For those who worship in a United Reformed Church congregation, the federation has deep roots stretching back to controversies in the Christian Reformed Church. Understanding the formation of the URCNA in 1996 requires examining the theological crisis that was brewing in the CRC during the 1980s and early 1990s.
When discussing the formation of the URC, women's ordination often gets highlighted as the primary issue. While understandable—it was the most visible controversy affecting every church—it was more symptom than cause, and more evidence of deeper theological concerns than the root problem itself.
The fundamental issue governing the CRC's trajectory in the post-World War II period was biblical authority and confessional fidelity. This wasn't a problem that emerged suddenly in the 1980s, but had been developing, surfacing, and resurfacing in different forms for decades.
The pattern began early. In 1952, almost the entire faculty of Calvin Seminary was dismissed. Officially, the dismissal was attributed to personality differences and faculty discord. In reality, it reflected fundamental differences in perspective and approach regarding the use of confessions in theological study at the seminary.
A more progressive faction within the faculty resisted requiring that seminary professors had been trained at reformed institutions where the reformed confessions shaped their education. The conservative confessional wing of the faculty, concerned to retain the CRC's confessional integrity, advocated that Calvin Seminary establish its own PhD or Doctor of Theology degree to ensure thoroughly confessional training for future professors.
Synod in 1952 chose to characterize the disruption as merely a personality conflict. But deeper issues were at work—issues that would surface repeatedly in the CRC's subsequent history.
From the early 1960s through the 1980s, the CRC faced a series of controversies over the nature of Scripture. Repeatedly, Synod appointed study committees to examine questions of Scripture's inspiration and authority.
The cycle began with a 1961 study committee report that was generally well received. It was prompted by a complaint against seminary president John Kromminga, charging that he had compromised the doctrine of plenary inspiration by distinguishing between Scripture's center and periphery. Kromminga had suggested that peripheral material—historical records and other texts—might be characterized by inaccuracies, approximations, or even exaggeration.
The 1961 report on the inspiration and authority of Scripture represented the consensus of the church at that time. However, it didn't settle the matter. A subsequent series of study committee reports kept reopening fundamental questions about biblical authority.
The most controversial was Report 44 in the early 1970s. (The name becomes confusing because multiple reports received this designation—one addressed biblical authority, while a later Report 44 dealt with office and ordination.)
The early 1970s Report 44 was heavily disputed within the CRC. While some conservatives endorsed it, many confessionally-minded members and office bearers found even its title—"the nature and extent of biblical authority"—problematic, as it seemed to imply limitations on Scripture's authority.
The report emphasized reading the Bible with an understanding of its redemptive purpose. It affirmed that the history recorded in Scripture must not be compromised in its historical reality—it's a faithful record of God's acts in redemptive history. However, the report noted that this history has a focus: biblical writers highlighted certain events while passing over others. Scripture is not secular history.
This report became the basis for further controversy in the late 1980s, when professors at Calvin College and Seminary appealed to it to question the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis.
Among the multiple controversies swirling in the CRC during this period, significant attention focused on the account of creation in Genesis 1. But this was part of a larger set of issues concerning scriptural interpretation, maintaining a high view of biblical authority (sola scriptura), inspiration, and trustworthiness. The language of infallibility and inerrancy was hotly disputed, both in the CRC and the broader evangelical community, particularly during the 1970s when the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was issued.
Professors at both the seminary and college levels openly questioned the historicity of Genesis. Howard Van Till, a professor of astronomy, published a book entitled The Fourth Day in which he rejected the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis—not just the creation account but the early narratives as well. Van Till drew a sharp distinction between what he called the "kernel" or core religious truth of Scripture and its "historical packaging."
The debate centered on whether such views compromised the "event character" of redemptive history that the 1972 report insisted must not be compromised. Study committees were appointed to investigate, resulting in yet another round of reports.
Throughout this complex series of controversies, the focal point consistently returned to what the Reformed confessions taught about the nature of Scripture. Article 7 of the Belgic Confession affirms "believing without a doubt all things contained therein." Increasingly, confessionally faithful office bearers in the CRC recognized mounting evidence that the denomination was losing its grip on the historic Reformed view of scriptural authority and adherence to the confessions on multiple points.
Controversies erupted over the Canons of Dort during this period. A missions professor at the seminary publicly contested the doctrine of limited atonement (also called definite atonement or particular redemption) in denominational periodicals. This led to a special Synod in 1967, convened at summer's end after the regular meeting, to adjudicate the controversy.
The debates continued into the 1980s. Dr. Harry Boer, one of the professors dismissed in 1952 who had served as a missionary in Nigeria, filed a gravamen (official complaint) against one of the articles of the Canons of Dort on reprobation, contesting its biblical warrant. Though he lost his case at Synod, numerous controversies persisted.
The "love of God" controversy raised questions about the doctrine of definite atonement and reprobation. One CRC minister published books advocating a form of universalism, arguing that one should presume the election and salvation of all persons unless they persist in impenitence when confronted with the gospel call.
Another significant controversy emerged with a study committee report on general revelation, science, and special revelation. The committee took the position that since evolution is the prevailing scientific theory accounting for the diversity of life forms over vast periods of time, the church needed to reconsider its reading of Scripture in light of scientific conclusions. An appendix to the report provided an overview of contemporary evolutionary theory.
At the 1991 Synod in Sioux Center, the report sparked intense floor debate. A minority from the study committee urged Synod to affirm that the relationship between general and special revelation does not permit denying the immediate creation of Adam from the dust of the earth, into whom God breathed the breath of life. This position maintained that Adam and Eve existed at the dawn of human history without any pre-human hominoid or less-than-human ancestry.
The recommendation affirming the immediate creation of Adam passed. However, Synod complicated matters by adding a footnote stating that this decision did not prevent theologians, scientists, professors, and office bearers from investigating and proposing alternative viewpoints—including more radical evolutionary perspectives on human origins.
The most visible and disruptive issue was women's ordination. It was a "hot-button" precisely because it was so clear and affected every congregation directly. For those who held the traditional position that Scripture prohibits ordaining women to the ruling offices of the church, the controversy created a crisis of conscience.
The practical problem was acute: churches delegate office bearers to Classis and Synod. If one doesn't regard someone as lawfully ordained, how can one sit in assembly with them? When the CRC first permitted the ordination of women at the local consistory level, it left it to individual classes to decide whether to seat female delegates. This has since changed—with one exception, all CRC classes now seat women delegates.
The debate over women in office persisted from the late 1970s through the mid-1990s. The final resolution came only after the issue bounced back and forth repeatedly. Synod 1990 decided to proceed with women's ordination. This decision was not ratified in 1993. Another decision was made in 1994, which ultimately prevailed in 1995.
Multiple issues converged, but they all crystallized around one fundamental question: Did the CRC still hold to the high view of Scripture that was its historical position and that is espoused in its confessions?
Women in office was the most visible manifestation—the issue that forced the hand of conscience in every congregation. But beneath it lay the deeper question of whether Scripture would function as the supreme and final authority in the church, or whether it could be qualified, reinterpreted, and subordinated to contemporary scholarship, cultural pressure, and progressive theology.
For those who would form the United Reformed Churches, the answer to that question had become clear. The time had come for a new direction.
This article is based on a MARSCAST interview with Dr. Cornelis Venema, President Emeritus and Professor of Doctrinal Studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, who lived through these events and continues to serve the United Reformed Churches in North America.
229 Seminary Dr. Dyer, IN 46311