What is this FAQ about? 

This FAQ is about one of the first denominations that gets named in response to that question What’s next?

It's about the denomination folk refer to as “the obvious choice” – perhaps even “the most natural and fitting choice.” 

It's about the Reformed Church in America – the RCA.

Who is this FAQ for?

This FAQ is meant to be an accessible resource for ministers, council leaders, elders, deacons, and church members all.

May I share this FAQ?

Absolutely.  Share the link or this pdf.

What is the goal of this FAQ?

The goal of this FAQ is to help CRC folk understand why the RCA is so quickly identified as the likely denomination for disaffiliating congregations to join after disaffiliation.  And, in all transparency, our aim is to lay out, explain, and even make the case for joining the RCA. 

That said, the goal of this FAQ is not to short-circuit any CRC congregation’s process of discerning what might be next for them after disaffiliating from the CRC. 

There are multiple denominations US and Canadian CRC churches might consider settling into (for example, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Presbyterian Church of Canada,….) and resources for exploring those other likely denominations are forthcoming in another online venue. 

But this is the crc2rca site.  So here we’re clarifying the case for joining the RCA.

Who prepared this FAQ?

This FAQ has been collaboratively prepared by two CRC ministers, one retired and one active, who are transferring their ordination to the RCA.  We love the Church, and we love its Reformed expression. 

To minimize the risk of misleading you, our reader, we borrowed from the work of Rev. Daniel Meeter, a longtime minister in the RCA who has deep connections in both the RCA and the CRC.  His article "Thirty Differences between the RCA and the CRC" and his manuscript for "And I Thought I Knew You! The RCA and the CRC" (prepared as a course for the Calvin [University] Academy of Lifelong Learning) are great resources for getting a feel for the RCA if you’re CRC. 

Then we invited not only Daniel, but also two CRC historians (Lyle Bierma and James Bratt), to read a draft of our FAQ and give us feedback.

What topics are covered in this FAQ?

In this FAQ we cover a variety of topics, including history, theology, and a little polity.  Because they are of particular interest to CRC congregations, we also cover in more detail church-building ownership and the participation of LGBTQ+ Christians in the life of the Church. 

So, why is the RCA named as the obvious denomination to join?

The short answer is that, in the Church Universal on earth, the CRC and the RCA are really siblings -- close siblings.  In history, theology, and practice, we are not each other’s cousins, but virtually twins. 

What makes the CRC and the RCA virtual twins?

Daniel Meeter lists twelve common features:

1. Our histories are so intertwined that you can’t tell the story of one denomination without talking about the other one.

2. Our doctrinal standards are so overlapping that both denominations jointly publish them in a single book, Our Faith.  This little book is in the pews, libraries, and council rooms of many CRC and RCA churches.

3. Our forms of worship are so similar that we share a common hymnal, Lift Up Your Hearts.

4. We share a unique version of a “presbyterian” form of church government that includes the three offices of minister, elder, and deacon.  In our two denominations, the roles of ministers, elders, and deacons are virtually identical.

5. Our local churches hold full title to their property, and – unlike churches in Presbyterian denominations – churches do not hold the title “in trust” for the denomination.

6. The “Pella Accord,” adopted in a joint session of the RCA and CRC Synods (2014), involves a sweeping mutual commitment to unity in theology and practice.  This accord was built on the "Orderly Exchange of Ordained Ministers" (2005) that allows for the unconditional freedom of ministers to transfer between the two denominations.

7. We share the “Reformed Benefits Association” for ministers’ health benefits.  We’ve also collaborated on a variety of denominational resources, such as Sunday School and adult education materials, disability concerns, social justice, safe church, and world relief.

8. We share a high view of Biblical authority and covenant theology that emphasizes the continuity of the Old and New Testaments in Jesus Christ.

9. We share a general conservativism.  That is, we both came relatively late to admitting women to church office and then to facing questions of LGBTQ+ inclusion.

