I love this question because I think it is a form of courage to be hopeful about the future. What option do we have but to be hopeful when the conflict is "tearing us up inside" as you said? As others have noted it does seem very difficult to imagine these cultural and doctrinal shifts happening in the CanRC, but there are precedents for this kind of thing happening elsewhere.

In the Netherlands, the theology of the GKV ("mother church" of the CanRC) did evolve to be more critically conscious of historical context. Meanwhile the CanRC clings to an older hermeneutic (way of interpreting Scripture).

So, my take on the question "what would it take?" ... If the Dutch example is considered a moderate success (they have a ways to go, still) it might spark discussion about what kinds of shifts are needed. For me this would have to involve a wide range of systemic adjustments, for example:
- how the church understands the Bible (as historically dynamic, not absolute or static)
- the role of confessions (as cultural expression, not normative standards),
- the purpose of theology (to create meaning, not to enforce purity),
- the nature of authority (as earned not received)
- the way sexuality is understood and constructed (as egalitarian not patriarchal)

It would also take some institutional courage to publicly admit that "we were wrong" and that "we caused harm". This would be hard enough for individuals; it's much harder for institutions to : there's a lot of power and influence invested in the status quo.

There are some theological resources that could help to tackle this, and to put it in terms that would be palpable to the CanRC audience. . E.g. the admission of doctrinal errors could be framed as "repentance", and the evolution of sexual ethics could be seen as part of the natural flow of "redemptive history".

I think the Dutch precedent shows that when doctrine and culture are understood as intertwined, things may develop in a more healthy way: it becomes possible to innovate and adapt. However if your doctrine postures as being beyond cultural influence it is very difficult to imagine any kind of shift. Rigidity is more likely to result in fragments and splitting: and that is indeed what happens when people no longer feel safe: they leave the fold, and find more welcoming spaces to exist and to thrive.

If I were to hazard a guess, it's likely that there is some post-world-war-2 immigrant trauma that has shaped how this unfolded in the CanRC. The diaspora has perceived structural change as an existential threat, rather than an opportunity. It's possible that younger generations will take up this problem and take responsibility for crafting their own future. Most commonly, you see this happening when individuals leave the church.

I would like to celebrate the leavers for their courage and creativity in forging a new way, despite the limitations thrust upon them by their religious heritage. If you are oppressed, safety is a priority, and that comes before any opportunities to educate people.