“Now just a minute,” you say, “don’t get excited; nobody is proposing a merger or a marriage of the Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America. That’s right isn’t it?” Well, black on white, yes, But let’s not be too sure nobody is heading in that direction.
What has just been going on is a Christian Reformed Church—Reformed Church in America Conference on October 31–November 2 in Holland, Michigan. At the time of this writing, in advance of the meetings, no one knows the outcome. Not any more than a young couple or their parents know the outcome of a courtship when it begins. But the time to think about that is right at the outset before the romance has gone too far and has passed the point of no return. Wisdom dictates also that this is no less true when denominations begin to court each other.
What was this CRC-RCA Conference all about?
By the time this appears in print we may know more. The best we can do as these lines are being written is report the official decision. At the 1972 CRC Synod, the Inter-Church Relations Committee reported the following:
“Your Committee has met with representatives of the Inter-Church Relations Committee of the RCA and have mutually agreed that some inter-church activities on a local and grass-roots level would be the best approach to the pursuance of ecumenical relationships. A joint committee has been named with two members of each communion for the purpose of calling together a more broadly based group of leaders in both denominations in the Grand Rapids–Holland area, to discuss and to take whatever steps are necessary to initiate programs in which Reformed and Christian Reformed members could participate. The object of such programs would be to face tasks in the community which urgently need the attention of the Christian community, and in so doing to create an atmosphere of understanding and trust without which no ecumenical endeavors on the official level will prosper” (Acts 1972, p. 291).
Synod 1972 received this report and decided to “commend the Inter-Church Relations Committee for its part in arranging the fall meeting scheduled to be held in the Ninth Street CRC of Holland, Michigan, and in Dimnent Chapel of Hope College, and urge the committee to present its report of this meeting to the Synod of 1973.
But what’s wrong with this budding romance?
It might be better to start by asking: What’s right about it? The simplistic answer of the doctrinally indifferent ecumenist would be this: Jesus prayed for His followers “that they may all be one” (John 17:21) and from this it follows that the only right thing to do is to get together. Denominationalism is nothing less than a scandal. Today’s ecumenical movement pounces upon this prayer of our Lord for it’s own purpose; but too often it does so without taking into account what Jesus says so emphatically in the context about being sanctified “in the truth.” An ecumenical structure not built on “the truth” is an even greater disaster than a house without a foundation or a courtship and marriage not based on a common religious commitment.
What’s wrong with this budding romance? The same thing that is wrong with a boy and a girl who are head over heels in love and go blissfully on with their courtship while they close their eyes to their basic religious differences or sweep them under the rug for the time being as if sometime, somehow, somewhere these differences will resolve themselves. Any pastor who has been around for awhile can tell about the heart-breaking disillusionment to which he has seen this shortsighted thinking lead.
Now, mind you, this does not mean that error and erosion of the Reformed faith is all on the side of the RCA any more than all on the side of the CRC. But it does mean that these two denominations with their rich creedal heritage should first face up to what is happening to this heritage among them today before committing themselves to a joint course of action, and that they should be on guard lest they nurture among us the doctrinal indifference and the all too prevalent thinking of a Robert Loveman:
“What care I for caste or creed?
It is the deed, it is the deed;
What for caste or what for clan
It is the man, if is the man . . .”
What’s wrong with this budding romance? Amos hit the nail right on the head: “Shall two walk together except they be agreed?”
Let’s face it: As matters now stand and for good reasons, not everyone in the CRC wants to carry on a serious courtship with everyone in the RCA; and the other side of the coin should be equally obvious: not everyone in the RCA wants to carry on a serious courtship with everyone in the CRC either.
But what joint action is being proposed?
What the CRC Inter-Church Committee has in mind and has reported to Synod may appear to he innocent enough: “to discuss and to take whatever steps are necessary to initiate programs in which Reformed and Christian Reformed Church members could participate. The object of such programs would be to face tasks in the community which urgently need the attention of the Christian community, and in so doing to create an atmosphere of understanding and trust without which no ecumenical endeavors on the official level will prosper.”
Of course, the proof of this pudding will be in the eating. To have had these proposed “programs” spelled out m3re specifically before initiating a move in this direction with Synod’s approval could have given us a better sense of direction and enabled us to have our eyes open and also count the cost in advance. Meanwhile we are eagerly awaiting the outcome of the CRC-RCA Conference and the report as to concrete proposals to be forthcoming.
