Rev. Harry Van Dyken is pastor of the Maranatha Christian Reformed Church of Woodbridge, Ontario. In this article he writes concerning two overtures addressed to Synod 1973 dealing with Report 44 (adopted last year) on The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority. These overtures, one from Classis Pacific Northwest and the other from the consistory of the Second Christian Reformed Church of Toronto, Ontario, are found on pages 583 and 597–599 in the Agenda for Synod 1973.
It is not surprising that the question of Report 44 is once more before our churches. Certainly, there can hardly be a more important question before the churches than one which concerns her confession of the Word of God, the Bible, and, particularly, concerning the authority of that Word for her life. Synod has noted, along with the study committee, that the adoption of Report 44 was not the adoption of a confessional statement. Yet, the matter is not quite that simple. These adopted guidelines and pastoral advice are guidelines and advice which define and articulate what we as Reformed Churches say in our confessions about the authority of the Scriptures. Such decisions ought not to be made hurriedly in the life of the churches. Such decisions ought not to be open to further reflection and consideration by the churches.
Neither is it surprising that there is a great variety of opinion about what Report 44 actually does say. The surprise would indeed come if we had heard the last of the widely varying interpretations and applications of this Report. It is not even a great deal of help when the original authors of this Report, the study committee, are called upon to interpret the Report for us, for it no longer belongs to them. It now belongs to the Christian Reformed churches and it will be interpreted by them, not by what some certain person says it means or does not mean, but by what stands written.
I believe it was a serious mistake on the part of the Synod of 1972 to have allowed itself to face the simple alternative of voting Report 44 up or down. A report containing matter of such import for the life of the Church of Jesus Christ ought rather to have been referred again to the churches for study, reflection, and discussion. This is all the more true since this Report is, by no stretch of the imagination, simple or unambiguous.
Classis Pacific Northwest and the Second Christian Reformed Church of Toronto have addressed our Synod 1973 regarding Report 44. The first overture, from Classic Pacific Northwest, is very brief, requesting just a small change of wording. The overture/appeal of Second Toronto is more lengthy and specifically asks for the rescinding of Synod’s decision to adopt this report and its pastoral advice to the churches. At first glance these two Overtures seem quite different in their scope and thrust.
I believe it is worthwhile to consider this seeming difference a little more fully. Classis Pacific Northwest asks Synod to “eliminate the phrase ‘the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ’ from point a. of the seven related points of pastoral advice,” and to “substitute the phrase, ‘the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ,’” with their added grounds. But let us consider:
1. that Synod did not only adopt seven points of pastoral advice, but a whole report that is intimately related to this advice. The whole report was adopted “as providing guidelines for our understanding and further discussion of the nature and extent of biblical authority.” Synod also adopted the recommendation that “Synod adopt the . . . seven interrelated points . . . in the light of the report . . . .”
Also, surprisingly, Synod gave its advance approval to a “popular form” of Report 44 to be published in The Banner. At least a part of this “popular form” is already before us. It is to reach us eventually in booklet form. This “for the purpose of reaching the general membership of the churches.”
2. That the Report which must shed light on this pastoral advice speaks the language of this “phrase” some twenty-five times—add that which appears in “popular form,” and the number will exceed 30.
In other words, this language is part and parcel of the whole.
Classis says in ground c. under 1. that “The phrase is not materially necessary to point a. itself . . . and its elimination does not alter the sense or meaning of the seven interrelated points of pastoral advice.”
The trouble is that “the phrase,” appearing first in Synod’s mandate to its study committee, becomes basic to the whole of the Report and therefore also to the seven interrelated points. I believe that Dr. James Daane, in his articles in The Banner, has amply demonstrated that this particular phrase is basic to what he calls position B of the Report. While I disagree with Dr. Daane in his conclusions, 1 must wholeheartedly agree with his analysis of Report 44.
If Synod must eliminate this phrase from point a., it must start at the mandate given and work all the way through the Report and on into the “popular form” of the Report.
Seen in this light, the two Overtures coming before Synod are not really so different. It seems apparent that they are both asking for a full reappraisal of the basic thrust of Synod’s decision.
