Canada's Kitchen Table
How did the talks go?
In late November of 2023, a series of zoom meetings were held to hear the thoughts and concerns of Canadian CRC members regarding the binational character of denomination. Four meetings were hosted by the Canadian Ministry Board to hear from the signatories of a letter sent to the Board in October. Three meetings were hosted by Toward CRC Canada. In each one, the focus was on listening. The following report is our summary of what we heard.
In the coming days, we will follow up by announcing the dates of a series of open zoom meetings. We will be hosting seven presentations, one on each of seven themes outlined in the report. We look forward to discussing these with you as we continue to explore the possibilities and opportunities that would be ours as an independent Christian Reformed Church in Canada.
Read the entire report below, or click here to download a PDF of the entire report.
Talking with Canadians:
Report on Kitchen Table Conversations and CMB Dialogue
Introduction
The idea of a more independent CRC Canada, working in collaboration with a CRC US, drew 140 CRC members to three online Kitchen Table Conversations, organized by Toward CRC Canada, in November, 2023. These followed four listening sessions hosted by the Canadian Ministry Board (CMB), a subsidiary of the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA), to hear from 60 Canadian church leaders who had signed a letter to the CMB asking for a cross-Canada dialogue on this matter. All seven rounds of dialogue were designed to listen to the hopes and concerns of church members and hear what they think would be best for the future of the CRC in Canada.
What are the learnings from these seven sessions? How can they inform further discussion and actions that would serve God’s mission in Canada and the best interests of all church members? Common themes emerged, along with a wide range of questions and concerns. This analysis reports on key themes and concerns, with the hope of supporting anyone interested in next steps and ongoing discernment about the best way forward.
Seven key themes are named. Each section includes a spectrum of views, some common ground, and significant points made by participants. The key themes are:
· Importance of moving to a CRC Canada for ministry in Canada
· Canadian cultural difference and its importance for ministry
· How we work together as churches in Canada
· Timing for this transition
· Pathways to make a transition to a CRC Canada
· Relationship to the HSR discussion
· Resources and the way we move forward.
These are followed by a list of questions that participants want answered in the process. Some of these can be answered with information; some require more deliberation.
1. Importance of a Canadian CRC for Ministry in Canada
Would a stronger focus on Canada make a difference for effective ministry in Canada?
How important is this for healthy and growing ministry in Canada?
Does it matter for local ministry or only for national programs?
Spectrum of views:
Common Ground:
A vision that speaks to our Canadian context and space to deliberate and make decisions about ministry in Canada emerged as a prominent goal. There are a range of views about how best to achieve that goal and some differences about how important this is for local churches. It would be helpful for Canadian ministries to have stronger connections and accountability to the whole constituency in Canada.
Significant points made by participants:
Canadian ministry priorities are different; we need to focus more on them. Canadian ministry concerns and Canadian voices get lost in the current Synod.
More focus on ministry in Canada and more space for existing Canadian ministries in the ecclesial assemblies would increase the profile of unique ministries (e.g. Diaconate Canada) and identify new opportunities in Canada.
More ownership of ministry in Canada is likely to lead to higher levels of engagement.
Canadian Ministry Board has no voice at Synod. Members of the board are accountable to themselves and to a Council of Delegates dominated by U.S. delegates. Stronger accountability to Canadian churches and members would increase the focus on what we need to do in Canada and reduce time and energy spent on managing binational ministry relationships.
U.S. members cannot be expected to pay attention to differences in Canada; we are a small minority in that context. A smaller ecclesiastical assembly will allow more focus on what we need to do in Canada and unleash a lot of gifted people.
We no longer see ourselves as a sub-set of CRCNA; we need to develop our own identity.
Growing up and moving out of a parental home was repeated often as a metaphor that captures our reality well.
“Members of CMB should want more robust accountability to Canadian churches and members.”
In some global contexts, it is advantageous to be Canadian, rather than American.
People looking for a new church search websites; quick links to a U.S. denomination is a barrier for Canadians who might consider joining a CRC church.
Some say the problem is that Canadian churches are not stepping up and taking initiative to use the space we have under “post-SALT.” “It’s time to stop blaming the U.S. for our own inertia.” If that is accurate, others say a Canadian synod would force Canadians to take more ownership for ministry in Canada.
For some local churches, especially those struggling for survival, this seems of little or no importance.
Transition in a positive way without damage to valued binational relationships.
Ensure the continuation of existing ministries that do fit well in Canada; this is strong concern.
Celebrate the maturation of the CRC church in Canada; this can be positive; not anti-U.S.
2. Importance of Cultural Differences for Ministry in Canada
What does contextualized ministry mean in Canada? Is it important?
Are the cultural differences between Canada and the U.S. significant for ministry in Canada?