But in the interim, Dr. Lester De Koster, Editor of The Banner, in an October 6 editorial, shares his thinking with us as to possible concrete joint activities. From years of experience I am, of course, well aware that the editorial page of The Banner is not the official voice of the CRC. However, it should also be born in mind, not only that The Banner is, as the masthead states, the “official organ of the CRC,” but also that the Editor is a synodical appointee and that he speaks therefore with special responsibility in his official position. Following then are some of the specific and significant instances of joint action of which Dr. De Koster is thinking:
“communities where RCA and CRC congregations ought to be sharing the same ‘parish’ in many respects. How many efforts to involve the churches in the lives of the community, and the community in the life of Jesus Christ, might not be done effectively together?” Obviously, in how far this “sharing” should go is a question badly in need of an answer.
“. . . pulpit exchanges, choir exchanges, shared youth work, common vacation Bible schools, and the like.” The late Rev. Idzerd Van Dellen, a wise counselor, warned in his day against putting up bridges for CRC members to cross over into the RCA. Are we now ready to build bridges like these for members to cross over from one denomination to another and also pave the way for a possible merger?
“I am thinking,” Dr. De Koster continues, “of combined labors in the production and publication of educational materials, and at least the contemplation of how denominational publications might be drawn together.” More bridges?
“I am thinking,” The Banner Editor goes on to say, “of inter-seminary collaboration in placing the strength of each at the disposal of the other, with an eye to shared courses and curricula.” Still more bridges?
And finally; “I am thinking of home missions posts and campus ministries so planned that there is conscious collaboration with no overlapping and duplication, let alone competition of effort.” All these bridges mind you, between denominations that are not even “sister churches”!
The Banner of October 6 in which all this appears has a cover photo showing Roman Catholic sisters with several other persons and, in reference to an article of “Ecumenicity in Action,” the line: “And we’ll work with each other, we will work side by side”; a photo of Ivan Zylstra of the National Union of Christian Schools arm in arm with Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, long-time (twenty-two years) radio preacher on the Catholic Hour program; and as a conclusion of the “Ecumenicity in Action” article by C. H. (on a meeting in Grand Rapids of educators and administrators from Catholic schools, Missouri Synod Lutheran schools, and the National Union of Christian Schools) the following:
“God moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform. How true this is of His revelation in history must have been the silent thought of many a delegate as together the conventioneers sang the words:
“And we’ll work with each other
We will work side by side . . .
And they’ll know we are
Christians by our love.”
A suggestion: bl} all means keep a close eye on the CRC barometer to know what kind of ecumenical weather may be on the way or just around the corner.
Well, where do we go from here with all this?
Refuse even to talk together? Of course not. Just turn our back on any and every ecumenical suggestion or venture? Not that either. It was John Calvin. to the best of my memory, who said he was “willing to cross even seas” to promote the unity of the church. And, although we should shun counterfeit and unscriptural ecumenicity like the proverbial plague, we too should be willing to do no less.
But to follow the primrose path of walking and working together before we are agreed on the basics is shortsighted and irresponsible. “Timid,” someone says. Don’t you believe it; this is realistic.
Where do we go from here? Let’s put first things first and together take a long, hard look at the common basis we need in order to get together. Take, for example, the matter of Christian schools. Now that prayer, Bible reading, and the teaching of the Christian religion on the part of the instructors have been ruled out of public schools by the law of the land is our so-called Christian U.S.A., the need for a Christian school is more imperative than ever and we are guilty of treason if we stand in opposition to it.
Accordingly, the Church Order of the CRC in Article 71 prescribes the following: “The consistory shall diligently encourage the members of the congregation to establish and maintain good Christian schools, and shall urge the parents to have their children instructed in these schools according to the demands of the covenant.”
And now what about the RCA in this matter: Published in 1957, The Relationship of Public and Parochial School Education is a forty-page “Statement of the Board of Education of the Reformed Church in America.” The RCA Synod of 1957 received this document and “directed that it be sent to every pastor in the church for reading, reference and study.” A couple of excerpts from the “Summary and Recapitulation” of this document tell the story:
“This venture [Christian schools] cannot be forced upon the consciences of believers as a divinely sanctioned imperative. It is not an essential element in the covenant of grace nor a necessary consequence of baptismal vows” (p. 38).
