October 31 through November 2, 1972, may be dates inscribed in Church History textbooks—especially those about Reformed churches. On those dates in the city of Holland, Michigan, a Christian Reformed Church—Reformed Church in America conference took place. And it even took place at the historic Ninth Street Christian Reformed Church the building which once fang with the sermons of Dominie A. C. Van Raalte.
That we are in a new era of CRC-RCA relations is not hard to see, especially if you sat at the conference. Hopefully, the old antagonism and hatred will disappear. Although, there still ought to be enough good-natured rivalry to make a Hope-Calvin basketball game exciting. That there is still some “suspicion” was symbolized at the Conference on the first full day when it came to divide up as denominations for discussions. The CRC was sent up to the auditorium where the historic Van Raalte plaque graces the wall, while the RCA remained in the basement. I am sure that this was not to say, as one RCA member put it, that the CRC had the higher place, Rather, maybe it was done to protect the Van Raalte plaque. Ninth Street Church had no armed guards on duty—as they did in the 1880’s to protect the plaque from the hands of the RCA. Maybe to send the guests upstairs would have endangered that memorial. Of course, I comment facetiously.
To be a part of such a select group of men and women of both denominations at such an historic meeting was indeed a privilege. Those attending were divided into two groups. Of the 101 registered participants, 56 were registered as participants and the rest as observers. Of this 101, there were 46 from the CRC.
The conference opened with an inspiring Reformation Rally held in Dimnent Memorial Chapel at Hope College. At this meeting attended in mass by those in attendance at the conference, Dr. Leonard Greenway spoke on “Some Missing Notes.” He pointed out that missing today in the theological and church world are theological certainty, passionate forthrightness and personal expectancy of the Lord’s return. He pointed out that all too often there is today a desire for unity without doctrinal consensus. Yet, the only basis for unity is “God has spoken.” He further pointed out that though evasiveness is characteristic of today’s theological world, we must forthrightly present the truth. We may not evade every divisive issue. We may not because we must await the Lord’s return with faithfulness to Him.
The next morning the conference began in earnest, Two papers were presented on the subject “What Happened in 1857?” one by Dr. John Kromminga and the other by Dr. Elton Bruins. Underlying 1857, Dr. Kromminga said, was a spirit of secession in the Holland Colony. Also, he indicated that there was a difference concerning the doctrine of Church, though he did not point out that this came from the Netherlands where in the Seceders’ Church there was a difference of conviction between Dominie van Velzen and his brother-in-law, A. C. Van Raalte. A great emphasis was placed on personality conflicts which can also be explained in the light of the doctrinal difference among the seceders in the Netherlands (D. H. Kromminga’s The Christian Reformed Tradition, p. 108, throws interesting light on this). Had the line been drawn more sharply in this presentation, it is certain that the initial discussion groups which followed would have been much more fruitful and in keeping with the Reformation address of the evening before. Dr. Bruins spent much time discussing the reasons for 1857, including the so-called Wycoff promise to the Colony: that if Classis Holland would find that union with the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of the east was unsatisfactory they could withdraw from that union and be an independent Classis.
Following this, discussion groups were formed in which questions such as “Are we happy about what we heard?” “Is it meaningful history?” were to be discussed.
Later in the afternoon denominational caucuses were held in which the direction we should go was discussed. In the CRC caucus there was some discussion that organizational union should be sought—but not at this time since some differences exist. After much discussion it was decided that “Because of cultural and confessional similarities between the RCA and CRC, we should seek closer denominational unity, and our respective Inter-Church committees should be instructed to continue discussions toward that goal. The following areas of fruitful cooperation should be worked out: education and youth work, closer fellowship on the local level (exchange of pulpits, united services, areas of social, political, moral concerns . . .), cooperative efforts in evangelical outreach and Bible distribution, Campus ministries.”
The following morning this was presented to the entire group. And likewise the RCA brought a presentation. The RCA suggested cooperation at three levels: theological, specific local and regional ministries, and also on the informal level. They urged frank and open discussion regarding Ecumenical relationships, theology (by means of joint commissions) and how we see each other as sister churches. They suggested joint efforts evangelistically, in youth work, women’s work, education, and in urban and community affairs. Federated Churches were a suggestion, too. Already the RCA has congregations like this made up of Methodists, Presbyterians, and Quakers, if I recall correctly. On the informal level common involvement in festivals and worship was suggested, as was the opening of denominational publications to views of the other Church.
Later in the day even more specific statements were made as to how we as two denominations can cooperate. These statements will be presented to each Synod for action through the denominational Inter-Church committees.
Now, concerning this conference I have several observations.
