That’s what is now being proposed for adoption at the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church, to be convened next month on June 8 –a new stand on divorce.

Is the divorce rate in the U.S, (I have no figures for Canada) on the increase? Glancing at the latest available statistics (and they are a shocker) one might well say, “You‘d better believe it!”

For the first ten months of 1975 there were 843,000 divorces in the U. S. and the prediction was that the number would pass the million mark before the end of the year. In 1965, ten years earlier, the figure stood at 479,000 divorces, less than half of the present number. Divorce is easier to obtain now, the marriage ties arc being broken at will, and you may be sure that the so-called “new morality” is taking a heavy toll.

Amid all the efforts for a suitable observance of the Bicentennial in the U. S., such statistics (together with the shocking report that there were one million “legal” abortions the past year) could be expected to somewhat slow the tempo of the celebrations, at least among those who still call themselves Christian. A Bicentennial time of mourning, confession of sin, and repentance should surely take precedence at a time like this.

Throughout the history of the CRC, now well over a hundred years, except for a brief two-year period, adultery was recognized as the only Scriptural ground for permissible divorce. For a short time, 1894–1896, willful desertion by an unbeliever was also accepted as a ground for divorce in the light of I Corinthians 7:15 but the church soon reverted to the previous stand.

This has been the history of the CRC with respect to the matter of divorce. In view of today‘s mounting divorce rate, it may be expected that it will become increasingly difficult to maintain this historic position. And now, next month the CRC Synod will be confronted with the question of whether Scripture warrants the continuation of the old stand or if a change is to be allowed.

What is the new position now being proposed for adoption at the coming Synod?

This may be found in Report 35 in the 1976 Agenda for Synod (p. 316ff.) under the heading, Marriage Guidelines. In brief, Synod is being asked to adopt the following “as being basically in accord with the biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage . . .”

“If our interpretation of the sense of the exceptive clauses in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is correct, then physical infidelity, precisely because it is unique and symbolizes the epitome of unfaithfulness, may be reckoned as a permissible ground for divorce. We argued that it was so regarded because physical sexual union symbolizes the quintessence of the marriage union. Conversely, therefore, physical infidelity is unique (italics added) in that it symbolizes the ultimate in marriage breakdown and dissolution. In that sense porneia stands as the unique (italics added) possible ground for divorce.”

Very good so far, you may say. Unique, according to four reputable dictionaries I have quickly consulted, has as its first meaning: “the only one.” One would think that would settle the matter and that our histOric stand would be upheld. If it be granted that, according to Scripture, porneia or “physical infidelity” is the unique or the only permissible ground for divorce, should we not stop right there? Not so, according to the study committee (all, with the lone exception of Rev. Adam Persenaire).

Because only a limited number of our readers have access to the 1976 Agenda, it may be inserted here that the following are the. members of this committee recommending that Synod adopt the new stand on divorce: George Gritter, Chairman; William Vander Haak, Secretary; Andrew J. Bandstra, Derke Bergsma, Michael De Vries, Thomas Duthler, Theodore Minnema, Cornelius Van Valkenburg.

Now, after saying that porneia or physical infidelity “stands as the unique possible ground for divorce” (italics added), the committee goes on to say:

“There may, however, be other kinds of actions, situations, and conditions that in the judgment of the consistory can only be judged to be the equivalent ·of unrepentant unchastity in signaling the complete breakdown of a marriage and the unlikelihood of its restoration. Exactly what actions, circumstances, and situations would qualify for being the equivalent to unrepentant adultery would be difficult to say. But here I Corinthians 7:12-15 may point the way: Willful desertion, while not in itself a so-called second ground for divorce, may be judged to be tantamount to physical infidelity and therefore also indicate that the marriage relationship cannot function in any meaningful way. . . . It is conceivable that other actions, circumstances, and situations could likewise be judged to be the equivalent of prolonged and unrepentant unchastity. In such cases then, also, divorce might be recognized as the only viable course of action” (italics added).