Spectrum of views:
Common Ground:
CRC Canada has opportunities and challenges in its cultural context. CRC US has opportunities and challenges in its cultural context. They are not the same and each of them warrants more thoughtful attention, whatever the structural relationship is between the two churches. Cultural differences within Canada also need more attention within a Canadian context.
Significant points made by participants:
Canadian DNA celebrates diversity and seeks accommodation. Less polarization than U.S. and more willingness to listen to different views and allow space for different ways of living.
Canada is more like a mosaic, while the U.S. is a melting pot.
Spirit of Christian nationalism is taking hold in CRC US – less of that in Canada.
Deeper Kuyperian roots in Canadian CRC history, more attention to worldview, less influence of pietism, different understandings about the role of church in society.
Cultural differences are growing –that is why we need space in Canada now.
Cultural differences within Canada are likely to be addressed more substantively in an assembly with an intentional focus on Canada than within larger, binational assemblies.
Social justice is a high priority in CRC Canada and under attack in CRC US.
Doctrinal purity is less of an obsession in Canada.
Less pre-occupation with issues of sexual morality in Canada.
Immigration patterns and attitudes toward the stranger are very different; that affects context for ministry.
Other differences cited important for ministry include: approach to health care, violence and gun culture, parental leave and other social programs, much less incarceration, and Indigenous reconciliation.
3. The Way We Work Together as Churches in Canada
Would a Canada-only assembly be different in a way that matters for God’s mission in Canada?
What are the benefits and costs of transition from a binational synod?
Spectrum of views:
Common Ground:
The CRC heritage of careful, comprehensive, and thorough deliberation is highly valued, along with active engagement of church members in any process to determine our future.
Significant points made by participants:
Each session included voices of lament for the loss of deliberative space and erosion of respect for differing views as a trend in experiences at synods in the last decade. Pre-determined voting blocks and use of procedural rules seem to be replacing an older tradition of slow, thoughtful discernment. Many voices expressed a loss of trust that decisions are being made with the best interests of Canadian ministry in mind.
Hope was expressed that a Canadian assembly would provide space for working through tensions that also exist in Canada in a more deliberative way, with more respect for diverse ways of applying Scripture to daily life. History in Canadian CRCs suggests greater willingness to respect diversity (e.g. approach to Indigenous ministries in Canada) and greater respect for local churches to make decisions appropriate for their context.
Hope that a conversation in a Canadian context would be different is keeping some from leaving the CRC over what they see as the prevailing spirit in the CRCNA.
For many participants, the choice we face is not a choice between the past and a CRC Canada; it is a choice between what they see emerging as a clear trend and what they understand to be more faithful to the core principles and values that they love about being part of the CRC. Some churches are weighing options other than remaining CRC; this is a preferred option.
In every session there was an emphasis on making the transition in a way that preserves valued ministries that fit well in Canada and maintains respectful, collaborative relationships with CRC US.
4. Timing for this transition
Is this a good or poor time to pursue this transition? Does the uncertainty of the current moment contribute to the need for change or would this transition just add to the challenges facing churches? Is this more of a solution or adding to our problems?
Spectrum of views:
Common ground:
The range of views is captured in the phrase, “The best of times and the worst of times at the same time.”
Significant points from participants:
Several participants who have been part of previous rounds of discussion about binationalism expressed a personal change of position. While they worked hard for the binational approach over many years, they no longer think it is best option for ministry in Canada. They have come to the position that it is time, in a developmental sense of time, to make the transition to a CRC Canada.
Some cite what happened under previous Canadian ministry directors as a reason to press ahead now; others prefer to wait to see if “SALT” reforms are effective.
Every session included calls to take time to do the necessary research, including a benefits and costs analysis and analysis of impacts for pastors, pensions, valued ministries, and relationships, as well as physical assets and financial costs.
Some called for persistence this time – no more half-measures; others voiced concerns that now is not a good time and that proceeding now might contribute to other divisions within Canada because of the current context.
For some, the hope of the transition happening soon is what keeps them in the CRC; failure to proceed will mean the loss of individual churches and members in the foreseeable future.
5. Pathways to move toward a CRC Canada
What are the mechanisms or steps to make a transition?
Spectrum of views:
Common ground:
Continue the work of the SALT process on the operational side and consider ways to expand intentional Canadian ecclesiastical spaces for dialogue and decision-making. Some called for steps such as a regional Canadian synod. Others suggested giving the SALT changes more implementation time to see how effective they might be before considering any other changes.
Significant points from participants:
Some expressed a positive vision of what gathering together in a Canadian assembly, like a synod, would be for them. Expressions like “inspiration,” “breath of fresh air,” “freedom to address Canadian issues” and “expand ministry that is genuinely Canadian and relevant to Canadian context” were used to describe the potential.
Each session included some acknowledgement that there are also divisions on current issues, such as the HSR, within Canada. Meeting in a Canadian forum will include disagreements and potential conflict. There were differing views on how much this transition might reduce current painful divisions within churches or how much it might contribute to other divisions.
