DEFENDS REPORT 36
Dear Rev. Vander Ploeg:
Your recent articles dealing with the report on the Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority (THE OUTLOOK , June and July 1971) call for some further comments.
In the first place, sincere appreciation is due to all who within the Christian Reformed Church seek to guard the truth of the Bible and of the Reformed truth based thereon. No member of the church should ever consider questions of Biblical interpretation, however involved they may sometimes become, to be the domain of scholarly experts alone.
For this reason your appeal to the church to send their reactions to the committee appointed to evaluate them is to he sincerely appreciated. Any comments made in the light of the reading of the entire report will be most welcome ,mo will he given the attention they deserve.
Since your main criticism centered in what the report said about Genesis 1–11 it may be well to present a brief resume of some of the many emphases of the report lest just this one item will appear out of focus.
1. The report unequivocally stresses the complete and pervasive authority of the Bible for all of life. In a time when this authority is questioned on all sides this emphasis should be welcome to all who wish to accept the Bible as God’s authoritative revelation for man also today.
2. The report also places a much needed stress on the fact that the content and purpose of Scripture is to set forth the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ and it does so with an appeal to both Scripture and the confessions (Agenda, p. 276).
3. While making this emphasis, the report at the same time warns against the view which would hold some parts of the Bible to be authoritative and other parts not, or less so.
4. The report also warns against making the confession concerning the Bible’s authority in any way dependent on scholarly research. It is to be appreciated that the Rev. Van Houten in his article in the August issue of your journal also takes grateful note of this fact.
5. Throughout its pages the report insists on the historicity of that which the Bible presents as facts. It emphasizes that “the Bible is history and not myth” (p. 277). At the same time the report makes it clear that the history of the Bible is covenant history, it is history of redemption. This definitely does not mean to introduce a distinction between some events which are, and other events which are not important for the understanding of the Bible’s total message. Neither does it mean to make light of the event-character of the creation and the fall of man.
6. The report insists that what the gospels report are historical events (p. 286). By the same token the report maintains that the things reported in Genesis 1–11 are historical events. While warning against viewing either the gospels or the accounts of Genesis as mere chronicles or as a literal description of events, the report nowhere allows for nor docs it imply in the least a denial of the event-character of the things reported, The report appeals to both Scripture and the confessions to uphold the historicity of Adam and it does so in the face of recent denials of the same (p.293). Even at the point where you, Mr. Editor, think you detect a “both-and” position there is no lessening of the report’s consistent emphasis on the historicity of the events recorded in the Bible.
7. The report does not at any point deny the existence of a literal garden with trees and with a speaking serpent. All that it does is to allow for the exegetical possibility that in the reporting of these events the narrator of Genesis 2 and 3 has possibly made use of concepts and symbols which were familiar to Abraham in the context and the culture of his time. The present writer in his class room presentation of these materials defends the literal understanding of the details of the story, including the normal length of the days of creation. However, even upon that position, would it be impermissible and against the general teaching of Scripture to suggest that some of the details of these stories had a greater symbolical meaning to Abraham, who was a child of the ancient oriental world, than they have for us Westerners?
In conclusion, Mr. Editor, before certain individuals who hold positions of trust in the church and who are charged with the study of these difficult questions are labeled as potential misleaders of the youth they instruct, should it not be made clear at what point they or the position they develop are in open conflict with the Word of God and the Confessions? When loyalty to the Scripture and the Confessions is questioned the burden of proof lies with those who question this loyalty to demonstrate where the church’s trust is violated or misused.
Fraternally yours,
(Dr.) Marten Woudstra
REPLY
Despite Dr. Woudstra’s gratifying disavowal of such a position, his letter unfortunately appears to confirm rather than refute the judgment that the language of Report 36 is to be faulted on the score of ambiguity or a both-and position with respect to the Genesis question. Because this issue of THE OUTLOOK carries an abundance of other material relevant to this matter, no further reply seems necessary at this time except to recommend a rereading of Report 36 (see either the 1971 Agenda or Acts) together with the editorials in the June and July issues of THE OUTLOOK.
J.V.P.
