WANTS NO SEPARATION
Dear Editor:
In your July issue Dr. Leonard Greenway stated his opinion that henceforth the Canadian and American parts of the CRC should exist separately. He advocates that a separation should be made because “there appear to be ideological and cultural differences between us.”
Dr. Greenway feels that these differences “should be given freedom of expression and development under separate roofs.” Observing that there appears to be a difference in “mind” and “posture” between Canadians and Americans he then asks: “Precisely, why must we remain together under our present arrangement?”
It is apparent that Dr. Greenway’s argument favoring separation rests upon an erroneous assumption. He assumes that ideological and cultural differences exist among both nationalities.
Some examples can be mentioned. Christian Reformed people who live in Ontario do not all share the same ideology. There we find devotees of the AACS and Reformed Fellowship, Inc. each with their own distinctive ideology. A similar situation exists in Michigan and Illinois. Also, in both Canada and the USA there are larger numbers of Christian Reformed people who are not idel1tified with either of the two aforementioned ideologies.
With respect to our ecclesiastical structure in the USA there are differences in “mind” and “posture” between the various Classes. As a “Synod watcher” during the past four years I observe that delegates who represent Classes such as Hackensack, Hudson, and Lake Erie generally take a different stance on major issues than those who represent Classes such as Zeeland, Wisconsin, and Minnesota South. Each group appears to be guided by its own special ideology (outlook).
When we look at cultural patterns we note differences among Canadians, even as we do among Americans.
Our brethren who live in Toronto, Ontario have a different culture than their fellow-Canadians who live in Taber, Alberta. Culturally speaking, a large, progressive, dynamic metropolis is different from a small, quiet, rural-oriented village. Turning to the American scene, we may observe cultural differences between Ann Arbor, Michigan (where life revolves around a great university) and Ackley, Iowa (where farming is the center of interest).
Congregations that form the CRC in various parts of the USA are not all culturally similar. In several places we have congregations whose members are mostly Afro-Americans; in other places we find churches whose membership is made up largely of Indian, Chinese, Mexican, or German people—each having their own culture. We cannot characterize the entire CRC in the USA by the culture or people of Dutch descent, who live within a Western Michigan triangle, the points of which are Muskegon, Holland, and Grand Rapids.
One of the commendable things about the CRC is the progress we are making in incorporating people of different cultures into our fellowship. II the differences cited by Dr. Greenway become the criteria for making a division within the CRC, we would then have to divide into several parts. What lender is there among us who would like to see that happen?
In his article Dr. Greenway extended several compliments to Canadians who were delegates to this year’s Synod. Nevertheless, he suggests that henceforth it might be better for them to live under a separate roof.
I have also come away from visiting recent Synods with a good impression of Canadians, but earnestly desire that they will continue to reml1in united with us. With few exceptions, Canadians at Synod show a greater interest in principal matters than do their American counterparts. We need that kind of influence at our major assembly. Also, Canadians often bring: contemporary issues before Synod—a development that we should not be afraid of if we want the CRC to remain relevant.
The witness of the Reformed faith in North America will be weakened if the CRC decides to fragment itself. While recognizing that differences do exist within our denomination we must, however, take guidance from Paul’s teaching that the body is not one member, but many. Its unity can be seen through the diversity of its many members. Each member is given his gift by the Spirit that he may use it to complement the body of which he is a part. No part may say to the other part: “You have many commendable features, but I really don’t need your company any longer.”
The CRC could become a beautiful mosaic on the ecclesiastical scene if all its members were guided by the principle taught in Scripture, “unity in diversity.”
MARTIN LAMAIRE
REPLY
I am grateful for brother LaMaire’s letter, for its content and its spirit. The article to which he addresses himself appeared in the July issue of THE OUTLOOK under the title: CRC Synod of 1973 – Some Impressions and observations. In the final paragraph of that article I made an observation about our churches in Canada and the possibility that some kind of partitioning between Canada and the States might be advantageous so as to give our Canadian churches opportunity to develop their own denominational identity.
To date (Sept. 26) I have received only one reaction from Canada and that was a fine letter from Rev. Dirk J. Hart, pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Montreal, who, like brother LaMaire, fears I am tampering with our beautiful denominational mosaic. All other responses have been State-side, most of them by way of telephone conversations in our Grand Rapids area.
Certainly it is true that among our churches in the States there are many differences which would never justify “separate roofs.” We not only live well with most of these differences but in not a few instances we profit from them for the enrichment of our religious perspectives.