First, let it be clear that I am not against true, Biblical ecumenicity. But union, for the sake of union, is not proper. There must be common concerns and what is more basic: common faith. This is only realized when issues are discussed. To say, as someone did at Holland, “Theological issues are important. If we decide we like each other, then we can move further. We can discuss theology in commissions and come to conclusions,” is to put the cart before the horse.
Second, I realize that what I write some will not like. So be it! They are free to express joy at the spirit of oneness. They are free to express optimism over the meetings. I, too, may express my feelin2s. I was rather sad. I, personally, came from the RCA to the CRC nine years ago because I had some real problems with some RCA thinking. Today the CRC is different. Some may say she is more Americanized. Others may say she has lost her moorings. But I witnessed at Holland an embarrassment over what the CRC has stood for—or was it a studied attempt to say we are older now and more sophisticated? Why could we not discuss some of the issues that have divided us since 1857? Is there a lack of commitment to what were principles for our forefathers? Why could they not be discussed, even if it were proven from Scripture that we have been wrong? Is not discipline important? What of the lodge issue or close communion? What about women in office? What about the doctrine of Scripture? What about Christian Schools? Interestingly, when one of the joint recommendations concerning the possibility of cooperation in education was read, a Reformed minister from the east had to be assured that this was to be in the area of Sunday School education. Though he did not say that he was opposed to Christian Schools it was apparent that he was fearful of our school systems.
Third, I am puzzled as to why the RCA wants to discuss with us. For years their denominational emphasis has been very different from the position of the CRC. Is it because they see in the CRC a shift of emphasis? (Of course, we hate to admit it, but there isl) Do they find us more palatable today? One RCA minister has suggested that they long for our more powerful Church government since a certain congregationalism now pervades the RCA.
Fourth, I was impressed with the strong emphasis on how all this can be organized. How can we talk about this—not what can we talk about. Again and again the emphasis was on how to organize committees.
Fifth, I felt as if before the meetings began there was already a determination on the part of some to make them a success. Hence, anything which might be divisive was looked past.
Finally, it might be said that I want nothing to do with the RCA. Nothing could be more untrue. have preached and worshipped in the RCA. My family is in the RCA. I am a product of the RCA. I know and love members of the RCA. I would desire that there be real fellowship with them. There are members of the RCA with whom I sense a stronger oneness than some in the CRC. But let’s talk about issues. Are we afraid or are we weak? Or, are the RCA and CRC so far gone that we cannot talk about issues in the light of Scripture, but must give them to some committee mooting off in some denominational “Pentagon”?
Jerome M. Julien is pastor of the Faith Christian Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan.
That we are in a new era of CRC-RCA relations is not hard to see, especially if you sat at the conference. Hopefully, the old antagonism and hatred will disappear. Although, there still ought to be enough good-natured rivalry to make a Hope-Calvin basketball game exciting. That there is still some “suspicion” was symbolized at the Conference on the first full day when it came to divide up as denominations for discussions. The CRC was sent up to the auditorium where the historic Van Raalte plaque graces the wall, while the RCA remained in the basement. I am sure that this was not to say, as one RCA member put it, that the CRC had the higher place, Rather, maybe it was done to protect the Van Raalte plaque. Ninth Street Church had no armed guards on duty—as they did in the 1880’s to protect the plaque from the hands of the RCA. Maybe to send the guests upstairs would have endangered that memorial. Of course, I comment facetiously.
To be a part of such a select group of men and women of both denominations at such an historic meeting was indeed a privilege. Those attending were divided into two groups. Of the 101 registered participants, 56 were registered as participants and the rest as observers. Of this 101, there were 46 from the CRC.
The conference opened with an inspiring Reformation Rally held in Dimnent Memorial Chapel at Hope College. At this meeting attended in mass by those in attendance at the conference, Dr. Leonard Greenway spoke on “Some Missing Notes.” He pointed out that missing today in the theological and church world are theological certainty, passionate forthrightness and personal expectancy of the Lord’s return. He pointed out that all too often there is today a desire for unity without doctrinal consensus. Yet, the only basis for unity is “God has spoken.” He further pointed out that though evasiveness is characteristic of today’s theological world, we must forthrightly present the truth. We may not evade every divisive issue. We may not because we must await the Lord’s return with faithfulness to Him.
