“If we’re going to survive as a denomination, we have to lean out the bureaucracy that’s grown up…One of the benefits of doing that is that it forces us to have some really hard conversations about who we are…and what should a denomination do...If you could only have one denominational agency, what would they be, and what would they do?…Think of how effective we could be–instead of having all of our energy and resources trickling off into all these tributaries…we’d just have one river heading in one direction.” — Jason Ruis
I'm curious. You talked about how denominational leaders need to rebuild trust, but which denominational leaders? Do you feel like all of them need to build trust, or are there certain agencies that you are thinking of? I'm just wondering how a blanket statement like this can apply equally to the Office of the General Secretary, to Thrive, and to Resonate at the same time when they all do very different work and are not equally connected to the problems you often talk about in the last few years.
Of course, we know that there have been some very faithful people working in various aspects of the denomination. For them, we give thanks and praise God.
I give a blanket statement because, as I continue to talk to people throughout the CRCNA, there seems to be a blanket distrust for those who work in denominational positions. There are many different reasons for this distrust and the point isn't even about whether the distrust is warranted or not. I'm simply trying to say that it's there and denominational leaders need to recognize this reality and work toward regaining and rebuilding trust.
Those last two seem to contradict themselves. Good council members are good because God ordains them good and would remain in place, if God wanted them there. Thus they’d be good. Same with congregants, if they are good, they are counseled by the Holy Spirit and thus they’d listen to leadership as a by product. Unless… hear me out, they’re
counseled by God to not listen. Either way….Making them good.
Hello Jason. In your post you seem to be somewhat satisfied that only 30 congregations are being forced to disaffiliate from the denomination. That feels like an acceptable level of damage. But do you have statistics on how many church councils and congregations are being crippled by good council members who are resigning and good congregants who cannot take leadership?
Obviously, the best outcome would be for all of the churches to repent and stay in the CRC. I have been praying regularly for that outcome for the past four years.
I think you misspeak when you say that any congregation is "being forced to disaffiliate." That's inaccurate. Nobody has been forced to disaffiliate. Every one of these churches has specifically chosen to enter into the process of disaffiliation because they are refusing to align themselves with the official teaching of the CRC.
Also, I am satisfied that only 30 churches have chosen to disaffiliate. Trust me, if the decisions of that last three years would have done a different direction, I estimate that we would have lost 500-600 churches, which would have killed the CRCNA.
To speak to your last point, I want to say two things. First, the standards in the Covenant for Officebearers haven't changed as a result of Synod's decisions, they were simply clarified. This is what we've always believed and the standard that has always been in place in the CRNCA. The issue is that many churches have not been living in alignment with these standards for a long time, which is why people think something has changed. However, Synod has repeatedly stated that this is not a change, only a clarification.
Second, I realize that some churches may struggle to find councils members who can sign the Covenant for Officebearers in good conscience now that these things have been clarified. What is the solution? I would suggest that the solution is not to continually try to lower the standard to get people into leadership roles, but to do a better job of discipling our people in the standards. So, if we have people who we believe could be a good council member, we should begin discipling that person so that they can fully understand and wholeheartedly believe in the doctrines of our church. That way, they can effectively serve and shepherd the flock according to what we believe.
I always find it interesting that so many people thinks it's fine to have leaders who do not agree with the doctrines of our church—or even leaders who do not wholeheartedly believe in the doctrines. Why would we want that? Does any business hire C-Suite level leaders who are not in alignment with the values of that company? To be honest, business aren't even simply looking for alignment at this level of leader, they are looking for people who wholeheartedly believe in the mission and vision of their company—people who are passionately promoting these things in the world. Why would we want something else in the church?
I actually think that part of the reason we got into such a mess in the CRCNA is because we continually failed in discipleship and continually lowered the standards for the leaders of our churches. The way to fix the problem is not to continue doing what we've been doing, but to repent—turn around—and start discipling our people so that they both passionately believe and are passionate promoters of the teachings of the CRCNA. If we have these kind of leaders in our churches, we will begin to see the CRC come back to life.
I'm curious. You talked about how denominational leaders need to rebuild trust, but which denominational leaders? Do you feel like all of them need to build trust, or are there certain agencies that you are thinking of? I'm just wondering how a blanket statement like this can apply equally to the Office of the General Secretary, to Thrive, and to Resonate at the same time when they all do very different work and are not equally connected to the problems you often talk about in the last few years.
Thanks for the question.
Of course, we know that there have been some very faithful people working in various aspects of the denomination. For them, we give thanks and praise God.
I give a blanket statement because, as I continue to talk to people throughout the CRCNA, there seems to be a blanket distrust for those who work in denominational positions. There are many different reasons for this distrust and the point isn't even about whether the distrust is warranted or not. I'm simply trying to say that it's there and denominational leaders need to recognize this reality and work toward regaining and rebuilding trust.
Those last two seem to contradict themselves. Good council members are good because God ordains them good and would remain in place, if God wanted them there. Thus they’d be good. Same with congregants, if they are good, they are counseled by the Holy Spirit and thus they’d listen to leadership as a by product. Unless… hear me out, they’re
counseled by God to not listen. Either way….Making them good.
Hello Jason. In your post you seem to be somewhat satisfied that only 30 congregations are being forced to disaffiliate from the denomination. That feels like an acceptable level of damage. But do you have statistics on how many church councils and congregations are being crippled by good council members who are resigning and good congregants who cannot take leadership?
Thanks for reaching out.
Obviously, the best outcome would be for all of the churches to repent and stay in the CRC. I have been praying regularly for that outcome for the past four years.
I think you misspeak when you say that any congregation is "being forced to disaffiliate." That's inaccurate. Nobody has been forced to disaffiliate. Every one of these churches has specifically chosen to enter into the process of disaffiliation because they are refusing to align themselves with the official teaching of the CRC.
Also, I am satisfied that only 30 churches have chosen to disaffiliate. Trust me, if the decisions of that last three years would have done a different direction, I estimate that we would have lost 500-600 churches, which would have killed the CRCNA.
To speak to your last point, I want to say two things. First, the standards in the Covenant for Officebearers haven't changed as a result of Synod's decisions, they were simply clarified. This is what we've always believed and the standard that has always been in place in the CRNCA. The issue is that many churches have not been living in alignment with these standards for a long time, which is why people think something has changed. However, Synod has repeatedly stated that this is not a change, only a clarification.
Second, I realize that some churches may struggle to find councils members who can sign the Covenant for Officebearers in good conscience now that these things have been clarified. What is the solution? I would suggest that the solution is not to continually try to lower the standard to get people into leadership roles, but to do a better job of discipling our people in the standards. So, if we have people who we believe could be a good council member, we should begin discipling that person so that they can fully understand and wholeheartedly believe in the doctrines of our church. That way, they can effectively serve and shepherd the flock according to what we believe.
I always find it interesting that so many people thinks it's fine to have leaders who do not agree with the doctrines of our church—or even leaders who do not wholeheartedly believe in the doctrines. Why would we want that? Does any business hire C-Suite level leaders who are not in alignment with the values of that company? To be honest, business aren't even simply looking for alignment at this level of leader, they are looking for people who wholeheartedly believe in the mission and vision of their company—people who are passionately promoting these things in the world. Why would we want something else in the church?
I actually think that part of the reason we got into such a mess in the CRCNA is because we continually failed in discipleship and continually lowered the standards for the leaders of our churches. The way to fix the problem is not to continue doing what we've been doing, but to repent—turn around—and start discipling our people so that they both passionately believe and are passionate promoters of the teachings of the CRCNA. If we have these kind of leaders in our churches, we will begin to see the CRC come back to life.