Great post again. I wrote a bit about it on Voices. I think the reason both sides relate different to institutions has to do with cultures of "sincerity" and cultures of "authenticity". The left wants institutions that affirm their sense of inner purpose. The right wants institutions that mirror their convictions as well, but for the right institutions ARE about discipline. For the left all institutions are voluntary. Abide institutionalized with zero CRC "institutional" money. The left has been struggling with this. Better Together got GRE money and then Lilly money and created an institution that only tangentially impacts CRC politics. These are two ways of seeing the world, seeing institutions, etc. The left will try to join other existing institutions that have cultures of authenticity. They will be 'at will' joiners because when the institution no longer feels authentic they leak away. The right tends to fractionate instead. They will build new institutions because they can more easily come to agreement and even create new confessions.
Truth is when both tribes work together they can do pretty amazing things, but issues like this one make it almost impossible for them to do so. This issue in particular is nearly pure "authenticity". Sexual minorities break from the sincerity molds for reasons central to the tribe of authenticity. Results are predictable.
Thanks, Paul. I think this gets it exactly right. I think it's an underrated factor that anyone can build a communication channel from scratch on the cheap. The right has mastered this and found ways to reach moderates. But the left still defaults to institutional ways of doing things. There are identity factors working here, too. This is the subtext of Neland's communications and appeal, for example.
As someone who is outside of this institution, with deep friendships and ties though, I think your approach is actually quite fair. I know affirming pastors from the CRCNA who are completely torn by the violence they have received from their congregations and other churches because they want them gone. Some of my friends are even rethinking their pastoral vocation as ordained members of the CRCNA. So, as you write this painful words: "There are seventeen(ish) affirming congregations in the CRC. This, despite the fact that some from the rest of the CRC want them gone," I do not think your read is off. Of course it reads emotionally loaded, for your love pours out for the people, the institution, and those who are in this tension. Well done, keep up the good work!
Alright Kent, I'm going to have to push back a bit against your way of framing part of this discussion. While there are several items I could nit pick, the idea I found most egregious was the claim that the "right" is weaponizing the institution by turning it against itself! While I understand the emotional response that leads to such a charge, I do not think that it is fair at all.
What is the purpose of a denomination? What is the point of holding Forms of Unity, or entering into the Covenant For Officebearers? Does a denomination have no authority, no right, no responsibility to police its own? I think it would be interesting for you (at some point in your writings) to go back and review the recent division (really just one pastor/congregation) over the Heresy of Kinism in 2019. The left and right were all pretty united on that front, from what I remember, and seemed more than willing to use institutional power and mechanisms against racist false teachers. Was that a spirit of turning the institution against itself too? I would maintain that it was not, in anyway, but rather serving one of the purposes it was designed for and must do.
Further, I would draw your attention to the "It Doesn't Work" series, written by Rev. Aaron Vriesman, published by the Abide Project. Specifically, I would direct you to the installments exploring our closest sister denomination, the RCA. Now, the RCA has a somewhat different structure and polity then our own, and so the institution was able to "protect itself" from being turned against itself, as you seem to be saying. But, as Synod voted for discipline, and the severely unbalanced Classes failed to ratify, was the denomination there by protected? As the RCA has experienced around a 50% drop in members in the last 5 years (with many more still likely to come), I would argue that it certainly did not! No, 15-20% of offending churches and clergy were given cover, and allowed to stay, but it will have cost them well over half the denomination by the time it is finished. (Thankfully the CRC has different polity, and so need not repeat that story).
Secondly, on the churches to the left leaving, I agree that they feel a closeness and a loyalty to the denomination. However, I think you are underestimating the loyalty that the right has, which can be displayed in the simple fact that though they were rather systematically boxed out of the leadership of the denomination, literally silenced from even sharing their opinions at times, and as you noted, feeling like they were voluntarily sending funds off to be used directly in opposition to what they wished to see, yet they have still remained here. Besides Sunrise, there is also the Road Church that has recently disaffiliated to the left in this current debate. While I'm sure both of them had their love for the institution too, I think what they lacked was the proximity and cover that the churches in Classis GRE enjoy.
