While more than a few U.S.-based churches are proceeding to affirm same-sex rites and abandon standards of sexual conduct for clergy, the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRC) is drawing firm boundaries, prompting theological revisionists to begin to depart the denomination.
A confessional church from the Dutch Reformed tradition, the CRC requires all officebearers (ministers, elders and deacons) to affirm that the CRC statements of faith (the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort) fully agree with the Word of God.
The CRC annual meetings, called synods, have held firm to the biblical and historic Christian position on marriage and sexuality despite a decade-long push to affirm same-sex behavior. Synod 1973 adopted a comprehensive report on homosexuality, concluding that “homosexual acts are sinful” and “Sex relations outside of marriage are forbidden in the Scriptures.”
An ideology rooted in atheism slowly began to insert itself into Christian circles, including in the CRC, where a group called All One Body began advocating for full inclusion of LGBTQ sexuality in the church in 2011. In 2020, Neland Avenue CRC in Grand Rapids, Michigan decided that the 1973 report was merely “pastoral advice” and therefore not mandatory. Neland Avenue CRC ordained a deacon living in a same-sex marriage. Following Neland Avenue’s action, a group of CRC pastors and leaders formed The Abide Project to stand for the biblical and historical position on marriage and sexuality in the CRC.
Synod Decisions
Votes at Synod 2022 were overwhelmingly on the side of orthodoxy. Synod recommended the Human Sexuality Report to the churches. The report was the cumulation of a five-year project involving scholars from multiple fields and held to an historically orthodox position on marriage and sexuality. By a vote of 123-53-2 synod affirmed that when the Heidelberg Catechism condemns “unchastity,” this includes “adultery, premarital sex, extra-marital sex, polyamory, pornography and homosexual sex.” As such, this understanding had “confessional status” and was binding on all officebearers. Synod 2022 also instructed Neland Avenue CRC to remove the deacon in a same-sex marriage by a vote of 134-43-1.
Revisionists in the CRC did not accept the outcome. Neland Avenue decided to defy synod’s directives and refuse to remove the deacon in a same-sex marriage. Many more congregations publicly stated they were adopting an open and affirming policy. A “Frequently Asked Questions” was released by headquarters that assumed Neland Avenue’s understanding of the 1973 report by saying Synod 2022 “raises the level of agreement expected” of officebearers. The FAQ said officebearers who disagreed with Synod 2022 could simply file an exception or “gravamen” and “would be considered officebearers in good standing.” Another group emerged, calling itself “Better Together: A Third Way.” Their board included many well-known CRC leaders and their goal was to make same-sex marriage a matter for local churches to decide for themselves.
Instead of backtracking, Synod 2023 once again affirmed that “unchastity” includes “homosexual sex” and this has “confessional status.” Synod 2023 also rejected Neland Avenue’s appeal and again instructed the congregation to comply with the CRC position.
Revisionist resistance continued. Better Together: Third Way released a template for church councils to protest synod decisions of the last two years. Several of those protests would be sent to Synod 2024. More CRC congregations publicly adopted open and affirming policies that All One Body published.
Synod 2024 maintained the course of the prior synods with overwhelming votes. Synod voted 137 to 47 (74.5%) that gravamina (complaints as the basis of a legal action) “are not meant, nor should be used as an exception to the confessions.” Synod voted 134 to 50 to instruct churches that have publicly contradicted synod decisions “on unchastity to repent and to honor their covenant commitments to the CRCNA.” The same resolution said, “all office-bearers from churches in non-compliance, by actions or in any form of media, be placed on a limited suspension” where officebearers could not be delegated to synod or to regional meetings of classis.
Departures
Following Synod 2024, theological revisionists have begun to exit the CRC. Multiple congregations have made moves to depart, some by public announcement of intent to leave and some by officially submitting disaffiliation requests to their regional body of classis.
Religion News Service reported “at least two dozen churches” were in the disaffiliation process due to an “increasingly rigid stance on sexuality.” With nearly 1,000 congregations, this represents a small minority of the CRC. However, certain classes have seen significant departures. Classis Chicago South had 7 of their 17 congregations begin disaffiliation. Classis Grand Rapids East so far has 9 of 18 seeking disaffiliation. Christianity Today reported on the departure of First CRC Grand Rapids, one of the four original CRCs from when it began in 1857.
