My Experience At Covenant CRC Appleton Part 2 - The Elders Spend 6 Months Making Confusing Statements That They Refuse To Clarify

The elders seemed to lack understanding of their responsibilities as elders and refused to answer basic questions about decisions they had made

I have begun detailing my experience at Covenant Christian Reformed Church of Appleton and the events that resulted in the exodus of 30% of the congregation. The first part of my story lays out my experience at a New Members class in which the pastor expressed concern about the left-wing drift of certain denominational entities including the Office of Social Justice, the Office of Race Relations, and the Banner. Prompted by discussions in that class, I ended up looking into the matter myself and eventually asked the elders of Covenant to confirm whether or not they also recognized these entities as promoting un-Biblical things. I recommended that, whether they agreed with these beliefs or disagreed with them, they make the stance of the church more clear up front, either by stating clearly on their website and in the New Members class that they supported the teachings of these left-wing entities, or by designating Ministry Share dollars away from them if the church did not support them.

Rather than explaining their doctrinal stances, the elders of the church opted to hold congregation-wide listening sessions on Ministry Shares and then told the congregation they were reviewing the teachings of various denominational entities and would eventually write these entities a letter laying out their questions and concerns and possibly also travel to Grand Rapids to meet with denominational leaders in person to discussion the matter.

AUGUST 2023

I had been watching the minutes from the elders meetings and was expecting at some point that the letter they had been planning to write to Grand Rapids was going to be completed. I sent an email to Pastor Ben asking for a status update, and he indicated they were going to be working on it during the 08/22/2023 meeting but he did not have any concrete answers as to when the plan they had presented in June would be carried out. (See Attachment I)

SEPTEMBER 2023

The minutes for the August meeting were not released until 09/14/2023. They seemed to indicate that the letter was still not complete and the elders did not seem to have any immediate plans to either go to Grand Rapids and talk to denominational leaders about the concerns or provide me answers to my various questions. They did not seem to know what they believed about any of these issues and planned to conduct further study. It was now nearly 6 months since I first contacted them and asked them to explain what the church believed about the various things I pointed out on the denominational website and in the Banner. (See Attachment J)

At this point I asked to meet with the elders in person, which I was allowed to do. In an email to Pastor Mark and Pastor Ben I expressed my inability to reconcile what I took away from the new members class as well as what I read in the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort, and the Belgic Confession with some of the things I was reading in the Banner and seeing on the denominational website. I also expressed my confusion as to the elders’ seeming inability to help me work through these questions, and said, “The elders seem to be focusing on the designation of Ministry Share dollars, but they’ve never given a clear answer to me as to whether or not they at a basic level agree or disagree with the examples I presented of things I found concerning. Who do I go to, if not the council, to find out what the elders as a body believes about those things?”

I asked if there was a process available to prospective members similar to the confessional gravamen process that was available to office bearers in which the elders could work through my questions with me as a prospective member. Pastor Ben responded that the CRCNA did not have a formal mechanism for resolving confessional difficulties amongst laypersons although he suggested perhaps it should. He also reinforced my concerns by telling me, “You are correct that there is material in The Banner and on various denominational websites that simply is not in line with our confessions.” (See Attachment K)

I attended the elders meeting on 09/19/2023. During that meeting I told the elders I did not understand what was going on. Even though I had asked them 6 months ago if they agreed with various things being said by the Banner, the Office of Social Justice, and the Office of Race Relations I still did not know what Covenant believed. I was upset that instead of the elders answering my questions they had held a church-wide listening session in which they did not explain the issues to the church body and left it up to me to let the congregants know what was happening at the denominational level. I felt they also set up a situation in which I couldn’t provide supporting details or answer questions or defend myself and my position when they were deemed “divisive” and “unloving.” I asked them again what they thought about my concerns. (See Attachment L)

The elders did not answer my questions, but they said that they took these concerns seriously and were still researching them. They said they were very busy and had other concerns they also needed to deal with. They said that Thursday (09/21/2023) they were going to hold an entire meeting devoted to the issues I had raised.

