CRCNA Synod 2026: From Reformation to Further Reformation

by on August 24, 2026 | Comment

“Brothers, there is reformation happening in the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRC). And that is something that we ought to be thankful for.” This statement was not made at the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church in North America. It was made by Rev. Jason Vander Horst at the Synod of the United Reformed Churches in North America (URC). The URC synod debated and approved a motion to write a letter to the CRC encouraging them for the reformation that appears to have taken place while also exhorting them to further reformation. As a CRC minister, I was greatly encouraged by these brothers in the URC. While not downplaying the differences in our federations or the pain that was caused when the two denominations split, this word of encouragement helps to further the reformation back to the Word of God in the CRCNA. This type of Nedere Reformatie, or Further Reformation, was certainly evident when the CRC synod met in Grand Rapids in June of 2026.

One of the first items up for discussion at synod was an overture asking synod to define Christian Nationalism. Synod reaffirmed that the church’s confessional teaching on church and state as articulated in the Belgic Confession Article 36 and its synodical interpretations “rejects the conflation of the spheres of church and state assigned by God in his Word.” It then appointed a two-year study committee to define the parameters of Christian nationalism, including an exploration of its relationship to the confessions.1

Synod extended and affirmed a relationship with the Nederlandse Gereformeerde Kerken (NGK) as a church in cooperation, a newer denomination with historic ties to the CRC. Synod did not affirm the closer relationship as a church in communion, but even the church in cooperation status raised some concerns and negative votes because of the NGK’s current weak position on human sexuality. A floor motion mandated the Ecumenical Committee (EIRC) of the CRC to clearly inform the NGK of our confessional position on sexuality and to describe the CRCNA’s intent to see the NGK come into agreement with the CRCNA’s position.2

One of the emphases of this synod was a mandate that was given last synod to develop a vision, plan, strategy, and financial proposal for church planting in the CRCNA for the next decade. With much enthusiasm for discipleship, church renewal, and church planting, synod endorsed this bold plan to make disciples and multiply the church’s gospel witness. Moving forward it will be imperative that the churches of the denomination involved in this effort make disciples and plant churches that are confessionally Reformed.3

Synod dealt with two appeals that came from an elder in a church in Oregon. In the first one, Mr. Shaw believed that the Heidelberg Catechism Q&A’s 97–98 should be revised to allow the making of images but not the worship or serving of them, including the use of images for teaching purposes. Synod decided not to sustain the appeal, believing that “textual revision of the historic catechism is not necessary to address the concerns raised.” Some of the language of the preamble was concerning to members of synod because it suggested images of Jesus might be permissible for educational purposes. While not the main focus of this synod, future synods will likely have the opportunity to correct the record on this issue.4

In the second appeal, Mr. Shaw did not believe that the Word of God requires a separate office of minister from that of elder, and sought to revise Articles 30, 31, and 34 of the Belgic Confession to remove this distinction. A minority report sought to ask synod to appoint a task force to respond to the issue with more depth and clarity. Its authors saw a problem with previous synod reports that seemed to be in contradiction with our three-office view. In the end synod approved the majority report not to sustain the appeal. They believed that Mr. Shaw had not demonstrated that the Belgic Confession was in error.5

I previously wrote in this space about what confessional membership looks like. Last year synod appointed a Task Force to define membership. The Task Force report implied that membership is merely based on the ecumenical creeds but not a commitment to the Reformed confessions. This contradicts our very own Church Order Article 59-b. A few overtures were written opposing the language of the report.6 Synod did not adopt the confusing language recommended in the report but encouraged consistories to disciple their members into a deeper understanding of the Reformed confessions. Synod noted that “Our profession of faith practices assume that there is no ‘disjunction’ between a Christian confession and a Reformed confession: ‘A Christian confession is by implication a Reformed confession and vice versa’ (Acts of Synod 1959, pp. 21–22, 373).”7

Synod received an overture from Classis Minnkota asking that Article 52 of the Church Order regarding corporate worship be revised. It is worth reading the proposed Church Order Changes in the Acts of Synod, pages 673–677, here. Synod noted that the overture said that this revision “does not introduce any new requirements or prescriptions for corporate worship. Rather, it seeks to clarify, summarize, and make accessible the principles, decisions, and guidelines for corporate worship that have already been adopted by synod.” Instead of simply saying in Article 52 that “the consistory shall regulate the worship services,” synod proposed this addition to the sentence: “in such a way that God is not worshiped in any other way than he has been commanded in his Word (Heidelberg Catechism 96), rejecting all human innovations (Belgic Confession 32) and utilizing the means of grace he has prescribed (Canons of Dort 5, 14).” It also added that “churches are encouraged to emphasize Psalm singing” and that “corporate worship services shall be a covenantal meeting between our triune God and his people which is structured by and saturated with the Bible.” Further additions to the Supplement to Article 52 articulate specific governing principles of worship, including a description of the dialogical principle of worship, the covenantal nature of worship, the centrality of the Word of God, music that must be appropriate for worship, requirements for using scriptural words of institution for the sacraments, and ordinary elements of public worship.8 These revisions effectively create a type of Directory of Public Worship specifically inscribed in the Church Order. The proposed revisions need to be ratified by next year’s synod before they take effect.