Prominent figures have resigned their positions, including CRC agency Thrive co-director Chris Schoon as well as Kathy Smith, the church order professor at Calvin Seminary.
On January 15, 2025, the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto voted to sever its ties with the CRC as a denominationally-related educational institution.
On February 18, 33 CRC ministers joined the Reformed Church in America, a sister denomination that is more flexible on LGBTQ practices. Chris Schoon and Kathy Smith were among those accepted in a ceremony at The Community Church in Ada, Michigan.
Different Accounts
Different narratives have emerged about the CRC in recent years. Most of the words are from the disgruntled. Synod 2022 was labeled by revisionists as a “coup.” A resigning Council of Delegates member said the recent synods are a “new direction.” A prominent CRC minister called Synod’s decisions “reckless, arbitrary, and unimaginable in any other age.”
“The votes were never in doubt and everyone knew it,” wrote a progressive delegate to Synod 2024. “A well-organized movement called Abide had been meeting and strategizing for several years now.”
One CRC minister declared the last three synods to follow the “playbook” of “other right wing takeovers.” That is, “introduce a wedge issue, hold up this wedge issue as a matter of denominational integrity, and then use the wedge issue to drive out from the denomination anyone who differs from those who are trying to gain control.”
“The Babylonians have struck. The denomination has been plundered,” blogged one progressive CRC pastor.
“They aren’t grieving, they are dancing on our graves,” read one comment on an Abide Project post. “Their death dance is the fruit Christ warned us about.”
As the secretary of the steering committee for The Abide Project, I can tell you that nobody is dancing at the thought of erroneous teachers continuing in error. We would much prefer CRC leaders accept the correction from the accountability structures put in place. Sadly, when adopting the views of a movement defined by pride, the humble move of repentance will be a bridge too far.
The Abide Project has sought to uphold what the CRC has explicitly held since 1973 and the universal church has always held about marriage and sexuality. This is not a new direction. Throwing away thousands of years of Christian teaching is what would be reckless, arbitrary, and unimaginable in any other age.
The Abide Project is a disorganized grassroots movement on a shoestring budget with one part-time position to maintain the website. All else has been done on a volunteer basis mostly by pastors already in full-time ministry roles. While All One Body has been in operation since 2011 using protests at synods and utilizing well-known CRC leaders and professors to promote their message, Abide started in 2020 with a group of low-level pastors praying together and writing articles on a website.
Regardless, enduring the blast of misinformation and even slander is a small price to pay for the denomination faithful to biblical teachings on marriage and sexuality. May Christ by his Spirit continue to lead the CRC by his truth and grace.
Comment by Rudy de Vries on March 1, 2025 at 1:29 pm
A cause for rejoicing, indeed! Thanks for the up to date data and faithful reporting!
Hopefully, in the not too distant future, will be an overturning of the 70’s Report 44, the original watershed of the CRC’s departure from the correct view of God’s Word!
I hope this in on ABIDE’s radar!
Comment by Amanda Talstra on March 1, 2025 at 11:08 pm
I imagine the title of “theological revisionist” was also used to describe many of the New Testament church fathers. Revisioning/Reforming – I will wear those labels with pride. And with joy. The banquet is here & all of God’s children have a place at the table.
Comment by Arie DeYoung on March 2, 2025 at 6:05 pm
Your “slander” is twice given — There are many points here one can take issue with. But one is that you make yourself “small and meek ” as a victim when Abide (you) is/are not. One can hardly call an organization that holds annual conferences of its “membership” and has weekly “prayer meetings” an unorganized grassroots organization. Abide has a playbook — one only needs to listen to their weekly podcasts to know what the (your) playbook is. You are systematically placing individuals in roles all over classis and the denomination to force removal and disaffiliation of congregations. Since your “humble” beginnings, you have chosen to slander ministers and people called by God publicly defaming them in that podcast many times over — you have misrepresented the ministries of the CRCNA, its leaders and have driven people away and are driving people out of the church by your actions (with glee on Returning Church Facebook). Do you justify your actions by saying they weren’t chosen so it’s ok? Do you not wonder why people who are NON-affirming are leaving the CRCNA? Who would want to sign the dotted line to witch hunting? May God have mercy on all of us if that is the way Christians really are and should be.
