This came out of a discussion on CRC Voices. Jason quipped that the descendants of Reformed Journal crowd is leading the CRC today. I’m not exactly sure who that would be?
One of the most telling piece written about the CRC was James Schaap’s piece written for the 150th anniversary. Link and quote from my blog: https://paulvanderklay.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/quotes-from-schaaps-150th-crc-anniversary-piece/ The central thesis of the piece is that identity and definition has been swamped by the surrounding culture that the CRC no longer has the kind of internal identity or cohesion to control it’s own church economy. The CRC is in a position similar to how I experienced the Dominican Republic. The DR wants to have its own national identity, it’s own culture, it’s own currency. It wants to have a sense of national self-determination but given it’s proximity to its much more powerful neighbor, the United States, and given how much of its economy is tied to the US, and how many of its people live in the US or have lived in the US, it struggles to have the kind of independence and autonomy that loyalists hunger for. The CRC is simply swamped by the agendas, trends, realities and dynamics of the broader world. We discuss and fight over what the rest of folks outside the CRC fight over. Our agenda is no longer our own.
I would count myself along with Rod and Bill Vis. and some others as “CRC Leaders”. We’ve held positions of power on agency boards. We’ve had a say in denominational policy and practice. We’ve got influence in CRC networks like Home Missions, Classis, etc. Nothing any of us do compares to what we saw in the past. Right now the CRC is lead by people like us, thousands of them, who work in small ways and in relatively quiet places. That’s not a bad thing.
The CRC used to create central institutional platforms for leaders and that kind of leadership worked. Part of this is because institutions don’t work today in our culture like they used to in the first half of the 20th century. Right now we don’t have the kind of central leadership figures that I think we saw in past generations.
The central institutions of the CRC: Calvin Seminary, The Banner Editor, are simply diluted by the overall dilution of the denominational identity. Most of those leadership figures led from those positions. As I’ve noted before many who might be candidates for such leadership positions (many were philosophers ironically) Richard Mouw, Nick Woltersdorf, Alvin Plantinga, Lew Smedes (a generation ago now) left to serve non-CRC institutions.
The Executive Director position was designed to create a kind of central leader voice, platform and position to serve the denomination. Cal Bremer was the heir apparent until he stepped out and Jerry Dykstra who was to be the DDM got elevated to the ED position. I have my doubts as to whether the ED position CAN be a platform for the kind of leadership it is intended to deliver upon. Part of the logic behind the Bremmer appointment was that his visibility and credibility earned through his media ministry would be carried over into the position allowing him to be “the voice” of the denomination and using that voice be able to cast vision, give direction and help move the denomination as a whole, not just the institutional expression at 2850 some cohesion. It was hoped that this would increase denominational loyalty and identity.
I think a second attempt at this was the appointment of Neal Plantinga to the president’s position at Calvin Seminary. Neal brought to the position an established national reputation as a Christian thinker and writer and the goal was to leverage that reputation, and to use his considerable gifts and reputation as speaker, lecturer and writer to re-capture some of what was seen and exercised by past leadership. Neal has tremendous credibility across the CRC spectrum and when he spoke people listened. I think Neal’s tenure at CTS was successful especially in a number of areas that specifically involved raising the credibility of CTS among CRC clergy and the base of the church. CTS began to put out a magazine for broader distribution in the churches that was designed to give a platform for the seminary staff to assist people in the pews on topics of interest for the church. I thought these were almost universally well done, but the lack of attention I think they got among many people in the church highlights a lot of what Schaap points out that the times have changed. In past years such piece would have gained widespread leadership, discussion, critique and commentary over coffee after church and around council rooms. Not today. Print media, even well done, does not have the kind of influence it had two generations ago.
Can a CRC leader emerge that will once again help bring identity, self-definition and cohesion to the denomination?
Skye Jethani wrote a nice piece on the CT Out of Ur blog about the Evangelical Industrial Complex that is worth reading. http://www.outofur.com/archives/2012/02/the_evangelical.html http://www.outofur.com/archives/2012/02/the_evangelical_1.html
Look at the recognizable leaders in the broader Evangelical and Reformed world? The Jethani piece nicely notes why megachurch pastors become these leaders. We see some of this in the CRC too. Two recent appointments in have gone to church planters who grew churches that are large for the CRC space: Jul Medenblik and Larry Doornbos. Also note the appointment of Tom De Vries to the top RCA position. The CRC and RCA are tending to follow (again, Schaap’s thesis) the national cultural trends in terms of how we recognize credibility and leadership. If you look at the past generation of leaders: Peter Borgdorff and Joel Boot you saw leaders who climbed the old, established path for insider leadership development: gain broad pastoral experience, be active at classis and synod, do institutional tasks within these groups, get a larger, influential colony congregation in Western Michigan, etc. This was how you would be known and get known in the CRC.
