Throughout church history, comments like these (made at the most recent CRC synod meeting) would be seen as ordinary and unremarkable. In this case, though, there was indeed something striking about them. For the two speakers mentioned were not among the wizened heads at the denominational meeting: they were both relatively young pastors. In the end, these two, and other like-minded CRC members, carried the day. A disproportionate number of delegates who were fairly young or new to the denomination successfully passed the statement codifying a traditional Christian view of human sexuality.

At a recent denominational meeting, the issue before delegates from affiliated churches across North America was same-sex marriage. The debate had been long in coming, partly prompted by two LGBTQ+ affirming churches in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), a Protestant denomination, ordaining women in same-sex marriages to the office of deacon. On the table was a motion that would make official and binding the position that sexual activity is rightly reserved for marriage between one man and one woman.

The motion prompted extensive and at times emotional discussion. Some speakers opposed the motion. They encouraged gentleness, grace, and understanding toward those desiring a same-sex partner, and reminded fellow delegates how corrupt and hypocritical some Christians have been in teaching about sexual ethics. Others supported the motion, believing that certain moral strictures are both good and biblical.

Among the latter group was a pastor who spoke of the importance of repentance. Christ’s call in the book of Revelation for churches to repent of their particular sins, including sexual sins, also applies to us, he said. Another pastor noted, with sadness, how rare and countercultural true repentance and submission to church authorities is today. “We moderns like to tear down walls and we hate submission,” he observed.

Throughout church history, comments like these (made at the most recent CRC synod meeting) would be seen as ordinary and unremarkable. In this case, though, there was indeed something striking about them. For the two speakers mentioned were not among the wizened heads at the denominational meeting: they were both relatively young pastors. In the end, these two, and other like-minded CRC members, carried the day. A disproportionate number of delegates who were fairly young or new to the denomination successfully passed the statement codifying a traditional Christian view of human sexuality.

At first blush, this episode might seem surprising and counterintuitive. Is it not the young who are to lead their foot-dragging elders toward the right side of history, toward progressive views on social and cultural issues including human sexuality? In American society as a whole, young people do indeed tend to support LGBTQ+ affirming stances and other features of the sexual revolution that since the mid-twentieth century have prompted greater social and political equality for women and liberalized attitudes toward sex. But what about within the church? How have churchgoing young people  responded?

In this sub-population of young people still attending church, it appears that the two traditionalist young pastors represent something of a trend. In their denominations and elsewhere in the church, some progressive Baby Boomers have been caught by surprise at younger people not sharing their cultural values. But should they have been surprised at this generational rift in the church? Looking at how different generations have been formed morally, socially, and culturally may help address this question.

From Progressive Boomers to Conservative Millennials

Both at recent denominational meetings and in various online forums, many Baby Boomer progressives in the CRC have shared personal stories of growing up in rigid conservative communities in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s where they say law crowded out grace. The experiences of the civil rights and women’s movements clearly were formative in their development as young adults. They came to value individual freedom and authenticity and to be on the lookout for unjust or arbitrary authorities. For them, these traits are central to what it means to be a Christian. As these Boomers contributed to the growth of the denomination in the 1970s, ’80s, and early ’90s, they took on administrative positions and served on important committees and task forces. Unsurprisingly, the tone and mood of the CRC were shaped by their experiences and understandings.

This population sees a clear and appropriate line to be drawn from the inclusion of racial minority groups and women within the church to the inclusion of members of the LGBTQ+ community. This is merely a continuation of practicing the radical hospitality of Jesus toward the marginalized, they say. All One Body, a progressive organization established to move the denomination toward LGBTQ+ affirmation, explains that its mission is to “challenge the voices of fear and accusation that condemn and exclude, that marginalize some and privilege others.” A retired minister strikes a similar note in linking all forms of marginalization and oppression by the church: “There have been so many forms of oppression, past and present: disabled and abled, poor and rich, female and male, and just as certainly, genderqueer and heterosexual.” Whatever one calls this philosophy—social justice, identity politics, intersectionality—it is clear that Boomer progressives are among those who have been shaped by it.

Like almost every other religious denomination, the CRC has lost members in recent years, among them young people. However, those in younger generations who have remained in the denomination or joined it recently see themselves as being formed in a different America than their Baby Boomer elders. Gen X and Millennials have seen the influence of cultural progressivism for most of their lives—whether they hail these changes, bemoan them, or fall in the middle. True, some churches have remained resistant to the broader culture. But in most settings—workplaces, professional organizations, civic and neighborhood organizations, schools, the military—the changes are clear. For much of their adult lives, Gen X and Millennials have been asked to share their pronouns and participate in sensitivity trainings to reflect on the problems of power and privilege.

Because of Boomers’ formative experiences, many of them came to see ritualistically stating “love is love” and sharing their pronouns as exciting developments, newly relevant ways to love their neighbor. But younger generations who are already familiar with these practices and with the public religion of inclusion are not necessarily awe-inspired by them. Instead, for many, these progressive social rituals bring to mind something between heavy-handed schoolmarm discipline and a required pinch of incense to Caesar.

Because those in younger generations have seen respect for authority, institutions, and traditional values erode during their lifetimes, many of those who have remained in the church seek social and cultural goods different from what their Boomer elders value. For instance, one of the reasons for recent disagreements within church denominations has to do with different understandings of the place of morality in private and public life.

Read More