One overture to Synod had to do with Calvin Theological Seminary, the denomination’s official seminary. Concerns were raised about the confessional commitment of all instructional faculty since even adjunct faculty could be involved in making key decisions at the institution. The overture had made a requirement that all trustees and all faculty subscribe annually to the confessions. Synod decided not to accede the overture, stating that all of the requests of the overture were actually already taking place.9 The seminary is currently in search of a new president. One overture asked that the next seminary president to be a “leading voice in publicly vindicating sound doctrine against heresies and errors,” is an ordained minister of the Word, has a well-known reputation for godliness, and “wholeheartedly affirms the authority, sufficiency, inerrancy, and clarity of the Word of God without compromise in accordance with the Belgic Confessions Articles 5–7 and Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 21.”10 In response, synod stopped short of requiring the requests made in the overture but instructed the Board of Trustees and the Search Team to prayerfully consider these requests.11

With concerns about the direction of Calvin University, the denominational higher education institution, I wrote two overtures to synod that were approved by my council and classis. Calvin had developed a policy about the makeup of their Board that while a majority of their trustees were required to be confessionally aligned, a minority of them that were alumni and at-large trustees were not required to. Technically this allowed 15 members out of 31 total members not to subscribe to the confessions, but it was stated that to their knowledge 28 out of 31 were aligned. Synod answered by stating that the Board of Trustees is making progress towards full confessional alignment and it encouraged them to continue full confessional alignment going forward. Synod also affirmed that the Cavlin University Board of Trustees was committed “to disclose to future synod, for synodical approval, any nominees who have confessional exceptions, and rationales for trustee appointments.”12 My own evaluation of this decision is that synod should not have recognized the university’s progress towards full confessional alignment because the university never committed itself to do so. While I am glad that the Board is committed to disclose to future synods for synodical approval nominees who have confessional exceptions, I will be waiting to see if this commitment is enacted by next synod.

The other overture I wrote regarded full confessional alignment for Calvin University faculty. At previous synods Calvin had reported that newly appointed faculty were allowed a three-year onboarding process where they do not yet sign the Covenant for Faculty Members in its commitment to the confessions. They also allowed permission for the Board of Trustees to grant indefinite exceptions to our confessions. The overture asked that new faculty be required to subscribe to the Covenant for Facutly Members and that exceptions would not be permitted unless synod had granted the Board an exception in any particular confessional area. In response, synod passed recommendations that said, “that synod recognize that all Calvin University faculty must conform their teaching, conduct, and scholarship to the creeds and confessions of the CRCNA,” and that “all faculty must annually reaffirm their commitment to the Covenant for Faculty members.” This statement seems to contradict their own report where new faculty only subscribe to the Creeds. Finally in this regard, synod decided to “instruct the Calvin University Board of Trustees to work through Calvin University process on ‘indefinite exceptions’ and report back to synod in 2028.”13 This same instruction was given to Synod 2025 and should have been answered in the report to Synod 2026. Meanwhile, it was reported to synod that in the faculty wing of the school where the advisory committee taking up this matter was meeting, a gay pride flag was displayed on one of the faculty doors that was later removed. Some delegates expressed concern, and Calvin University President Greg Elzinga said that “a pride flag shouldn’t be understood as a change in confessional commitment, but a rare case of an employee (saying) if you are LGBTQ, you are welcome here, this is a safe space. You’re a child of God; we want to walk alongside you.”14 It seems to me that Calvin has a long way to go toward building full trust with a denomination that is committed to Scripture on this matter.