Comment by Wilson R. on March 3, 2025 at 4:15 pm
I was curious about the claim that the argument within the CRC in favor of full inclusion of LGBTQ sexuality in the church could be traced to”an ideology rooted in atheism.”
So I clicked the hyperlink and was taken to a 2022 piece by this same author in which he jaw-droppingly supported his claim by citing three culprits—Sigmund Freud, Alfred Kinsey and Hugh Hefner– along with “the pill” and the sexual revolution (whose views on the existence of God are presumably unknown).
Of course, blaming a “godless Jew,” a researcher of human sexuality, and the publisher of a heterosexual soft porn magazine for influencing the debate over LGBTQ inclusion in the church is so far out in right field that it’s over the fence, beyond the grandstand and at the far end of the parking lot. It rests on the tendentious argument and spurious reasoning that gay and lesbian people would never have come out of the closet, and therefore would never have been a factor in church debates, had it not been for the erosion of old sexual morés pertaining to heterosexuals. That is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst, because it completely overlooks arguments made by people of faith within the CRC and attempts to tar them with the brush of Freud and Hefner. This kind of argument simply does not withstand serious scrutiny.
Comment by JoeR on March 4, 2025 at 8:38 am
It is interesting how in sin we seem to indirectly ask, “Did God really say…?”
Yes, The Lord God Most High is very clear as to what he considers sin. He has the authority to make the definitions; we do not. He is truly gracious as lists of sins appear in multiple places within both New and Old Testaments. No one sin is more or less than others as He simply hates sin.
Repentance is critical. Sadly, any who feel they have not sinned do not see a need for repentance and seemingly are not in need of a Savior.
I pray Holy Spirit opens all our eyes anew to sin such that it drives us to repent so we may seek the face of God.
Comment by Wilson R. on March 4, 2025 at 11:34 am
Yes, God is crystal clear about considering the glorification of material things—in other words, what American culture is all about—as a sin. I think I would take the Christian culture warriors more seriously if they called attention to this log in our nation’s eye rather than focusing on things that by comparison are specks and splinters.
Comment by Skipper on March 4, 2025 at 3:37 pm
The Bible is so clear on same-sex relationships and other immoral behaviors. An old country song went “What part about NO don’t you understand?”
Comment by Mmel VanderBrug on March 5, 2025 at 10:52 am
I would urge both sides to listen to the brief Homily at the beginning of the movie Conclave.
Comment by Wilson R. on March 5, 2025 at 12:24 pm
@Skipper:
It’s interesting to me that you didn’t engage with the point. Sure, the Bible texts are unambiguous about homosexual behavior. Not arguing that point.
But the Bible has much more to say about the worship of material possessions. And the “log in the eye” part of the argument has to do with the relative prevalence of these behaviors.
Between 5% and 10% of the US population identifies as homosexual (I think it’s probably close to 5%). But materialism permeates American culture to a degree that it’s almost inseparable from our national identity.
So for those Christians who view both homosexual behavior and materialism as sins, the question becomes why a sin that affects only a small percentage of the population gets so much more attention than one that affects the entire US culture.
Even if you go more broadly to include the percent of the population who see themselves as “allies” of LGBTQ persons and advocate their full inclusion in the church, that number is still smaller than those who support our materialist culture. So why do Christian culture warriors essentially ignore the most morally corrosive influence on our culture while focusing so much on homosexuality?
Comment by Skipper on March 5, 2025 at 12:59 pm
Someone wrote ” No one sin is more or less than others as He simply hates sin.” Jesus told Pilot others had done greater sins in John 19:11, so sins do come in different sizes. Also, I John 5:17 tells us that some sins are deadly sins, while others are not deadly. You might hear “all sins are the same” used in an attempt to defend a favorite sin.
Comment by Wilson R. on March 5, 2025 at 4:12 pm
Ah… so homosexuality is a graver sin than worshipping mammon?
Please point me to where Jesus talks about that.
But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that your answer to my question above is yes.
So does that mean you just don’t talk about the widespread sin of materialism at all? At least from the posts and comments on this site, mammon ain’t even on the radar.