My impression of the Canadian situation, however, is somewhat different. It strikes me that our churches in Canada are “flexing their muscles” in a kind of “identity exercise.” This is not necessarily related to the “awakening of a nationalistic spirit in Canada” with the attached “dislike for America,” about which Bernie De Jonge writes in the August 20/27 Calvinist Contact. I prefer to think it is simply contemporaneous to it. But aside from that, my remarks in THE OUTLOOK were intended to do little more than raise a question for consideration, and that is whether or not the Canadian “plant” might not do better in its own “row,” while remaining in the same “garden” with us.
I have the impression that some of our Canadian brethren really want their own “row” and feel it is good for them to be on their own without serving their association with liS. It is significant that in the Edmonton area they have a committee studying the possibility of establishing their own college (a Canadian Calvin?) sustaining, perhnps, some kind of adjunctive relation with the university there. Moreover, it is gratifying to sec their “identity exercise” in the new mission program among the Indians in the Winnipeg area, and to hear Rev. Arie C. Van Eek of Winnipeg say that an initial grant-in-aid from the Board of Home Missions may not be necessary, since the feeling in Canada is that their churches will take full responsibility for this promising and commendable endeavor.
One thing more. Canada has a “Council of the Christian Reformed Churches.” Just what is the significance of this body? One Canadian brother, whose opinions I highly respect. informs me that this Council originated in “separatist feelings.” If that is true—and I have no reason to question this brother’s opinion—then it would seem that the existence of this Council at least partly corroborates what I have written.
LEONARD GREENWAY
UPHOLDS REPORT 44
Dear Mr. Editor,
I would like to have the opportunity to respond to the Rev. Peter De Jong’s article “Conservative Victory in Missouri” in the September issue of your magazine. With much of what Brother De Jong writes I can agree. But when he goes on to state that the CRC was faced with precisely the same issue in Report 36/44, and that Synod compromised in settling that issue, then I must honestly and firmly disagree.
Consider: First of all, according to De Jong, Missouri was faced with “a denial of the historicity of Adam and Eve, a denial of the historicity of various events recorded in the Bible, a denial of the existence of angels, and a denial of the historicity of Jonah.” I am not aware of anyone in the CRC who has publicly made any such denials, and I sincerely hope they never will. But at any rote, the CRC was not faced with any of these issues with regard to Report 36/44. That in the first place. Hence any identification of “position A or D” with Dr. Preus is beside the point. From what I have read about it, , am in full agreement with the position of Preus, but at the same time I fully endorse both “positions A and D” of Report 36/44. Anl De long has yet to prove that these positions are incompatible.
Secondly, I wish that De Jong would stop accusing the authors of Report 36/44 and the church as a whole of holding to a position which they have repeatedly and explicitly denied, both in the reports themselves, as well as in other written statements. It would seem to me to be the part of Christian courtesy and an example of the “positive” attitude enjoined by Editor Vander Ploeg in the same issue to take such statement for what they mean. I am not talking about what some might make the report (44) say, nor even about what some might like to say with the report, but about what the report itself says and means. If De Jong does not agree with its position, or does not understand how one can hold to what seems to him to be two incompatible views, okay; let’s discuss that further. Out to say that the report opens the door to liberalism, and to identify it with the crisis in the Missouri Lutheran Church is manifestly untrue.
Thirdly, and now more to the heart of the matter: In Report 44 it was stated clearly and repeatedly that to call Scripture “the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ” is not limiting its authority (as asserted by Johanna Timmer in The Banner of Sept. 7, p. 11), but rather qualifies it. In other words, you cannot just make Scripture say anything you want it to say, but you must take into consideration the purpose for which it was written. If that is not done, you could conceivably prove with the Bible that the moon is made of green cheese. At least you could prove that the earth rests on pillars or that the sun actually stood still in the days of Joshua. (Note well: I’m not denying the actual historical event that took place.) But the Bible is not that kind of a scientific textbook, and to use it in that way is to misuse it. The Bible is not a handbook or textbook that can be used for every conceivable purpose. Instead, it was written for one sole purpose: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and, that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). And that purpose has to be kept in mind in reading and understanding the Bible.
To say this is not to take parts out of tile Bible, nor is it saying that parts of the Bible are not authoritative. No! It means to say that the entire Bible, in all is parts, is fully authoritative because God speaks in it all about His saving love in Jesus Christ. The entire Scriptures “bear witness of me” (John 5:39). Let me put it in the words of the 1961 Report on Infallibility:
There is a central point of focus. Its purpose is to make men “wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.” Therefore it centrally and pervasively witnesses to Christ and the way of salvation which God has both wrought and supremely revealed in Him. It is for this purpose and for this purpose only that Scripture makes use of Scripture, and it is from this perspective and this perspective only that Scripture makes claims for itself. Scripture presents itself solely as a divine self-revelation of God for redemptive purposes.
