Toward A Confessional CRC: Synod 2025

by on June 25, 2025 | Comment

The 2025 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRC) met from June 13–19 at Redeemer University in Ancaster, Ontario, Canada. The 49 Classes of the denomination sent 176 delegates to deliberate on important matters of the church. The headline for Synod 2025 is that the decisions of Synod this year continued the good work begun in recent Synods toward confessionalism.

Leading up to Synod 2024, several of our churches had stated publicly that they were affirming same-sex marriage and would commit to conducting same-sex weddings and including same-sex couples as office bearers. Synod 2024 had placed these churches on a limited suspension, setting up a process of discipline whereby they were to move either toward repentance and restoration or toward disaffiliation from the denomination. Those churches in this status would no longer be able to send delegates to Classis, Synod, or denominational boards. Synod had also required each Classis to sign the Covenant for Officebearers on an annual basis.

After these steps were taken, around 30 churches that were on limited suspension chose disaffiliation. The changes in ministerial leadership approved by Synod 2025 reflect some of these changing realities:

  • 49 ministers retired
  • 82 ministers resigned to enter ministry in another denomination
  • 11 ministers resigned to enter a non-ministerial vocation
  • 21 were admitted as new ministers
  • 19 were declared as new ministerial candidates
  • 8 were declared eligible to extend their candidacy

These statistics reveal a loss of 142 ministers and a potential gain of 48. Though not all of these changes are due to our recent struggles over sexuality, several of them are. Of the 82 ministers who resigned from the CRC, many of them joined the Reformed Church in America. Almost half of those resigning, 39 in total, were women, greatly reducing the number of women ordained as pastors in the denomination. With 10 disaffiliating churches, Classis Grand Rapids East, located near our education institutions (i.e., Calvin University and Calvin Theological Seminary), will need serious restructuring of their leadership boards and finances. Our prayer is that with more ministers leaving than entering and with the rise in the number of vacant pulpits, he would send more confessionally-minded workers for the harvest.

One of the issues coming to Synod this year was an appeal by five churches within Classis Toronto. Against Synod 2024’s instructions about limited suspension, Classis Toronto seated delegates, with full voting privileges, from these churches that were under discipline. This privilege was also extended to delegates who did not sign the Covenant for Officebearers. The five churches appealed this decision to Synod, asking that since the Classis was not duly constituted, that Synod would disallow the seating of its office bearers as delegates to Synod. Synod decided to sustain the appeal since the action of Classis Toronto contradicted the decisions of Synod 2024. The remedies, however, differed from what the five churches had asked. Synod decided that the actions of Classis Toronto were knowing and intentional violations of the pertinent rulings of Synod 2024 and that “Synod instruct Classis Toronto to ensure full and immediate compliance with synodical decisions.”1 Beyond this admonition, there were no concrete steps to ensure further compliance.

Other decisions toward confessional compliance were made in discussing some of the CRC’s educational institutions, namely Calvin University. In a recent Calvin Chimes article, as documented by R. Scott Clark, Professor James K. A. Smith argues that Calvin University should be separated from the CRC. In response to instructions from Synod 2024, the Calvin board was to report back to Synod 2025 about trustee and faculty alignment with confessional commitments. In its report, the Calvin board expressed its desire to remain in partnership with the CRC, reaffirming the denomination’s confessional standards.2 At the same time, some trustees and faculty were allowed to serve despite their personal disagreement with confessional teachings. Trustees who are appointed by the Classis regions are required to be in full convictional alignment with the confessions while at-large or alumni trustees are allowed some “measured flexibility.” The faculty alignment framework would require an annual reaffirmation of confessional commitments, an initial three-year period of mentoring where new faculty are required to only affirm the creeds, and permitting of some indefinite exceptions after six years of service (when tenure is conferred).

Synod 2025 asked the Calvin Board of Trustees to further define “indefinite exceptions to confessional subscription” and the reasons that may be granted, and report back to Synod 2026. They also commended the University for their requirement that a majority of trustees be confessionally aligned, and asked them to “consider a higher level than a simple majority of confessional alignment, and report back to Synod 2026.”3

Synod had the opportunity to interview and approve two new appointments to the faculty of Calvin Theological Seminary. In their interviews, both Dr. Jared Michelson and Dr. Jessica Joustra spoke of their commitment to our confessions. Synod also instructed the seminary to report back to next Synod with information as to how instructional personnel are adhering to CRC teachings, including the creeds and confessions.