We had a confusing discussion regarding what the purpose of the listening sessions were. The elder Jim Niemeier in particular seemed to think I didn’t understand the purpose of the listening sessions. From my perspective, I didn’t understand why the elders didn’t explain the concerns to the congregants and I felt that the elders had essentially relied on me to convey to the congregants the doctrinal issues going on at the denominational level, but had I not been comfortable speaking publicly in uncomfortable situations I might not have been willing to speak and then the congregation wouldn't know what the problems were. My impression is that this offended some of the elders, and I was told I didn't speak for the elders. I told them I understood that, but I was speaking for the issues and if I hadn't been willing to do that the congregants would still be completely oblivious to the doctrinal issues in the denomination. Jim seemed to think that listening sessions were tools for elders to get feedback from congregants not for elders to shape congregational opinion and that I was asking for this tool to be misused in a fundamental way by expecting the elders to provide more details to the congregants. I asked how the congregants would have known about any of these problems at the denominational level if I had not had the willingness to tell them.

Nobody seemed to think the elders had a responsibility to proactively warn the church about false doctrine in the denomination and take steps to protect them from it. I asked the elders what they would have done in 2022 had Synod not passed the Human Sexuality Report, not made homosexual sex a confessional issue, and opened the door for same sex marriage in the CRCNA. Surely, I asked, in that situation they would have had a responsibility to go to the church, tell the congregants what was going on, and give some recommendations on how to protect the church from this false teaching. At that, Jim's demeanor changed, and he seemed suddenly very uncomfortable. He told me something to the effect of, “Let's not talk about hypotheticals.”

I had brought up that “hypothetical” because it had been a likely situation only a year before and had involved something that was so over the top obviously doctrinally dangerous that I assumed none of the elders could possibly deny they would have had a responsibility in that situation to proactively go to the congregation and take steps to protect them, but instead it was dismissed as a hypothetical and even mentioning it seemed to cause discomfort. Up until this point, I had never questioned Covenant's fidelity to a Biblical understanding of sexuality, but I left that meeting very unsure of the strength of their stance on same sex marriage and wondering whether its elders privately accepted homosexual marriage as valid.

Also, at that meeting I was told by the elder Mike Ivy that (and this is basically a word for word quote) “We need the Office of Race Relations because this denomination is lily white.” I told him that sounded racist to me and asked him if he would say that about a majority black denomination. He said that he would.

I could have understood had he said, “We need an Office of Race Relations because this issue is currently the source of much social and cultural upheaval, and it is imperative that we have a denominational entity focused on providing right and just Biblically based teaching on this.” But instead, he claimed we needed the Office of Race Relations because of the race of the CRCNA’s members as if the race of the members is some sort of inherent moral deficiency or flaw. I do not understand the Biblical or confessional basis for such a belief; and it concerned me that an elder of the church voiced such a belief, particularly on top of a former deacon having expressed the view during one of the listening sessions that white people are racist even if they don’t know they are.

I left the meeting in some respects shocked by some of the things I heard but also hopeful that the elders were still working on these issues and had devoted an entire meeting only 2 days from then to study these things further.

At that meeting on 09/21/2023 during which in depth study was supposed to take place, Pastor Mark informed the elders that he had accepted a call to another church, and Mike Ivy made a motion “to table the discussion on Ministry Shares until Council can discuss the matter under the pastoral guidance of the established Specialized Transitional Minister.” (See Attachment M)

OCTOBER 2023

I emailed Pastor Mark to express my dissatisfaction with the Ministry Shares discussion having been put on hold. I voiced my support for a proposal that had been made to remove Ministry Shares from the general budget and turn it into a special offering. Pastor Mark assured me that the Ministry Shares discussion was merely put on hold until the Specialized Transitional Minister was in place. He told me, “There is simply no truth to the idea that the elders will drop this matter now that I am leaving.  It is also not true that the elders have ‘taken the side’ of those who see nothing wrong with the denominational agencies in question.  The elders do see things that are wrong and unbiblical with these agencies, and will see the process through in trying to effect change.  I think it is harmful to paint the elders in such a negative light, and to assume things about them that are not true.”