More clearly it could not be said! And that was said way back in 1961 if you please. I would like to ask Brother De Jong: How come no one objected to this in 1961? Report 44 is saying precisely the same thing! Does it suddenly become heresy in 1972?
Finally, I would like to ask Rev. De Jong: Is the gospel in itself, by its very nature, both Good News and Bad News? Did Jesus say that He was both the Light of the world and the Darkness of the world? What does John mean when he says in chapter 3:17: “For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him”?
Notice that I asked about the nature of the gospel as such. I did not ask about the effect the gospel has, for then indeed it is a “savor of life unto life, or n savor of death unto death.” The gospel has a two-fold effect. But that’s because the response of man comes into the picture. It is very necessary to keep this distinction in mind. and in much of the discussion surrounding Report 44 it has been lost sight of. The Canons of Dort state it very beautifully: “It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted. The fault lies in themselves . . .” (III/ IV, 9). And doesn’t Paul make the same point in II Corinthians 4:3, 4? He states that the gospel is veiled to those who are perishing. Why? Because satan “has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.” Notice that: It’s not that the gospel’s light was lacking. In that case there would be nothing from which they could be blinded. No, they were kept from seeing the light of that gospel. The gospel was and is light, and light alone. It was and is the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ. But because people refuse to see the light and to believe that gospel, therefore judgment enters the picture.
Enough. I fail to see how anyone can object to Report 44 on the basis of its calling Scripture the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ. It simply floors me. I thought we in the Reformed tradition had always been saying this. And I for one will keep saying it unless and until Rev. De Jong or someone else demonstrates with irrefutable evidence that the gospel is something more, less, or other than Good News.
J. TUININGA
Jelle Tuininga is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Smithers, British Columbia.
REPLY
Confusion? – Rev. J. Tuininga takes exception to my statement that the Christian Reformed Church in its “Reports 36 and 44” was facing precisely the Same issue as the Missouri Lutherans have been facing. He claims that the issues are not at all the same because we were not confronted by the public denial of the historicity of Adam and Eve or Jonah, etc. “The CRC was not faced with any of these issues with regard to Report 36/44.” On this point he could hardly be more completely mistaken.
We were faced by exactly such public denials of Adam and Eve and various biblical events, not yet in our own churches perhaps, but in our sister churches in the Netherlands. The problem of the authority of the Bible with which the reports had to deal did not just arise from nowhere. It came directly out of this situation in The Netherlands in two ways. It came by way of overtures from Canada asking the Synod of om church to take a stand against such denials of biblical events being taught by our sister churches and it came by way of a letter from those sister churches proposing a view of the Bible’s authority which they hold and under which such denials are being tolerated and taught. Thus the real issue, as I pointed out in my article, in both our church and the Missouri Lutheran Church has been the nature of the Bible’s authority.
The Two Views – Regarding biblical authority two views are appearing in both churches: One is that all of the Bible is authoritative because it is God’s Word. Therefore everything it states as fact must be accepted as fact. That is the traditional view in our churches and it is the view of Dr. Preus and the conservatives among the Missouri Lutherans. The other view is that its authority depends on its “content and purpose as saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ,” or its message as “Gospel” as some Lutherans are expressing it. This is the view proposed to us by the Reformed Churches of The Netherlands and had by the so-called “Moderates” or Liberals in the Missouri Synod.
If the authority of the Bible is really only that of “the Gospel” or “the saving revelation of God in Christ” that divine authority does not cover such matters as the existence of Adam or Jonah or the occurrence of many events it records since they do not save us. Holding that position the Lutheran Concordia Seminary in St. Louis could tolerate Dr. Ehlen teaching that the Israelites might have crossed the Red Sea in boats and many other such “interpretations” and the Dutch churches continue to permit Dr. Kuilert who ridicules the existence of Adam and Eve to continue training their students for the ministry.
Opposite Courses – In the Missouri Synod Dr. Preus and the conservatives said that because the Bible is wholly God’s Word the views taught by the St. Louis Seminary with their denials of biblical events and teachings may not be tolerated in the churches.
