Separate Christian Organizations

Painting a CRC Future: Part 8

I’m curious what you will think about this next “social factor in the vitality of the CRC”.

The three “social factors” that we’ve seen identified so far by Sociologist Gary Bouma as critical to the health and growth of the CRCNA have been:

1. Separate Christian Reformed Education

2. Catechism Teaching and Preaching

3. Faithful Administration of Christian Discipline

To each of these I give a hearty “Amen”!

Not only is the practical efficacy of each of these strategies easily apparent (Bouma’s chief concern is not necessarily what is most “holy” or most “Biblical” for a denomination, but rather he, as a sociologist, is searching for the social factors that are effective.), but it is also clear how God-honoring these practices are.

This reminds us that it’s not just any ideology that we’re trying to promote…

It’s a decidedly “unpopular” ideology that we’re trying to hold onto and promote!

Bouma identifies our conservative confessional calvinism as “cognitive minorities”, as “hard beliefs”, and as a “deviant meaning system” [p.5, 6]. Part of his interest in the study of this topic in the first place is his surprise that such a denomination could grow while/despite holding tightly to their “unpopular meaning system in contemporary North America” [p.24].

It would be much, much easier to allow these social factors to fade away. It’s easier to expect less of our children and our congregants. We could be more liked and accepted by the surrounding secular cultures if we hold less doggedly to this deviant meaning system.

And this is exactly what we are seeing take place.

For decades now the CRC has been downplaying its uniqueness.
For decades the CRC has been lowering the bar on its requirements for education (even seminary education).
For decades the CRC has been letting evening services and catechism classes dissolve away.

And worst of all, the CRC has been for decades failing to administer faithfully the “Third Mark of the True Church”: Christian Discipline in the churches.

But… I’m getting away from the topic for this article. We’ve had lots of time to lament our waywardness… let’s continue to identify what works.

The fourth “social factor” that Bouma identifies as vital for the health and growth of our denominations is the existence and commitment to “Separate Christian Organizations” [p.65].

Separate Christian Organizations

He notes,

“Since the time of Abraham Kuyper the CRC has wrestled with the issue of separate Christian organizations, some seeing such organization as absolutely required (cf. e.g. H. Runner, 1953, 1954) and other seeing it as potentially useful in some areas but not absolutely required (cf. e.g. DeKoster, 1957).

“Two basic and slightly conflicting aims are involved. Separate Christian organizations are intended to serve two purposes: first, they are to provide contexts in which like-minded persons can share concerns thus preventing contamination from others who are not similarly committed. Secondly, they are to be channels through which CRC influence is extended into the world” [p.65].

These two purposes at first glance seem unrelated. One uncomfortably practical, the other inspiring. And yet both are good benefits, and probably more complementary than we’d like to admit.

This is a constant tightrope that has faced Christianity from the beginning. How can one withdraw from the world and it’s influences, protecting oneself for purity and holiness’ sake? And yet how can one also make a difference in the world, influencing and seasoning a dark world with the salt and light that we are called to?

Influencing the world means getting one’s hands dirty and opening up oneself to compromises that wisdom might forbid.

Separating from the world means diminishing one’s opportunties to love and serve the needy and one’s opportunities to reach people for the gospel.

Bouma mentions Abraham Kuyper, who is not just a main fountainhead for the CRC’s flavor of separate Christian organizations, but also the cause of it’s most infamous attempts. In the Netherlands, the pattern of separate organization became very developed and is referred to now as “verzuiling” or “pillarization”.

“In the Netherlands most significant social interaction occurs within organizations and associations which are church related. These columnal associations and organizations include political parties, newspapers, sporting clubs, etc., and they cut across class lines.”

Now this has lessened as the decades have passed since Bouma wrote, as secularism swept across the Netherlands and championed a type of diversity that frowned upon keeping people separated for any reason. In fact, many modern Netherlanders see Kuyper and his pillarization as a part of the problem to be overcome. There he has almost become the villain, rather than the hero that CRCNAers tend to envision.

And so too I think that we can imagine the sort of push-back that we might get if we, as a denomination, would seek to promote and enact some modern attempts at creating our own theologically-aligned silos of society.

That’s why I began this article by stating my desire to hear your thoughts.

I’m curious what modern, North American Reformed Christians would (and do) think about separate Christian organizations.

Obviously, we already have our churches and separated societal institutions and we have our Christian schools and universities. In these examples, I think we have an easier time justifying this “pillarization” due to the great importance and potential consequences of our worship and the education of our youth.

But is this enough? Are we underestimating the weight of our other business of adulthood?

Another added piece to this puzzle is the internet, which is making forms of pillarization quite common. All users can self-select into different groups and chats and channels that bond together the like-minded and keep out the “other”.

While at the same time, the internet has connected us to more diverse outsiders than ever before.

What do you think? Add a comment down below or write something on X.
What are the benefits of creating more separate distinctly Christian Reformed organizations?
What are the practical and theological implications of doing this?
What role does (a Biblical view of) diversity play in this practice?

Let me know what you think!