Now notice carefully what the Committee does with our Lord‘s very specific, statement: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery . . .” (Matt. 19:9). On page 335 of the 1976 Agenda the Committee proceeds to tell us that this statement of our Lord which the CRC for more than a hundred years has regarded to mean that there is one permissible (and only one) ground for divorce is to be viewed as “a statement of moral principle” and that the consistory is to judge whether “other actions, circumstances, and situations” in each case are to be regarded as “equivalent” to such adultery.

True, the Committee adds: “This ought not to be construed as opening the door to all kinds of justification for divorce” (1976 Agenda, p. 335). But, I make bold to say, when you once change our Lord’s specific rule for divorce to “a moral principle” to be applied in each case according to a consistory’s judgment, human nature being what it is, the result of taking such a liberty with Scripture can only be expected to accelerate the already mounting divorce rate among us.

As to the translation of Jesus’ specific ruling concerning the only permissible ground for divorce, it is well to note the following:

1. The New International Version reads as follows: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness (italics added) and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9). The same translation appears in the N.I.V. also in Matthew 5:32. 2. Note also how Dr. William Hendriksen translates our Lord‘s statement. Fortunately, he has been chosen by Classis Florida to be at this year‘s Synod as an elder delegate.

A few weeks ago in an article by Dr. Edwin H. Palmer in The Banner a very well-deserved tribute was paid to Dr. Hendriksen as a Bible scholar. The article concludes by saying: “Here then is a giant New Testamenticus, of whom the Christian Reformed Church can be proud. So far he has written monumental commentaries on thirteen New Testament books.” Dr. Hendriksen‘s competence in handling the New Testament in the original Greek makes his commentaries and translations deserving of this high praise and also of our most careful consideration. Notice now how he translates our Lord‘s pronouncement regarding divorce in his commentary, The Gospel of Matthew:

“But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife except on the ground of (her) infidelity (italics added) exposes her to adultery . . .” (Matt. 5:32).

To this, Hendriksen adds: The exception to which Jesus refers in Matthew 5:32 (‘except on the ground of infidelity’ permits divorce only then when one of the contracting parties, here the wife, by means of marital unfaithfulness (‘fornication’) rises in rebellion against the very essence of the marriage bond (p. 305).

Dr. Hendriksen’s translation of Matthew 19:9 is identical: “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife except on (the ground of her) infidelity (italics added), involves himself in adultery{ (p. 717).

In a footnote Hendriksen adds here: “By reason of the context it is c1car that here in Matt. 19:9, as also in 5:32, the reference is to the infidelity of a married woman.”

To add to or to change this plain statement of our Lord, as the committee sees fit to do, to make it say:

“except for infidelity or what a consistory judges to be the equivalent thereof,” appears to me to be the exercise of an unwarranted liberty, something against which Scripture expresses a most serious warning.

Of course, the mere fact that the CRC has held to its historic stand on divorce for more than one hundred years does not necessarily prove that it is right, but it certainly should mean something in the light of all the serious study made of God’s Word on this matter throughout all these years. At the very least, it should mean that we are to exercise the utmost care before readily accepting the drastic change that is now being proposed. May our gracious Lord give His sorely needed guidance in this very serious matter to Synod and also the entire denomination!

   

REFORMED FELLOWSHIP ACTIVITIES ON THE WEST COAST

A highly appreciated plus or bonus that goes with the editing of THE OUTLOOK is the occasional invitation to meet with and to speak for Reformed Fellowship chapters in various areas where our readers and members are found. The unexpected opportunity of a little over a month ago to be in Lynden, Washington, and also in Ripon and Chino, both in California, was a most interesting and also a profitable experience, one that I shall long remember.

The scenic attractions on the West Coast, as wen as those that could be seen from the plane en route when the visibility was good, need not be recounted here, except to say that, for anyone who has eyes to see, they afford such a marvelous opportunity to witness once again the wonder of God‘s great outdoors and the majesty of Him who brought it all into being. One can only exclaim: “My God, how wonderful Thou art!”