Our churches when confronted by these two views of the Bible’s authority, instead of facing them, like the Conservative Lutherans, as alternatives between which a choice must he made, decided in Reports 38/44 to try to c0mbine the two views thus avoiding a confrontation. On one hand, they tried to combine the two views thus avoiding a confrontation. On one hand, they tried to maintain that all of the Bible is authoritative because it is all God’s Word and walked against letting scientists or historians infringe on that autority. On the other hand, they accepted the Dutch churches’ suggestion that its authority depends on its “content and purpose as saving revelation in Jesus Christ.” Doesn’t accepting the second view necessarily imply that whatever in the Bible is not saving: lacks Divine authority and may therefore he questioned or denied? The reports try to avoid this conclusion by maintaining that everything in the Bible is saving and therefore authoritative. Trying to maintain that forces one to try to prove that such doctrines as that of the judgment and condemnation of the wicked arc somehow exclusively “saving.” Can anyone explain how hell is “redemptive”? The trouble is that the two views are really contradictory, as impossible to combine, as The Banner editor once picturesquely expresscd it, “as oil and water.” Reports 36/44 as an attempt to compromise these really contradictory views failed to meet the present-day attacks on the authority of the Bible head-on. They left room, for example, for the view that although one should grant the “essential historicity” of the first chapters of Genesis “they should not be interpreted as a literal description of events.” (Report 36, p. 294, Agenda 1971.)
This was stated in Report 36 in a section omitted from Report 44. Report 44 holds the same general position as 36 saying of Genesis 1 to 11 that it would “maintain . . . the historical reality of the events recorded . . . yet without imposing upon the church an official binding interpretation of all the details . . .” (Agenda 1972, p. 361).
Bitter Fruits of Compromise – The bitter fruits of that kind of compromise are already appearing and we shall sec many more of them. The Synod of 1972 after accepting 44 promptly dismissed the Central Avenue case against Dr. Willis De Boer regarding details in the Genesis record by an appeal to that decision (Acts 1972, pp. 96, 97). At our last classis meeting two out of the three candidates examined and passed insisted on questioning such details of the Genesis story (IS the serpent and the trees. In other words, we have already, whether we realize it or not, in our practice joined the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands who in their 1967 decision at Lunteren reversed the earlier position that barred men from the ministry if they questioned the existence of the serpent.
Other consequences of accommodating this view proposed by the Dutch churches that the Bible’s authority must be qualified as saving are also beginning to multiply. The same issues that troubled the Dutch churches a few years ago arc now swelling the pages of our Agenda with reports on homosexuality, women in office, the authority of offices and confessions, etc. These have suddenly become problems for us, not because the Bible sheds no light on them, but because, if the Bible’s authority is “only saving,” what it says about such matters as sex and marriage and problems of offices and who may hold them may no longer be authoritive for us. The Dutch churches have dismissed Bible teachings in that way and some of our committee are doing the same.
An Unbiblical View of the Bible – Our problems regarding the authority of the Bible lire multiplying because we are refusing to be guided in our understanding of it by what God Himself has said. The Bible nowhere qualifies or limits its own authority to what is saving. Matthew 13:10–17 is one of a number of examples which make this plain. In this passage Jesus insists, as John Calvin in his Commentary aptly points out, “that the doctrine of salvation is proclaimed by God to men for various purposes; for Christ declares that He intentionally spoke obscurely, in order that His discourse might be a riddle to many and might only strike their ears with a confused and doubtful sound” . . . “By divine appointment, the doctrine of salvation is not proclaimed to all for the same end, but is so regulated by his wonderful purpose, that it is not less a savior of death to death to the reprobate than a life-giving savior to the elect” (II Cor. 2:15, 16), God’s condemnations of the wicked have the same Divine authority as His deliverance of His people because they are both His actions.
Notice, that the question is not whether we recognize that the gospel is saving. Paul called it “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” Neither is the question whether salvation and condemnation as it speaks of both are to be given the same emphasis. The Lord said (Ezek. 33:11) “As I live . . . I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked tum from his way and live.” The question is whether we may qualify and therefore limit (a “qualification” is a “limit” – see any dictionary) the Bible’s authority as exclusively saving. If we try to do that we try to limit God’s Word in a way that He does not, and whether we like it or not, we remove all real grounds for forbidding others to deny whatever in it is not “saving.” The effort to limit biblical authority to what is saving is really a piece of human arrogance which God’s Word itself condemns. We are obligated to obey God’s Word whether we understand its content and purpose in each case as “saving” or not.
Adam and Eve must obey the command of God just because God said it. It was the devil who suggested that their obedience or disobedience should depend on which course would appear “saving” to them. God’s commands to His people arc never made conditional on whether or not obedience seems advantageous to them. They are to be received and obeyed just because He gives the command. When we, with Reports 36/44, permit such limiting of the authority of God’s Word we in principle choose the wrong side in the great battle going on in tho churches and in the world regarding the authority of the Bible. We may expect to experience more and more of the disastrous results of that wrong choice, just as other churches who have made it are experiencing them. May God help us to realize the mistake we are making and to return to humble and unqualified obedience to Him and His Word.
