Limited Suspension

Synod instructed “churches who have made public statements, by their actions or in any form of media, that directly contradict synod’s decision regarding unchastity to repent and to honor their covenant commitments to the CRCNA” (Acts of Synod 2024, p. 891). All officebearers from churches in noncompliance with synod’s decisions would, at the conclusion of Synod 2024, be placed in a limited suspension.

Limited suspension means a limit on representation in classical and denominational meetings and ministries: as synod declared, “a loss of ability to be delegated to classis, synod, the COD, or CRCNA agencies. Officebearers under limited suspension may attend classis with the privilege of the floor but not as a seated delegate.” This restricts their ability to vote on classical matters.

Churches under limited suspension enter a one-year process of conversation and discernment toward either restoration and alignment with CRCNA positions on chastity, or toward disaffiliation from the denomination. Classes may extend this process for individual churches for an additional year if necessary. 

Synod 2024 highlighted three possible outcomes of this limited suspension process at the end of one or two years:

1. Repentance and restoration to full fellowship
2. Disaffiliation from the CRCNA by the congregation
3. If the church refuses to engage in the process or prevents the process from moving forward in a timely fashion, the initiation of special discipline by the classis, which would mean the dissolution of the council, the reversion of the congregation to emerging status, and the placement of the congregation under the care of a neighboring council (Acts of Synod 2024, p. 893).

Limited Suspension applies to “churches who have made public statements, by their actions or in any form of media, which directly contradict synod’s decision on unchastity” (Acts of Synod 2024, p. 891) and “churches, members, and office-bearers that have declared themselves to be in the status of one in protest with ecclesiastical intent” (Acts of Synod 2024, p. 939). Synod itself did not create a list of churches that are under limited suspension, but left room for classes to discern the churches that fall under this category of discipline and to work with them.

Limited suspension applies specifically to officebearers. The issue is less clear when it comes to individual members. Because synod has not spoken directly about the issue of members, it could be assumed that the local councils are being directed to discern the proper course of action with regard to individuals, in keeping with established Church Order procedures. 

The phrase “ecclesiastical intent” is not completely clear, but suggests that there is a difference between a protest on the basis of pastoral concerns and one lodged on the basis of confessional objections. Some considerations about “ecclesiastical intent” might include:

1. Has the church expressed a “settled opposition” to CRC teaching and practice with regard to matters of confessional interpretation?
2. Has the church indicated a continuing refusal to submit to the direction of the wider CRC as articulated in synod’s decisions?

Presumably this also includes the items listed in the latter bullet points of the Acts of Synod 2024, p. 891: 

• ordaining of officebearers “in a same-sex marriage, in a same-sex relationship not in keeping with a holy Christian sexual life,”
• allowing public “preaching, teaching, writing, serving, and living” which contradicts the commitments of the Covenant for Officebearers in regard to this matter
• recognizing “same-sex marriage as ecclesiastically valid, either in officiation or any manner of blessing a wedding rite or a baptismal rite”  (i.e., committed to officiating same-sex wedding rites in opposition to Supplement, Art. 69-c; or to baptizing the children of same-sex couples in ways that would suggest tacit approval for the validity of their relationship)
• permitting officebearers to serve in organizations “designed to specifically advocate against the teachings and confessions of the CRCNA.”  There is a level of specificity here: it is not a question of partnering with organizations which may be misaligned with the CRC’s position on sexuality for the purposes of ministry (e.g., a chaplain working in a health facility or a campus pastor in a public university), only a matter of the organization’s primary purpose

“Ecclesiastical intent”does not include:

• Statements of concern from a congregation about synodical policies and practices that are not confessional positions. 
• Taking a posture of engagement, welcome and care for straight and/or gay people who are living lifestyles in conflict with the CRCNA’s biblical understanding of sexuality. This kind of posture is encouraged by our synodical decisions.

Did the congregation submit a protest letter to synod indicating a public conviction against a confessional position that could be characterized as having ecclesiastical intent? If yes, then the congregation and its office bearers are under limited suspension. 