But sight–seeing—however pleasant and thrilling it made the trip—was neither the primary purpose of it nor the greatest gain it afforded. Number one was the privilege of meeting, having fellowship with, addressing, and being inspired by the gatherings and greetings of fellow-believers who are “devoted to the exposition of the Reformed faith” and also concerned enough about the future of the CRC to organize in an effort to do something about it.

Luke tells us in Acts 28 that when Paul finally arrived in Rome and was met by the brethren there “he thanked God and look courage.” I hope that it is not presumptuous to say that I experienced at least an inkling of what that meeting in Rome must have meant for Paul. Ours was a fellowship of the saints with an added dimension, knowing that these hospitable people are one with us in the cause that is so close to our hearts.

One could wish that we had a greater ability to measure the tangible results of this speaking tour made at the request of Reformed Fellowship chapters or members in these areas. My prayer is that we may have been mutually encouraged to carry on in our crusade for the Reformed faith that is under attack not only from without but also at times from a foe within the gates.

Even as a burning coal will soon lose its glow and warmth when alone, so individual believers may easily lose their morale and zeal to contend earnestly for the faith when they are left to themselves. In this case too: “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend” (Prov. 27:17). Area chapters of the Reformed Fellowship with regular meetings and an active program can pay big dividends on this score. Such chapters do exist in the Lynden and Ripon areas.

At the Chino meeting, efforts toward the organization of a Reformed Fellowship Chapter in that vicinity proved to be successful when from 65-70 persons signed a statement expressing a desire for membership. To promote the cause of the Reformed Fellowship (“the exposition and defense of the Reformed faith”) it is highly desirable and necessary to become informed, organized, and also active at the grassroots level wherever possible by the regular meetings of area chapters. Anyone wishing to receive help and suggestions how to go about this is invited to write: Reformed Fellowship, Inc., P.O. Box 7383, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49510.

To all those who did so much to make my extended trip to the Far West possible, I am very grateful. Allow me to thank especially Mr. and Mrs. Mike Hollander of Lynden (he is a builder) for making the 200-mile round trip to Seattle to meet me there, and also for their hospitality at their home; to Mr. and Mrs. Bernard E. Brune (after retirement from the Coast Guard he has become a Christian school teacher) for taking me back to Seattle and for the stimulating conversation we enjoyed all the way.

Thanks also to Mr. and Mrs. Bert Van Dyken and their family of Ripon for getting me from the airport at Stockton and for an unforgettable outing to see California‘s giant sequoias (“the largest living things on earth”) to Dr. and Mrs. Gilbert Den Dulk (he is an M.D.) whose kind hospitality both my wife and I had enjoyed on a previous visit (the Doctor and his wife have a so-called “prophets’ room” set aside as a comfortable and commodious haven for those who come and go on the King’s business); to Rev. and Mrs. Simon Viss for their hospitality; likewise to the L. P. Van Dyken family (Mr. L. P. Van Dyken, the Lord willing, will observe his 99th birthday this month). He used to write frequently for publication in our church papers); also to Mr. and Mrs. Kamper for mOre of such hospitality, and also for taking me back to the airport in Stockton (we are still eating those delicious almonds for which Ripon is famous); and also to the two CRC congregations in Ripon for the invitations to conduct their Sunday services.

A hearty word of thanks also to Rev. and Mrs. Thomas Vanden Heuvel and their family of the First CRC of Chino for meeting me at the Ontario airport. for their hospitality, for an enjoyable trip to the San Gabriel Mountains (together with Mrs. Vanden Heuvel’s parents, Mr. and Mrs. Jacob Van Putten) for a coffee time there in the vicinity of Mount Baldy, and also for returning me to the airport in Ontario.

And last, but by no means least, my thanks is due to our gracious Lord for making this memorable trip possible and safe and also for blessing these feeble efforts to promote His cause among these fellow-believers who. although so far from us with all those miles between, are nevertheless so very close to us in our common commitment to contend earnestly for the faith. May our Lord‘s richest blessings rest upon us all!