Certainly, I know Classis GRE is not a monolith, and there are congregations that have taken a firm "pro-HSR" posture and stance. However, what has been clear since they adopted their report in 2016 on this issue, there is not a majority of that Classis that is willing to hold their sister churches accountable to the position of the denomination. As Thea Leunk said in an A1B video a year or two ago, churches becoming fully affirming in some Classes would likely lead to their Council's being deposed, and in Classis GRE, they don't have to worry about that. So, there is no reason to be in a hurry to leave, as long as you believe you can still provide one another cover.
However, I think the other reason that they are slow to leave is because they too are longing for the "good old days" of the CRC, where as you noted, by their networks and proximity to the denominational center, they largely ran the show. For churches to the left across the far ends of the denomination, there wasn't nearly so much that they felt they were loosing. For the affirming CRC's in GRE, they would be giving up so much more, and thus the second reason that we have not seen them voluntarily leave....... yet.
Here’s the promised longer response. Sorry I couldn’t get to this yesterday.
One thing I did not communicate well in this post, which I tried to unpack in Friday’s post (https://kenthendricks.substack.com/p/the-crc-as-an-institution), is that conservative groups act as an important check on institutions, and the way they do it is through primarily institutional means. I had already planned to write that post, but your questions definitely forced me to think through the implications. My basic thesis is that institutions, including the CRC, always, as a default, drift left, and that conservatives use institutional means to stop that drift—to literally “conserve” the institutions.
In our current moment, the right is reacting by using the process. There are far more Overtures from the right asking for extreme measures than from the left pushing back. But it’s less in the DNA of the left to do this. Honestly, this is the right way to do this. This isn’t a criticism of the right, it’s just an observation of differences in how the right and left work relative to the institution.
For example, one criticism I have of the left is that as soon as they don’t feel part of the institution, they quietly drift away—a person here, a person there. While I don’t always agree with how the right is going about trying to make institutional change, I think from a tactics/organizational perspectives, they’re doing it more effectively than the left. It feels like the left is just “giving up” and walking away from hard conversations, at least at an individual level. On the other hand, I know the right wants bold, institutional measures/returning to covenant/etc, but in reality the break has begun, only at the level of individuals slowly trickling out. I think the right wants the left to break in the same way the right broke back in the 1990s, but that’s just never going to happen. There’s been a steady, quiet exodus. I look at Minnkota’s overture regarding Neland’s repentance, and I can’t help but thinking how oblivious Minnkota is to what’s already happening. Synod might enforce a break, but if it does, it will have grossly misunderstand how the left thinks. (Caveats: I’m not part of an affirming church and not part of any of these conversations on either side, only observing from the outside, so this is just a guess. And, of course, in a few weeks Synod could prove me wrong.)
“I agree that they feel a closeness and a loyalty to the denomination. However, I think you are underestimating the loyalty that the right has…” I might. But I get the sense that the right’s loyalty isn’t as much to the CRC as an institution as it is to its theological and confessional identity, and that the right places far more emphasis on working out that identity in local congregations rather than in the bureaucracy of the denomination. (That’s how it was at Third CRC Lynden, where I spent much of my life.) So it feels like the right doesn’t so much want to take over the institution, but rather wants to reign it in so they can return to focusing on their local congregations, especially in the areas where it feels the institution is directly undermining their efforts. I’m thinking of the history between Minnkota and the OSJ, but there are many others.
Sorry this was a bit rambling. I’m not sure if I’ve fully responded to your comment, but hopefully this is a start.
Thanks for continuing the conversation Kent. Between this comment and yesterday's post, I think I do have a better understanding of what you were trying to communicate, and I could largely agree with most of it. So, it looks like the part I just don't prefer, is the perhaps overly confrontational terminology of the right "turning the institution upon itself." I guess I just feel that language opens itself to pictures and connotations that stretch a ways beyond what you articulate that the right is actively doing and pursuing. they are seeking to conserve the institution, by using the institutional mechanisms that we agreed upon and have built into the cake.