PETER DE JONG
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.
Dear Editor:
In your July issue Dr. Leonard Greenway stated his opinion that henceforth the Canadian and American parts of the CRC should exist separately. He advocates that a separation should be made because “there appear to be ideological and cultural differences between us.”
Dr. Greenway feels that these differences “should be given freedom of expression and development under separate roofs.” Observing that there appears to be a difference in “mind” and “posture” between Canadians and Americans he then asks: “Precisely, why must we remain together under our present arrangement?”
It is apparent that Dr. Greenway’s argument favoring separation rests upon an erroneous assumption. He assumes that ideological and cultural differences exist among both nationalities.
Some examples can be mentioned. Christian Reformed people who live in Ontario do not all share the same ideology. There we find devotees of the AACS and Reformed Fellowship, Inc. each with their own distinctive ideology. A similar situation exists in Michigan and Illinois. Also, in both Canada and the USA there are larger numbers of Christian Reformed people who are not idel1tified with either of the two aforementioned ideologies.
With respect to our ecclesiastical structure in the USA there are differences in “mind” and “posture” between the various Classes. As a “Synod watcher” during the past four years I observe that delegates who represent Classes such as Hackensack, Hudson, and Lake Erie generally take a different stance on major issues than those who represent Classes such as Zeeland, Wisconsin, and Minnesota South. Each group appears to be guided by its own special ideology (outlook).
When we look at cultural patterns we note differences among Canadians, even as we do among Americans.
Our brethren who live in Toronto, Ontario have a different culture than their fellow-Canadians who live in Taber, Alberta. Culturally speaking, a large, progressive, dynamic metropolis is different from a small, quiet, rural-oriented village. Turning to the American scene, we may observe cultural differences between Ann Arbor, Michigan (where life revolves around a great university) and Ackley, Iowa (where farming is the center of interest).
Congregations that form the CRC in various parts of the USA are not all culturally similar. In several places we have congregations whose members are mostly Afro-Americans; in other places we find churches whose membership is made up largely of Indian, Chinese, Mexican, or German people—each having their own culture. We cannot characterize the entire CRC in the USA by the culture or people of Dutch descent, who live within a Western Michigan triangle, the points of which are Muskegon, Holland, and Grand Rapids.
One of the commendable things about the CRC is the progress we are making in incorporating people of different cultures into our fellowship. II the differences cited by Dr. Greenway become the criteria for making a division within the CRC, we would then have to divide into several parts. What lender is there among us who would like to see that happen?
In his article Dr. Greenway extended several compliments to Canadians who were delegates to this year’s Synod. Nevertheless, he suggests that henceforth it might be better for them to live under a separate roof.
I have also come away from visiting recent Synods with a good impression of Canadians, but earnestly desire that they will continue to reml1in united with us. With few exceptions, Canadians at Synod show a greater interest in principal matters than do their American counterparts. We need that kind of influence at our major assembly. Also, Canadians often bring: contemporary issues before Synod—a development that we should not be afraid of if we want the CRC to remain relevant.
The witness of the Reformed faith in North America will be weakened if the CRC decides to fragment itself. While recognizing that differences do exist within our denomination we must, however, take guidance from Paul’s teaching that the body is not one member, but many. Its unity can be seen through the diversity of its many members. Each member is given his gift by the Spirit that he may use it to complement the body of which he is a part. No part may say to the other part: “You have many commendable features, but I really don’t need your company any longer.”
The CRC could become a beautiful mosaic on the ecclesiastical scene if all its members were guided by the principle taught in Scripture, “unity in diversity.”
MARTIN LAMAIRE
REPLY
I am grateful for brother LaMaire’s letter, for its content and its spirit. The article to which he addresses himself appeared in the July issue of THE OUTLOOK under the title: CRC Synod of 1973 – Some Impressions and observations. In the final paragraph of that article I made an observation about our churches in Canada and the possibility that some kind of partitioning between Canada and the States might be advantageous so as to give our Canadian churches opportunity to develop their own denominational identity.
To date (Sept. 26) I have received only one reaction from Canada and that was a fine letter from Rev. Dirk J. Hart, pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Montreal, who, like brother LaMaire, fears I am tampering with our beautiful denominational mosaic. All other responses have been State-side, most of them by way of telephone conversations in our Grand Rapids area.
Certainly it is true that among our churches in the States there are many differences which would never justify “separate roofs.” We not only live well with most of these differences but in not a few instances we profit from them for the enrichment of our religious perspectives.
