The Nature of a Template - Flexibility for Your Voice

One of the questions we’ve received in response to the template Better Together recently published is this: 

“But what if it doesn’t quite work for my church? We agree with most of it. Can we change it?” 

The simple answer is, “Yes! Feel free to change it to best represent your voice!”

This template to communicate to Synod is precisely that, a template. It’s a starting point. It’s a working draft open and available for your edits and personalization. Fundamentally, we view this template as a public domain document. We do not claim copyright ownership. If a communication is approved by a local church council, considered by a classis, or arrives at Synod 2024 that is different from the draft originally provided no one will be offended. 

In fact, it is our hope to see a whole variety of communications rise from across different corners of the CRCNA that communicate concerns to Synod 2024. We believe that it is important for Synod to hear and consider your voice and your concerns. Please hear our wholehearted encouragement. Take the template and adapt it so that your final version can best represent your beliefs. 

To help illustrate this flexibility here, are a few potential revisions congregations or members might make:

Scenario A: 

Imagine a local church body whose membership is predominantly in favor of the denomination’s traditional and confessional expression regarding same-sex sex. Over the last year, there has been very little conflict. The church is prepared to continue forward with ministry. Except for one thing - the congregation has a long and valued member who now serves as an elder. He has served faithfully in previous years and yet he has expressed that he cannot agree with the CRCNA’s confessional stance regarding infant baptism as found in Q&A 74 of the Heidelberg Catechism. In light of increased attention paid to confessional difficulties, this faithful elder discerned that his personal integrity and the fact that he has signed the covenant for officebearers, required him to submit a confessional difficulty gravamen to his local council. The church council subsequently accepted his gravamen and applied guardrails they deemed most appropriate and this faithful elder continues to serve. However, now, in the face of potential limits placed upon confessional difficulty gravamen this local council is concerned that they may have to remove this faithful brother from his leadership role. The council is confused and worried that forcibly removing this elder will send a divisive message to the rest of the congregation and they see no need to do so.

Such a congregation could protect their collective integrity by editing the supplied template to communicate their desire to their classis, and then to Synod 2024, protect the established confessional difficulty gravamen process.

Scenario B: 

Imagine a sizable group of members who have deep roots within a local congregation. These are women and men who have served in every capacity from nursery attendants to administrative elders. They love their church and yet they have discerned that limitations to the confessional difficulty process going forward would impose a glass ceiling on fellow members whom they love. Faithful and caring members, who had served as elders and deacons in the past, would be reduced to second class members of the congregation - never to serve on the local church’s council again. Their exclusion does not seem to this group like the way of Jesus. 

Such a group of members from within a congregation could utilize the template and edit it in such a way to communicate their concerns all the way to Synod 2024. These are real concerns of real servants of Christ.*** 

Scenario C:

Imagine a classis, possibly a classis that represents a conservative majority, that cares deeply for all of its congregations. This classis recognizes that there are member congregations that may be negatively impacted by changes to the confessional difficulty gravamen process. The leadership within classis has no desire to see these churches suffer in this way. Their commitment to and compassion for one another leads them to submit a communication that expresses their unwillingness to ‘guide into compliance’ these churches. Rather, their relationships of past and present allow the churches of classis to trust that local leadership within these churches will shepherd their flock well. Furthermore, the classis leadership recognizes that this kind of top-down guidance will only foster division and suspicion. And that ultimately, synodical decisions made without relational depth are unhelpful. 

Such a classis could edit the template provided to communicate their concerns for unity across their classis and trust in local church leadership. 

We admit that these are simple and yet they are representative scenarios found throughout the denomination. These scenarios do not even include congregations that lean progressive or are in fact affirming and fully inclusive (that number continues to grow within the CRCNA). As we’ve communicated before, changes to the current confessional difficulty gravamen process will impact any and all members within the CRCNA who hold any difficulty with any confessional position. Of course this includes the topic of focus today (same-sex sexual relationships), but it extends well beyond it (infant baptism, once saved always saved, election and reprobation). Ultimately each and every church is well served by the established process and each and every church will suffer should it be altered or limited. 

In summary, we hope that the template provided can serve as a launching point for you. Whether you are a local church council or a group of members at the local level we encourage you to make it your own. As Better Together whose very vision calls for unity, we feel we must stand in opposition to this divisive possibility and we hope you will join us in communicating this danger.     

***In Scenario B the members of a congregation would submit a communication to their local church council requesting that the council adopt it as their own. If the council should adopt it then it would be sent on to the classis and subsequently to Synod 2024. If the council should not adopt the communication of these members, the members could send the communication on to classis with the request that classis adopt it. If it is adopted by the classis, then it would be included in the Agenda of Synod 2024 with the classical support. If the classis should not adopt the communication then the local church members could send the communication directly to Synod 2024 noting the procedures followed.