I expressed frustration that I felt like I was in a situation where I could not criticize the decisions of the elders without seeming as if I was criticizing the elders personally. I also expressed concern that the elders were dragging their feet on Ministry Shares in a similar way to the delaying tactics used at the denominational level by people opposed to passing the Human Sexuality Report and enacting discipline of office bearers who do not hold a confessional view about human sexuality. I also expressed concern about Mike Ivy’s statement regarding the need for an Office of Race Relations because the denomination was lily white. I gave my understanding of what scripture said about race and said I did not understand the scriptural justification for finding an entire denomination in need of an Office of Race Relations simply because a majority of its members were of one particular skin color. (See Attachment N)

In light of action by Covenant’s council grinding to halt, I decided to start this Substack on which I posted my concerns publicly in the hopes that I could perhaps find somebody in the CRCNA who could explain to me how these things I was seeing on the denominational website fit in with the Bible and with the CRCNA’s confessions. I started by posting the initial information I had provided to Covenant CRC Appleton’s council and then started expanding beyond that to other examples of questionable material I saw.

NOVEMBER – DECEMBER 2023

The Council deliberated on a proposal to remove Ministry Shares from the general budget and make it a segregated special offering instead. My understanding is this action did not spring proactively from the council but resulted from other congregants, who shared concerns about money going to rogue denominational entities, talking to some of the members of council and pushing them to do something.

The council asked the finance committee to provide a recommendation on how to handle Ministry Shares.

The Finance Committee recommended that Ministry Shares be removed from the general fund budget provided 4 conditions accompanied that move:

1. Removing Ministry Shares from the General Fund does not relieve Covenant CRC from our covenant/promise/pledge to support denominational ministries as defined in our incorporation into the CRC, & the Church Order of the CRC. Ministry Shares will become one of the Designated Offerings for which gifts are collectible every Sunday, & also perhaps in certain designated months.

2. A system of bookkeeping will be set up whereby members can designate their offering to Ministry Shares on an Allocated basis if their conscience so urges them; they could also choose to designate their gift as unallocated.

3. Council will promote the good work & ministry of the CRC denomination around the world, will encourage giving to it, & will monitor & report on said giving on a monthly basis.

4. It is understood by way of this action that Council would not continue to labor through a process of discernment regarding the lack of merit of allocated giving by the church to individual ministries or offices within the Christian Reformed Church, leaving such discernment up to individual members as they contribute to Ministry Shares.

Additionally, in an email to the Finance Committee, Don Voogt, the chair of the committee, made it clear that he viewed removing Ministry Shares from the general fund as a way to end discussion on the overall doctrinal concerns, and expressed opposition to the council’s planned discernment process, saying, “I am now of the opinion that it would be better to go ahead and move Synodical Ministry Shares out of the General Fund as a better path forward than a painful discernment process regarding Allocation of Ministry Shares that Council is still intending to go through; I can see that discernment process being divisive, drawn out, inconclusive, and perhaps never-ending.”  (See Attachment O1 and Attachment O2)

The council approved removing Ministry Shares from the general fund along with the 4 caveats provided by the Finance Committee.

But the minutes from the council meeting also included a confusing note that seemed in direct contradiction with caveat 4.

“The Council noted that while this recommendation of the financial handling of Ministry Shares will alleviate the concern some congregants have with regard to where some of the Ministry Shares money goes, this recommendation doesn't address or resolve the deeper issues with CRC. The Council will still pursue the appropriate procedures & proper channels to bring the Council's deeper concerns, (of the CRC website content & links to non-biblical ideas/organizations), to the notice of CRC headquarters. The Council will exercise diligence through this process, will communicate frequently with the congregation through the process, & anticipates that the process will require time, especially given our attention to congregational needs & pastoral transition.” (See Attachment P)

During this time Don Voogt asked to meet again with the Bells, my husband, and me, to discuss the Finance Committee’s recommendations. We scheduled that meeting for 12/09/2023, but the Bells ended up having a conflict on that day and Don suggested we hold off on the meeting until a later time. (See Attachment Q)