The next morning the conference began in earnest, Two papers were presented on the subject “What Happened in 1857?” one by Dr. John Kromminga and the other by Dr. Elton Bruins. Underlying 1857, Dr. Kromminga said, was a spirit of secession in the Holland Colony. Also, he indicated that there was a difference concerning the doctrine of Church, though he did not point out that this came from the Netherlands where in the Seceders’ Church there was a difference of conviction between Dominie van Velzen and his brother-in-law, A. C. Van Raalte. A great emphasis was placed on personality conflicts which can also be explained in the light of the doctrinal difference among the seceders in the Netherlands (D. H. Kromminga’s The Christian Reformed Tradition, p. 108, throws interesting light on this). Had the line been drawn more sharply in this presentation, it is certain that the initial discussion groups which followed would have been much more fruitful and in keeping with the Reformation address of the evening before. Dr. Bruins spent much time discussing the reasons for 1857, including the so-called Wycoff promise to the Colony: that if Classis Holland would find that union with the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of the east was unsatisfactory they could withdraw from that union and be an independent Classis.
Following this, discussion groups were formed in which questions such as “Are we happy about what we heard?” “Is it meaningful history?” were to be discussed.
Later in the afternoon denominational caucuses were held in which the direction we should go was discussed. In the CRC caucus there was some discussion that organizational union should be sought—but not at this time since some differences exist. After much discussion it was decided that “Because of cultural and confessional similarities between the RCA and CRC, we should seek closer denominational unity, and our respective Inter-Church committees should be instructed to continue discussions toward that goal. The following areas of fruitful cooperation should be worked out: education and youth work, closer fellowship on the local level (exchange of pulpits, united services, areas of social, political, moral concerns . . .), cooperative efforts in evangelical outreach and Bible distribution, Campus ministries.”
The following morning this was presented to the entire group. And likewise the RCA brought a presentation. The RCA suggested cooperation at three levels: theological, specific local and regional ministries, and also on the informal level. They urged frank and open discussion regarding Ecumenical relationships, theology (by means of joint commissions) and how we see each other as sister churches. They suggested joint efforts evangelistically, in youth work, women’s work, education, and in urban and community affairs. Federated Churches were a suggestion, too. Already the RCA has congregations like this made up of Methodists, Presbyterians, and Quakers, if I recall correctly. On the informal level common involvement in festivals and worship was suggested, as was the opening of denominational publications to views of the other Church.
Later in the day even more specific statements were made as to how we as two denominations can cooperate. These statements will be presented to each Synod for action through the denominational Inter-Church committees.
Now, concerning this conference I have several observations.
First, let it be clear that I am not against true, Biblical ecumenicity. But union, for the sake of union, is not proper. There must be common concerns and what is more basic: common faith. This is only realized when issues are discussed. To say, as someone did at Holland, “Theological issues are important. If we decide we like each other, then we can move further. We can discuss theology in commissions and come to conclusions,” is to put the cart before the horse.
Second, I realize that what I write some will not like. So be it! They are free to express joy at the spirit of oneness. They are free to express optimism over the meetings. I, too, may express my feelin2s. I was rather sad. I, personally, came from the RCA to the CRC nine years ago because I had some real problems with some RCA thinking. Today the CRC is different. Some may say she is more Americanized. Others may say she has lost her moorings. But I witnessed at Holland an embarrassment over what the CRC has stood for—or was it a studied attempt to say we are older now and more sophisticated? Why could we not discuss some of the issues that have divided us since 1857? Is there a lack of commitment to what were principles for our forefathers? Why could they not be discussed, even if it were proven from Scripture that we have been wrong? Is not discipline important? What of the lodge issue or close communion? What about women in office? What about the doctrine of Scripture? What about Christian Schools? Interestingly, when one of the joint recommendations concerning the possibility of cooperation in education was read, a Reformed minister from the east had to be assured that this was to be in the area of Sunday School education. Though he did not say that he was opposed to Christian Schools it was apparent that he was fearful of our school systems.
Third, I am puzzled as to why the RCA wants to discuss with us. For years their denominational emphasis has been very different from the position of the CRC. Is it because they see in the CRC a shift of emphasis? (Of course, we hate to admit it, but there isl) Do they find us more palatable today? One RCA minister has suggested that they long for our more powerful Church government since a certain congregationalism now pervades the RCA.
Fourth, I was impressed with the strong emphasis on how all this can be organized. How can we talk about this—not what can we talk about. Again and again the emphasis was on how to organize committees.
Fifth, I felt as if before the meetings began there was already a determination on the part of some to make them a success. Hence, anything which might be divisive was looked past.
Finally, it might be said that I want nothing to do with the RCA. Nothing could be more untrue. have preached and worshipped in the RCA. My family is in the RCA. I am a product of the RCA. I know and love members of the RCA. I would desire that there be real fellowship with them. There are members of the RCA with whom I sense a stronger oneness than some in the CRC. But let’s talk about issues. Are we afraid or are we weak? Or, are the RCA and CRC so far gone that we cannot talk about issues in the light of Scripture, but must give them to some committee mooting off in some denominational “Pentagon”?
Jerome M. Julien is pastor of the Faith Christian Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan.