Learning from History: CRC History and Culture in Canada

Learning from History: CRC History and Culture in Canada

 

Introduction

What can we learn from the history of the Christian Reformed Church in Canada? How important are cultural differences for church life and public witness? These two questions have permeated all the discussions about the future of the CRC in Canada. This working paper reflects on the intersection of history and culture to draw lessons for the future. It closes with some recommendations for consideration by all Canadian members of the CRC¹.  

A. Our Early History

The Christian Reformed Church began in the United States in the 19th century when members split from the Reformed Church in America (then known as the Dutch Reformed Church) to form their own denomination in 1857. Many of the early members were Dutch immigrants who had been influenced by ecclesiastical movements in the Netherlands, particularly the Afscheiding of 1834, an ecclesiastical pietistic revival which reverberated throughout the Netherlands and beyond. That pietism shaped their world and life view (worldview) as they lived it out in their new land. The history of the Reformed presence in Canada began in the late 19th century, and expanded in the early 20th century, when a few small struggling churches, served by US ‘home missionaries,’ ministered to poor Dutch immigrants with limited English language skills and marginal farm incomes. These ‘home missionaries’ worked tirelessly as advocates, translators, house hunters, job finders, and more, in addition to preaching, teaching, and providing pastoral care to these small congregations. These missionaries and struggling churches were instrumental in the early establishment of a Reformed presence in Canada. A tremendous influx of Dutch immigrants to Canada after World War II led to the establishment of many new churches across the country. Language and culture bound the Canadian church communities together. In many ways they were Dutch enclaves in Canadian society. Within these enclaves there were varied positions on what it meant to live as Reformed Christians. Some of the new immigrants brought with them doctrinal disputes that had erupted in the Reformed churches in the Netherlands in the later part of the 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly the Doleantie of 1886 which came to be characterized as Kuyperian. These disputes impacted their life/church experiences, giving shape to the various worldviews they tried to live out in the new land. The result was the formation of several small Reformed denominations during the 1950’s and 1960’s (Canadian Reformed, Netherlands Reformed, Reformed, and more). Each of these denominations struggled to discern what it means to live Christianly in the new culture and society. The different priorities and approaches are sometimes described as three strands that run through the subsequent history of the CRC in Canada: doctrinal (strong focus on beliefs), pietistic (strong focus on personal behaviour and spiritual practices), and transformational (strong focus on societal change). Post WW II, transformational CRC members in Canada believed that their new country should emulate what they had experienced in the Netherlands, including explicit Christian expression/action in all spheres of society. This was reinforced by Dutch pastors who came to Canada to serve the immigrant churches. Some of the post WWII members were visionaries. What began with them as fledgling initiatives in the 1950’s and 1960’s are today well-established Christian organizations functioning as an integral part of Canadian society – Christian schools, community credit unions, the Christian Labour Association of Canada, the Christian Farmers’ Federation, Citizens for Public Justice, the Institute for Christian Studies, Christian Courier magazine, social service agencies, burial societies, and Christian universities. The Council of Christian Reformed Churches in Canada (CCRCC) was also formed in the 1960s, with its own Executive Secretary, a governing body, and committees that studied and issued statements or took action on matters such as refugee settlement, abortion, end of life, hunger and poverty, health care, aboriginal justice, pluralism in the media, and the environment. The CCCRC also promoted strong ecumenical engagement. As a result, the CRC in Canada continues to be affiliated with bodies such as the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Canadian Council of Churches, Canadian Foodgrains Bank and Project Ploughshares. The CCRCC was absorbed into the larger CRCNA denominational structure in 1997. CRC members who practiced a more pietistic faith saw some of these early initiatives as disruptive for society and for the church, revealing the tensions between different Reformed thrusts. Positions have softened over time, with ample evidence of diverse approaches to cultural engagement within the Canadian CRC community today. Meanwhile, the strong influence of pietism on the US side continues to impact ministry in Canada.  