10. We are both now fully North Americanized. Though uniquely shaped by each their own historical beginning, we’ve both developed an approach to faithfully bearing witness within the broader North American culture.

11. We confess and adhere to the ecumenical Creeds. We share an understanding of belief in the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” We see our churches as “reformed” versions of the one community of faith from the beginning of the world to its end.

12. We share the belief that the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are more than mere memorials, that they are first and foremost actions of God and means of grace, that they are covenantal signs, and that “Jesus Christ is the truth of them.”

If the RCA and CRC are so similar, then why are we separate?

History and attitude.

The separation began in 1857.  With only four congregations and two ministers, the CRC split from the RCA.  Rivers of ink have been spilled to answer the question why.  There’s more nuance to the story, but it's not wrong to point to the CRC and the RCA’s irreconcilable differences over hymn singing, open communion, Christian Schools, and lodge membership.  

Then in the 1880s huge waves of Dutch immigrants came to North America.  Most of those who were church-goers became part of the CRC over against the RCA because of the CRC’s firm resistance to lodge membership and a common affinity for the thought of Abraham Kuyper. 

The historical result is that in the late 19th century, the RCA and the CRC settled into deep difference.  By this time in its already 200-year history, the RCA was quite at home in its North American context and enjoying its own Gilded Age while recent Dutch immigrants, new to the North American context, were suspicious of both North American culture and the way the RCA seemed to fit in.  Having become part of the CRC, these more recent immigrants saw their resistance to assimilation into the USA and into the RCA as a mark of their own theological faithfulness.

In short, most historians agree that the CRC’s departure and distinction from the RCA was fundamentally the CRC’s attempt to resist Americanization.  

It’s the 21st century.  The CRC today is fully assimilated into North American culture. So that specific difference with the RCA no longer exists.  How could we understand and characterize our difference now?

Daniel Meeter argues that the early histories of the two denominations baked into them quite different ways of being church in the world, and we each show these differences today.

The RCA, Meeter argues, is more ecumenical and generous, less critical and judgmental of other Christians. The RCA was America’s first denomination, serving everyone in lower Manhattan. Navigating later differences between the RCA in the East and Midwest required a more generous and tolerant posture toward the “other.” Even in its governance, the RCA has a Constitution that functions more as testimony than judge—as testimony of God’s gift of doctrine, worship, and church order to the RCA more than judge and jury of other Christians.

The CRC, by contrast, was created to resist such tolerance. Its identity was more defensive, more separatist, more tribal, with all the inclusion and exclusion that goes with a tribe. The CRC was proud to say, “In isolation is our strength.” Christian schools unwittingly reinforced this isolation. The RCA was always comfortable with “American” Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts, and youth ministry models devised in other traditions. The CRC was suspicious of anything that was not “distinctively Reformed,” and always sought to guard and perpetuate its tribe with its own Calvinist version of everything: Calvin Seminary, Calvin College, Calvinist Contact, Calvinist Cadet Corp, Calvinettes.

Daniel Meeter suggests that our different ways of being church in the world is illustrated even by the names the CRC and the RCA have given their organizations that advocate for LGBTQ+ affirmation and participation in the church: All One Body (CRC) and Room for All (RCA). 

The all-one-body “habit,” as Meeter calls it, appeals to the longstanding homogeneity of the CRC.  At times, the uniformity of its subculture has been generative and creative, and at other times, critical and exclusive. The all-one-body emphasis has led many CRC synods (not just recent ones) to outlaw disagreement and force compliance of all members and congregations. In this “habit,” uniformity and orthodoxy go hand in hand.

By contrast, the RCA habit is more room-for-all. Again, the RCA has had to learn to be more inclusive from the beginning and throughout its history. Just one more immigration. Growing out of that room-for-all posture, the RCA today is generously ecumenical including membership in both the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches. The RCA’s habit has tended more toward unity and inclusion than homogeneity and purity.

So compared to the difference between the CRC and the RCA in the past, is the difference between the two denominations greater or smaller today?

