That the high regard of a bygone day for the authority of Scripture is on skids in our time, especially in educated circles, should be painfully obvious to anyone who has his ear to the ground. Take note, for example, of the following taken from Christian News, June 21, 1971:
“A poll taken by National Review on twelve representative American Campuses (Sarah Lawrence College, Williams College, Yale University, Marquette University, Boston University, Indiana University, The University of South Carolina, Howard University, Reed College, Davidson College, Brandeis University, and Stanford University) during the 1969–70 academic year reveals a sharp decline in religious orthodoxy. Results of the poll were published in the June 15, 1971 National Review.
“National Review said:
“Asked their conceptions of the Deity only 17% of our students took the position that God is omniscient, omnipotent, three-personed, and maintains ‘an active concern for human affairs.’”
“Of those professing ‘some form of Christianity,’ only 20% said they believed in the ‘literal truth of the Apostles’ Creed’; 28% in the 1iteral truth of the Gospel account of Jesus’ resurrection: and 28% in the ‘idea of God becoming flesh’ . . .
“The practical applications of belief are similarly latitudinarian: At only two colleges do more than half the believers in God disapprove of anything because of their religious beliefs (Marquette and South Carolina . . .)”
That the repercussions of this appalling and widespread disregard for the authority of the Bible should be felt also in Reformed circles ought not be unexpected. This is an evil from which none can be isolated but over against which Scriptural insulation is desperately needed. It is not at all surprising therefore that this year’s Synod of the Christian Reformed Church was directly confronted with the crucial issue of the nature and the extent of the authority of the Bible.
What Synod did – We could wish that it might be reported that the recent Synod of the Christian Reformed Church had gone on record with a ringing, forthright affirmation of the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis and an overdue denunciation of the efforts of those who persist in chipping away at the authority of the whole Bible as the inerrant Word of God. However, instead of having a showdown on this crucial issue at this time, Synod resorted to postponement. Motivation for this action may have been the fear of division, uncertainty about the issue, a desire to evade a most difficult responsibility, or the hope that further consideration and discussion may, with the Lord’s sorely needed guidance, hopefully lead to greater clarity and a meeting of the minds now at variance on the matter.
Our last month’s editorial dealt at some length with the 37-page Report 36 on “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority,” found in the Agenda on pages 268–304. Concerning this report, the editorial said, among other things, the following:
“The adoption of the recommendations of this report will leave us with a set of conclusions about the authority of Scripture but with nothing concrete being recommended to implement or to apply these conclusions with respect to specific persons and their teachings . . .
“When Scripture is under attack, the situation is urgent; and a report that does not hesitate to be concrete about personal views expressed is sorely needed . . .
“There is at least an apparent ambiguity in Report 36 that could lead to more compromise in the church rather than clear-cut, forthright and unified convictions. It is for this reason that both sides in the dispute about the opening chapters of Genesis may think they can find cover under the umbrella of this report. There is nothing we need less as we face this crucial issue than a both-and instead of an either-or position . . .
“It is our fervent hope and prayer that every delegate to Synod may take a long, hard look at this inclusive or both-and position and really count the cost before he becomes responsible for its adoption!”
That the majority of the delegates to Synod did give Report 36 agonizing consideration became obvious in the discussion and debate as well as in the final decision. Although Synod’s advisory committee was unanimous in recommending favorable action on this report, we are indeed grateful to report that their advice did not prevail. Instead, after prolonged discussion, the officers of Synod made the following proposal that was adopted: 1) To recommit the report to the study committee for its further consideration. 2) To submit the report to the churches to get their reactions. 3) To submit the report also to the Reformed Ecumenical Synod to get its reactions. 4) To have the study committee take these reactions and the discussion at Synod into consideration and then report again to Synod.
In view of the fact that the Reformed Ecumenical Synod will not meet until August 1972, it probably will take another two years before a further report can be expected. It is regrettable indeed if, now for another two years, this crucial issue must remain unresolved and our position one that will probably be regarded as open-ended.
And now what? – As matters stand now Synod has instructed its committee to solicit the reactions of the churches to this report on the nature and the extent of the authority of the Bible—and that means you and me. Right now, it’s up to us!
Disturbing conditions in the church are often like the weather, of which some wit has said that everybody talks about it but nobody does anything about it. Well, we could not change the weather even if we tried, but that is not necessarily true about conditions in the church. At least, we now have a definite opportunity to try. Unless we speak up now, we forfeit our opportunity to do so later.
Let no one make the mistake of thinking that this matter is the responsibility only of the ministers and professors, and that the rest of us are nobodies. Even the humblest among us are prophets, priests, and kings—and, as such, not only privileged but also obligated to let our voice be heard.