B. Two Different National Paths

As nations, the US and Canada unfolded differently in the 20th and 21st centuries; this has impacted the history of the development of the binational CRCNA. The US became a rich and powerful nation, endowed with natural resources, human capital, and democratic freedoms. It has come to exercise global power and influence. Canada also became a rich nation endowed with natural resources. But its geography, climate, and smaller population have limited its global power. While the US has a stronger ethos of “one people” and “one nation,” symbolized as a melting pot, Canada became officially bilingual and fostered diversity and multiculturalism, symbolized as a mosaic, including the recognition of Quebec and Indigenous tribes as distinct nations within the borders of Canada. Both the US and Canada engaged in colonial practises as they expanded their domestic economies and engaged in international trade and diplomacy, but they took different paths that leave them in very different positions today. The US expanded its empire, sees itself as an exceptional nation with special blessings and a special role in history, and assumed a dominant role in international relations. Canada, on the other hand, has become more dependent on international trade and more internationalist through engagement in multiple, multi-lateral institutions and alliances. While Canada’s economy is closely integrated with the US as its major trading partner, with special trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, its posture in foreign relations and international development focuses more on strengthening international bodies, such as the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the Francophonie (Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie), and regional alliances in all directions. The US and Canada are guardedly democratic, understanding democracy as rule by the majority, with protections for the rights of minorities. While there are common features, the two nations adopted very different political systems. The US, with its congress, president, and two-party system, today faces a hardened and divisive partisanship where compromise has become extremely difficult. In general, its political culture has become more polarized, strident, and extremist. Canada has a parliament (a “talking house”) with a multiparty system, in which all parties together serve the common good, the Crown, represented by the King, which can lead to endless discussions in order to forge compromise. The role and powers of provinces within Canada’s federalist system, accommodate diverse approaches to public services that matter for local ministry, in different ways than states operate in the US political system. The different political systems and cultures, including different approaches to public services from health care to prisons, require different approaches for effective ministry in the different contexts. The US and Canada are both officially secular countries open to many different worldviews – religious, spiritual, and secular - but the understandings of what “secular” means are varied, also within Canada, e.g. the concept of “laïcité” in French-speaking Quebec culture. Many in the US, including politicians, openly identify as Christian, invoke religious language, and openly discuss religion in public forums. Many Canadians, including politicians, are reticent to be identified with particular religious views in public life. Religious issues are seldom discussed in public forums, and most regard personal faith perspectives as private. Church-state relations have unfolded differently in the US and Canada, and there are differences in the role of religion in public life in various parts of Canada, e.g. Roman Catholic schools are part of the publicly funded education system in some provinces, but not others, and faith-based public services often receive public funding, e.g. the Salvation Army is the largest provider of shelter services in Canada with extensive public funding by provincial and federal governments. The US and Canada both have public education systems, influenced by different historical developments and different understandings of what secular means. In Canada differences between French, mostly Roman Catholic culture and English Protestant culture were accommodated in early education policy, with respect for greater diversity over time. There are tensions in both countries when worldview differences play out in curricula and classrooms, with some issues (e.g. evolutionary theory, creationism, intelligent design, sex education) creating considerable controversy. Many CRC members in both countries have established their own primary and secondary schools. However, in one Canadian province, Alberta, there are CRC related Christian schools within the umbrella of the public school system. The CRCNA owns two institutions of higher learning (Calvin University and Calvin Theological Seminary); both are in the US. It is also associated with six other Christian institutions of higher learning, three of which are in Canada. No educational institutions in Canada are owned by the CRCNA. While both the US and Canada were shaped by settler groups, the cultural mindsets are different. The US is known for its gun culture; Canada has strict gun laws. The US has homicide rates three times higher than Canada. The US is one of the few countries in the world that retains a death penalty. Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976, with the last execution carried out in 1962. The CRCNA has not spoken against the death penalty, instead recognizing “the right of modern states to institute and practice capital punishment if it is exercised with utmost restraint,” a position that relates to the US context. Meanwhile, the CRC in Canada has focused on restorative justice as an alternative, more Biblical approach to corrections. Race relations is another area of significant difference. Canada and the US have different histories regarding slavery and the treatment of Black populations. While injustice continues in both countries, the shape of it is different in each context and today it is less volatile in Canada than in the US. Both the US and Canada oppressed Indigenous Peoples with acts of upheaval, brutality, murder, and even genocide. The US largely sees Indigenous Peoples as conquered peoples. In Canada, Indigenous Peoples are now considered nation-to-nation treaty peoples. Today these treaties are being used to pursue justice, reconciliation, healing, and land reclamations. The CRC in Canada is engaged in restorative endeavours, local relationship building, and organized ministry with Indigenous Peoples in three healing centres: Edmonton, Regina, and Winnipeg. Cross-cultural ministry will be different in each context. The response to COVID-19 also revealed stark differences between the US and Canada. Canadians more easily complied with governmental mask mandates; Americans asserted independence, freedom, and resisted mask mandates. Death rates per million in the US were almost three times higher than in Canada. The US and Canada both have economic systems influenced by capitalist worldviews. The US has become an economic global powerhouse, with the largest economy in the world. It is also confronted by stark gaps between rich and poor, a result of imbalanced earnings. The CRC-USA has some very high earners, whose denominational influence is proportionate to their wealth. Canada’s mixed economic system is much smaller, with social welfare and income support programs reducing the income gap. The CRC in Canada has considerably fewer high earners, with influence proportionate to their wealth. However, it has also been the case that successful entrepreneurs in Canada supported social institutions such as Christian schools, Institute for Christian Studies, World Renew, and Citizens for Public Justice, more so than the institutional church.  