We just noted that the two denominations have long differed in their approaches to how to be church in the world.  There is little doubt that this difference has grown in recent years.

Put it this way:  The RCA and CRC have both become more extreme versions of themselves.  The RCA is increasingly determined to allow for diverse views, and the CRC is increasingly determined to demand uniformity in its quest for purity. 

To illustrate this, consider:

In recent years, the RCA has lost nearly half of its members.  Those who left tried, in vain, to change the RCA Constitution in order to make the denomination officially non-affirming of same-sex marriage.  It’s the Constitution of the RCA – which limits the reach of synods, and protects consistories and classes from synods taking too much power – that held firm. 

A point of pride in RCA polity has been that “the church has no police.”  When the Constitution held firm, nearly half of RCA members concluded that the lack of police when it came to LGBTQ matters was unacceptable. So they left the denomination. The RCA still has many members who hold a traditional view of marriage; but those who remain do not believe that different views of marriage should be church-dividing.

By contrast, in recent years, the CRC has moved in exactly the opposite direction.  Its recent synods have outlawed disagreement far beyond just LGBTQ matters, disregarded longstanding church order restraints upon synod’s power over local congregations and individuals, and made decisions regarding personal conscience (gravamina), discipline and church order that have effectively purged from the CRC dozens of congregations, including but not limited to LGBTQ affirming congregations.

In sum, because of the impact of the differences ‘baked into’ each of our denominations since the late 19th century, the difference between the RCA and CRC now is arguably greater than ever before.

Do the differences ‘baked into’ our denominations over the last 175 years threaten the health and sustenance of CRC congregations joining the RCA now?

Only time will tell, yet there is reason to be full of hope.

Those of us who have been in conversation with folk in the RCA about receiving ministers have experienced extraordinary welcome and hospitality.  Folk in the RCA are glad of our joining them, and look forward to the likelihood of welcoming congregations.  They’re expecting that we will bring our formation, experience, and way of being Reformed with us into the RCA.  They’re expecting that there will be ways – as yet unknown – that we will impact one another, and that there will be change for both us and them. 

Such an amiable outlook on the part of the RCA sounds promising for the health and sustenance of formerly CRC congregations, no?

That sounds a little like a merger.  Is that how we could think of what’s happening between migrating CRC congregations and the RCA?

No. ‘Merger’ doesn’t really fit.  It also doesn’t really fit to imagine that the migration of a particular group of formerly CRC congregations into the RCA right now is on par with ‘a historic coming-together of two denominations.’

Then how else might we think and speak of what’s happening?

We suggest that what's happening right now for churches that migrate to the RCA is something of a repentant return to the RCA.   

What's really at play in this moment is a return to the RCA by a small group of CRCs who have been effectively purged from the CRC and who, in leaving the CRC, are arguably repudiating the very hyper-emphasis on purity and uniformity that led the CRC to leave its mother, the RCA, in the first place! 

In framing the current situation this way, the return of former CRCs to their mother church is more like an act of repentance, a humble acknowledgement that the tribalist and separatist tendencies of the CRC have been deeply problematic. 

At its best, this return of CRC exiles to their mother church could be a rare opportunity in church history to reverse a schism that arguably never should have happened.

Interesting.  Why might thinking of what’s happening as ‘a repentant return’ be healthier and more helpful?

It seems to us this allows us all to lament and accept the past, and to live forward as part of the RCA more faithfully.  

At one and the same time we can acknowledge differences between the RCA and the CRC, and we can celebrate the gifts and strengths the Holy Spirit has showered upon each denomination.  Whether it’s the adaptability of those first RCA leaders in lower Manhattan, or the grounding force of the RCA’s Constitution, or the sweeping vision of the Belhar as a full confession in the RCA, or the CRC’s strong kingdom orientation inspired by Kuyper, or hard-fought doctrinal clarity over the nature of Scripture, or the CRC’s development of the office of deacon as the church’s strong arm for practicing justice and mercy, or . . . .  