While I was at Synod to hear the debate on this Report 36 (and I heard most of it) not one of our professors present had one word to say in opposition. Professors A. Bandstra, D. Holwerda, F. Klooster, M. Woudstra, and G. Spykman are members of the committee who signed this report. Dr. B. Van Elderen, as faculty advisor to Synod’s advisory committee on this matter, spoke in its defense. These are the men who are teaching our youth and future ministers which means that the church can ill afford the delay in resolving this crucial issue. There is a dire need for knowing just where we stand.
Those who spoke up and prevented the adoption of Report 36 at this time were elders and ministers to whom we would like to pay personal tribute here but refrain from doing so lest we would mention only some and forget others equally deserving. Although no one knows just who voted how, it seems safe to assume that the elders played a decisive role in Synod’s decision not to take favorable action on Report 36. May our consistories and the whole rank and file of our membership now become increasingly conscious of their responsibility for the future of our church and also increasingly active and vocal to do their part in holding fast that which we have, even as Christ commands His church to do.
Consistories would now do well to devote a special meeting to a discussion of Report 36 on “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority,” to be found in the Agenda on pages 268–304. Especially the elders have been charged “to maintain the purity of the Word,” a duty that devolves upon them not only with respect to the local congregation but this extends also to the denomination of which we are a part.
It is gratifying to learn from a minister who spoke forcefully at Synod in opposition to Report 36 about the elders who came to him later to thank and commend him for what he said. However, it was not encouraging to this minister delegate that he heard so little from his fellow ministers along this line.
Elders and deacons would probably find that such a special meeting could be one of the most instructive and profitable they ever attended. But to make it so, every member should prepare himself by reading and rereading this Report 36 so as to be able to discuss it intelligently. Then, if some consensus could be reached, a committee could be appointed to formulate a document for later approval to be sent to Synod’s study committee as the consistory’s reaction.
No doubt, an announcement will be forthcoming as to where such reactions are to be sent. H not, then address such reactions to the reporter for the study committee. Dr. Gordon J. Spykman, 1715 Griggs, S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506.
Not only consistories, but also others who are concerned should send their carefully prepared reactions to the study committee. Silence on the part of those concerned will mean that they will have no one but themselves to blame if the denomination takes the wrong turn in this important matter of the authority of Scripture.
It has been said that this was “a conservative Synod.” Let’s be grateful for whatever evidence there was that this may have been so. However, conservatives must realize that merely delaying certain actions proposed (or preventing the appointment of certain persons to teach at Calvin) is not the kind of achievement or victory that is adequate to do the job. Merely to gain time is do substitute for positively conservative decisions and appointments if confidence is to be restored in the future of “onze school” and our denomination so dependent on the favor and blessings of the God of truth.
“A poll taken by National Review on twelve representative American Campuses (Sarah Lawrence College, Williams College, Yale University, Marquette University, Boston University, Indiana University, The University of South Carolina, Howard University, Reed College, Davidson College, Brandeis University, and Stanford University) during the 1969–70 academic year reveals a sharp decline in religious orthodoxy. Results of the poll were published in the June 15, 1971 National Review.
“National Review said:
“Asked their conceptions of the Deity only 17% of our students took the position that God is omniscient, omnipotent, three-personed, and maintains ‘an active concern for human affairs.’”
“Of those professing ‘some form of Christianity,’ only 20% said they believed in the ‘literal truth of the Apostles’ Creed’; 28% in the 1iteral truth of the Gospel account of Jesus’ resurrection: and 28% in the ‘idea of God becoming flesh’ . . .
“The practical applications of belief are similarly latitudinarian: At only two colleges do more than half the believers in God disapprove of anything because of their religious beliefs (Marquette and South Carolina . . .)”
That the repercussions of this appalling and widespread disregard for the authority of the Bible should be felt also in Reformed circles ought not be unexpected. This is an evil from which none can be isolated but over against which Scriptural insulation is desperately needed. It is not at all surprising therefore that this year’s Synod of the Christian Reformed Church was directly confronted with the crucial issue of the nature and the extent of the authority of the Bible.
What Synod did – We could wish that it might be reported that the recent Synod of the Christian Reformed Church had gone on record with a ringing, forthright affirmation of the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis and an overdue denunciation of the efforts of those who persist in chipping away at the authority of the whole Bible as the inerrant Word of God. However, instead of having a showdown on this crucial issue at this time, Synod resorted to postponement. Motivation for this action may have been the fear of division, uncertainty about the issue, a desire to evade a most difficult responsibility, or the hope that further consideration and discussion may, with the Lord’s sorely needed guidance, hopefully lead to greater clarity and a meeting of the minds now at variance on the matter.
Our last month’s editorial dealt at some length with the 37-page Report 36 on “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority,” found in the Agenda on pages 268–304. Concerning this report, the editorial said, among other things, the following:
“The adoption of the recommendations of this report will leave us with a set of conclusions about the authority of Scripture but with nothing concrete being recommended to implement or to apply these conclusions with respect to specific persons and their teachings . . .