SYNOD’S RIGHT TO SPEAK
Dear Mr. Editor:
Mr. Peter J. Sluys argued that Synod had no right to enter the Timothy-Lawndale issue on the ground that the Timothy School Board is a non-ecclesiastical organization (THE OUTLOOK – Letters, July, 1971, p. 16). According to him, a school board derives its authority from a school society of parents; who elected it; therefore, it is responsible only to such a society and should not be subject to the pronouncements of ecclesiastical assemblies.
I find that his argument is a myth which ought to be dispelled. He fails to take into account other significant factor which help us to see the issue more clearly.
He apparently lost sight of the relationship that board members have toward the Christian Reformed Church where most of them hold their membership. Like the rest of us, they became full members by making profession of faith. During this ceremony they, too, agreed “to submit to the government of the church” and that, if they became delinquent “either in doctrine or in life,” they promised to submit to the church’s admonition and discipline.”
When church members (and that includes all those who serve in non-ecclesiastical organizations) commit acts which contradict the requirement of the gospel they are subject to the church’s admonition. On the basis of the Word of God inscripturated, the Synod of 1968 declared that racial discrimination, for whatever reason (“fear of persecution or of disadvantage to self or our institutions arising out of obedience to Christ”), constitutes disobedience to Christ, I am sure that Mr. Sluys, after he thinks this through, would not want to muzzle the church’s voice in speaking out against sin.
If our vision is clear we will see that obedience, or disobedience, to the Lord encompasses every dimension of life. When our minds are clouded with illusions we begin to think and act in a wrong manner.
I would like also to bring to the readers’ attention the fact that the CRC has taken a position which allows it to speak to all sorts of organizations. The following quotation represents the official position of the CRC on this matter:
“In the proclamation of the Word, the church, to whom has been entrusted the message of Christ’s Kingdom, should speak courageously and relevantly on the issues of the day, both for the edification and correction of her members and, where necessary, in criticism of the activities and policies of governments and organizations” (italics mine) (Acts of Synod, 1969, Art. 76, I., C., 6., p. 51).
It is also important to note that Classis Chicago North overtured the Synod of 1971 about the very same ideas that Mr. Sluys expressed in his letter. Classis wanted to know how it should proceed with admonition and discipline in the Timothy case, which involves a non-ecclesiastical organization. Classis argued that “discipline is always directed toward an individual, not an organization.” Classis tried to buttress its position by making mention of the “unanimous support” which the Timothy Board allegedly receives from its constituency.
Synod responded to this overture by declaring that:
“a. Discipline must be administered to individuals who in their personal lives or as members of decision-making bodies act contrary to scripture.
“b. The fact that large numbers of individuals are involved does not cause the action to be less sinful.
“c. Where large number of individuals are involved it is wise to begin with the discipline of the Word” (Advisory Committee – Church Order III, Report VII-B; II., C. 4, p. 2).
In a certain sense the Synod of 1971 was somewhat lenient toward Classis Chicago North. It desired to exercise a patient, pastoral concern towards this minor assembly by giving it an additional “year of grace” in the hope it will amend its ways.
However, it should not he overlooked that the Synod of 1971 clarified a very important fact. Classis questioned the validity of Synod entering into this dispute and Synod responded as follows:
“Synod declares that, while the exercise of admonition and discipline in a specific situation is indeed the task of the local consistory, when Synod, speaking for all the churches in common, takes a stand on an issue, Synod has the right to require such admonition and discipline on the part of minor assemblies as is consistent with the position adopted by the major assembly (cf. C.O. Articles 27 and 29).
(Advisory Committee – Church Order III, Report VII-B; II., C. 3., p. 2).
MARTIN LA MAIRE
QUESTIONS NAME CHANGE
John Vander Ploeg
Dear John:
In the May 1971 issue of THE OUTLOOK on page 20 you invite your readers to address letters or questions to you. I have a question.
On pages 8 and 9 of the January 1971 issue you have an editorial titled “We’ve Changed our Name.” You took two pages to explain why the name was changed from TORCH AND TRUMPET to THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED OUTLOOK. You explained at length the use of “Christian Reformed” in the new name.