Because I am convinced from the Word of God that Scripture is neither exhaustively redemptive, nor partially non-redemptive (this is a false dilemma), but is totally and exhaustively the covenantal self-revelation of God to man, I believe that Synod must reconsider, and, at very least, refer this Report once again to the churches for more prayerful and careful, extensive and intensive reflection and discussion before it comes again to Synod for final decision.
It is not surprising that the question of Report 44 is once more before our churches. Certainly, there can hardly be a more important question before the churches than one which concerns her confession of the Word of God, the Bible, and, particularly, concerning the authority of that Word for her life. Synod has noted, along with the study committee, that the adoption of Report 44 was not the adoption of a confessional statement. Yet, the matter is not quite that simple. These adopted guidelines and pastoral advice are guidelines and advice which define and articulate what we as Reformed Churches say in our confessions about the authority of the Scriptures. Such decisions ought not to be made hurriedly in the life of the churches. Such decisions ought not to be open to further reflection and consideration by the churches.
Neither is it surprising that there is a great variety of opinion about what Report 44 actually does say. The surprise would indeed come if we had heard the last of the widely varying interpretations and applications of this Report. It is not even a great deal of help when the original authors of this Report, the study committee, are called upon to interpret the Report for us, for it no longer belongs to them. It now belongs to the Christian Reformed churches and it will be interpreted by them, not by what some certain person says it means or does not mean, but by what stands written.
I believe it was a serious mistake on the part of the Synod of 1972 to have allowed itself to face the simple alternative of voting Report 44 up or down. A report containing matter of such import for the life of the Church of Jesus Christ ought rather to have been referred again to the churches for study, reflection, and discussion. This is all the more true since this Report is, by no stretch of the imagination, simple or unambiguous.
Classis Pacific Northwest and the Second Christian Reformed Church of Toronto have addressed our Synod 1973 regarding Report 44. The first overture, from Classic Pacific Northwest, is very brief, requesting just a small change of wording. The overture/appeal of Second Toronto is more lengthy and specifically asks for the rescinding of Synod’s decision to adopt this report and its pastoral advice to the churches. At first glance these two Overtures seem quite different in their scope and thrust.
I believe it is worthwhile to consider this seeming difference a little more fully. Classis Pacific Northwest asks Synod to “eliminate the phrase ‘the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ’ from point a. of the seven related points of pastoral advice,” and to “substitute the phrase, ‘the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ,’” with their added grounds. But let us consider:
1. that Synod did not only adopt seven points of pastoral advice, but a whole report that is intimately related to this advice. The whole report was adopted “as providing guidelines for our understanding and further discussion of the nature and extent of biblical authority.” Synod also adopted the recommendation that “Synod adopt the . . . seven interrelated points . . . in the light of the report . . . .”
Also, surprisingly, Synod gave its advance approval to a “popular form” of Report 44 to be published in The Banner. At least a part of this “popular form” is already before us. It is to reach us eventually in booklet form. This “for the purpose of reaching the general membership of the churches.”
2. That the Report which must shed light on this pastoral advice speaks the language of this “phrase” some twenty-five times—add that which appears in “popular form,” and the number will exceed 30.
In other words, this language is part and parcel of the whole.
Classis says in ground c. under 1. that “The phrase is not materially necessary to point a. itself . . . and its elimination does not alter the sense or meaning of the seven interrelated points of pastoral advice.”
The trouble is that “the phrase,” appearing first in Synod’s mandate to its study committee, becomes basic to the whole of the Report and therefore also to the seven interrelated points. I believe that Dr. James Daane, in his articles in The Banner, has amply demonstrated that this particular phrase is basic to what he calls position B of the Report. While I disagree with Dr. Daane in his conclusions, 1 must wholeheartedly agree with his analysis of Report 44.
If Synod must eliminate this phrase from point a., it must start at the mandate given and work all the way through the Report and on into the “popular form” of the Report.
Seen in this light, the two Overtures coming before Synod are not really so different. It seems apparent that they are both asking for a full reappraisal of the basic thrust of Synod’s decision.
Because I am convinced from the Word of God that Scripture is neither exhaustively redemptive, nor partially non-redemptive (this is a false dilemma), but is totally and exhaustively the covenantal self-revelation of God to man, I believe that Synod must reconsider, and, at very least, refer this Report once again to the churches for more prayerful and careful, extensive and intensive reflection and discussion before it comes again to Synod for final decision.