Episode 269: Synod 2026 — The CRCNA Needs to Cast a Vision Worth Funding
“The best way to fund anything is not to try to make people feel guilty about it. What if our denomination was doing things that churches were excited to give them money for?...The reality is we don’t have any vision. We don’t know where we’re going. Churches don’t know where their money is going…[The denomination] is not taking the signal that we need to change gears.” —Jason Ruis
Summary of This Episode
This week on the Messy Reformation, we have an extended episode as Jason, Willy, and Dan begin a tour through the Agenda for Synod 2026 and some of the significant matters before the delegates. For them and our listeners, this is not a synod to sleep on. There are a lot of technical recommendations and overtures that have the potential to greatly inform what our denomination looks like as we turn to the future. We aren’t going through every single page or recommendation, but these are things we consider to be significant. The bulk of this episode focuses on the Council of Delegates (COD) report (pp. 19-124) and their 27 recommendations.
Dan first points out a significant series is Recommendations E through I regarding the Dignity Team (pp. 34-36). This is a fairly new group that has existed in an experimental capacity to help bring support to those who have experienced abuse of power and church hurt. While they haven’t had a lot of cases, the Dignity Team and COD have found the work to be valuable, and there is a request for a five year extension.
He then jumps to Recommendation K, which asks Synod to approve a Saturday to Saturday schedule for synod starting next year (p. 36). The current setup is Thursday to Thursday, and Dan questions if this shift is really wise given delegates would just start their work and then have the Lord’s Day off. Jason and Willy agree and see the likeliness of delegates wanting to get into the work that they have come to do on that off day. This seems to undermine something we’ve valued as a denomination in the name of trying to make it easier for elders and deacons to attend by only requiring time off from their jobs in the span of one traditional workweek. While we understand it’s hard and takes sacrifice to be a delegate, this doesn’t seem to be a biblically-sound recommendation.
We then turn to Recommendation O, which asks for changes to the Rules for Synodical Procedure including getting rid of the parliamentarian appointment, moving the study committee report distribution deadline to December 1, adding the director of ecclesiastical governance to the Program Committee, and others (pp. 42-43). Dan notes regarding the director of ecclesiastical governance—this would be policy coming into alignment with current practice. Jason and Willy both wonder if this is wise, though. Might there be benefit to a more independent Program Committee. It seems like this goes against the spirit of the Program Committee being those who have been voted to function in this capacity, and the influence of the institution.
Next up, we look at Recommendations P and Q that have to do with the Office of General Secretary mandates regarding providing materials for limited suspension and the supervision and release of pastors to be completed, and for a removal of classes having to report on limited suspension processes (p. 43). Dan wonders if the ending of these reports is based on timelines set by a previous synod, but is it a good idea? If there are still people in these processes, then it doesn’t seem smart to end the reporting. Willy agrees and, as a COD member, he voted against this.
That takes us to Recommendations Y and Z, which deal with cost-cutting ideas, especially related to establishing a task force to review classis structure and potential consolidations as well as biennial synods (pp. 46-47). Dan gives credit to the COD or the committee that worked on this—they did look into a variety of options. They considered cutting costs by biennial synods and reducing the number of delegates, as well as fundraising efforts by mandating governance assessments. As we’ve talked about before on The Messy Reformation, they are encouraging having synods every other year, and having COD pick up more of the work between the Synods. We don’t like that.
There are a number of overtures that deal with what’s proposed here at the end of the COD report (Overtures 26-32 and Communication 1, pp. 392-410, 424). Overtures 26 (Heartland), 27 (Minnkota), 28 (Holland), and 29 (Georgetown) speak against the biennial synod recommendation (FYI: there are no overtures or communications in support of the recommendation). Minnkota does a great job of pointing out that the financial savings won’t be as significant as the COD report seems to make it—both for the off years, but also we’re likely to end up needing longer synod meetings which will impact the ability of delegates to commit time and increase costs of each synod meeting. Dan also draws a connection to Overture 5 (Zeeland), which would require all on the Council of Delegates to be current or former officebearers, since they are doing the work of Synod, which requires officebearers. Minnkota points out that it’s questionable to give even more work that currently belongs to Synod to a body (the COD) that does not have the same requirements. Classis Holland points out with what we’ve been going through, “…Our denomination needs to come together regularly to rebuild trust and unity….” Georgetown’s overture also captures and expands on those aspects.
The remaining overtures that connect with the COD report call for financial transparency and consideration of different systems of funding/ministry shares that would obligate paying at least certain amounts. Communication 1 wonders if paying should be necessary to participate in classis and synod meetings. Dan points out some aspects of this have been in place in the past, but these would be big changes for today.
Jason speaks passionately about whether it’s really a good idea in the current setting of our denomination—a denomination in decline, hurting for money—to force people to pay. He shares, “…The best way to fund anything is not to try to make people feel guilty about it. What if our denomination was doing things that churches were excited to give them money for?...The reality is we don’t have any vision. We don’t know where we’re going. Churches don’t know where their money is going…[The denomination] is not taking the signal that we need to change gears.” He also points to the “bureaucratic bloat in the CRC.” Instead of telling the people of the denomination, “We need you to give so we can keep doing all this stuff,” we need budget specifics and we need to get rid of some things.
After exploring this for a while, Dan moves the conversation past the Reports of Agencies, Institutions, and Ministries (pp. 125-194) and Standing Committees (pp. 195-238) to the Synodical Task Forces (pp. 239-314). The rest of the episode focuses on the Defining Membership Task Force (pp. 255-271), which there are differences of opinion about on the Messy Reformation Team. At the heart of this Task Force’s mandate is looking at if and what is the difference in confessional commitment between a professing member of a CRC congregation and an officebearer. The report acknowledges at different times in our denomination’s history and in different liturgical forms, the confessional agreement is explicitly the same. But there have been other times when the spoken or unspoken culture was much looser on members. The recommendations essentially come out in favor of creedal agreement—members agree to what’s in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, but do not require confessional agreement—full agreement to the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dort. They do also recommend encouraging discipleship in the confessions as members can continue to grow.
Dan continues to be a strong proponent of creedal and confessional agreement among members, and he prefers for churches to slow down or not rush into making members. Let’s spend the time in formation—let’s do better. We may have flip-flopped in the past, but let’s grow out of that. Willy agrees, though, he does recognize there’s an argument out there that a “common believer” may not understand deep doctrines. He sees a way, though, for people to have a “difference in understanding” without a “difference in commitment.” Jason is a bit more open to the creedal argument, especially from a context where not many understood Reformed theology. He shares that he’s been wrestling with pragmatic versus biblical arguments—is there a reason to keep a genuine believer from being a member? Dan wonders aloud about the potential of a two or three-tier membership—tier one would be you are a Christian, tier two would be you are Reformed, and tier three would be for officebearers–but right now, we don’t have the resources created for that. We’re interested to see where that Advisory Committee goes.
Join us next time as we look at the Task Force to Develop Church Order Procedures to Discipline Officebearers and a lot more overtures.