I noticed, however, that beginning with the June 1971 issue the name had undergone another change. It is now called “THE OUTLOOK – Devoted to the Exposition and Defense of the Reformed Faith.” I look in vain for an editorial on your second change, leaving out the words “Christian Reformed.”
Would you be willing to explain to your readers why this second change took place?
Sincerely,
Jack (Rev.) J.P. Smith, Grand Rapids, Michigan
REPLY
Dear Jack:
Thank you for your question and the opportunity to explain. Permit me to call your attention to the following decision of the board concerning this matter:
“1. This change was made chiefly in deference to and to retain the interest and goodwill of non-Christian Reformed subscribers who felt that they were being excluded by calling the paper a Christian Reformed publication.
“2. This change was made before we had any knowledge of the overture that came to Synod objecting to our use of ‘Christian Reformed,’ and the change was therefore not occasioned by that overture.”
Greetings and all good wishes to you and yours!
JOHN
“TIRED OF COMPROMISES”
Dear Editor:
The 1971 Synod of the CRC has spoken re the nature and extent of Biblical authority. Now, how are the churches to study and react as Synod advised the churches to do? Our people must be informed and we must discuss the issues involved. Our people are tired of compromises. We need clear-cut decisions in this matter because our College Seminary are involved.
Another matter causes concern. Today we support and finance such organizations as the Campus Crusade, Inter-Varsity, and Navigators. These groups are not connected with the church, but are promoted by independent organizations. More and more these Arminian groups are lauded in articles that appear in our Banner. Have our Reformed principles failed? Is our mission work going to “man-centered” or God-centered”?
In 1967 the Rev. William Heynen gave the answers to these questions in two articles in The Banner (Sept. 1 and 8) and closed his second article with these words: “In all Christian love, we would urge our young people as well as our adults, by all means be ‘witnesses for Christ’ but make sure that your message is true to the Word, that you ‘hold fast to sound doctrine’ and are able to say with Paul, ‘I have fully preached the gospel of Christ’ (Rom. 15:19).”
I would advise those that concerned to read again these two articles of Rev. Heynen.
Sincerely,
JACK ARENS
Dear Rev. Vander Ploeg:
Your recent articles dealing with the report on the Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority (THE OUTLOOK , June and July 1971) call for some further comments.
In the first place, sincere appreciation is due to all who within the Christian Reformed Church seek to guard the truth of the Bible and of the Reformed truth based thereon. No member of the church should ever consider questions of Biblical interpretation, however involved they may sometimes become, to be the domain of scholarly experts alone.
For this reason your appeal to the church to send their reactions to the committee appointed to evaluate them is to he sincerely appreciated. Any comments made in the light of the reading of the entire report will be most welcome ,mo will he given the attention they deserve.
Since your main criticism centered in what the report said about Genesis 1–11 it may be well to present a brief resume of some of the many emphases of the report lest just this one item will appear out of focus.
1. The report unequivocally stresses the complete and pervasive authority of the Bible for all of life. In a time when this authority is questioned on all sides this emphasis should be welcome to all who wish to accept the Bible as God’s authoritative revelation for man also today.
2. The report also places a much needed stress on the fact that the content and purpose of Scripture is to set forth the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ and it does so with an appeal to both Scripture and the confessions (Agenda, p. 276).
3. While making this emphasis, the report at the same time warns against the view which would hold some parts of the Bible to be authoritative and other parts not, or less so.
4. The report also warns against making the confession concerning the Bible’s authority in any way dependent on scholarly research. It is to be appreciated that the Rev. Van Houten in his article in the August issue of your journal also takes grateful note of this fact.
5. Throughout its pages the report insists on the historicity of that which the Bible presents as facts. It emphasizes that “the Bible is history and not myth” (p. 277). At the same time the report makes it clear that the history of the Bible is covenant history, it is history of redemption. This definitely does not mean to introduce a distinction between some events which are, and other events which are not important for the understanding of the Bible’s total message. Neither does it mean to make light of the event-character of the creation and the fall of man.