The bottom line is that the RCA as a whole and the CRC congregations aspiring to join the RCA have, by God’s grace, many gifts and strengths to offer to one another and to the world.  We CRC folk will participate this offering best if we begin with repentant hope.

That’s been helpful a helpful overview, but there are still two prominent issues to address:   the ownership of church property and the RCA General Synod’s published policy against same-sex marriage.

Agreed.  

It will be most helpful if we offer long, careful responses to these issues, each in turn. 

So, who owns the local church’s property in the RCA?  Should CRC folk be concerned that joining the RCA means losing control over their local church property?

In the RCA, the consistory (i.e., the body comprising both elders and deacons, which is the body we in the CRC refer to as the council) of the local church, not the classis or denomination, holds deed to the local church’s property. 

It’s important to add, however, that there are certain local church actions/decisions related to church property that require the approval of the church’s classis.  These actions/decisions include: 

• Taking on significant debt or selling the building.  The classis’ primary interest in approving these important actions/decisions is to attend well to the stability, health, and integrity of the local church and its ministry.

• Leaving the RCA.  In this case, the local church desiring to leave the denomination must petition its classis for approval.  The interest of the classis in this circumstance is not to constrain a church from leaving, but to ensure proper process and accountability in leaving the RCA and joining another part of the body of Christ.

• Disbanding.  In this case, the ownership of the church property becomes vested in the classis. The classis then bears responsibility for maintaining the property, or disposing it, or etc. 

Again, in each of these circumstances, the classis’ interest is exclusively the welfare of the local church and the kingdom of God. 

In recent years, the CRC increasingly has experienced abuses of power and other unhealthy, even toxic, situations in local churches.  In many such situations, greater classical authority and accountability – such as exists in the RCA – may well have been helpful. The RCA is wise enough to understand that there are rarely “winners” in disputes over church property.  That is why, according to one well-respected RCA leader in these matters, these classical approval mechanisms have been invoked rarely in the RCA, and then only in egregious and painful situations that truly require the pastoral intervention of classis.

The main thing to understand is that the local church owns its property.  Any approval process that an RCA classis has in relationship to a local church’s property arises out of the RCA’s understanding of the covenantal nature of the church, not out of a concept of classical or denominational ownership of church property per se.  The RCA’s current “Gracious Separation” policy, which removes from the table any questions about church property for churches who feel they must leave the RCA, is evidence of the RCA’s pastoral intent for church property procedures.  Key people in the RCA predict that the “Gracious Separation” policy will become the default policy of most classes in the future.

In sum, the RCA wants to be accommodating in matters concerning church property.  The RCA does not want its polity and policies concerning church property to be an unnecessary stumbling block for CRC churches that are thinking about affiliating with the RCA.  

If you seek further explanation of RCA polity related to church property, read this short, detailed article "Church Property Ownership in the Reformed Church in America," by Howard Moths, Stated Clerk, RCA Regional Synod of the Great Lakes.  Notice its reference to a “Covenant of Agreement,” by which churches may petition their classis for exceptions to or clarifications of RCA church property policies that they find particularly unreasonable or troublesome.

Finally, what about the RCA General Synod’s published policy against same-sex marriage? Why would affirming CRC congregations being disaffiliated from the CRC join another Reformed denomination that does not unequivocally honor the full participation of LGBTQ+ and same-sex married members in the life of the church?

On the face of it, it is true that a General Synod of the RCA has affirmed a traditional view of marriage.  However, the power and governance of an RCA General Synod is very different than that of a CRC Synod.  This is why a CRC congregation affirming full participation (or even a CRC congregation that does not affirm full participation) and disaffiliating from the CRC might well affiliate with the RCA and feel confident about their posture and practice on this issue.

This answer deserves a fuller explanation to understand its application. 

What follows has been vetted with Daniel Meeter, Matthew van Maastricht, and Noah Livingston, experts on the history of the RCA and its Book of Church Order. 

