In view of the recent CRC-RCA Get-together in Holland, Michigan and the proposals for further closer relations between the Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America, it was decided to present a special and enlarged issue of THE OUTLOOK for February-March in an attempt to give some pertinent and necessary information about this movement. The need to be informed is urgent. Hopefully the following questions and answers will be of help:
1. Why was this CRC-RCA Get-together held?
Attended by delegates and observers from both denominations, the meetings were held October 31–November 2, 1972 at the historic Ninth Street Christian Reformed Church of which the pioneer Rev. A.C. Van Raalte was the first pastor from 1847–‘67. The purpose as stated on the program was: “To discover each other in terms of where we are in 1972 and where we think we ought to be with respect to each other.”
2. Is there reason to believe that this purpose was achieved?
As one of the observers present, I would say Yes and No. Let me explain. One would think that, as sons and daughters of the Secession of 1857, the CRC delegates would feel called upon to inquire 6rst of all about issues or points of difference that were at stake in 1857 and others that have arisen or become accentuated since that time. But when at the meetings I tried once and again to project this into the discussions the very idea seemed to be taboo. There simply was no interest to come to grips with anything of the kind at the meetings. This experience was as revealing about the CRC as it was frustrating. As Rev. Arnold Brink stated in The Banner of January 19, in reply to a Voices article by Rev. C. William Flietstra about Christian education, lodgism, and membership in the World Council of Churches:
“The matters raised . . . are reserved for commissions to be appointed for extensive and intensive study in future months or years. The meeting in Holland was too brief for these considerations . . . .” And that was that as far as the Holland meetings were concerned.
With no interest in discussing the real issues that have kept the CRC and the RCA apart, everything at the meetings was sweetness and light with a budding romance as a likelihood and hardly a cloud in the sky. At least for the time being, sticky issues were comfortably set aside. The preamble to the “Conference Statement of the CRC-RCA meeting” reads:
“We the delegates of the CRC and the UCA . thank God for the unity He gave us during our deliberations. Our prayer is that all the members of our two denominations may experience a like unity . . . .” And then the statement goes on to recommend, for example: “joint planning . . . in church extension to avoid overlapping . . .” “local exchanges between churches, including pulpit fellowship; . . .”
But what does such a declaration of unity really amount to when not even a beginning was made in the discussion of the issues? To quote once again from the Calvin College Chimes (Nov. 10, ‘72) report on the CRC-RCA Get-together:
“The cautionary note of good conservative separatist thought which would almost have been a majority opinion in the CRC some years earlier (Italics mine) was represented only by Rev. Leonard Greenway . . . and by former Banner editor John Vander Ploeg . . . . With a few minor exceptions, the rest of the CRC contingent was headlong in pursuit of fellowship.”
And now, what about the purpose of this get-together being achieved? Did we “discover each other in terms of where we are in 1972 and where we think we ought to be with respect to each other”? On the one hand, the answer must be No. Why? Because there was at the meetings not even the beginning of a discussion of our differences. These were simply assigned to “commissions” for later “study.” Moreover, the answer must be No because there was such an eagerness to walk together whether we are now agreed or not. Proceeding with fellowship prior to the needed study is putting the cart before the horse.
But on the other hand, maybe the answer should be Yes and that we did discover “where we are.” But then I would submit that we are a long way from where we ought to be.
3. What are the issues or areas of concern that need to be considered?
Special articles dealing with matters of importance as found in this issue deal with following: The Lodge and Church Membership, Open or Close Communion, Catechism Preaching, Ecumenism (Affiliation with the National and the World Councils of Churches). Other matters of special concern are the Christian School, women in church offices, and the infallibility and the authority of the Bible.
4. What is the difference between the CRC and the RCA with respect to the Christian School? Editorial attention was called to this in the October 1972 issue of THE OUTLOOK as follows:
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 in 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 tells the story:
“This venture (Christian schools] cannot be forced upon the conscience 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 affluence, 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 an easy out.
5. How do the CRC and the RCA differ in their views of Scripture? It cannot be said too often or too emphatically that, in a very important sense, this issue may be said to be basic to all the rest. A church sets its sail and chooses its course in deciding what it believes about the Bible as the Word of God. Right now there are reasons to believe that the so-called “new theology” of the Netherlands (Prof. H. Kuitert and Prof. J. Lever) is making its inroads into the CRC also. And there are also reasons for saying that closer fellowship or possible union with the RCA would make this situation worse instead of better.
a. What is the position of the CRC with respect to the “new theology” in in its view of Scripture?