Comment by Skipper on March 5, 2025 at 8:49 pm
Jesus was a moral person. If we want to follow Him, we need to be also.
Comment by Different Steve on March 6, 2025 at 8:13 am
In my experience, I know of no churches that actively affirm or promote materialism. I hear tell of prosperity gospel churches, but never had occasion to run into one. To the extent these exist my impression is they are not Biblical (and scams). People can differ on how much a church should affirm and promote anti-materialism. I would think simply listening to the readings (don’t Methodists do that? If not, maybe you should start?) should result in a proper emphasis. Presumably we all own stuff and it isn’t a mortal sin. Envy, however, is definitely a sin, part of the Ten Commandments. Obviously, being human, we’re gonna envy sometimes, and that’s one of the many things for which we need repentance and forgiveness.. On the other hand, we have the mainline churches, which actively affirm and promote activities that the Bible calls an abomination.
Comment by Wilson R. on March 6, 2025 at 11:35 am
@Different Steve:
Not promoting materialism is hardly the same as warning against it. “Owning stuff” is not the same as a devotion to material things. And you’d think that “traditionalist” churches, pastors and laypeople would be concerned about a sin that permeates our culture and has infected American Christianity so deeply that it forms a sort of religious syncretism that is entirely separate from the notorious “prosperity gospel.”
People can differ on how much a church should speak against materialism? Really? Maybe if you don’t do the readings, as you encourage people to do. The gospels are filled with Jesus’ warnings against devotion to treasures on earth. By contrast, if Jesus said anything about homosexuality, the gospel writers apparently didn’t think it was important enough to include in their accounts. So, yes, the gospels do suggest a “proper emphasis — and that warning against mammon should at least be a regular part of the church’s message to those who profess that they want to follow in the way of Jesus.
Comment by Different Steve on March 6, 2025 at 1:45 pm
If you’re born in capitalist America, racist America, fascist America, then you are born in sin.
Rev. Jim Jones
Comment by Different Steve on March 6, 2025 at 2:36 pm
I asked Duck Duck Go if the word “materialism” appears in the Bible: it has something called Assist that seems to be some version of AI, which generated the following:
The word “materialism” does not appear in the Bible, but the concept is addressed through various teachings about wealth, possessions, and priorities, such as in Matthew 6:24-34, which discusses serving God over material wealth. The Bible warns against the dangers of focusing too much on material things and encourages seeking spiritual fulfillment instead.
Comment by Different Steve on March 6, 2025 at 2:52 pm
Also asked Duck Duck Go’s Assist what Jesus said about marriage:
Jesus taught that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman, emphasizing its importance and discouraging divorce except in cases of sexual immorality. He highlighted that in marriage, the two become one flesh, and what God has joined together should not be separated.
Comment by Different Steve on March 6, 2025 at 2:59 pm
With some trepidation, asked Duck Duck Go Assist “what did Jesus say about homosexuality?”. It’s response:
Jesus did not explicitly mention homosexuality in the Bible, and his teachings primarily focused on the nature of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. However, some interpretations suggest that his views on sexual morality and marriage imply a traditional understanding of these concepts.
Comment by Different Steve on March 6, 2025 at 4:37 pm
When I ask DuckDuckGo “what does the Bible say about homosexuality”, it doesn’t offer the Assist AI. Nor is there any apparent way to directly invoke Assist. Guess that one’s too hot to handle.
Comment by Different Steve on March 7, 2025 at 7:51 am
DuckDuckGo suggested (by auto fill) the search “Jesus said sell all your possessions”, and Assist responded with this (don’t know why the “()”):
Jesus taught that to be perfect, one should sell all possessions and give to the poor, promising treasure in heaven in return. This message emphasizes the importance of prioritizing spiritual wealth over material wealth ().
Comment by Different Steve on March 7, 2025 at 11:22 am
Discovered another DDG Assist capability. My query was “emphasizing some considerations to the exclusion of others”. It responded:
This phrase refers to a bias in reasoning or argumentation where certain aspects are highlighted while others are ignored, potentially leading to a skewed understanding or conclusion. It can result in fallacies or misrepresentations of the overall situation.
It offered me an opportunity to engage in a chat. Being somewhat dissatisfied with the prior answer, I added “in religion” to the chat. It responded with this (apparently obtained from something called GPT-4o Mini):
n the context of religion, emphasizing some considerations to the exclusion of others can manifest in various ways:
1. Selective Interpretation of Texts: Religious texts can be interpreted in multiple ways. Focusing on specific verses or teachings while ignoring others can lead to a narrow understanding of the faith. For example, some may emphasize passages that promote love and compassion while downplaying those that discuss judgment or discipline.
2. Doctrinal Emphasis: Different religious groups may prioritize certain doctrines or beliefs over others, which can create divisions within a faith. For instance, one denomination might emphasize salvation through faith alone, while another might stress the importance of works.
3. Cultural Influences: Cultural contexts can shape how religious beliefs are practiced and understood. Emphasizing cultural practices that align with certain interpretations of faith while neglecting others can lead to a skewed representation of the religion as a whole.
4. Historical Context: Focusing on specific historical events or figures within a religion can influence how adherents view their faith. For example, highlighting the contributions of certain leaders while ignoring others can create an incomplete narrative.
5. Contemporary Issues: In discussions about social issues, some religious groups may emphasize their stance on specific topics (like marriage or abortion) while neglecting broader teachings about justice, mercy, and community.
Overall, this selective emphasis can lead to misunderstandings, conflicts, and a lack of dialogue between different religious perspectives. It is important for adherents to strive for a more holistic understanding of their faith that considers the full range of teachings and practices.
Comment by Different Steve on March 8, 2025 at 10:14 am
DDG Assist Query: what are the seven deadly sins?
Response: The seven deadly sins, according to Christian theology, are pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth. These sins are considered major vices that can lead to further immoral behavior.
Comment by David on March 10, 2025 at 10:43 am
I am a member of the CRC and have attended at least one congregational meeting to discuss the controversial Human Sexuality Report. I was somewhat surprised at the absence of discussion of the relevant biblical texts or the long history of interpretation of such texts. We depart from these at our peril.
Incidentally, I agree with those commenters who alert us to the biblical injunctions against worship of mammon and materialism, but in the context of a discussion on sexuality and marriage, this is a red herring.
Comment by John Wright on April 3, 2025 at 9:34 am
In answer to those saying why aren’t other sins focused on… No one is disputing that materialism or material gluttony if you will is a sin. No one. If everyone accepted that homosexual activities were sins then it would recede as an issue but too many in the church want it another way.
Comment by Ruth on October 14, 2025 at 8:49 am
Dear brothers and sisters,
It is essential to understand clearly the message of Paul and the gospel he preached. Paul warned strongly in Galatians that if anyone teaches a gospel other than the one he declared—salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ alone—they are under condemnation (Galatians 1:6–9). This is not to be confused with a message that Christ accepts sin or excuses unrighteousness.
Christ calls all sinners to repentance—a holy, godly life transformed by His grace. We accept all as they are at the point of salvation because that is where Jesus meets brokenness and restores hope. Yet, once a person receives Christ, they are never the same; they become a new creation, called to walk in holiness and repentance (2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 6:1-2). This transformation is both an immediate change and a lifelong journey empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Do not mistake Paul’s grace-filled gospel as permission to tolerate sin, especially within the leadership of the church. Every one of Paul’s letters carefully instructs leaders and believers alike to pursue godliness, resist sin, and live righteous lives according to the revelation given by the Holy Spirit (1 Timothy 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9; Romans 6:12–14). Sin is sin—there is no hierarchy that excuses it—and all, but particularly those who serve as elders or deacons, must flee it and walk blamelessly.
Paul’s gospel ( the gospel of Jesus Christ) does not excuse unrighteousness; it empowers repentance and transformation. Love and grace invite sinners to come as they are, but they do not allow them to remain as they are. Holiness is the mark of Christ’s body, the church, and leaders bear a greater weight to honor that holiness.
Therefore, while the church must always extend grace and welcome repentant sinners, it must not tolerate sin in its leadership or among those who hold responsibility over others. The instruction of Paul, illuminated by the Spirit, calls all—especially church leaders—to live as examples of repentance, faith, and sanctification.
Let us embrace the fullness of the gospel Paul (the ambassador of Christ) proclaimed—one that brings forgiveness but also calls to godly living and righteous leadership, reflecting the glory of Christ in all we do.