The place to begin is with a succinct appraisal of a singularly important difference in polity between the two denominations. As James Payton puts it: “The CRC is a synodical denomination, while the RCA is a constitutional denomination. And that is an essential difference.”

To reinforce the difference this makes for ‘being church’ in the RCA now and into the future, consider:

The distribution of power among Assemblies in the RCA.

While the CRC locates authority mostly in its synod and local councils, the RCA Constitution locates authority mostly in its classes. In the RCA, classes are not “under” General Synod, and the RCA’s General Synod cannot instruct classes to do something. Neither can one General Synod tell a subsequent General Synod what they must do. While the RCA’s General Synod can propose significant changes, those changes have to be treated as amendments to the Constitution, and amendments require ratification by 2/3rds of all classes and approval by a second General Synod. So, while General Synod has indeed made statements against same sex marriage, these statements have only the weight of being advisory. They are not binding on classes or consistories. The new structure that the RCA is in the middle of adopting reiterates that matters of ordination are the purview of classes, and matters of marriage, membership, and baptism are the purview of local councils/consistories.

A history of failures to amend the RCA’s Constitution.

There were many in the RCA who sought as swift and sure a “solution” to sexuality matters as what happened in the CRC. In the RCA, this sort of clarity would reside in changing the Constitution. Multiple efforts were made over the last 15 years to change the RCA’s Constitution to make the denomination officially non-affirming.

Two examples of these attempts are telling: 

First there was an attempt to make the RCA’s wedding liturgy legally binding, because the wedding liturgy includes the historic phrase “marriage is between a man and a woman.” But the use of the wedding liturgy has always been discretionary and optional. 

Another attempt was made in 2019 to amend the Constitution by adding a “Great Lakes Catechism” to the doctrinal standards, which explicitly prohibited same-sex marriage. 

Both of these attempts failed. The inability to enshrine an anti-affirming theological stance into the RCA’s Constitution is what prompted a number of conservative RCA churches and leaders to leave over the last few years.

The RCA’s ongoing commitment to a “both-and” posture.

Many CRC congregations who are weighing the option of joining the RCA have difficulty understanding why the RCA does not move to strike the General Synod’s statements against same-sex marriage. 

First, it’s important to reiterate the point made above, namely, that synodical decisions in the RCA, unlike the CRC, are not “settled and binding” because they are not part of the Constitution.  They are the mind of that most recent General Synod, and any subsequent General Synod may affirm otherwise or make a new “official position” which, once again, is not binding on classes or consistories.  The status and binding authority of synodical decisions in the RCA and the CRC are not comparable.

Second, it’s important to understand that the General Synod’s policy against same-sex marriage has helped the RCA live out its commitment to make room for both the traditional view of marriage and same-sex marriage.  The General Synod’s statement against same-sex marriage assures people with a traditional view of marriage that there is room and safety for them in the RCA even though that synodical policy is not binding on classes or consistories.  At the same time, the constitutional power of any classis to bless same-sex marriage policies within its classis with no interference from Synod or another classis assures people who favor same-sex marriage that there is room and safety for them in the RCA. Generally speaking, neither traditionalists nor progressives who remain in the RCA today believe that differences regarding marriage need be church-dividing, thereby creating a safe and hospitable ministry context for RCA people with a wide range of views on marriage.

This has been helpful.  Are there other resources to read and share?

Yes, linked below and elsewhere on this site:

"Thirty Differences between the RCA and the CRC" by Daniel Meeter

"And I Thought I Knew You! The RCA and the CRC" by Daniel Meeter, manuscripts prepared for a course for the Calvin [University] Academy of Lifelong Learning; includes additional reading materials, some as links to short articles online (November 2024)

A recording of the January 15, 2025, crc2rca Zoominar in which four RCA experts on RCA history and polity conversationally engage topics and questions presented by CRC folk.    

The RCA's site How to Join the RCA as a Church.

Finally, here's a pdf of this FAQ.