6. The report insists that what the gospels report are historical events (p. 286). By the same token the report maintains that the things reported in Genesis 1–11 are historical events. While warning against viewing either the gospels or the accounts of Genesis as mere chronicles or as a literal description of events, the report nowhere allows for nor docs it imply in the least a denial of the event-character of the things reported, The report appeals to both Scripture and the confessions to uphold the historicity of Adam and it does so in the face of recent denials of the same (p.293). Even at the point where you, Mr. Editor, think you detect a “both-and” position there is no lessening of the report’s consistent emphasis on the historicity of the events recorded in the Bible.
7. The report does not at any point deny the existence of a literal garden with trees and with a speaking serpent. All that it does is to allow for the exegetical possibility that in the reporting of these events the narrator of Genesis 2 and 3 has possibly made use of concepts and symbols which were familiar to Abraham in the context and the culture of his time. The present writer in his class room presentation of these materials defends the literal understanding of the details of the story, including the normal length of the days of creation. However, even upon that position, would it be impermissible and against the general teaching of Scripture to suggest that some of the details of these stories had a greater symbolical meaning to Abraham, who was a child of the ancient oriental world, than they have for us Westerners?
In conclusion, Mr. Editor, before certain individuals who hold positions of trust in the church and who are charged with the study of these difficult questions are labeled as potential misleaders of the youth they instruct, should it not be made clear at what point they or the position they develop are in open conflict with the Word of God and the Confessions? When loyalty to the Scripture and the Confessions is questioned the burden of proof lies with those who question this loyalty to demonstrate where the church’s trust is violated or misused.
Fraternally yours,
(Dr.) Marten Woudstra
REPLY
Despite Dr. Woudstra’s gratifying disavowal of such a position, his letter unfortunately appears to confirm rather than refute the judgment that the language of Report 36 is to be faulted on the score of ambiguity or a both-and position with respect to the Genesis question. Because this issue of THE OUTLOOK carries an abundance of other material relevant to this matter, no further reply seems necessary at this time except to recommend a rereading of Report 36 (see either the 1971 Agenda or Acts) together with the editorials in the June and July issues of THE OUTLOOK.
J.V.P.
SYNOD’S RIGHT TO SPEAK
Dear Mr. Editor:
Mr. Peter J. Sluys argued that Synod had no right to enter the Timothy-Lawndale issue on the ground that the Timothy School Board is a non-ecclesiastical organization (THE OUTLOOK – Letters, July, 1971, p. 16). According to him, a school board derives its authority from a school society of parents; who elected it; therefore, it is responsible only to such a society and should not be subject to the pronouncements of ecclesiastical assemblies.
I find that his argument is a myth which ought to be dispelled. He fails to take into account other significant factor which help us to see the issue more clearly.
He apparently lost sight of the relationship that board members have toward the Christian Reformed Church where most of them hold their membership. Like the rest of us, they became full members by making profession of faith. During this ceremony they, too, agreed “to submit to the government of the church” and that, if they became delinquent “either in doctrine or in life,” they promised to submit to the church’s admonition and discipline.”
When church members (and that includes all those who serve in non-ecclesiastical organizations) commit acts which contradict the requirement of the gospel they are subject to the church’s admonition. On the basis of the Word of God inscripturated, the Synod of 1968 declared that racial discrimination, for whatever reason (“fear of persecution or of disadvantage to self or our institutions arising out of obedience to Christ”), constitutes disobedience to Christ, I am sure that Mr. Sluys, after he thinks this through, would not want to muzzle the church’s voice in speaking out against sin.
If our vision is clear we will see that obedience, or disobedience, to the Lord encompasses every dimension of life. When our minds are clouded with illusions we begin to think and act in a wrong manner.
I would like also to bring to the readers’ attention the fact that the CRC has taken a position which allows it to speak to all sorts of organizations. The following quotation represents the official position of the CRC on this matter:
“In the proclamation of the Word, the church, to whom has been entrusted the message of Christ’s Kingdom, should speak courageously and relevantly on the issues of the day, both for the edification and correction of her members and, where necessary, in criticism of the activities and policies of governments and organizations” (italics mine) (Acts of Synod, 1969, Art. 76, I., C., 6., p. 51).