Although that meeting fell through, I did make other efforts to gain a better understanding of the recommendation. I emailed the council and asked them for clarification on the recommendation, particularly on the note that seemed to contradict caveat 4. I also asked a number of other questions regarding how this decision aligned with Church Order and the recent revamping of Ministry Shares by Synod 2019. I was concerned that the elders seemed to have offloaded their responsibility to handle what was primarily a doctrinal matter to the finance committee even though Church Order seemed very clear that elders (not the finance committee) were responsible for providing counsel and discipline, defending the faith, and being shepherds of the church. (See Attachment R1)

I received no response from any elders except for Pastor Ben who thanked me for my diligent work and said he agreed with everything I had written. He stated, “I'm in a very challenging position as a young associate pastor (given that my voice usually doesn't hold very much sway at Council meetings, even though I've been a lifelong member in the CRC and have a solid understanding of our Church Order—unlike a majority of the current Council). But I want to assure both of you that I will do the best that I can to hold Council accountable in responding to your concerns. They absolutely cannot ignore the validity of the arguments from Church Order and synodical decisions.”

My husband had apparently talked to him about the possibility of introducing some sort of amended motion at council regarding Ministry Shares. Of this Pastor Ben said, “I think I'm going to wait to see how Dominic responds. Politically speaking, I am in a very vulnerable position for introducing an amendment at a Council meeting. If anyone is in a position to do that right now, it would be Dominic. Obviously, I can second a motion (and I intend to do so, if necessary, which would force a vote per Robert's Rules of Order), as I did back in October.”

I emailed him back and expressed bafflement as to why the elders had not be able to explain what the church believes because doing that seemed like a core function of an elder. I also asked to meet with him in person, saying “I would like to figure out based on Church Order and established denominational practices, what are reasonable expectations for me to have  of church leadership, how do I get my doctrinal questions answered, and are there processes in the Church Order that could help direct things.” We set a date in early January.  (See Attachment R2)

I also emailed the Finance Committee and asked them for clarification on how their recommendation aligned with the changes to Ministry Shares enacted by Synod 2019. I also asked why their recommendation seemed to move beyond merely financial issues into areas that seemed to be the purview of the elders such as overseeing doctrine, defending the faith, and shepherding the church. I asked them what sort of preparation and research they had done ahead of preparing their recommendation given that the council had been researching for months and had still not felt ready to move forward with a permanent recommendation.

Don Voogt, the chair of the finance committee, responded to my initial questions, but when I asked some follow up questions, he did not respond to those. He told me later face-to-face at church that he had been advised against getting into a protracted discussion via email. (See Attachment S)

JANUARY 2024

I will put this story here because it happened sometime in the November-January timeframe, but I do not remember the exact date it happened. Daryl Bell had wanted to serve on the new pastor search committee but had not been chosen. He spoke with Joe DeHaan about that. They talked in the hallway outside the church office, and I was sitting at the table in the youth room as I usually did only a few feet away, and I overheard the conversation.

Daryl asked why he hadn’t been chosen to serve on the search team and Joe told him that they had tried to put together a committee that was representative of the members of the church and that had people from all different walks of life. David Peel was already serving on the committee, and as a middle aged, male, married professional with minor children his circumstances were substantively the same as Daryl who was also a middle aged, male, married professional with minor children.

Later on when David Peel resigned from the committee and left the church, his position was not given to Daryl who, as described by Joe, checked all the demographic boxes David had checked. Rather, the spot was given to Don Voogt who was retirement age (so older than David and Daryl), did not have minor children, and did not check the same demographic boxes.

In January, I met with Pastor Drew Zylstra who was serving as Covenant’s transitional counselor. I explained my concerns to him. Throughout our conversation he did not tell me I was wrong or off base or that my concerns were over blown or unwarranted. I felt that my understanding and perspective about what was happening was validated. I told him I believed that, even as a non-member, I would have standing under Church Order to file an appeal with Classis Wisconsin for the way that Covenant’s elders had refused to answer my doctrinal questions. At the time, I was hesitant to take that step because Church Order does also advise people to try to work things out personally and locally if possible and I believed there was wisdom in that exhortation. I asked about whether this was a situation that church visitors could assist with resolving. Pastor Zylstra and I decided that it would be best to wait for Covenant’s new transitional minister, Roger Sparks, to come in March at which point he would hopefully be able to help Covenant work through these issues.