As readers of THE OUTLOOK must know, the latest statement emanating from the CRC is the familiar Report 44 on “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority.” Unfortunately, not all are agreed as to the precise meaning or interpretation of that document. However, Synod 1972 was definitely given the following assurance concerning rejection of the “new theology” by its Advisory Committee before it took favorable action with respect to Report 44:
“It was felt by some that Report 36 was a compromise, tolerating erroneous positions held by such men as Professor H. Kuitert and Professor J. Lever. We wish to call Synod’s attention to the fact that Report 44, without mentioning names, emphatically rejects these errors. For example, the report sharply refutes a position held by both Lever and Kuitert: ‘If one asserts, for example, that science makes it impossible to believe any longer that there was historically an original man and woman who were the ancestors of the human race, then the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter is no longer maintained: Kuitert’s insistence that the account of the fall in Genesis 3 does not record an historical event but is merely a “teaching model” is also repudiated. This position of Kuitert is also rejected where we read, ‘The contention that these chapters (Genesis 1–11) do not present events that really happened is certainly in conflict with our Reformed Confessions and in conflict with Scripture itself: Kuitert’s denial of the historicity of the fall is also clearly rejected, ‘It is clear from the statements themselves (statements from the Confessions quoted in the previous paragraph) that the denial of the historicity of the fall of our first parents at the beginning of human history cannot be harmonized with the Confessions . . .” (p. 67 Acts of Synod, 1972).
This assurance concerning the rejection of the so-called “new theology” in Report 44 ought to be kept clearly in mind.
b. And now what is the position of the RCA on this matter of the “new theology”?
James I. Cook, professor at Western Theological Seminary (RCA), obviously gives us the information we need on this in Reformed Review (Winter 1970), a Quarterly Journal of the Seminaries of the RCA. We glean the following from what he writes about “The Interpretation of Scripture” as one of the areas of tension within the RCA itself. As to what he is convinced is the position of “the overwhelming majority of the (RCA) denominational membership,” Professor Cook informs us:
“This view (of the “overwhelming majority”) of inspiration, infallibility, and biblical criticism permits an interpretation of the narrative of the Fall which differs from the interpretation of the first view [viz., “that narrative and its details are to be read as straight-forward history”]. The story is to be read with the question, What did the writer intend to teach at this point? The answer given is, that he intended to teach that the first man and all men have broken their relationship with God through willful disobedience and transgression. This fact is presented in a graphic form which employs such symbols as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the serpent which speaks, and the tree of life. To say that these details were not sensibly perceptible realities in no way denies either the reality of the Fall or the inspiration and trustworthiness of the Bible or the vows taken by a minister of the Word in the Reformed Church in America” (Italics mine).
To-take such liberty as this with what is so obviously historical in the Genesis account of the Fall casts a significant light on the following statement about Scripture adopted by the RCA General Synod in 1963 quoted by Professor Cook:
“In obedience to the Scripture, the Reformed Churches have always confessed with joy the fact of inspiration, but in the absence of a detailed and fully articulated theory of inspiration, either in Scripture or in the Confessions, the Reformed churches have never deemed it necessary or prudent to de6ne and incorporate into the Confessions any theory and its particularia. Therefore we judge that with respect to the doctrine of inspiration, a minister of the Gospel who confesses the Holy Scripture to be inspired Word of God, infallible and inerrant in all that it intends to teach, does thereby discharge his obedience to the Scriptures, the Confessions of the Church and his ministerial vows” (Italics mine).
Note: In the light of all the above, are we being true to Scripture, to our Doctrinal Standards, and to our historic position if we now proceed forthwith to implement proposals for CRC-RCA fellowship (pulpit exchanges et cetera) without first having a frank and thorough discussion of the issues that should be of real concern to those who want to be truly Reformed?
OVERTURES TO CLASS IS HOLLAND
The Consistory of the historic Graafschap Christian Reformed Church of Holland, Michigan is submitting the following Overture to Classis Holland:
1. The Consistory of the Graafschap Christian Reformed Church overtures Classis Holland to overture the Synod of 1973 to instruct the Inter-Church Relations Committee to determine whether there are any areas of disagreement in the interpretation and application of Scripture between the Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church of America, before the joint ventures being recommended are approved:
Grounds:
1. Synod must determine agreement in principles before approving and recommending joint practices with another religious group in such strategic areas as Missions, education, worship, and youth activities.
2. The unity which Christ requires is not merely a unity of action. (John 17:22b -“. . . that they may be one, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE . . .”)
2. The Consistory of the Graafschap Christian Reformed Church overtures Classis to urge the churches of Classis Holland not to follow the recommendation of the Conference delegates to “hold special services on or about April 8, 1973, whether jointly or otherwise . . . .”
Grounds:
1. The theological dialogue and discussion about matters of inter-church relations which our CJassis is seeking to have with Classis Holland of the Reformed Church in America should take place before there are joint special services.