Lloyd, I've been thinking about this phrase a bit more over the past couple days (and received similar feedback from a few others), and I see your point. I don't think it's the clearest way of saying what I was trying to say, and see your point about this, which is definitely not my intent: "I guess I just feel that language opens itself to pictures and connotations that stretch a ways beyond what you articulate that the right is actively doing and pursuing."
I've left the original text above, but added a retraction and clarifying note.
"But I get the sense that the right’s loyalty isn’t as much to the CRC as an institution as it is to its theological and confessional identity, and that the right places far more emphasis on working out that identity in local congregations rather than in the bureaucracy of the denomination. "
This is actually a much better frame than the initial post.
I'll be honest, I've seen the video of the one woman at the last Synod sobbing through a statement about whether her family still had a church home if they were "unsure." And I scratched my head the first time, thinking to myself, "Well, then, go somewhere you DO feel at home. Why are you part of a denomination whose doctrine you can't accept?" Because, in truth, that was sort of what you did, where I grew up. (see also: the old joke about the Dutchman stranded on the desert island and the three buildings he'd built - his house, his church - and the church he used to go to)
I cannot imagine being so emotionally committed to an institution that I would sob and carry on when it's values deviated from mine. Not when there are so many others who DO have those values. I'm pretty sure she was from Grand Rapids - heck, walk across the street and into an RCA church - problem solved!
I DO think that much of the CRC has yet to understand just how much influence the more conservative "Confessional Reformed" denominations have had both on the conservative wing of the CRC and the younger set, in particular. People like Scott Clark, and Places like Westminster Theological Seminary, and other denominations and their communications - the URC, OPC, PCA, etc.
So, really, it's two warring "identities." The "right" - who views the confessional theology of the CRC as a strong part of their identity, but has been shut out of the functional institution for so long that they feel no loyalty to it. And the "left" - who views membership with the institution itself (including being Calvin alumni, as well as part of certain institutional groups) as a strong part of their identity, and now find that their own personal "authenticity" has been put at odds with the institution. Because the institution and its theology must remain merged (or you get what happened to the RCA). It creates a sort of cognitive dissonance that we on the right really can't quite wrap our heads entirely around.
As someone who is on the 'right,' I would not describe what people like me do as "turning against the institution." We want the institution to thrive. And there is genuine affection for the CRC, including affection for the fourteen or so publicly affirming congregations. I agree, however, that there are differences in the ways that 'conservatives' and 'progressives' relate to institutions.
I guess I'm thinking of conservatism/"the right" in the classic sense, going all the way back to Burke's reaction to the French Revolution. In some ways, the one of the main things about what it means to be conservative is to be anti-institutional. Over the long run, the left makes things more complex, and one of the function of the right is to save the institution *from* itself by using the institution *against* itself. I don't think the right is trying to take down the CRC, but I do think they'd like to see less emphasis on its agencies and denomination and more emphasis on the things that directly affect local congregations (especially outside of Grand Rapids) and more clarity on our theological commitments.
Cedric, I'm taking that quote back. It was not the clearest way of saying what I was trying to say. I added a clarifying note and retraction to the original post.
Interesting. It severely under counts I think? For instance there are a number of churches protesting confessional status in the Synod communications this year (and other years) who aren't in that document. Many of those I think would qualify as affirming.
I don’t see it that way. It’s possible (and frequent) for a church to hold a traditional view of human sexuality, at least officially, and still be troubled by Synod’s decisions on confessional status and the current conversations around gravamina. In some ways, it’s the churches who have near-unanimous internal agreement who have it the easiest, including the seventeen (plus a few) on the left, and the many dozens or hundreds on the right. Synod’s decisions make sense for these churches. It’s clear how to implement what Synod mandates.
However, it’s the unknown number of churches who are stuck in the middle, who may be institutionally, intentionally, and officially traditional, with no desire to ever become affirming (i.e. no leftward drift), but still have some minority or group of people who personally hold affirming positions. Synod 2022 and 2023 has made things very complicated for these churches, and Synod 2024 will probably make things more complicated still. I read the protests as coming from these kinds of churches. I could be wrong, of course.
