Grappling with Gravamina - Part 1 | Correction or Exception?

Written by Lora A. Copley

If you find the denominational discussion over gravamen confusing, you aren’t alone. The word is foreign. The process is foreign. And to muddle matters more, we are hearing two different understandings of what gravamen is for. 

Some say gravamen is for correction. It is a process designed for officebearers either to correct the confessions or to be corrected by them. These folks contend when someone signs the CRC’s Covenant for Officebearers, they agree to the content of our Three Forms of Unity. 

Other folks say CRC officebearers don’t have to agree to things in our confessions they aren’t sure about or have a conscientious objection to. They argue that a confessional-difficulty gravamen is a provision for a kind of functional exception. Conflicted officebearers won’t publicly go against the official teaching of the church, but they can make their vows with certain council-adjudicated exceptions of reservation or dissent. 

Correction or exception—what is it? 

Even though the debate gets confusing, we must wade in. Not only is the well-being of a denomination at stake but so is the well-being of people we respect and care for. 

In this two-part essay, I argue for the first view, the correction view, and against the exception view. I think the correction view better aligns with our denominational history and the text of the Church Order (part 1) and this view better aligns with the witness of Scripture and wisdom for healthy communities (part 2). In the end, I also think the ‘gravamen-as-correction’ better respects people and their convictions as well. 

I’m grateful we have the gathered deliberative body of Synod 2024 to discern these weighty matters in full. But until then, let’s take into account 1) a simple history, 2) a simple polity, 3) a simple testimony, and 4) a simple¹ instruction. 

Simple History.²

A quick flyover of our history shows our denomination has not been warm to exceptions. 

1. 1830s Our spiritual ancestors leave the Dutch state church, in part, because the Dutch state church allows its ministers to take exceptions to the confessions. 

2. 1857 At the CRC’s founding, officebearers “unconditionally” subscribe to the confessions. 

3. 1946 Synod1946 considers two options that would allow for an exception for a professor with a differing view from the Forms of Unity. Synod rejects both options.³

4. 1952 Synod agrees that “all ministers, elders and deacons, professors of Calvin College and Seminary, as well as many Christian School teachers are required to express their unqualified agreement with the confession.”  (emphasis original.)⁴ This understanding is reinforced in Banner articles in the 1960s.⁵

5. 1967 The CRC’s Revised Church Order Commentary, by VanDellen & Monsma, gives two avenues for a gravamen, namely, either “revising the creeds if need be, or else attempting to convince the erring brother concerning his misinterpretation of God’s Word.” (pg 39). 

6. 1976/ 1983 Synod 1976 declares gravamen to be of two categories: confessional-difficulty and confessional-revision. Synod also engages a pastor with his confessional-difficulty gravamen, setting up a forum for his difficulty.⁶ The pastor knows this confessional-difficulty gravamen is no exemption because afterward, in 1976 and 1983, he publicly recognized and lamented that he had no option for procuring an exception.⁷

7. 2004 Classis BC South East indicates churches are setting aside the Form of Subscription because they have difficulty signing it. If a route of exception, via a confessional-difficulty gravamen, was available, why not take that route rather than not to sign at all? 

8. 2012  Synod changes the name of our 100-year-old Form of Subscription to the “Covenant for Officebearers”, yet does not change the strength of our vows. Officebearers must continue to promise to heartily believe, promote, and defend the CRC’s doctrinal standards, conforming belief and practice to them, and submitting to the church's judgment.  

Simple Text of Church Order.⁸

Not only the history of our actions above, but the simple text of the Church Order itself also argues for a correction view and against the exception view. 

The Church Order says anyone signing the Covenant for Officebearers, “affirms without reservation all the doctrines contained in the standards of the church are doctrines taught in the Word of God.”  There is nothing in our Church Order about conscientious objection. 

The Church Order also determines that “no one is free to decide for oneself or for the church what is and what is not a doctrine confessed in the standards…[It is] the decision of the assemblies of the church.” 

Finally, and specifically regarding confessional-difficulty gravamen, the Church Order explains “this type of gravamen is a personal request for information and/or clarification of the confession.” The language of “request” and “clarification” invites a process of correction; exceptions are process-killers. What the Church Order permits is difficulty towards understanding; not a finalized stance of objection cemented down as an exception.  

“But Lora,” a countering voice argues, “just because it was this way or is this way, doesn’t prove that it should be. Think about the friends involved. Consider their gifts. What is best for them? What is best for our denominational needs? 

And think of the nuances of various types of doctrines—millennial views are different than the nature of salvation, and both are different than matters of who we sleep with-- what prioritization are making so we don’t flatten all doctrine?⁹  Are you saying wrestling is not allowed? And what does Scripture say?” 

Good questions. Maybe the best questions. We’ll pick them in up part 2.  

---

Lora A. Copley is blessed to be a wife, a mother to four children and an ordained minister in the Christian Reformed Church. She serves as a director for Areopagus Campus Ministry, a ministry of the CRC classes of Iowa at Iowa State University.

1. The word “simple” is important to this debate. “Simple” comes from “sim-plex,” meaning “onefold,” without parts. It is a beautiful word. It’s a yes to wholeness. It’s a no to doubleness or compartments (think du-plex or duplicity). God’s Word lovingly calls His people to simplicity and singleness. In math terms, we are to be integers, not fractions.

2. Huge credit where credit is due. This bulleted history is my snapshot summary of Cedric Parsels’ excellent series of articles A More Accurate History. If you haven’t delved into the details yet, Cedric has done his homework and explains the story expertly. You can begin reading here or listen here. I encourage Cedric’s  audible version; if you have an hour drive ahead of you, or an hour of laundry (and who doesn’t?), it’s well worth your time. 

3. One of the options the study committee of 1945 presented to Synod was that the professor (D.H. Kromminga) could openly advocate for his differing belief provided he did so, in a “hypothetical manner.” However, Synod said this option would “immediately set a precedent and the door would be open for anyone in our ministry to voice dissenting views from any statement or doctrine which the church professes in its Forms of Unity, provided he do so in a same hypothetical manner.” (Acts of Synod 1946, Art 136, pg 102). (See Parsels, Part II: The Kromminga Case.)

4. Acts of Synod 1952, Art 137, pg 68. 

5. “Every officebearer in the [CRC] binds or commits himself wholeheartedly.”  Editor Rev John VanderPloeg (1960) “The wording [of our vows] precludes that the honest signer has mental reservations. The Form does not tolerate a formal or hypocritical signing.”  Rev Conrad Veenstra (1966).  For more on the Banner references and interesting background, see Parsels, Part III: The 1950s and 1960s.

6. See Acts of Synod 1976, Art. 68., p.75.  For background, see Parsels, “Part IV- The Boer Case (1975-1977).”

7. Harry Boer, the pastor in question, wrote this: “Either [officebearers] sign their name to incontestable error and to doctrines that stand in the shadow of great and acknowledged uncertainty as fully agreeing with the Word of God, or they refuse office or leave it….  There is nothing in that statement about…exemptions.” (Harry Boer, article in The Reformed Journal, Dec 1976.)    Boer repeated a similar sentiment in his 1983 book The Doctrine of Reprobation in the CRC. See Parsels again for more.  

8. Quotes in this section are from the CRC Church Order, Article 5. A.1; Article 5.A.3; and Article 5.B.2 respectively.

9. To get insight on this, read Finding the Right Hills to Die On by Gavin Ortlund. Small book, huge help!