2. This is the date which marks our beginning as the Christian Reformed Church. Special services or festivals held jointly on or near that date, with the denomination from which we separated, would be equivalent to saying that this beginning was a big mistake and should never have happened.
1. Why was this CRC-RCA Get-together held?
Attended by delegates and observers from both denominations, the meetings were held October 31–November 2, 1972 at the historic Ninth Street Christian Reformed Church of which the pioneer Rev. A.C. Van Raalte was the first pastor from 1847–‘67. The purpose as stated on the program was: “To discover each other in terms of where we are in 1972 and where we think we ought to be with respect to each other.”
2. Is there reason to believe that this purpose was achieved?
As one of the observers present, I would say Yes and No. Let me explain. One would think that, as sons and daughters of the Secession of 1857, the CRC delegates would feel called upon to inquire 6rst of all about issues or points of difference that were at stake in 1857 and others that have arisen or become accentuated since that time. But when at the meetings I tried once and again to project this into the discussions the very idea seemed to be taboo. There simply was no interest to come to grips with anything of the kind at the meetings. This experience was as revealing about the CRC as it was frustrating. As Rev. Arnold Brink stated in The Banner of January 19, in reply to a Voices article by Rev. C. William Flietstra about Christian education, lodgism, and membership in the World Council of Churches:
“The matters raised . . . are reserved for commissions to be appointed for extensive and intensive study in future months or years. The meeting in Holland was too brief for these considerations . . . .” And that was that as far as the Holland meetings were concerned.
With no interest in discussing the real issues that have kept the CRC and the RCA apart, everything at the meetings was sweetness and light with a budding romance as a likelihood and hardly a cloud in the sky. At least for the time being, sticky issues were comfortably set aside. The preamble to the “Conference Statement of the CRC-RCA meeting” reads:
“We the delegates of the CRC and the UCA . thank God for the unity He gave us during our deliberations. Our prayer is that all the members of our two denominations may experience a like unity . . . .” And then the statement goes on to recommend, for example: “joint planning . . . in church extension to avoid overlapping . . .” “local exchanges between churches, including pulpit fellowship; . . .”
But what does such a declaration of unity really amount to when not even a beginning was made in the discussion of the issues? To quote once again from the Calvin College Chimes (Nov. 10, ‘72) report on the CRC-RCA Get-together:
“The cautionary note of good conservative separatist thought which would almost have been a majority opinion in the CRC some years earlier (Italics mine) was represented only by Rev. Leonard Greenway . . . and by former Banner editor John Vander Ploeg . . . . With a few minor exceptions, the rest of the CRC contingent was headlong in pursuit of fellowship.”
And now, what about the purpose of this get-together being achieved? Did we “discover each other in terms of where we are in 1972 and where we think we ought to be with respect to each other”? On the one hand, the answer must be No. Why? Because there was at the meetings not even the beginning of a discussion of our differences. These were simply assigned to “commissions” for later “study.” Moreover, the answer must be No because there was such an eagerness to walk together whether we are now agreed or not. Proceeding with fellowship prior to the needed study is putting the cart before the horse.
But on the other hand, maybe the answer should be Yes and that we did discover “where we are.” But then I would submit that we are a long way from where we ought to be.
3. What are the issues or areas of concern that need to be considered?
Special articles dealing with matters of importance as found in this issue deal with following: The Lodge and Church Membership, Open or Close Communion, Catechism Preaching, Ecumenism (Affiliation with the National and the World Councils of Churches). Other matters of special concern are the Christian School, women in church offices, and the infallibility and the authority of the Bible.
4. What is the difference between the CRC and the RCA with respect to the Christian School? Editorial attention was called to this in the October 1972 issue of THE OUTLOOK as follows:
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 in 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 tells the story:
“This venture (Christian schools] cannot be forced upon the conscience 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 affluence, 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 an easy out.
5. How do the CRC and the RCA differ in their views of Scripture? It cannot be said too often or too emphatically that, in a very important sense, this issue may be said to be basic to all the rest. A church sets its sail and chooses its course in deciding what it believes about the Bible as the Word of God. Right now there are reasons to believe that the so-called “new theology” of the Netherlands (Prof. H. Kuitert and Prof. J. Lever) is making its inroads into the CRC also. And there are also reasons for saying that closer fellowship or possible union with the RCA would make this situation worse instead of better.
a. What is the position of the CRC with respect to the “new theology” in in its view of Scripture?