Examples:

• The protest letter that indicates a settled conviction against a confessional position of the CRCNA (i.e., “the status of one in protest”)
• This could include statements which indicate a refusal to abide by synodical decisions in teaching, preaching, and life
• This does NOT include statements of concern from a congregation about synodical policies and practices that are not confessional positions
• While synod did not specifically list churches under limited suspension and therefore classes have some measure of judgment to exercise in this matter, it does seem that churches which have submitted protest letters to synod are assumed to be in this category unless there is some clear indication that the protest does not have “ecclesiastical intent” (Acts of Synod 2024, p. 939)

Does a congregation have public statements and congregational policies in contradiction with synod’s confessional convictions about unchastity? If yes, then the congregation and its office bearers are under limited suspension.

Examples: 

• Public statements on a church website in contradiction of synod’s confessional position on unchastity
• A policy of ordaining individual officebearers who are not keeping the CRCNA’s teachings on unchastity
• A practice of teaching, preaching, or living in contradiction to the CRCNA’s teachings on unchastity
• A policy or practice that would “recognize same-sex marriage as ecclesiastically valid, either in officiation or any manner of blessing a wedding rite or a baptismal rite.”
• This does NOT include taking a posture of engagement, welcome and care for straight and/or gay people who are living lifestyles in conflict with the CRCNA’s biblical understanding of sexuality. This kind of posture is encouraged by our synodical decisions

Synod 2024 revised the ecclesiastical gravamina procedure (Church Order Art. 5 and supplement) to state that officebearers with confessional difficulty gravamina should not be delegated to the broader assemblies. Since the processing of confessional difficulty gravamina is a confidential process, the classis may not be aware of which officebearers are working through them. In view of this restriction, it would be wise for officebearers who have engaged in public advocacy against confessional teachings (such as synod’s position on unchastity) to recuse themselves so as not to cause stumbling. 

Synod 2024 instructed classes to submit a biannual report to the Office of General Secretary and to the Council of Delegates, indicating the progress made with the churches in their classes who are navigating the process of limited suspension (Acts of Synod 2024, p. 887). This form has been created to simplify the reporting process for Stated Clerks. Stated Clerks are requested to submit the following information from their classes to the Office of General Secretary by November 1, 2024 with an updated report on April 1, 2025. The General Secretary will share the information with the COD.

Guidelines for working with churches under limited suspension include the following steps:

1. Classes work with their congregations to identify which ones are under limited suspension.
2. Classis assign teams of church visitors to engage in discussion with those churches to learn about their intent and desires, correct any confusion (for example, about what the CRCNA says about unchastity)—restoration, disaffiliation, or not doing anything. If churches desire restoration, then the guiding into compliance resources can be used. If disaffiliation, then other resources, etc. Thrive and the Office of General Secretary are working on updating the Guiding into Compliance resources. They will be linked here as they become available.
3. Church Visitors report on progress to classis and classis reports to synod on form provided.
4. Classis determines whether an extension is warranted.

1. Classis (ideally in conjunction with the council’s own recognition) identifies a particular congregation as a church under “limited suspension,” and notes this in classis minutes
2. Classis assigns church visitors to work with the council under limited suspension, and to connect them with resources for discerning whether they intend to seek restoration (see Reasons to Seek Restoration) and come into alignment with synod’s positions on human sexuality, or to pursue disaffiliation from the CRCNA
3. The council, over a period of months, works with its congregation to discern a course forward and informs the classis of its intentions by the spring of 2025
   1. If the council and congregation decide to engage the denomination’s expectations with regard to human sexuality, the classes will help work through the process of “guiding into compliance” in light of the “benchmarks” established by Synod 2024
   2. If the council and congregation decide to begin the process of disaffiliation, the classis shall work with the congregation in following the process established in Church Order for a gracious separation from the CRCNA
4. Once the process being pursued by the congregation in Step 3 (either restoration or disaffiliation) has been completed, the classis should adopt a formal motion identifying the completion of that process.  Normally, this process shall be completed by Spring 2025 (though a classis has the option of extending the time frame by one year for participating churches, Acts of Synod 2024, p. 892).

Though synod did not set forth a specific policy of restoration, it seems only logical that such a suspension is temporary and can be lifted once certain conditions are met, consistent with the lifting of any other suspensions related to special discipline. 

In this case, synod has set the parameters by identifying “steps of repentance” which should be part of the process leading to a lifting of the suspension (Acts of Synod 2024, p. 886).  Classis could, depending on the situation, include additional requirements which would be expected of churches before being restored to full participation, but this would be left to the discretion of classis depending on the particular situation (cf. Acts of Synod 1998, p. 397: “Since a suspension is temporary, the council should list reasons for the suspension and the basis and time line for why and when it will be lifted.”)