Learning from the history of the Mennonite church was suggested. It decided to pursue a separate but collaborative model in 1999, the same year the CRC rejected a proposal for regional synods. Sources within Mennonite circles report they are able to provide more contextualized ministry in each country and they collaborate more effectively than before. There is no movement within Mennonite circles to return to a binational structure.
6. Relation to the HSR Discussion
What is the relationship between this issue and the issues arising from the HSR report?
Spectrum of views:
Common ground:
Questions about the relationship between this initiative and the decisions made by Synod 2022 and 2023 on the HSR arose in every session. These ranged from suspicions about the motivation behind this initiative to fears about the impacts of the convergence of the two. It was frequently described as the “elephant in the room.”
Response to the “elephant in the room”:
Given the prevalence and importance of this factor, following is a clarification that may reduce the “elephant in the room” and facilitate on-going discussion of the many important issues.
This discussion is related to the HSR discussion, not by WHAT was decided but HOW it was decided. How Synod handled the HSR and the way its decisions are being enforced is a symptom of the concerns about both a Canadian approach to deliberation and Canadian context.
In terms of process, Synod 2022 and 2023 reflected the factors that contribute to the desire for a space where Canadian CRC churches could deliberate and take responsibility for making their own decisions. These decisions have major implications for how ministry can be done in Canada.
The history of the CRC in Canada, as reflected, for example, in the former Council of Christian Reformed Churches in Canada during the 1970-80s, demonstrates the following character: allowing time and space for slower, careful, multi-dimensional deliberation of contentious issues; listening respectfully to differing ways of applying Scripture and the confessions to current issues; and a high level of respect for the role of the local church to wisely discern how Biblical teachings apply in specific circumstances.
The different Canadian context is also relevant and did not receive adequate consideration at Synod 2022 or 2023. Canadian churches and members have lived with and ministered within a context where same-sex marriages have been legal for almost 20 years, compared to a more fear-based reaction to recent change in the United States where same-sex marriage became legal in 2015, just prior to the 2016 launch of the study committee who wrote the Human Sexuality Report. Many Canadians saw the deliberations at Synod 2022 and 2023 as heavily influenced by spirits outside the church, such as culture war polarization and Christian nationalism. It is noteworthy that no Canadian classis presented an overture in support of implementing the confessional status recommendation in the HSR, and several Canadian classes presented overtures asking for more time and a more careful process of discernment. As an example of an alternative way of working through challenging issues, the way that Canadian churches have worked through issues relating to syncretism and Indigenous reconciliation suggests the value of a Canadian ecclesial space for dealing with issues like this one.
7. Resources and the Way We Move Forward
Can this transition be made without losing valued ministries and relationships?
Will the costs exceed the benefits?
What are the implications for finances and sustainability?
Spectrum of views:
Common ground:
Careful analysis of potential impacts and a high level of transparency and consultation with all church members are essential to ensure that any steps taken advance God’s mission in Canada and reduce negative impacts for affected individuals. Analysis and dialogue need to be blanketed in the spirit and processes of spiritual discernment, prayer, meditation, and Biblical reflection, to be constantly alert to God’s mission in Canada and the prodding of the Holy Spirit.
Significant points made by participants:
The steps taken through the SALT process provide a solid basis for establishing Canadian direction and control in the use of financial resources. The Joint Ministry Agreements are a mechanism for healthy collaboration as equal partners. An extensive body of information and knowledgeable staff are in place to make a smooth transition.
Some asserted that a CRC Canada would be able to raise more money for ministry in Canada. Others raised questions about the possibility of reduced resources.
Many suggested that the time and energy expended on maintaining binationality would show more return by focusing on Canada. Others raised questions about loss of access to some supports for ministry.
A detailed cost-benefit analysis will be required to determine feasibility.
The vital importance of spiritual discernment throughout any transition was highlighted by many participants. They pointed to the need for vigilance to God’s mission in Canada; guidance by the Holy Spirit; prayer; and careful discernment between helpful and harmful influences along the way.
List of questions raised by participants to be answered as part of transition:
What is the gain for the Kingdom of God?
What is the positive, inspirational vision? Will it make us more effective?
What are the costs and benefits? Is it worth the time and resources it will take to do this?
Could it benefit churches in Canada and the U.S.?
What is the impact for agencies that serve both Canadian and U.S. churches?
What are the impacts for pastors, pensions, other staff, benefit plans, buildings, and other assets?
What decisions of previous synods would be adopted and which might not be?
What if some U.S. churches would like to join CRC Canada, or vice-versa?
Would it lead to a seminary in Canada?
How can we ensure active participation of church members in the process and high levels of transparency and accountability?
Communicate! Communicate! Communicate!
This was a frequently heard suggestion. Hopefully this report helps to achieve this goal.