Great post again. I wrote a bit about it on Voices. I think the reason both sides relate different to institutions has to do with cultures of "sincerity" and cultures of "authenticity". The left wants institutions that affirm their sense of inner purpose. The right wants institutions that mirror their convictions as well, but for the right institutions ARE about discipline. For the left all institutions are voluntary. Abide institutionalized with zero CRC "institutional" money. The left has been struggling with this. Better Together got GRE money and then Lilly money and created an institution that only tangentially impacts CRC politics. These are two ways of seeing the world, seeing institutions, etc. The left will try to join other existing institutions that have cultures of authenticity. They will be 'at will' joiners because when the institution no longer feels authentic they leak away. The right tends to fractionate instead. They will build new institutions because they can more easily come to agreement and even create new confessions.
Truth is when both tribes work together they can do pretty amazing things, but issues like this one make it almost impossible for them to do so. This issue in particular is nearly pure "authenticity". Sexual minorities break from the sincerity molds for reasons central to the tribe of authenticity. Results are predictable.
Thanks, Paul. I think this gets it exactly right. I think it's an underrated factor that anyone can build a communication channel from scratch on the cheap. The right has mastered this and found ways to reach moderates. But the left still defaults to institutional ways of doing things. There are identity factors working here, too. This is the subtext of Neland's communications and appeal, for example.
As someone who is outside of this institution, with deep friendships and ties though, I think your approach is actually quite fair. I know affirming pastors from the CRCNA who are completely torn by the violence they have received from their congregations and other churches because they want them gone. Some of my friends are even rethinking their pastoral vocation as ordained members of the CRCNA. So, as you write this painful words: "There are seventeen(ish) affirming congregations in the CRC. This, despite the fact that some from the rest of the CRC want them gone," I do not think your read is off. Of course it reads emotionally loaded, for your love pours out for the people, the institution, and those who are in this tension. Well done, keep up the good work!
Alright Kent, I'm going to have to push back a bit against your way of framing part of this discussion. While there are several items I could nit pick, the idea I found most egregious was the claim that the "right" is weaponizing the institution by turning it against itself! While I understand the emotional response that leads to such a charge, I do not think that it is fair at all.
What is the purpose of a denomination? What is the point of holding Forms of Unity, or entering into the Covenant For Officebearers? Does a denomination have no authority, no right, no responsibility to police its own? I think it would be interesting for you (at some point in your writings) to go back and review the recent division (really just one pastor/congregation) over the Heresy of Kinism in 2019. The left and right were all pretty united on that front, from what I remember, and seemed more than willing to use institutional power and mechanisms against racist false teachers. Was that a spirit of turning the institution against itself too? I would maintain that it was not, in anyway, but rather serving one of the purposes it was designed for and must do.
Further, I would draw your attention to the "It Doesn't Work" series, written by Rev. Aaron Vriesman, published by the Abide Project. Specifically, I would direct you to the installments exploring our closest sister denomination, the RCA. Now, the RCA has a somewhat different structure and polity then our own, and so the institution was able to "protect itself" from being turned against itself, as you seem to be saying. But, as Synod voted for discipline, and the severely unbalanced Classes failed to ratify, was the denomination there by protected? As the RCA has experienced around a 50% drop in members in the last 5 years (with many more still likely to come), I would argue that it certainly did not! No, 15-20% of offending churches and clergy were given cover, and allowed to stay, but it will have cost them well over half the denomination by the time it is finished. (Thankfully the CRC has different polity, and so need not repeat that story).
Secondly, on the churches to the left leaving, I agree that they feel a closeness and a loyalty to the denomination. However, I think you are underestimating the loyalty that the right has, which can be displayed in the simple fact that though they were rather systematically boxed out of the leadership of the denomination, literally silenced from even sharing their opinions at times, and as you noted, feeling like they were voluntarily sending funds off to be used directly in opposition to what they wished to see, yet they have still remained here. Besides Sunrise, there is also the Road Church that has recently disaffiliated to the left in this current debate. While I'm sure both of them had their love for the institution too, I think what they lacked was the proximity and cover that the churches in Classis GRE enjoy.
