession’ (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 603). Therefore, this interpretation has confessional status.”
Synod 2022 also was firm with Neland Ave CRC in Grand Rapids. In 2020, this congregation ordained a deacon living in a same-sex marriage. Synod overwhelmingly voted to “instruct Neland Ave to immediately rescind its decision to ordain a deacon in a same-sex marriage, thus nullifying this deacon’s term.” Further, synod instructed Neland Ave “to uphold our shared denominational covenants” and tasked the Executive Director to appoint a committee in loco to follow up with Neland Ave and Classis Grand Rapids East, which had refused to intervene. Neland Ave decided to appeal the decision to Synod 2023. Classis Grand Rapids East used the appeal as reason to still not intervene.
Better Together?
Once Synod 2022 drew a hard line on sexuality, the CRC head office became flooded with calls about current officebearers who disagreed with the decision, which led to the release of a FAQ.In February of 2023, a new group emerged, calling themselves “Better Together: A Third Way.” Characterizing the revisionist-confessional debate as another branch of the broader culture wars erupting in the CRC, Better Together wants the CRC to have a “mission-focused, baptismally-based identity that allows for disagreement on ethical issues that do not determine our salvation, such as same-sex marriage…” This is “for the purpose of unity and mission together.” Essentially, the Third Way is unity at all costs. For one side this would be the cost of safe spaces for LGBTQ people. For the other side this would be the cost of having teachers in the CRC using the grace of God as license for immorality.Only days after Better Together appeared, the CRC’s LGBTQ lobby group announced that 11 congregations have made public statements in support of full LGBTQ inclusion.Overtures began to pile up. Many of them asked to reverse the decisions of the prior synod. Particular focus was on reversing the declaration that synod’s definition of “unchastity” has “confessional status.” Some called for responses to Neland Ave and the other 10 congregations with affirming statements. Others asked for leeway for Neland Ave and other affirming congregations as well as officebearers who disagree with Synod 2022’s decision.
Synod 2023
When Synod 2023 finally commenced, the initial days progressed as synods often go.Synod 2023 decided (again) to refuse an overture to adopt Belhar Confession as a full confession. The final speaker before the vote was Christian Sebastia, a pastor originally from Venezuela who condemned the Belhar’s “liberation theology” that would open the door to “blood-red socialism.”Synod decided to make an official statement against assisted suicide. Even speakers from historically revisionist classes spoke against assisted suicide and the need for a statement. A task force will be appointed to draft a report on assisted suicide based on prior synodical statements valuing human life.A proposed “Code of Conduct for Ministry Leaders” with vague language about “harm” was thoroughly revised so that any open-ended language could not be used to limit the teaching of Scripture. After all, God’s Word is sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12). Synod explicitly clarified that this Code is “subservient to Scripture and our Confessions.” Moreover, the Code is “encouraged” (not required) of councils to use for church staff.
All One Body demonstrators daily lined the walkways to and from the dining hall singing “Jesus Loves Me” and “They’ll Know We Are Christians By Our Love” as delegates walked by. The group neared 130 on Wednesday, many holding signs such as, “Avoid Loveless Orthodoxy / Accept God is Love,” “Say ‘All Are Welcome’ … and MEAN IT!”While All One Body whites (is there a better descriptor?) demonstrated outside, inside was a different story. “Several Korean and Latino delegates expressed their positions on human sexuality,” observed Latino Commissioned Pastor Moises Pacheco. “And it seemed to be totally ignored by the delegates speaking in favor of the affirming side even while they continued to claim a desire to advocate for those on the margins. Oddly enough, those on the margins that they were advocating for seemed to be their own friends and family. I’m not sure I have ever felt so ignored.
Read More
Related Posts:

The results were landslide decisions in favor of the historic church view of sexuality. Synod voted 131-45 to recommend the Human Sexuality Report to the churches. Synod then voted 123-53 to affirm that the traditional stance on sexuality is “confessional” and therefore binding on all officebearers.

The Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRC) held its denomination-wide synod meeting in June and the result was a strong stand for biblical marriage and sexuality.
Much was building up to this meeting. The long-awaited Human Sexuality Report (HSR) was on the agenda. This 175-page report presented the historical church’s position on sexuality and called for synod to officially recognize that position to already have “confessional status.” In other words, all pastors, elders and deacons would be expected to uphold and abide by the historical stance on sexuality.
Reinforcing the need for this clarity was the Neland Avenue CRC in Grand Rapids, Michigan that in 2020 ordained a deacon living in a same-sex marriage.
Less prominent was an overture asking for synod to declare heretical any denials of penal substitutionary atonement. This was in response to a minister who was ordained despite his objections to the atonement language most prominent in the CRC confessions.
Synod 2022 might go down as the most monumental meeting for the CRC of this generation.
During debate on the synod floor, one delegate said the CRC theology of sexuality “has caused there to be blood on our hands.” The chair ruled this comment out of order. The delegate was told he needed to apologize or lose speaking privileges. He refused to apologize and lost his right to speak.
As delegates were deliberating the report on sexuality, around 200 protesters filled the parking lot waving rainbow flags and singing hymns. The next day a smaller crowd gathered wearing black clothing. Spelling out “lament” on cardboard, they wore masks and remained silent.
The results were landslide decisions in favor of the historic church view of sexuality. Synod voted 131-45 to recommend the Human Sexuality Report to the churches. Synod then voted 123-53 to affirm that the traditional stance on sexuality is “confessional” and therefore binding on all officebearers. An instruction to Neland Avenue to “immediately rescind its decision to ordain a deacon in a same-sex marriage” passed 134 to 44. The same number of votes approved the formation of an in loco committee for Neland Avenue to “oversee its compliance” to synod rulings. The in loco committee was also tasked to “admonish” Classis Grand Rapids East (the regional body of congregations where Neland Avenue is a member) for their failure to hold Neland Avenue accountable to CRC positions.
During the debates on sexuality and Neland Avenue, delegates who spoke in favor of the HSR and biblical marriage were noticeably younger, from the generations rising at a time when Christian faith increasingly means standing out from the greater society. Orthodox voices were also more diverse. The CRC’s Korean Council and the Hispanic Consejo Latino both released statements ahead of synod strongly supporting the orthodox Human Sexuality Report.
On atonement, synod passed statements by overwhelming voice votes saying “to in any way deny that Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection provide a substitutionary work of bearing God’s wrath on our behalf because of the just punishment we deserve for our sin” is a “serious deviation from the teachings of the confessions” of the CRC.
Read More

Related Posts:

One third of the Calvin University faculty signed a statement opposing the Human Sexuality Report. All One Body has released a series of talking head videos of therapists, social scientists and pastors discrediting the Human Sexuality Report. Synod 2022 meets June 10-16 at Calvin University and will likely be monumental. The Abide Project’s stated goal is to adopt the Human Sexuality Report and hold all church leaders to the historic biblical view of sexuality.

The Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRC), a 200,000-member denomination in the United States and Canada, now has a renewal movement named the Abide Project.
Organized in 2021, the Abide Project seeks “to uphold the historic, beautiful, Biblical understanding of human sexuality in doctrine, discipleship, and discipline” in the CRC.
Once forbidding movies, card-playing and dancing, the CRC has drifted leftward in recent generations. Across the past decade, the push for full inclusion of LGBTQ members has gained momentum and prompted the organization of the Abide Project.
The focal point of contention is a report adopted in 1973 by synod (the CRC’s annual assembly and highest body of authority). The report says believers with same-sex attractions are to be fully accepted in the church, but declares homosexuality to be “a condition of disordered sexuality” and “Homosexualism – as explicit homosexual practice – must be condemned as incompatible with obedience to the will of God as revealed in Holy Scripture.” This has been the official position of the CRC since 1973.
At Synod 2011, an overture asking to reexamine the CRC position on homosexuality was voted down. The overture came from Classis Grand Rapids East, the regional body of churches surrounding the CRC headquarters as well as the denomination’s educational institutions in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Shortly after Synod 2011 voted down the Grand Rapids East overture, a group called All One Body emerged to promote full inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the CRC.
All One Body hosted events at Classis Grand Rapids East congregations. Speakers called into question the CRC position on homosexuality. Professors presented on new scientific findings. Ex-members identifying as LGBTQ spoke about the hurt-feelings over the 1973 position.
As national polls tipped in favor of homosexuality and same-sex marriage became legal in more locations, another regional group of churches (Classis Zeeland) asked Synod 2013 for guidance on how to apply the 1973 stance on homosexuality in the changing society. Some synod delegates seized the opportunity to amend the request for guidance into reconsidering the whole topic from scratch. However, amendments from the floor were defeated. A committee was tasked to give guidance on applying the current stance. But when members were chosen to fill the committee, the vast majority were pastors and scholars with an LGBTQ-inclusivist view.
The committee of nine divided along ideological lines, producing majority and minority reports. The inclusivist 7-person majority report’s advice stretched the CRC stance on homosexuality as far as possible. The 44-page report made passing references to only four Scripture verses, frequently stressed the complexity of these issues and contained thinly veiled disparagements of the 1973 position. Dividing marriage into civil and religious unions, the majority report said ministers could perform same-sex civil ceremonies as long as the ceremonies were not religious.
Read More