The Banner’s immodest proposal

by Chad Vandervalk, Contributing Editor

In the March issue of The Banner, Rev. Sam Hamstra Jr. presented what he called “A Modest Proposal” regarding the Christian Reformed Church in North America. Reflecting on the 150th anniversary of our denomination, Hamstra argues that our denomination is going to have to be replaced.

“Here's my thesis: The CRCNA as we know it must die and give way to a new, emerging post-denominational form of congregational collaboration that differs significantly from its predecessor.”

This proposal is more immodest than modest. It shows a lack of respect or care for those who went before. It is shameless and impudent. I admit that there are problems with the current structure of the CRCNA, but there are problems with every kind of structure. The fathers and mothers of our denomination decided that the form of governance worked out by serious reflection on the scriptures and human nature is a good structure.

Hamstra makes a few claims regarding the denomination which are exaggerated, if not incorrect. He talks about the denomination thinking it is the Church. In a certain way he is correct in his critique. There has been a move within the denomination to giving administrators more and more of the decision making responsibilities of the denomination. Many people think that the deliberations at Synod take too long, and people are taken away from their families, homes, and work for too long. If administrators do more of the decision making, then fewer agenda items will have to be deliberated by the delegates to Synod. The problem with this it that it changes the polity of the Church. The deliberative procedure of Synod is meant to help the Church work out the way that the Spirit is leading it. The accumulation of so many people in one place seeking the Lord's will for the denomination is one of the great things of the denomination.

Hamstra's critique, however, misses the point. In a certain sense the denomination is the Church. Our individual congregations have chosen to submit themselves to the authority of the denomination, specifically to Synod, because we recognise the unity of the Body of Christ. We all humble and submit ourselves to the rulings of Synod and the Classes because we realise that we are one with our brothers and sisters in Christ in other areas of the neighbourhood, country, and world. We provide evidence of this unity by getting together and making decisions together. This allows us to pay attention to the voices of every part of the body and protects against the eye, the ear, or the hand telling the rest of the body that it does not need it.

Hamstra is absolutely correct in saying that individual congregations are not the Church. It is for this reason that we need a denominational structure rather than a congregationalist association. Allowing a denomination to have a primary role in the life of the individual congregation reminds us that we are not the be all and end all. Our individual congregations do not have the best view of the scriptures, they do not have the best understanding of our culture, they do not have the best method of evangelism to spread the gospel message across the world. Our individual congregations may not even know the best way to minister to our local situation. Often we have to get out of our everyday routines and situations before we can objectively take a look at its needs and opportunities. The danger of a congregational association is that the individual congregations lose sight of the big picture and begin to think that they know best.

One of the main things that a denominational structure offers is mutual accountability. It allows our individual congregations to keep tabs on each other and help us all grow in love and grace. Our own depravity generally leads us to think that we are better than others. We need the checks and balances of the denomination to ensure that we do not run off the rails.

Reading Hamstra's article in the Banner gave rise to many different feelings; anger, disappointment, and grief. The most profound emotion was grief; grief over his disregard for the past, grief over his blanket rejection of the denomination, grief over his individualistic view of the Church. It saddens me how people think we should save the Church. An overemphasis on numbers has caused the gospel to take a back seat to many other things, such as music, youth programs, buildings, or even retreats. The way to ensure that the Church will not die is to ensure that the gospel of Christ is preached, that the love of God is felt by those who know him and those who are looking, that unbelievers realise their need for a saviour.

Why is it that people spend so much time thinking about and trying to change the political structure of the Church? Should we not spend more time thinking about what the scriptures tell us about how we should relate to this world? We must remember we are not in this alone. Being humble enough to accept that there are others who may know better than you is part of what is needed for a denomination to work.

If the structure is not working, maybe it is not the structure, but we, who need to change.

Want to respond to this article? Send your letter to letters@kerux.org; see the guidelines for more information.