“We caution against the acceptance of any interpretation of the Covenant which prescribes the type and quality of education. We cannot conceive of the Covenant as yielding built-in patterns of education determining in a specific manner its method, form and content” (p. 39).
It is sad but apparently true that, even in this age of influence, there are CRC parents who are eager to get away from CRC pressure in this matter and from having to pay Christian school tuition. Let’s not be so irresponsible now as to build bridges to provide them with an easy out.
But there are also other matters besides the Christian School, the discussion of which ought to take precedence in our budding romance with the RCA. The lodge question, the infallibility and authority of Scripture, open or close communion, women in church offices, and WCC (World Council of Churches) membership are items of no small importance.
It is distressing and significant that, while the CRC at this year’s Synod was so eager to keep the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Reformed Ecumenical Synod (notwithstanding deplorable developments in our Dutch sister church) and was so ready to enter into discussion with the RCA, at the same time our discussions with a doctrinally sound body like the Orthodox Presbyterian Church were terminated.
Now where do we go from here? As a CRC we should recognize that we are undergoing what someone has called “a crisis in identity.” The question is: do we still mean business about being genuinely Reformed in our faith and life or not? That there has been and is an erosian of am Reformed Commitment can hardly be denied. Let’s be clear about this: as a Reformed people we will have no real contribution to make and no impact to offer, of which modern Christendom as well as the world in general are so sorely in need, unless we are honestly determined to be ourselves.
Finally, the budding romance of the CRC and the RCA is not properly timed.
Why? Because the ecclesiastical climate in neither of our churches is today auspicious for such a romance with a possible merger or marriage as the result. Until, on both sides, God first gives us a ground swell of bona fide Reformational thinking and living and a resurgence in our commitment to the whole of Scripture and our historic doctrinal standards, we may romanticize as we please but it will be a primrose path rather than a Scripturally realistic option that we pursue and have to offer.
Meanwhile, let us by all means continue to pray fervently with our Lord that we may “all be one”; but may we never fail also to accentuate the prerequisite Jesus Himself has taught us: Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth (John 17:17–21).
What has just been going on is a Christian Reformed Church—Reformed Church in America Conference on October 31–November 2 in Holland, Michigan. At the time of this writing, in advance of the meetings, no one knows the outcome. Not any more than a young couple or their parents know the outcome of a courtship when it begins. But the time to think about that is right at the outset before the romance has gone too far and has passed the point of no return. Wisdom dictates also that this is no less true when denominations begin to court each other.
What was this CRC-RCA Conference all about?
By the time this appears in print we may know more. The best we can do as these lines are being written is report the official decision. At the 1972 CRC Synod, the Inter-Church Relations Committee reported the following:
“Your Committee has met with representatives of the Inter-Church Relations Committee of the RCA and have mutually agreed that some inter-church activities on a local and grass-roots level would be the best approach to the pursuance of ecumenical relationships. A joint committee has been named with two members of each communion for the purpose of calling together a more broadly based group of leaders in both denominations in the Grand Rapids–Holland area, to discuss and to take whatever steps are necessary to initiate programs in which Reformed and Christian Reformed members could participate. The object of such programs would be to face tasks in the community which urgently need the attention of the Christian community, and in so doing to create an atmosphere of understanding and trust without which no ecumenical endeavors on the official level will prosper” (Acts 1972, p. 291).
Synod 1972 received this report and decided to “commend the Inter-Church Relations Committee for its part in arranging the fall meeting scheduled to be held in the Ninth Street CRC of Holland, Michigan, and in Dimnent Chapel of Hope College, and urge the committee to present its report of this meeting to the Synod of 1973.
But what’s wrong with this budding romance?
It might be better to start by asking: What’s right about it? The simplistic answer of the doctrinally indifferent ecumenist would be this: Jesus prayed for His followers “that they may all be one” (John 17:21) and from this it follows that the only right thing to do is to get together. Denominationalism is nothing less than a scandal. Today’s ecumenical movement pounces upon this prayer of our Lord for it’s own purpose; but too often it does so without taking into account what Jesus says so emphatically in the context about being sanctified “in the truth.” An ecumenical structure not built on “the truth” is an even greater disaster than a house without a foundation or a courtship and marriage not based on a common religious commitment.