At Synod 2024, each Classis was required to re-sign the Covenant for Officebearers on an annual basis. Two overtures that came to Synod 2025 asked to reverse this policy. In response, Synod this year instructed all Classes to require all delegates to affirm the Covenant for Officebearers at each Classis meeting (two or three times per year). Synod also gave leeway to each Classis as to the manner of affirming the Covenant—whether it be signing, standing, or raising hands in agreement. Synod stated that “re-signing the covenant does not involve remaking the covenant but reaffirming the covenant that already exists.” This re-signing is necessary because each Classis meeting is attended by a different grouping of delegates. It is seen as “a celebration of that which unites us and can be observed as an act of worship.”4

Further conversations about confessionalism came through several overtures in response to recent decisions about gravamina. Church Order Article 5 and its supplement recognizes two types of gravamina. A confessional-difficulty gravamen is a temporary gravamen that allows office bearers who develop, subsequent to their ordination, a personal difficulty with any point of doctrine in the confessions to enter into a process of confessional alignment. A confessional-revision gravamen is when office bearers or church assemblies seek to revise the confessions. In the overtures, local councils and consistories expressed realities that they had to deal with as they discipled their elders, deacons, and pastors toward a deeper understanding of the Reformed confessions. How can churches support office bearers who wrestle with aspects of our standards while also upholding their calling to lead with integrity and submission to God’s Word? Some of these overtures asked for additional timelines or exceptions.

The Supplement to Article 5-a of the Church Order said that gravamina fall into “at least two basic types.” Synod 2025 revised this statement to clarify that gravamina fall “into two types” to eliminate any possibility of additional exceptions to the confessions. They also revised the Supplement to clarify what it means to subscribe “without reservation” to mean that “an officebearer does not have, to the best of their knowledge—either a persistent serious doubt or a settled conviction contrary to any of the doctrines contain in the creeds and confessions. This includes what Synod has declared to have confessional status.” Synod added another sub-point to the supplement as follows:

‘Without reservation’ does not mean that a signatory has an exhaustive knowledge of confessional Reformed theology. Nor does it mean that a signatory does not struggle emotionally with some doctrine. Nor does it mean that a signatory fully understands some doctrine.5

This language is similar to the 1881 version of the Church Order where those professing their faith declare their belief in the doctrines of the church “insofar as you have heard, learned, and confessed it” (see this discussion here). This clarification is not meant to open the door for a subscriber to claim ignorance of the confessions and therefore to ignore their teachings. Full belief in them is still required, within the limits of their knowledge. Synod also called office bearers to “continue to examine the Scriptures to ensure that the confessions of the Church rightly reflect the Word of God” and for churches to “devote substantial attention to discipling congregants and potential office bearers” in the doctrines of the church. When churches have difficulty maintaining a functioning church council, Synod urged Classes to assist and encourage them through the additional attention of church visitors. Congregations were encouraged to consider alternative means of maintaining a functional church council, such as reducing the size of council or extending the length of office bearer terms.6

One Classis sent an overture to Synod asking that the word “fully” be removed from the Covenant for Officebearers in the phrase that says “whose doctrines fully agree with the Word of God” to allow for greater flexibility in raising up leaders. Synod decided not to accede to the overture due to significant theological and ecclesiastical concerns “that would weaken our covenantal unity and doctrinal clarity.”7

At last year’s Synod, a concern arose about the variety of synodical decisions and how settled and binding they are for the churches, office bearers, and members. I was privileged to serve as the reporter for this Task Force. Similar to the URC’s definitions and authority of Synodical Actions, Synod recognized four broad categories of synodical decisions: confessional interpretations, doctrinal affirmations, adjudicatory decisions, and doctrinal applications.8

With the expansion of Medically Assisted Suicide laws in many states and in Canada, Synod 2025 received a report from a Task Force to study Assisted Suicide. In addition to several recommendations from the Task Force, Synod approved a statement “that Synod deplore the legalization and practice of medically assisted suicide as well as the efforts to expand it to include minors, and those suffering solely from psychological disabilities.”9