Certainly, I know Classis GRE is not a monolith, and there are congregations that have taken a firm "pro-HSR" posture and stance. However, what has been clear since they adopted their report in 2016 on this issue, there is not a majority of that Classis that is willing to hold their sister churches accountable to the position of the denomination. As Thea Leunk said in an A1B video a year or two ago, churches becoming fully affirming in some Classes would likely lead to their Council's being deposed, and in Classis GRE, they don't have to worry about that. So, there is no reason to be in a hurry to leave, as long as you believe you can still provide one another cover.
However, I think the other reason that they are slow to leave is because they too are longing for the "good old days" of the CRC, where as you noted, by their networks and proximity to the denominational center, they largely ran the show. For churches to the left across the far ends of the denomination, there wasn't nearly so much that they felt they were loosing. For the affirming CRC's in GRE, they would be giving up so much more, and thus the second reason that we have not seen them voluntarily leave....... yet.
Lloyd, most of these are fair points. Not all, though. :) I'm going to think through this a bit more and respond more fully over the weekend.
Lloyd,
Here’s the promised longer response. Sorry I couldn’t get to this yesterday.
One thing I did not communicate well in this post, which I tried to unpack in Friday’s post (https://kenthendricks.substack.com/p/the-crc-as-an-institution), is that conservative groups act as an important check on institutions, and the way they do it is through primarily institutional means. I had already planned to write that post, but your questions definitely forced me to think through the implications. My basic thesis is that institutions, including the CRC, always, as a default, drift left, and that conservatives use institutional means to stop that drift—to literally “conserve” the institutions.
In our current moment, the right is reacting by using the process. There are far more Overtures from the right asking for extreme measures than from the left pushing back. But it’s less in the DNA of the left to do this. Honestly, this is the right way to do this. This isn’t a criticism of the right, it’s just an observation of differences in how the right and left work relative to the institution.
For example, one criticism I have of the left is that as soon as they don’t feel part of the institution, they quietly drift away—a person here, a person there. While I don’t always agree with how the right is going about trying to make institutional change, I think from a tactics/organizational perspectives, they’re doing it more effectively than the left. It feels like the left is just “giving up” and walking away from hard conversations, at least at an individual level. On the other hand, I know the right wants bold, institutional measures/returning to covenant/etc, but in reality the break has begun, only at the level of individuals slowly trickling out. I think the right wants the left to break in the same way the right broke back in the 1990s, but that’s just never going to happen. There’s been a steady, quiet exodus. I look at Minnkota’s overture regarding Neland’s repentance, and I can’t help but thinking how oblivious Minnkota is to what’s already happening. Synod might enforce a break, but if it does, it will have grossly misunderstand how the left thinks. (Caveats: I’m not part of an affirming church and not part of any of these conversations on either side, only observing from the outside, so this is just a guess. And, of course, in a few weeks Synod could prove me wrong.)
“I agree that they feel a closeness and a loyalty to the denomination. However, I think you are underestimating the loyalty that the right has…” I might. But I get the sense that the right’s loyalty isn’t as much to the CRC as an institution as it is to its theological and confessional identity, and that the right places far more emphasis on working out that identity in local congregations rather than in the bureaucracy of the denomination. (That’s how it was at Third CRC Lynden, where I spent much of my life.) So it feels like the right doesn’t so much want to take over the institution, but rather wants to reign it in so they can return to focusing on their local congregations, especially in the areas where it feels the institution is directly undermining their efforts. I’m thinking of the history between Minnkota and the OSJ, but there are many others.
Sorry this was a bit rambling. I’m not sure if I’ve fully responded to your comment, but hopefully this is a start.
Thanks for continuing the conversation Kent. Between this comment and yesterday's post, I think I do have a better understanding of what you were trying to communicate, and I could largely agree with most of it. So, it looks like the part I just don't prefer, is the perhaps overly confrontational terminology of the right "turning the institution upon itself." I guess I just feel that language opens itself to pictures and connotations that stretch a ways beyond what you articulate that the right is actively doing and pursuing. they are seeking to conserve the institution, by using the institutional mechanisms that we agreed upon and have built into the cake.