What’s wrong with this budding romance? The same thing that is wrong with a boy and a girl who are head over heels in love and go blissfully on with their courtship while they close their eyes to their basic religious differences or sweep them under the rug for the time being as if sometime, somehow, somewhere these differences will resolve themselves. Any pastor who has been around for awhile can tell about the heart-breaking disillusionment to which he has seen this shortsighted thinking lead.
Now, mind you, this does not mean that error and erosion of the Reformed faith is all on the side of the RCA any more than all on the side of the CRC. But it does mean that these two denominations with their rich creedal heritage should first face up to what is happening to this heritage among them today before committing themselves to a joint course of action, and that they should be on guard lest they nurture among us the doctrinal indifference and the all too prevalent thinking of a Robert Loveman:
“What care I for caste or creed?
It is the deed, it is the deed;
What for caste or what for clan
It is the man, if is the man . . .”
What’s wrong with this budding romance? Amos hit the nail right on the head: “Shall two walk together except they be agreed?”
Let’s face it: As matters now stand and for good reasons, not everyone in the CRC wants to carry on a serious courtship with everyone in the RCA; and the other side of the coin should be equally obvious: not everyone in the RCA wants to carry on a serious courtship with everyone in the CRC either.
But what joint action is being proposed?
What the CRC Inter-Church Committee has in mind and has reported to Synod may appear to he innocent enough: “to discuss and to take whatever steps are necessary to initiate programs in which Reformed and Christian Reformed Church members could participate. The object of such programs would be to face tasks in the community which urgently need the attention of the Christian community, and in so doing to create an atmosphere of understanding and trust without which no ecumenical endeavors on the official level will prosper.”
Of course, the proof of this pudding will be in the eating. To have had these proposed “programs” spelled out m3re specifically before initiating a move in this direction with Synod’s approval could have given us a better sense of direction and enabled us to have our eyes open and also count the cost in advance. Meanwhile we are eagerly awaiting the outcome of the CRC-RCA Conference and the report as to concrete proposals to be forthcoming.
But in the interim, Dr. Lester De Koster, Editor of The Banner, in an October 6 editorial, shares his thinking with us as to possible concrete joint activities. From years of experience I am, of course, well aware that the editorial page of The Banner is not the official voice of the CRC. However, it should also be born in mind, not only that The Banner is, as the masthead states, the “official organ of the CRC,” but also that the Editor is a synodical appointee and that he speaks therefore with special responsibility in his official position. Following then are some of the specific and significant instances of joint action of which Dr. De Koster is thinking:
“communities where RCA and CRC congregations ought to be sharing the same ‘parish’ in many respects. How many efforts to involve the churches in the lives of the community, and the community in the life of Jesus Christ, might not be done effectively together?” Obviously, in how far this “sharing” should go is a question badly in need of an answer.
“. . . pulpit exchanges, choir exchanges, shared youth work, common vacation Bible schools, and the like.” The late Rev. Idzerd Van Dellen, a wise counselor, warned in his day against putting up bridges for CRC members to cross over into the RCA. Are we now ready to build bridges like these for members to cross over from one denomination to another and also pave the way for a possible merger?
“I am thinking,” Dr. De Koster continues, “of combined labors in the production and publication of educational materials, and at least the contemplation of how denominational publications might be drawn together.” More bridges?
“I am thinking,” The Banner Editor goes on to say, “of inter-seminary collaboration in placing the strength of each at the disposal of the other, with an eye to shared courses and curricula.” Still more bridges?
And finally; “I am thinking of home missions posts and campus ministries so planned that there is conscious collaboration with no overlapping and duplication, let alone competition of effort.” All these bridges mind you, between denominations that are not even “sister churches”!
The Banner of October 6 in which all this appears has a cover photo showing Roman Catholic sisters with several other persons and, in reference to an article of “Ecumenicity in Action,” the line: “And we’ll work with each other, we will work side by side”; a photo of Ivan Zylstra of the National Union of Christian Schools arm in arm with Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, long-time (twenty-two years) radio preacher on the Catholic Hour program; and as a conclusion of the “Ecumenicity in Action” article by C. H. (on a meeting in Grand Rapids of educators and administrators from Catholic schools, Missouri Synod Lutheran schools, and the National Union of Christian Schools) the following:
“God moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform. How true this is of His revelation in history must have been the silent thought of many a delegate as together the conventioneers sang the words:
“And we’ll work with each other
We will work side by side . . .