My impression of the Canadian situation, however, is somewhat different. It strikes me that our churches in Canada are “flexing their muscles” in a kind of “identity exercise.” This is not necessarily related to the “awakening of a nationalistic spirit in Canada” with the attached “dislike for America,” about which Bernie De Jonge writes in the August 20/27 Calvinist Contact. I prefer to think it is simply contemporaneous to it. But aside from that, my remarks in THE OUTLOOK were intended to do little more than raise a question for consideration, and that is whether or not the Canadian “plant” might not do better in its own “row,” while remaining in the same “garden” with us.
I have the impression that some of our Canadian brethren really want their own “row” and feel it is good for them to be on their own without serving their association with liS. It is significant that in the Edmonton area they have a committee studying the possibility of establishing their own college (a Canadian Calvin?) sustaining, perhnps, some kind of adjunctive relation with the university there. Moreover, it is gratifying to sec their “identity exercise” in the new mission program among the Indians in the Winnipeg area, and to hear Rev. Arie C. Van Eek of Winnipeg say that an initial grant-in-aid from the Board of Home Missions may not be necessary, since the feeling in Canada is that their churches will take full responsibility for this promising and commendable endeavor.
One thing more. Canada has a “Council of the Christian Reformed Churches.” Just what is the significance of this body? One Canadian brother, whose opinions I highly respect. informs me that this Council originated in “separatist feelings.” If that is true—and I have no reason to question this brother’s opinion—then it would seem that the existence of this Council at least partly corroborates what I have written.
LEONARD GREENWAY
UPHOLDS REPORT 44
Dear Mr. Editor,
I would like to have the opportunity to respond to the Rev. Peter De Jong’s article “Conservative Victory in Missouri” in the September issue of your magazine. With much of what Brother De Jong writes I can agree. But when he goes on to state that the CRC was faced with precisely the same issue in Report 36/44, and that Synod compromised in settling that issue, then I must honestly and firmly disagree.
Consider: First of all, according to De Jong, Missouri was faced with “a denial of the historicity of Adam and Eve, a denial of the historicity of various events recorded in the Bible, a denial of the existence of angels, and a denial of the historicity of Jonah.” I am not aware of anyone in the CRC who has publicly made any such denials, and I sincerely hope they never will. But at any rote, the CRC was not faced with any of these issues with regard to Report 36/44. That in the first place. Hence any identification of “position A or D” with Dr. Preus is beside the point. From what I have read about it, , am in full agreement with the position of Preus, but at the same time I fully endorse both “positions A and D” of Report 36/44. Anl De long has yet to prove that these positions are incompatible.
Secondly, I wish that De Jong would stop accusing the authors of Report 36/44 and the church as a whole of holding to a position which they have repeatedly and explicitly denied, both in the reports themselves, as well as in other written statements. It would seem to me to be the part of Christian courtesy and an example of the “positive” attitude enjoined by Editor Vander Ploeg in the same issue to take such statement for what they mean. I am not talking about what some might make the report (44) say, nor even about what some might like to say with the report, but about what the report itself says and means. If De Jong does not agree with its position, or does not understand how one can hold to what seems to him to be two incompatible views, okay; let’s discuss that further. Out to say that the report opens the door to liberalism, and to identify it with the crisis in the Missouri Lutheran Church is manifestly untrue.
Thirdly, and now more to the heart of the matter: In Report 44 it was stated clearly and repeatedly that to call Scripture “the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ” is not limiting its authority (as asserted by Johanna Timmer in The Banner of Sept. 7, p. 11), but rather qualifies it. In other words, you cannot just make Scripture say anything you want it to say, but you must take into consideration the purpose for which it was written. If that is not done, you could conceivably prove with the Bible that the moon is made of green cheese. At least you could prove that the earth rests on pillars or that the sun actually stood still in the days of Joshua. (Note well: I’m not denying the actual historical event that took place.) But the Bible is not that kind of a scientific textbook, and to use it in that way is to misuse it. The Bible is not a handbook or textbook that can be used for every conceivable purpose. Instead, it was written for one sole purpose: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and, that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). And that purpose has to be kept in mind in reading and understanding the Bible.
To say this is not to take parts out of tile Bible, nor is it saying that parts of the Bible are not authoritative. No! It means to say that the entire Bible, in all is parts, is fully authoritative because God speaks in it all about His saving love in Jesus Christ. The entire Scriptures “bear witness of me” (John 5:39). Let me put it in the words of the 1961 Report on Infallibility:
There is a central point of focus. Its purpose is to make men “wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.” Therefore it centrally and pervasively witnesses to Christ and the way of salvation which God has both wrought and supremely revealed in Him. It is for this purpose and for this purpose only that Scripture makes use of Scripture, and it is from this perspective and this perspective only that Scripture makes claims for itself. Scripture presents itself solely as a divine self-revelation of God for redemptive purposes.