Lloyd, I've been thinking about this phrase a bit more over the past couple days (and received similar feedback from a few others), and I see your point. I don't think it's the clearest way of saying what I was trying to say, and see your point about this, which is definitely not my intent: "I guess I just feel that language opens itself to pictures and connotations that stretch a ways beyond what you articulate that the right is actively doing and pursuing."
I've left the original text above, but added a retraction and clarifying note.
"But I get the sense that the right’s loyalty isn’t as much to the CRC as an institution as it is to its theological and confessional identity, and that the right places far more emphasis on working out that identity in local congregations rather than in the bureaucracy of the denomination. "
This is actually a much better frame than the initial post.
I'll be honest, I've seen the video of the one woman at the last Synod sobbing through a statement about whether her family still had a church home if they were "unsure." And I scratched my head the first time, thinking to myself, "Well, then, go somewhere you DO feel at home. Why are you part of a denomination whose doctrine you can't accept?" Because, in truth, that was sort of what you did, where I grew up. (see also: the old joke about the Dutchman stranded on the desert island and the three buildings he'd built - his house, his church - and the church he used to go to)
I cannot imagine being so emotionally committed to an institution that I would sob and carry on when it's values deviated from mine. Not when there are so many others who DO have those values. I'm pretty sure she was from Grand Rapids - heck, walk across the street and into an RCA church - problem solved!
I DO think that much of the CRC has yet to understand just how much influence the more conservative "Confessional Reformed" denominations have had both on the conservative wing of the CRC and the younger set, in particular. People like Scott Clark, and Places like Westminster Theological Seminary, and other denominations and their communications - the URC, OPC, PCA, etc.
So, really, it's two warring "identities." The "right" - who views the confessional theology of the CRC as a strong part of their identity, but has been shut out of the functional institution for so long that they feel no loyalty to it. And the "left" - who views membership with the institution itself (including being Calvin alumni, as well as part of certain institutional groups) as a strong part of their identity, and now find that their own personal "authenticity" has been put at odds with the institution. Because the institution and its theology must remain merged (or you get what happened to the RCA). It creates a sort of cognitive dissonance that we on the right really can't quite wrap our heads entirely around.
As someone who is on the 'right,' I would not describe what people like me do as "turning against the institution." We want the institution to thrive. And there is genuine affection for the CRC, including affection for the fourteen or so publicly affirming congregations. I agree, however, that there are differences in the ways that 'conservatives' and 'progressives' relate to institutions.
I guess I'm thinking of conservatism/"the right" in the classic sense, going all the way back to Burke's reaction to the French Revolution. In some ways, the one of the main things about what it means to be conservative is to be anti-institutional. Over the long run, the left makes things more complex, and one of the function of the right is to save the institution *from* itself by using the institution *against* itself. I don't think the right is trying to take down the CRC, but I do think they'd like to see less emphasis on its agencies and denomination and more emphasis on the things that directly affect local congregations (especially outside of Grand Rapids) and more clarity on our theological commitments.
Cedric, I'm taking that quote back. It was not the clearest way of saying what I was trying to say. I added a clarifying note and retraction to the original post.
I got it from this PDF posted on the All One Body page, current as of April 9, 2024: https://allonebody.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Compilation_Affirming_Church_Model_Statements-4.pdf
Interesting. It severely under counts I think? For instance there are a number of churches protesting confessional status in the Synod communications this year (and other years) who aren't in that document. Many of those I think would qualify as affirming.
I don’t see it that way. It’s possible (and frequent) for a church to hold a traditional view of human sexuality, at least officially, and still be troubled by Synod’s decisions on confessional status and the current conversations around gravamina. In some ways, it’s the churches who have near-unanimous internal agreement who have it the easiest, including the seventeen (plus a few) on the left, and the many dozens or hundreds on the right. Synod’s decisions make sense for these churches. It’s clear how to implement what Synod mandates.
However, it’s the unknown number of churches who are stuck in the middle, who may be institutionally, intentionally, and officially traditional, with no desire to ever become affirming (i.e. no leftward drift), but still have some minority or group of people who personally hold affirming positions. Synod 2022 and 2023 has made things very complicated for these churches, and Synod 2024 will probably make things more complicated still. I read the protests as coming from these kinds of churches. I could be wrong, of course.