While in this case synod is, in some ways, “the assembly which has imposed the suspension” (cf. Supplement, Art. 82-84, ‘h’), it seems clear that synod has delegated the responsibility of navigating the terms of (and therefore of lifting) the suspension to the classes (Acts of Synod 2024, p. 887). 

When a classis judges that a church has met the expectations set forth by synod and/or its own requirements regarding limited suspension, it should adopt a motion formally recognizing this action so it is clear that the restoration of the church to classis participation is complete. At this point, the limited suspension of the church’s office bearers would be concluded. 

In keeping with the principle that the assembly which has imposed the suspension also has the prerogative to lift that suspension, synod has requested that these matters be reported to the COD and to synod (Acts of Synod 2024, p. 887). We suggest that this action be understood in a way similar to the work of the synodical deputies. Though technically, it is possible for synod to not approve the work its deputies do with regard to a matter requiring concurrence, in most cases it is assumed that the deputies and classes will have carefully considered the synodical regulations and therefore the work that is done will be able to meet synod’s approval.  While there is perhaps a greater possibility in this case that synod will want to review a classis’ decisions regarding the lifting of limited suspension, classes should also expect that synod would have no reason to withhold approval of a classis’ decision if the synodical directives have been faithfully carried out.

Note: It may be obvious, but it is important to note that another way office bearers (especially those who are working outside the congregation that holds their credentials) can exit limited suspension is to change their church membership and move their credentials to another church that is not under limited suspension. While we don’t want to diminish the logistical and emotional weight of this direction, it may be a necessary step for those office bearers who find themselves under limited suspension but are in agreement with synod’s understanding of human sexuality.

Synod 2024 requested that classes with churches under limited suspension should submit a biannual report to synod (Acts of Synod 2024, p. 887). 

• Though synod has not specified the content of such a report, the Office of General Secretary has created a template so that the information provided by the classes is consistent across the denomination.
• These reports are due after the fall and spring meetings.
• The COD will be responsible for communicating the content of these reports to Synod 2025. 
• Synod 2024 did not specify an end date to this reporting requirement, thus the expectation is that this is an indefinite practice until synod specifies otherwise.

It may be asked, “Why did synod not say these things specifically? Why is this advice necessary?” While it is not our task to speak for Synod 2024, we would invite CRC members and officebearers to consider that synod was dealing with a highly unusual situation and that its delegates had only a very limited time to craft a response.  Church order rests on the assumption that the churches and classes will comply with the decisions of synod.  Our system can handle a certain number of appeals and protests.  But in this case, the decisions of Synod 2022 and 2023 were met with several dozen public statements which not only protested denominational understandings of chastity, but appeared to insist that their congregations would not comply with synod’s decisions.  While this may not be an accurate interpretation of the public statements of every church in this group, it is not unreasonable to recognize that synod did not have the time during its meeting to carefully investigate the motives for every protest.  Therefore it needed another mechanism to insure compliance with synodical decisions and denominational covenants in a situation which Church Order does not directly address.

It found that mechanism in “limited suspension.”  While it could be argued that synod was not as specific as it could have been, or that its decisions may not align perfectly with Church Order, even our understanding of confessional subscription recognizes that our human attempts to apply God’s Word are not always stated in the best possible manner, or that every possible situation is addressed, or that there may be some areas of uncertainty around the edges of these decisions (Church Order Supplement, Article 5, A.2-3).  If this is our understanding of confessional subscription, how much more would these limitations not apply to difficult synodical decisions! 

As churches wrestle with these matters, therefore, we need to be gentle with one another and with synod (see the closing remarks of synod president Derek Buikema, Acts of Synod 2024, p. 950).  Some congregations feel like they have been judged without a hearing, and criticize synod for painting with such broad strokes. But it is also possible for those same churches and classes to paint all of synod’s actions in the worst possible light.  Instead, we encourage our denomination to understand these polity discussions in the context of our larger commitments to bear witness together to the gospel of Jesus Christ, to meet our neighbors (including our LGBTQ+ neighbors) with the grace of Christ, and to recognize our need to set our own understandings of the gospel in the light of the wider church of Christ. 

It is our hope that this guidance will help all members of the CRCNA, with the help of the Holy Spirit, work towards these goals to the honor of the Triune God.