More clearly it could not be said! And that was said way back in 1961 if you please. I would like to ask Brother De Jong: How come no one objected to this in 1961? Report 44 is saying precisely the same thing! Does it suddenly become heresy in 1972?
Finally, I would like to ask Rev. De Jong: Is the gospel in itself, by its very nature, both Good News and Bad News? Did Jesus say that He was both the Light of the world and the Darkness of the world? What does John mean when he says in chapter 3:17: “For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him”?
Notice that I asked about the nature of the gospel as such. I did not ask about the effect the gospel has, for then indeed it is a “savor of life unto life, or n savor of death unto death.” The gospel has a two-fold effect. But that’s because the response of man comes into the picture. It is very necessary to keep this distinction in mind. and in much of the discussion surrounding Report 44 it has been lost sight of. The Canons of Dort state it very beautifully: “It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted. The fault lies in themselves . . .” (III/ IV, 9). And doesn’t Paul make the same point in II Corinthians 4:3, 4? He states that the gospel is veiled to those who are perishing. Why? Because satan “has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.” Notice that: It’s not that the gospel’s light was lacking. In that case there would be nothing from which they could be blinded. No, they were kept from seeing the light of that gospel. The gospel was and is light, and light alone. It was and is the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ. But because people refuse to see the light and to believe that gospel, therefore judgment enters the picture.
Enough. I fail to see how anyone can object to Report 44 on the basis of its calling Scripture the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ. It simply floors me. I thought we in the Reformed tradition had always been saying this. And I for one will keep saying it unless and until Rev. De Jong or someone else demonstrates with irrefutable evidence that the gospel is something more, less, or other than Good News.
J. TUININGA
Jelle Tuininga is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Smithers, British Columbia.
REPLY
Confusion? – Rev. J. Tuininga takes exception to my statement that the Christian Reformed Church in its “Reports 36 and 44” was facing precisely the Same issue as the Missouri Lutherans have been facing. He claims that the issues are not at all the same because we were not confronted by the public denial of the historicity of Adam and Eve or Jonah, etc. “The CRC was not faced with any of these issues with regard to Report 36/44.” On this point he could hardly be more completely mistaken.
We were faced by exactly such public denials of Adam and Eve and various biblical events, not yet in our own churches perhaps, but in our sister churches in the Netherlands. The problem of the authority of the Bible with which the reports had to deal did not just arise from nowhere. It came directly out of this situation in The Netherlands in two ways. It came by way of overtures from Canada asking the Synod of om church to take a stand against such denials of biblical events being taught by our sister churches and it came by way of a letter from those sister churches proposing a view of the Bible’s authority which they hold and under which such denials are being tolerated and taught. Thus the real issue, as I pointed out in my article, in both our church and the Missouri Lutheran Church has been the nature of the Bible’s authority.
The Two Views – Regarding biblical authority two views are appearing in both churches: One is that all of the Bible is authoritative because it is God’s Word. Therefore everything it states as fact must be accepted as fact. That is the traditional view in our churches and it is the view of Dr. Preus and the conservatives among the Missouri Lutherans. The other view is that its authority depends on its “content and purpose as saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ,” or its message as “Gospel” as some Lutherans are expressing it. This is the view proposed to us by the Reformed Churches of The Netherlands and had by the so-called “Moderates” or Liberals in the Missouri Synod.
If the authority of the Bible is really only that of “the Gospel” or “the saving revelation of God in Christ” that divine authority does not cover such matters as the existence of Adam or Jonah or the occurrence of many events it records since they do not save us. Holding that position the Lutheran Concordia Seminary in St. Louis could tolerate Dr. Ehlen teaching that the Israelites might have crossed the Red Sea in boats and many other such “interpretations” and the Dutch churches continue to permit Dr. Kuilert who ridicules the existence of Adam and Eve to continue training their students for the ministry.
Opposite Courses – In the Missouri Synod Dr. Preus and the conservatives said that because the Bible is wholly God’s Word the views taught by the St. Louis Seminary with their denials of biblical events and teachings may not be tolerated in the churches.