C. Cultural Challenges within the CRCNA

Considerable information on the CRCNA is contained on its website where, among other things, its various agencies/ministries are profiled – Resonate, Reframe, Thrive, and World Renew. Photos highlighting the work of these agencies are revealing; a large, though not exclusive, focus is on developing nations, with a subtle message that less developed countries need spiritual and material assistance from North Americans. The Reframe agency/ministry reaches many people throughout the world in their own languages, yet it did not reach out to francophones in the province of Quebec. The CRCNA has also established Thrive, an internally focused agency to support churches. Currently its Gather initiative is assembling church members from Canadian and US classes together across borders to discuss church growth. It is not gathering Canadians across Canada to discuss Canadian ministries. The Reframe on-line content regarding family life has a high level of US-oriented content. It can be argued that the CRC US is more weighted 4 towards ministry in developing countries with a spiritual emphasis, perhaps a result of a pietistic legacy. The CRC in Canada focuses more of its public ministry on diaconal outreach and social justice, such as the work of Diaconal Ministries Canada. There is no parallel body in the US. In addition to those listed above, the CRCNA lists “additional ministries” on its webpage. One is the Candidacy Committee. The three others, Canadian Indigenous Ministries, Centre for Public Dialogue, and Decolonization and Antiracism Collective, are all located in Canada, again revealing the desire for national ministries that fit in the Canadian context. The CRCNA has struggled with changes that also affect the larger culture. Two are noteworthy for the severe impacts they have had on the denomination: the role of women in church ministries and scripturally directed human sexuality. Both remain challenges within the CRCNA. The third one reflects a newer challenge: recognizing and unfolding unique ministries in two different national contexts.

1. 1. The issue of women and their role in ministry in the CRCNA was a long and drawn-out affair, beginning in the 1960’s when women asked for changes to allow for the use of all gifts of all women in ministry. Requests for change inside the church intersected with societal changes for women, leading to resistance to change, different interpretations of Biblical teachings, and divisions within churches. Over the years there were a disproportionate number of Canadian overtures requesting Synod to be more inclusive. The CRCNA opened all ecclesiastical offices to women in 1995, after 25 years of study and debate, but left the ultimate decisions to local churches and classes. Canada was the first to have a woman installed to “exhort” (1993), with ordination in 1996. In Canada women are seated at all classes. Four US classes do not permit women to be delegates. 87% of Canadian churches have women deacons, compared to 68% in the US. 72% of Canadian churches have women elders, compared to 44% in the US.

1. 2. In 2005, the Parliament of Canada legalized same sex marriage through the Civil Marriage Act, becoming the fourth country in the world to do so. Ten years later in 2015, the US Supreme Court struck down all state laws banning same sex marriage. Since 1973 the message of the CRCNA has been pastoral but consistent: churches must welcome all people regardless of their sexual orientation, but it has declared intimate relations between non-binary individuals, including those in long-term committed relationships, to be sinful. In 2022 this position was given confessional status. Again, not surprising, the sticking points revolve around biblical interpretation, with members and churches in both nations falling along a spectrum of views. Again, most interesting is the fact that no Canadian classis submitted an overture supporting the Human Sexuality Report and several classes sent overtures requesting more time, more flexible approaches, and more space for different approaches to inclusion within CRC churches. The issue remains unresolved within church circles, despite a definitive Synodical declaration.