It is also important to note that Classis Chicago North overtured the Synod of 1971 about the very same ideas that Mr. Sluys expressed in his letter. Classis wanted to know how it should proceed with admonition and discipline in the Timothy case, which involves a non-ecclesiastical organization. Classis argued that “discipline is always directed toward an individual, not an organization.” Classis tried to buttress its position by making mention of the “unanimous support” which the Timothy Board allegedly receives from its constituency.
Synod responded to this overture by declaring that:
“a. Discipline must be administered to individuals who in their personal lives or as members of decision-making bodies act contrary to scripture.
“b. The fact that large numbers of individuals are involved does not cause the action to be less sinful.
“c. Where large number of individuals are involved it is wise to begin with the discipline of the Word” (Advisory Committee – Church Order III, Report VII-B; II., C. 4, p. 2).
In a certain sense the Synod of 1971 was somewhat lenient toward Classis Chicago North. It desired to exercise a patient, pastoral concern towards this minor assembly by giving it an additional “year of grace” in the hope it will amend its ways.
However, it should not he overlooked that the Synod of 1971 clarified a very important fact. Classis questioned the validity of Synod entering into this dispute and Synod responded as follows:
“Synod declares that, while the exercise of admonition and discipline in a specific situation is indeed the task of the local consistory, when Synod, speaking for all the churches in common, takes a stand on an issue, Synod has the right to require such admonition and discipline on the part of minor assemblies as is consistent with the position adopted by the major assembly (cf. C.O. Articles 27 and 29).
(Advisory Committee – Church Order III, Report VII-B; II., C. 3., p. 2).
MARTIN LA MAIRE
QUESTIONS NAME CHANGE
John Vander Ploeg
Dear John:
In the May 1971 issue of THE OUTLOOK on page 20 you invite your readers to address letters or questions to you. I have a question.
On pages 8 and 9 of the January 1971 issue you have an editorial titled “We’ve Changed our Name.” You took two pages to explain why the name was changed from TORCH AND TRUMPET to THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED OUTLOOK. You explained at length the use of “Christian Reformed” in the new name.
I noticed, however, that beginning with the June 1971 issue the name had undergone another change. It is now called “THE OUTLOOK – Devoted to the Exposition and Defense of the Reformed Faith.” I look in vain for an editorial on your second change, leaving out the words “Christian Reformed.”
Would you be willing to explain to your readers why this second change took place?
Sincerely,
Jack (Rev.) J.P. Smith, Grand Rapids, Michigan
REPLY
Dear Jack:
Thank you for your question and the opportunity to explain. Permit me to call your attention to the following decision of the board concerning this matter:
“1. This change was made chiefly in deference to and to retain the interest and goodwill of non-Christian Reformed subscribers who felt that they were being excluded by calling the paper a Christian Reformed publication.
“2. This change was made before we had any knowledge of the overture that came to Synod objecting to our use of ‘Christian Reformed,’ and the change was therefore not occasioned by that overture.”
Greetings and all good wishes to you and yours!
JOHN
“TIRED OF COMPROMISES”
Dear Editor:
The 1971 Synod of the CRC has spoken re the nature and extent of Biblical authority. Now, how are the churches to study and react as Synod advised the churches to do? Our people must be informed and we must discuss the issues involved. Our people are tired of compromises. We need clear-cut decisions in this matter because our College Seminary are involved.
Another matter causes concern. Today we support and finance such organizations as the Campus Crusade, Inter-Varsity, and Navigators. These groups are not connected with the church, but are promoted by independent organizations. More and more these Arminian groups are lauded in articles that appear in our Banner. Have our Reformed principles failed? Is our mission work going to “man-centered” or God-centered”?
In 1967 the Rev. William Heynen gave the answers to these questions in two articles in The Banner (Sept. 1 and 8) and closed his second article with these words: “In all Christian love, we would urge our young people as well as our adults, by all means be ‘witnesses for Christ’ but make sure that your message is true to the Word, that you ‘hold fast to sound doctrine’ and are able to say with Paul, ‘I have fully preached the gospel of Christ’ (Rom. 15:19).”
I would advise those that concerned to read again these two articles of Rev. Heynen.
Sincerely,
JACK ARENS