And they’ll know we are
Christians by our love.”
A suggestion: bl} all means keep a close eye on the CRC barometer to know what kind of ecumenical weather may be on the way or just around the corner.
Well, where do we go from here with all this?
Refuse even to talk together? Of course not. Just turn our back on any and every ecumenical suggestion or venture? Not that either. It was John Calvin. to the best of my memory, who said he was “willing to cross even seas” to promote the unity of the church. And, although we should shun counterfeit and unscriptural ecumenicity like the proverbial plague, we too should be willing to do no less.
But to follow the primrose path of walking and working together before we are agreed on the basics is shortsighted and irresponsible. “Timid,” someone says. Don’t you believe it; this is realistic.
Where do we go from here? Let’s put first things first and together take a long, hard look at the common basis we need in order to get together. Take, for example, the matter of Christian schools. Now that prayer, Bible reading, and the teaching of the Christian religion on the part of the instructors have been ruled out of public schools by the law of the land is our so-called Christian U.S.A., the need for a Christian school is more imperative than ever and we are guilty of treason if we stand in opposition to it.
Accordingly, the Church Order of the CRC in Article 71 prescribes the following: “The consistory shall diligently encourage the members of the congregation to establish and maintain good Christian schools, and shall urge the parents to have their children instructed in these schools according to the demands of the covenant.”
And now what about the RCA in this matter: Published in 1957, The Relationship of Public and Parochial School Education is a forty-page “Statement of the Board of Education of the Reformed Church in America.” The RCA Synod of 1957 received this document and “directed that it be sent to every pastor in the church for reading, reference and study.” A couple of excerpts from the “Summary and Recapitulation” of this document tell the story:
“This venture [Christian schools] cannot be forced upon the consciences of believers as a divinely sanctioned imperative. It is not an essential element in the covenant of grace nor a necessary consequence of baptismal vows” (p. 38).
“We caution against the acceptance of any interpretation of the Covenant which prescribes the type and quality of education. We cannot conceive of the Covenant as yielding built-in patterns of education determining in a specific manner its method, form and content” (p. 39).
It is sad but apparently true that, even in this age of influence, there are CRC parents who are eager to get away from CRC pressure in this matter and from having to pay Christian school tuition. Let’s not be so irresponsible now as to build bridges to provide them with an easy out.
But there are also other matters besides the Christian School, the discussion of which ought to take precedence in our budding romance with the RCA. The lodge question, the infallibility and authority of Scripture, open or close communion, women in church offices, and WCC (World Council of Churches) membership are items of no small importance.
It is distressing and significant that, while the CRC at this year’s Synod was so eager to keep the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Reformed Ecumenical Synod (notwithstanding deplorable developments in our Dutch sister church) and was so ready to enter into discussion with the RCA, at the same time our discussions with a doctrinally sound body like the Orthodox Presbyterian Church were terminated.
Now where do we go from here? As a CRC we should recognize that we are undergoing what someone has called “a crisis in identity.” The question is: do we still mean business about being genuinely Reformed in our faith and life or not? That there has been and is an erosian of am Reformed Commitment can hardly be denied. Let’s be clear about this: as a Reformed people we will have no real contribution to make and no impact to offer, of which modern Christendom as well as the world in general are so sorely in need, unless we are honestly determined to be ourselves.
Finally, the budding romance of the CRC and the RCA is not properly timed.
Why? Because the ecclesiastical climate in neither of our churches is today auspicious for such a romance with a possible merger or marriage as the result. Until, on both sides, God first gives us a ground swell of bona fide Reformational thinking and living and a resurgence in our commitment to the whole of Scripture and our historic doctrinal standards, we may romanticize as we please but it will be a primrose path rather than a Scripturally realistic option that we pursue and have to offer.
Meanwhile, let us by all means continue to pray fervently with our Lord that we may “all be one”; but may we never fail also to accentuate the prerequisite Jesus Himself has taught us: Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth (John 17:17–21).