1. 3. In the 1960s a church office was established in Canada, in part to satisfy Canadian charitable law. There has been some concerted delegation of responsibilities to the Canadian office. However, the overriding of administrative decisions, dismissal of Canadian input into doctrinal/confessional discussions, coopting a Canadian visionary process that marginalized its vision for ministry in Canada, and underhandedness in upstaging Canadian administration are just a few examples of practices that have led to frustration among Canadian leaders and pleas for more effective control of ministry in Canada by Canadians. Those who propose more self 5 determination in Canada see it as a maturation process, the Canadian church growing up and able to take on adult responsibilities for its own posture within Canadian culture, along with its ministry programs and public witness².

 

D. Learning From Our History

The CRC in Canada exists because of the early willingness of the CRC in the US to nurture and support the development of churches in Canada over the first 50 years of its existence. For that the CRC churches in Canada will be forever grateful and will continue to work collaboratively and cooperatively with the CRC-US to further a global Reformed Kingdom mission. Humility and inclusiveness need to be core values in the CRC in Canada and the US. Theological/doctrinal arrogance and hubris only bring brokenness and divisions. A future CRC Canada must be principled and true to the Scriptures while accommodating diversity, without marginalization or personal exclusion. Recognizing both the US and European Reformational influence, it is imperative from the outset that CRC Canada clearly outline its vision for a Reformed body in Canada. The two influences have created tension and dissension within the community. The influence of pietism and the European Reformed world and life view have together shaped the vision of CRC Canada to date, and it continues to encourage its members to strive for a right personal relationship with the Lord Jesus while seeking a world and life view that recognizes God as sovereign over all, honours our neighbour, and cares for God’s creation. CRC Canada must continue to sustain strong ecumenical relationships within both the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Canadian Council of Churches. CRC Canada contributes to and benefits from much stronger and different kinds of working ecumenical relationships than is possible for CRC-US. Its engagement in these bodies has given the Canadian side of the CRC a voice, influence, and an enhanced Reformed Christian witness in the whole of Canadian society. To further enhance that Reformed Christian witness, CRC Canada needs a governance and administrative structure that is distinctly Canadian with Canadian administration governed by a stand-alone Canadian Ministries Board and a Canadian Synod. A structural example from our history that we can emulate is that of the Canadian Council of Christian Reformed Churches and its ministries. A more recent example is the formation of Diaconal Ministries Canada in 2001 with a Canadian board on 12 members (one from each classis), a National Director, staff, and various committees to implement its ministry and administrative goals. Today there are fifteen national bodies worldwide that designate themselves as Christian Reformed Churches. The CRCNA remains the only bi-national church. Some of the national churches have been established through earlier immigration from the Netherlands (CRCNA, Australia, S. Africa), others through missionary endeavours by the CRCNA itself (Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Philippines, Sierra Leone), and yet others by other means (East Africa, Myanmar, Sri Lanka). Common to all these churches is their embrace of the Three Forms of Unity which have historically and theologically 6 grounded the Reformed tradition. What differentiates them are their own nationalities, cultures, histories, characteristics, languages, and ecclesiastical governing structures. While maintaining their own independence, these national churches now work together through the World Communion of Reformed Churches. CRC Canada welcomes an opportunity to engage as full partners with other CRC churches in other countries; our Canadian experience can be helpful to others in ways that are different from the US experience. _____________________ ¹Thanks and appreciation go to Dr. John Valk and Raymond Elgersma for their analysis and drafting this Working Paper. Dr. John Valk is a retired Professor of Worldview Studies, University of New Brunswick and author of Worldviews: A Comprehensive Approach to Understanding Self and Others. Raymond Elgersma served in different staff positions within the CRCNA for more than 12 years, including the first Director of Canadian Ministries and, before that, as Director of World Renew (then known as CRWRC); as a volunteer, he has actively engaged in ministry initiatives from the local to the national level for more than 30 years. Thanks also to readers who have provided valuable additions. Editorial assistance was provided by Kathy Vandergrift. If there are errors or omissions that should be corrected, please contact Kathy Vandergrift. ²This is a brief summary of a long history of struggles that have been described and discussed in detail in articles in the Christian Courier and The Banner. For a recent analysis, read “Why I Changed My Mind about Binationality”, by Ray Elgersma, in the March edition of Christian Courier, page 5, Christian_Courier_March2024   Download PDF: Learning from CRC History