If these trends continue probably the only way we’ll see the kind of leadership that Snapper is looking for to reverse the trends will be someone who:
1. Has gained credibility and visibility by leading a CRC church to dramatic numerical growth. Given the Snapper thesis this would most likely happen in West Michigan
2. Has gained national reputation and credibility through writing, speaking, blogging and social media
3. Has the kind of message and voice to unify sufficiently rather than having the CRC tribe break up into its usual warring factions
4. Help the CRC develop enough of a distinct and helpful identity to help it attract significant influx influence the voice of enough CRC pastors and pulpits and councils to attract non-CRC people to CRC churches and non-CRC churches to affiliate with the CRC.
5. Stays in the CRC and continues to identity with it.
It is noteworthy to consider how someone like Rob Bell did by growing a church in Western Michigan, but of course he wasn’t CRC nor would he have been able to work within it.
What is the likelihood of such a thing? It could happen. It’s very rare, however. pvk
Leadingchurch.com 
Okay, Paul, I like the article, but I’m thinking your 4 requirements for a “rare” leader are missing something. Particularly #4, which seems to place lots of importance on “shuffling the Christian deck”. Have we lost faith that the church can grow and leadership clout can be gained the old-fashioned way – by making disciples of all nations? If our only goal in our next ED is to find someone who can “attract significant influx influence the voice of enough CRC pastors and pulpits and councils to attract non-CRC people to CRC churches and non-CRC churches to affiliate with the CRC”, I think we need to check ourselves – that puts us sorely out of line with the Great Commission.
Good point, although “non-CRC” people are non-Christians too. 🙂 Thanks for your comment. pvk
Hmm, where to start… The thesis seems correct to me. “The central thesis of the piece is that identity and definition has been swamped by the surrounding culture that the CRC no longer has the kind of internal identity or cohesion to control it’s own church economy.” However, it does not seem clear that one leader would be able to unify an ever diversifying group of people. Perhaps more systemic change is needed. Here are a few trends that I believe work against the internal identity or cohesion within the CRC. 1. An easing of the requirements for non-CTS graduates to become CRC ministers. 2. A rapidly changing racial profile (in my church, new frequent attenders last year: one couple from Dutch background, an indonesian couple, a Taiwanese woman, and a Nigerian woman.) 3. The outragous and out of control tuition rate increases at Calvin College. At close to 30K, no family in my congregation with a grade 12 student even considers a Calvin education. But it is at Calvin that you brush up against the creative, intellectual, forward thinking side of the CRC. Sure we are in Canada, but we faithfully pay minstry shares just like everyone else to support a school that we cannot afford for ourselves. Calvin by the way is bringing in a non-CRC president, which will further impact internal identity and cohesion. 4. The wide range of different materials available for curriculm, Bible studies etc. 5. Different Bibles, we don’t even read the same translation of the scripture across the CRC. 6. Different liturgical styles, we worship in vastly different ways.
As for a solution: We gotta get together more often. We got lots of good things going. There is nothing wrong with the five things I have listed. (except maybe Calvin Tuition). But we need more of our children involved at all levels, including more of our children at Calvin College, or Dordt or Redeemer or Trinity. We need 2 or three weeks at Synod rather than just one. After a couple of days with people you hardly know, how can you make profound and meaningful decisions about pressing issues like the Belhar Confession? Synod of Dort met for almost a year to tease out the doctrine of election.
But we don’t need more virtual getting together. We need to breathe eachother’s air, inhabit eachother’s churches, drink eachother’s wine and eat eachother’s bread. Perhaps then the leadership we need will emerge. Such leadership would be a patient leadership in a “I want it now” world, that recognizes that becoming part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church takes time.
The trouble is, as North Americans, we are becoming more independant and isolated all the time. Even google isolates us, by figuring out what results to show us and then hiding a much wider range of ideas and information.
Does holding up church planters who grow up massive churches as the leaders make sense? Many of us pastors will never do that. Many of us pastors are probably not called to do that. Instead we spend our time with grieving widows, with anxious older people and with small congregations that always seem to have just enough resources to get by.
As I write this I realize that I don’t know who you are. You don’t know me. Perhaps we should meet. This would be a small way to overcome the threats to internal cohesion.
Thanks for reading,
Nate Van Denend
Nice to meet you (sort of) Nate. When I see a “Van Denend” name a bit of Dutch bingo impulse sets in.
Thanks for your comment. I very much agree that in many ways the bedrock of a community is sharing life together. pvk