As readers of THE OUTLOOK must know, the latest statement emanating from the CRC is the familiar Report 44 on “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority.” Unfortunately, not all are agreed as to the precise meaning or interpretation of that document. However, Synod 1972 was definitely given the following assurance concerning rejection of the “new theology” by its Advisory Committee before it took favorable action with respect to Report 44:
“It was felt by some that Report 36 was a compromise, tolerating erroneous positions held by such men as Professor H. Kuitert and Professor J. Lever. We wish to call Synod’s attention to the fact that Report 44, without mentioning names, emphatically rejects these errors. For example, the report sharply refutes a position held by both Lever and Kuitert: ‘If one asserts, for example, that science makes it impossible to believe any longer that there was historically an original man and woman who were the ancestors of the human race, then the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter is no longer maintained: Kuitert’s insistence that the account of the fall in Genesis 3 does not record an historical event but is merely a “teaching model” is also repudiated. This position of Kuitert is also rejected where we read, ‘The contention that these chapters (Genesis 1–11) do not present events that really happened is certainly in conflict with our Reformed Confessions and in conflict with Scripture itself: Kuitert’s denial of the historicity of the fall is also clearly rejected, ‘It is clear from the statements themselves (statements from the Confessions quoted in the previous paragraph) that the denial of the historicity of the fall of our first parents at the beginning of human history cannot be harmonized with the Confessions . . .” (p. 67 Acts of Synod, 1972).
This assurance concerning the rejection of the so-called “new theology” in Report 44 ought to be kept clearly in mind.
b. And now what is the position of the RCA on this matter of the “new theology”?
James I. Cook, professor at Western Theological Seminary (RCA), obviously gives us the information we need on this in Reformed Review (Winter 1970), a Quarterly Journal of the Seminaries of the RCA. We glean the following from what he writes about “The Interpretation of Scripture” as one of the areas of tension within the RCA itself. As to what he is convinced is the position of “the overwhelming majority of the (RCA) denominational membership,” Professor Cook informs us:
“This view (of the “overwhelming majority”) of inspiration, infallibility, and biblical criticism permits an interpretation of the narrative of the Fall which differs from the interpretation of the first view [viz., “that narrative and its details are to be read as straight-forward history”]. The story is to be read with the question, What did the writer intend to teach at this point? The answer given is, that he intended to teach that the first man and all men have broken their relationship with God through willful disobedience and transgression. This fact is presented in a graphic form which employs such symbols as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the serpent which speaks, and the tree of life. To say that these details were not sensibly perceptible realities in no way denies either the reality of the Fall or the inspiration and trustworthiness of the Bible or the vows taken by a minister of the Word in the Reformed Church in America” (Italics mine).
To-take such liberty as this with what is so obviously historical in the Genesis account of the Fall casts a significant light on the following statement about Scripture adopted by the RCA General Synod in 1963 quoted by Professor Cook:
“In obedience to the Scripture, the Reformed Churches have always confessed with joy the fact of inspiration, but in the absence of a detailed and fully articulated theory of inspiration, either in Scripture or in the Confessions, the Reformed churches have never deemed it necessary or prudent to de6ne and incorporate into the Confessions any theory and its particularia. Therefore we judge that with respect to the doctrine of inspiration, a minister of the Gospel who confesses the Holy Scripture to be inspired Word of God, infallible and inerrant in all that it intends to teach, does thereby discharge his obedience to the Scriptures, the Confessions of the Church and his ministerial vows” (Italics mine).
Note: In the light of all the above, are we being true to Scripture, to our Doctrinal Standards, and to our historic position if we now proceed forthwith to implement proposals for CRC-RCA fellowship (pulpit exchanges et cetera) without first having a frank and thorough discussion of the issues that should be of real concern to those who want to be truly Reformed?
OVERTURES TO CLASS IS HOLLAND
The Consistory of the historic Graafschap Christian Reformed Church of Holland, Michigan is submitting the following Overture to Classis Holland:
1. The Consistory of the Graafschap Christian Reformed Church overtures Classis Holland to overture the Synod of 1973 to instruct the Inter-Church Relations Committee to determine whether there are any areas of disagreement in the interpretation and application of Scripture between the Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church of America, before the joint ventures being recommended are approved:
Grounds:
1. Synod must determine agreement in principles before approving and recommending joint practices with another religious group in such strategic areas as Missions, education, worship, and youth activities.
2. The unity which Christ requires is not merely a unity of action. (John 17:22b -“. . . that they may be one, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE . . .”)
2. The Consistory of the Graafschap Christian Reformed Church overtures Classis to urge the churches of Classis Holland not to follow the recommendation of the Conference delegates to “hold special services on or about April 8, 1973, whether jointly or otherwise . . . .”
Grounds:
1. The theological dialogue and discussion about matters of inter-church relations which our CJassis is seeking to have with Classis Holland of the Reformed Church in America should take place before there are joint special services.
2. This is the date which marks our beginning as the Christian Reformed Church. Special services or festivals held jointly on or near that date, with the denomination from which we separated, would be equivalent to saying that this beginning was a big mistake and should never have happened.