On 01/28/2024 Covenant’s congregational meeting was held. It was announced earlier that day and then again during that meeting that Pastor Ben had resigned. To me personally, not only was that sad because I really liked Pastor Ben as an individual but it also meant Covenant had now lost both of its orthodox and conservative pastors who were major reasons why I had thought that Covenant was basically a solid church and why I had told myself that the foot-dragging by the elders could not actually mean they were a progressive body that approved of the things being promoted by various denominational entities.

Pastor Ben’s departure perhaps resulted in the meeting being more subdued than it otherwise would have been. The proposal regarding Ministry Shares that was brought forward by the council was to simply remove Ministry Shares from the general fund and did not include any of the caveats that had initially been recommended by the finance committee and approved by the Council. This proposal passed unanimously.

During that meeting my husband had the following exchange with council chair Joe DeHaan.

Rob Anderson: “So I agree with [what another congregant had said]. You know, every person should decide who they want to give to, you know. I would encourage […] every person to take some time—a significant amount of time—to look through the denominational resources. It's fairly well organized. It's easy to read. Ask yourself, ‘Do I support these things?’ Personally, I would say roughly 30% of that money, in my opinion, is going to deeply unbiblical and Satanic causes. That's my opinion. It might not be yours. But I'm encouraging you to look at that for yourself. At this point, it seems that the leadership has no opinion on that. They're continuing to collect money for this. I'm wondering—this was all about the unbiblical nature of denominational entities, at least it was nine months ago. Now it's not. The elders have told us they were going to look into this. Are they going to still look into this? Thank you.”

Joe DeHaan: “Right. So, we have essentially [indecipherable] the budget aspect of this from reviewing content on the denominational website in determining if it's in line with solid interpretation of the Bible. When—shortly after Mark announced accepting a call to another church, the Council tabled the Ministry Shares activity. We are committed to making sure that our denomination stays in line with the Bible. We had—ahead of the Mark's departure we had started reviewing certain portions of the denominational website that people have brought to our attention. So that is something that we need to do as elders of the church is to review what’s on it and work with the denomination to correct any thing that we find in there.”

During the meeting, Council Chair Joe DeHaan asked attendees to reach out to the council if they had any questions and specifically said, “We all welcome your phone calls, your questions,” and said they were doing their best to communication as situations evolved. (See Attachment T; Listen to Audio A)

FEBRUARY 2024

02/08/2024 I emailed Joe DeHaan and asked him if he could provide a timeframe on when the elders would be able to provide some kind of clarity as to where the church stood doctrinally on the issues I brought to their attention last year.

He did not respond.

02/15/2024 I emailed him again and apologized for not being at church the previous Sunday like I thought I would be. I confirmed that I would absolutely be there on 02/18 and I hoped to talk to him.

He did not respond.

02/18/2024 I had a brief interaction with Joe DeHaan at church that Sunday. He apologized for not getting back to me sooner and said that he would email me.

He did not send an email.

02/25/2024 I emailed Joe again, reiterating my request to know what the timeline would be to receive a response regarding my doctrinal questions. I also added, “I am starting to get the impression, given the length of time it has taken you to respond to the email I sent you on 02/08 as well as the generally poor communication from the elders overall, that you and the other elders do not want to talk to me. Is that an accurate understanding, or am I perceiving things incorrectly?”

He did not respond. (See Attachment U1)

So, in November, the Council recognized “deeper issues” with the CRC and stated, “The Council will still pursue the appropriate procedures & proper channels to bring the Council's deeper concerns, (of the CRC website content & links to non-biblical ideas/organizations), to the notice of CRC headquarters,” and in January Joe DeHaan told the congregation that the elders “are committed to making sure that our denomination stays in line with the Bible. […] [S]omething that we need to do as elders of the church is to review what’s on [the denominational website] and work with the denomination to correct any thing that we find in there.” But by February Joe DeHaan was not willing to even respond to me at all, much less provide a timeframe on when the elders would be doing the work they said they would be doing.