Our churches when confronted by these two views of the Bible’s authority, instead of facing them, like the Conservative Lutherans, as alternatives between which a choice must he made, decided in Reports 38/44 to try to c0mbine the two views thus avoiding a confrontation. On one hand, they tried to combine the two views thus avoiding a confrontation. On one hand, they tried to maintain that all of the Bible is authoritative because it is all God’s Word and walked against letting scientists or historians infringe on that autority. On the other hand, they accepted the Dutch churches’ suggestion that its authority depends on its “content and purpose as saving revelation in Jesus Christ.” Doesn’t accepting the second view necessarily imply that whatever in the Bible is not saving: lacks Divine authority and may therefore he questioned or denied? The reports try to avoid this conclusion by maintaining that everything in the Bible is saving and therefore authoritative. Trying to maintain that forces one to try to prove that such doctrines as that of the judgment and condemnation of the wicked arc somehow exclusively “saving.” Can anyone explain how hell is “redemptive”? The trouble is that the two views are really contradictory, as impossible to combine, as The Banner editor once picturesquely expresscd it, “as oil and water.” Reports 36/44 as an attempt to compromise these really contradictory views failed to meet the present-day attacks on the authority of the Bible head-on. They left room, for example, for the view that although one should grant the “essential historicity” of the first chapters of Genesis “they should not be interpreted as a literal description of events.” (Report 36, p. 294, Agenda 1971.)
This was stated in Report 36 in a section omitted from Report 44. Report 44 holds the same general position as 36 saying of Genesis 1 to 11 that it would “maintain . . . the historical reality of the events recorded . . . yet without imposing upon the church an official binding interpretation of all the details . . .” (Agenda 1972, p. 361).
Bitter Fruits of Compromise – The bitter fruits of that kind of compromise are already appearing and we shall sec many more of them. The Synod of 1972 after accepting 44 promptly dismissed the Central Avenue case against Dr. Willis De Boer regarding details in the Genesis record by an appeal to that decision (Acts 1972, pp. 96, 97). At our last classis meeting two out of the three candidates examined and passed insisted on questioning such details of the Genesis story (IS the serpent and the trees. In other words, we have already, whether we realize it or not, in our practice joined the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands who in their 1967 decision at Lunteren reversed the earlier position that barred men from the ministry if they questioned the existence of the serpent.
Other consequences of accommodating this view proposed by the Dutch churches that the Bible’s authority must be qualified as saving are also beginning to multiply. The same issues that troubled the Dutch churches a few years ago arc now swelling the pages of our Agenda with reports on homosexuality, women in office, the authority of offices and confessions, etc. These have suddenly become problems for us, not because the Bible sheds no light on them, but because, if the Bible’s authority is “only saving,” what it says about such matters as sex and marriage and problems of offices and who may hold them may no longer be authoritive for us. The Dutch churches have dismissed Bible teachings in that way and some of our committee are doing the same.
An Unbiblical View of the Bible – Our problems regarding the authority of the Bible lire multiplying because we are refusing to be guided in our understanding of it by what God Himself has said. The Bible nowhere qualifies or limits its own authority to what is saving. Matthew 13:10–17 is one of a number of examples which make this plain. In this passage Jesus insists, as John Calvin in his Commentary aptly points out, “that the doctrine of salvation is proclaimed by God to men for various purposes; for Christ declares that He intentionally spoke obscurely, in order that His discourse might be a riddle to many and might only strike their ears with a confused and doubtful sound” . . . “By divine appointment, the doctrine of salvation is not proclaimed to all for the same end, but is so regulated by his wonderful purpose, that it is not less a savior of death to death to the reprobate than a life-giving savior to the elect” (II Cor. 2:15, 16), God’s condemnations of the wicked have the same Divine authority as His deliverance of His people because they are both His actions.
Notice, that the question is not whether we recognize that the gospel is saving. Paul called it “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” Neither is the question whether salvation and condemnation as it speaks of both are to be given the same emphasis. The Lord said (Ezek. 33:11) “As I live . . . I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked tum from his way and live.” The question is whether we may qualify and therefore limit (a “qualification” is a “limit” – see any dictionary) the Bible’s authority as exclusively saving. If we try to do that we try to limit God’s Word in a way that He does not, and whether we like it or not, we remove all real grounds for forbidding others to deny whatever in it is not “saving.” The effort to limit biblical authority to what is saving is really a piece of human arrogance which God’s Word itself condemns. We are obligated to obey God’s Word whether we understand its content and purpose in each case as “saving” or not.
Adam and Eve must obey the command of God just because God said it. It was the devil who suggested that their obedience or disobedience should depend on which course would appear “saving” to them. God’s commands to His people arc never made conditional on whether or not obedience seems advantageous to them. They are to be received and obeyed just because He gives the command. When we, with Reports 36/44, permit such limiting of the authority of God’s Word we in principle choose the wrong side in the great battle going on in tho churches and in the world regarding the authority of the Bible. We may expect to experience more and more of the disastrous results of that wrong choice, just as other churches who have made it are experiencing them. May God help us to realize the mistake we are making and to return to humble and unqualified obedience to Him and His Word.
PETER DE JONG
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.