Three overtures came to synod this year regarding the decisions of past synods to clarify the gravamen policy of subscription to the confessions. These overtures wanted to allow officebearers room for theological differences that were not matters of salvation. One overture asked for clarity as to what it means to subscribe to the confessions without reservation. Synod amended the Supplement to Church Order Article 5 by describing a confessional-difficulty gravamen as a persistent, serious doubt regarding a doctrine contained in the confessions. If a subscriber is wondering or questioning, or his concern seems to be growing deeper, that does not rise to the level of a confessional-difficulty gravamen. Synod said that “when we say the confessions ‘fully agree’ with Scripture, we mean that all of the doctrines contained within the three forms of unity are a faithful teaching of God’s Word.”15

Synod 2025 had studied the issue of exclusively digital or online only churches. It seemed to suggest that these types of “churches” could still be considered a true church. Synod this year acceded to an overture to not recognize exclusively digital ministries. Synod said that “synod has a responsibility to maintain the confessional understanding of the church and to guard the use of term ‘church’ within the CRCNA.”16

A few years ago, Synod had appointed a Task Force to develop Church Order procedures to discipline officebearers. Synod amended the Church Order Supplement to Article 27-b to say this:

When necessary for the well-being of the churches, classes, or the denomination at large, classes and synod may guide procedures of discipline at the levels of local councils and classes, respectively, even if not requested by minor assembly. Major assemblies are expected to hold councils or classes within their constituency accountable to the ecclesiastical covenant implied in denominational membership.

The means of maintaining accountability may include the steps of special discipline described in Church Order Articles 82–84 and their supplements.

If a council chooses not to follow the decisions of classis or synod within a period of time determined by classis or synod, that assembly may declare the church as having de facto disaffiliated from the denomination. In this case, the steps described in Supplement, Article 38-f should be applied as closely as possible.17

The debate over the authority of church assemblies has been going on since the time of the Synod of Dort. These changes effectively clarify, as has happened in our past, that discipline can indeed take place in the broader assemblies of the church.18

The CRCNA has for some time been involved in an ecumenical organization called the World Communion of Reformed Churches (WCRC). The inaugural meeting of this organization was held on the campus of the CRC’s Calvin University in 2010 and came together with great efforts of a former influential Executive Director of the CRC, Peter Borgdorff. In response to an overture I wrote, Synod 2025 decided to conduct a comprehensive review of the WCRC due to concerns about its focus on liberation theology and one-sided political positions. The Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee presented their report to Synod 2026, recommending that we continue membership in the WCRC. Readers can see my evaluation of the report here. The majority report listed a number of concerning statements made by the WCRC that undermined the infallibility of Scripture and hinted at promoting the practice of abortion. A minority report wanted to continue membership in the WCRC and report back to Synod 2029 about remaining or leaving the WCRC. Those in support of remaining believed that we could be a leavening influence on the churches of the WCRC. In the end the body voted in favor of leaving the WCRC. I believe this decision reflects a profound change in direction from where our denomination was just sixteen years ago.19

In past years, the CRC developed their own contemporary testimony called Our World Belongs to God. The testimony reflects a neo-Kuyperian transformationalist viewpoint. The CRC’s Covenant for Officebearers is our denomination’s current Form of Subscription, where officebearers subscribe to our confessions. The Covenant also includes this statement: “Along with these historic creeds and confessions, we also recognize the witness of Our World Belongs to God: A Contemporary Testimony as a current Reformed expression of the Christian faith that forms and guides us in our present context.” An overture sent to synod this year asked for this sentence to be removed from the Covenant. Synod decided to accede to this overture after moving to the recommendations of the minority. Removing the Testimony from the Covenant helps to eliminate confusion and preserve the authority of the confessions.20

In the Nedere Reformation in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Dutch Reformed churches sought to apply the principles of the Reformation to their own day. Synods 2022–2025 clarified our beliefs, specifically in the area of Biblical marriage and sexuality. Alongside those decisions came a deeper commitment to our confessions. Subscribers to the confessions are not allowed to take exceptions to them but wholeheartedly embrace them. With that foundation set, Synod 2026 began applying this confessionalism to other areas of the church. This reformation is only the beginning, but by God’s grace it is our prayer that the further reformation has begun.

Notes

  1. Acts of Synod 2026, 633. The Agenda and Acts of Synod can be found here.
  2. Acts, 639.
  3. Acts, 643.
  4. Acts, 661.
  5. Acts, p. 679-683.
  6. Agenda for Synod, pp. 563-65, 570-77.
  7. Acts, p. 671.
  8. Acts, 673–678.
  9. Acts, 690.
  10. Agenda, 372.
  11. Acts, 691.
  12. Acts, 691.
  13. Acts, 692.
  14. Postma, Gayla R., “Synod 2026 Accepts Calvin U’s Confessional Alignment Efforts,” The Banner, June 18, 2026.
  15. Acts, 694.
  16. Acts, 695.
  17. Acts, 697–698.
  18. See my two articles on this discussion here and here.
  19. Acts, p. 714.
  20. Acts, p. 728.

©Josh Christoffels. All Rights Reserved.

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.