“When Scripture is under attack, the situation is urgent; and a report that does not hesitate to be concrete about personal views expressed is sorely needed . . .
“There is at least an apparent ambiguity in Report 36 that could lead to more compromise in the church rather than clear-cut, forthright and unified convictions. It is for this reason that both sides in the dispute about the opening chapters of Genesis may think they can find cover under the umbrella of this report. There is nothing we need less as we face this crucial issue than a both-and instead of an either-or position . . .
“It is our fervent hope and prayer that every delegate to Synod may take a long, hard look at this inclusive or both-and position and really count the cost before he becomes responsible for its adoption!”
That the majority of the delegates to Synod did give Report 36 agonizing consideration became obvious in the discussion and debate as well as in the final decision. Although Synod’s advisory committee was unanimous in recommending favorable action on this report, we are indeed grateful to report that their advice did not prevail. Instead, after prolonged discussion, the officers of Synod made the following proposal that was adopted: 1) To recommit the report to the study committee for its further consideration. 2) To submit the report to the churches to get their reactions. 3) To submit the report also to the Reformed Ecumenical Synod to get its reactions. 4) To have the study committee take these reactions and the discussion at Synod into consideration and then report again to Synod.
In view of the fact that the Reformed Ecumenical Synod will not meet until August 1972, it probably will take another two years before a further report can be expected. It is regrettable indeed if, now for another two years, this crucial issue must remain unresolved and our position one that will probably be regarded as open-ended.
And now what? – As matters stand now Synod has instructed its committee to solicit the reactions of the churches to this report on the nature and the extent of the authority of the Bible—and that means you and me. Right now, it’s up to us!
Disturbing conditions in the church are often like the weather, of which some wit has said that everybody talks about it but nobody does anything about it. Well, we could not change the weather even if we tried, but that is not necessarily true about conditions in the church. At least, we now have a definite opportunity to try. Unless we speak up now, we forfeit our opportunity to do so later.
Let no one make the mistake of thinking that this matter is the responsibility only of the ministers and professors, and that the rest of us are nobodies. Even the humblest among us are prophets, priests, and kings—and, as such, not only privileged but also obligated to let our voice be heard.
While I was at Synod to hear the debate on this Report 36 (and I heard most of it) not one of our professors present had one word to say in opposition. Professors A. Bandstra, D. Holwerda, F. Klooster, M. Woudstra, and G. Spykman are members of the committee who signed this report. Dr. B. Van Elderen, as faculty advisor to Synod’s advisory committee on this matter, spoke in its defense. These are the men who are teaching our youth and future ministers which means that the church can ill afford the delay in resolving this crucial issue. There is a dire need for knowing just where we stand.
Those who spoke up and prevented the adoption of Report 36 at this time were elders and ministers to whom we would like to pay personal tribute here but refrain from doing so lest we would mention only some and forget others equally deserving. Although no one knows just who voted how, it seems safe to assume that the elders played a decisive role in Synod’s decision not to take favorable action on Report 36. May our consistories and the whole rank and file of our membership now become increasingly conscious of their responsibility for the future of our church and also increasingly active and vocal to do their part in holding fast that which we have, even as Christ commands His church to do.
Consistories would now do well to devote a special meeting to a discussion of Report 36 on “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority,” to be found in the Agenda on pages 268–304. Especially the elders have been charged “to maintain the purity of the Word,” a duty that devolves upon them not only with respect to the local congregation but this extends also to the denomination of which we are a part.
It is gratifying to learn from a minister who spoke forcefully at Synod in opposition to Report 36 about the elders who came to him later to thank and commend him for what he said. However, it was not encouraging to this minister delegate that he heard so little from his fellow ministers along this line.
Elders and deacons would probably find that such a special meeting could be one of the most instructive and profitable they ever attended. But to make it so, every member should prepare himself by reading and rereading this Report 36 so as to be able to discuss it intelligently. Then, if some consensus could be reached, a committee could be appointed to formulate a document for later approval to be sent to Synod’s study committee as the consistory’s reaction.
No doubt, an announcement will be forthcoming as to where such reactions are to be sent. H not, then address such reactions to the reporter for the study committee. Dr. Gordon J. Spykman, 1715 Griggs, S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506.
Not only consistories, but also others who are concerned should send their carefully prepared reactions to the study committee. Silence on the part of those concerned will mean that they will have no one but themselves to blame if the denomination takes the wrong turn in this important matter of the authority of Scripture.
It has been said that this was “a conservative Synod.” Let’s be grateful for whatever evidence there was that this may have been so. However, conservatives must realize that merely delaying certain actions proposed (or preventing the appointment of certain persons to teach at Calvin) is not the kind of achievement or victory that is adequate to do the job. Merely to gain time is do substitute for positively conservative decisions and appointments if confidence is to be restored in the future of “onze school” and our denomination so dependent on the favor and blessings of the God of truth.