Next on the Agenda for Synod was an overture that came from Meadowlands Fellowship CRC, a church located very near to Redeemer’s campus where Synod was meeting. A group called Toward CRC Canada had formed in the last few years. Unsatisfied with the structure and lack of local control for Canadian churches in the denomination, the overture sought to establish a structure that would give them independent governance of the CRC churches in Canada. Their Facebook page also expressed dissatisfaction with our recent confessional decisions on human sexuality. The discussion on the floor of Synod had many Canadians coming to the mic expressing their desire to remain unified as a binational denomination. The overwhelming decision was made not to accede to the overture with a vote of 171 to 3 with one abstaining. The day after Synod met, Toward CRC Canada announced that they will be inviting CRC churches from all across Canada to send delegates to a summit in Kitchener, Ontario in November “with a goal to lay the foundation for a new community of Reformed congregations.”

Some of the decisions of Synod were disappointing to those wanting to move more quickly toward becoming a confessional church. Some congregations had been experimenting with what they called online only or virtual church plants and had asked Synod to study the issue in a Task Force. Synod passed a series of recommendations to support these “virtual-church experiments.” The report failed to distinguish clearly between churches that are doing online ministry and those that are online only. Those who spoke against the recommendations had serious reservations about how these “churches” can fulfill the marks of the true church or how the “assembly” of God’s people can truly participate in gathered worship (Heb 10:25). The recommendations were approved, but with only a few votes above the majority. Many of us have the sense that this discussion will come back to next year’s Synod to be corrected.10

Other setbacks came from decisions that were made about the CRC’s relationship with the Reformed Church In America (RCA). For years the two denominations have had an in-communion ecumenical relationship with one another. Churches of the two denominations have a free exchange of loaning ministers to one another, and some local churches joined together as RCA/CRC union churches. After speaking with representatives in the RCA, the report that came back from our ecumenical committee said that the RCA has a very different stance than the CRC on sexuality. While the RCA Synod has a similar position to the CRC on the confessional status of unchastity, decisions of the RCA’s Synod are not settled and binding. Local Classes and churches may ordain and marry those in same-sex relationships. Synod clarified that our Church Order regulations require RCA office bearers serving in CRC churches to sign the Covenant for Officebearers to ensure confessional alignment. Synod also instructed the Ecumenical Committee to conduct a five-year review of our in-communion relationship with the RCA. To many of us, putting off this decision for five more years is way too long because of the RCA’s tolerance of sin. There is hope among many confessionally-minded office bearers that we could end this relationship sooner.11

One final note of hope sounded on the last day of Synod. The Banner has been the official publication of the CRC for many years. The Banner has had editorial freedom to publish articles contrary to our official confessional beliefs. Synod modified the mandate of The Banner by stating that it is to “represent the denomination publicly to the broader Christian church and to the world at large by speaking from a distinctly Reformed perspective in line with our confessions and synodical decisions, representing the CRCNA as its official position.” It also removed the mandate to publish articles that “represent the various views held within the church.”12 The news came shortly after Synod that The Banner editor Shiao Chong has resigned.

As the reader can see, the confessional cause suffered some setbacks. Many of us want reform to come to the church more quickly but no church on earth is perfect. This side of glory, we are called to be faithful servants of Christ’s church. Many of the decisions of Synod have helped us to continue on the path toward reformation where we wholeheartedly embrace and live into the doctrines that we confess.

notes

  1. Advisory Committee Report 1D.
  2. Agenda for Synod 2025, p. 155–73.
  3. Advisory Committee Report 4C.
  4. Advisory Committee 3B – Majority Report.
  5. Advisory Committee Report 3E.
  6. Advisory Committee Report 3E.
  7. Advisory Committee Report 3G.
  8. Advisory Committee Report 3F, Majority.
  9. Advisory Committee Report 5C.
  10. Advisory Committee Report 5H, Majority.
  11. Advisory Committee Report 6C.
  12. Advisory Committee Report 7B.

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • Josh Christoffels
    Author Image

    Rev. Josh Christoffels is an alumnus of Westminster Seminary California (2014). He has taught English to university students in China, served as a pastor in Chandler, MN, and currently serves as the pastor of the Hammond Christian Reformed Church in Hammond, IN.

    More by Josh Christoffels ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.