The 1976 CRC Synod is to begin its sessions Tuesday morning, June 8, at 9:00 a.m. in the Fine Arts Auditorium on the Knollcrest Campus of Calvin College. An Agenda of 541 pages sets forth the matters calling for action. We are indebted to Rev. Peter De Jong, pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan, for this digest and also for his reactions.

   

Although this year’s Christian Reformed Synod Agenda contains no 80–page reports, its 541 pages do make a formidable book for the average delegate to try to master in a month or two. How many other consistory members will do much with it? Could not much of what it contains have been said with fewer words and have become more readable by the abbreviation? For our readers, I was asked to survey some of its contents.

Radio and TV – The CRC radio ministry, the Back to God Hour, reports remarkable expansion. It now reaches out all over the world, using Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, Indonesian, Chinese, and Japanese languages as well as English. While keenly appreciating what under the blessing of God is being done, we ought not to overlook problems that are appearing, especially with the planned move into cable television. Are plays portraying “an interview with John the Baptist,” “the man born blind” and “Paul” a legitimate way for our churches to try to “preach the gospel” to the world (p. 40)?

Missions – The Board of Foreign Missions reports the opening of a new field in Liberia in 1975 (p. 62). In Nigeria “we no longer own or administrate any post-primary schools but only lend some missionaries to Nigerian owned schools. In the Benue Valley “about 250 thousand attend our churches, but less than 50 thousand are baptized members!” A schism in the smaller Benue church is being healed. While only 9 students from the Benue and Tiv churches are attending the TCNN (the union school with mixed doctrines which our denomination promoted and supported) 26 students from these churches are now attending the Reformed Theological College (the Reformed seminary which the Tiv church established without that kind of official promotion and support) (pp. 79, 80)!

Our Japan mission reports that, after 25 years of work, 16 churches arc organized as part of the Reformed Church of Japan. In the Philippines a Genevan Reformed Seminary was begun last year with 11 students (p. 85). In Mexico, our largest Latin American work, attention is concentrated on the Juan Calvino Seminary, and in Puerto Rico the Evangelical Reformed Seminary has 14 students. The TELL literature program is also very important in Latin American work.

Our Home Mission Board is to place more emphasis on planting churches (55% of its budget) than it has recently been doing (p. 96). Classis Rocky Mountain (Overture 20, p. 536) wants the Home Mission Board to place a chaplain in its Calvary Rehabilitation Center for alcoholics. Is this a denominational home mission matter?

Publications – The Board of Publications nominates Dr. Edwin Walhout as Editor of Adult Education. It reports that “during 1975 the percentage or Christian Reformed churches that used the whole curriculum increased from 31% to 41%” (p. 145). One reason for this low percentage is evident. The effort since 1970 to impose upon the denomination a “Unified Church School Curriculum” which down-graded formal catechism teaching to a relatively small place in it is not acceptable to a great many of our churches.

(The retiring theological editor, Rev. A. Kuyvenhoven, expresses his irritation at the recurring critical questions about this matter, p. 142.) One questions too the morality of a $4.00 per family quota to subsidize literature for the churches which most of them do not find acceptable. The same reservations apply to the “every-member–plan” for The Banner now used by 156 churches which has each member pay for a subscription plus a $2 per family quota through his church budget, whether he chooses to subscribe or not (p. 140). We observe that joint production of literature with the Orthodox Presbyterians ceased during 1974 (p. 149).

Regarding a course on the Heidelberg Catechism, one of the “guide–lines” adopted by the board states that “students will recognize the central teaching of Scripture as normative for Christian faith and life. This is to be accomplished through the teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism as a meaningful reformulation of this central teaching” (p. 152). Is only this “central teaching” normative? Isn’t “all Scripture” normative (II Tim. 3:16, 17)?

World Relief – The World Relief Committee (CRWRC) reports on its varied activities in seeking to give diaconal help where there is need. While we can all appreciate the opportunity to give help in disasters as “needs” become more extensive and varied, one wonders about the propriety of involvement in “a Christian counseling program in Edmonton” (p. 163) and in “Christian counseling and other family services” in the Denver area (p. 164). We are informed that “many new financial controls have been instituted” and “plans are underway to institute new, more uniform reporting procedures from the many fields . . .” p. 168). In this connection (pp. 535–37) Rocky Mountain in Overture No. 21 wants a number of Synod and board meetings cancelled, fasting promoted, and a 50¢ quota for CRWRC famine relief!

Interchurch Relations – The Interchurch Relations Committee informs us that The Reformed Church in the United States (Eureka Classis) has rejected the recommendation of its committee to become a “church in ecclesiastical fellowship” with us (p. 207). The report on our relations with the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands points up the fact that those churches while still saying they want to maintain the confessions, refuse to discipline those who attack those confessions (p. 208). The committee is recommending that we “recognize the Reformed Church in America as a church in ecclesiastical fellowship.” While because of the looseness of that term this might not seem to say much, it has come to our attention that some of our eastern evangelistic pastors working in neighborhoods or liberal Reformed Churches would regard it as a disastrous blow to their labors and voice their opposition. While seeking fellowship with fellow believers we should not encourage fellowship with churches that are rejecting or betraying the gospel (II Cor. 6:14ff).

In this connection the Hessel Park church of Champaign wants to work toward a local union church including the RCA over the opposition of its classis (Appeal No.3, p. 539). The same objections apply.

Liturgy – The Liturgical Committee recommends final adoption of new forms for infant baptism, adult baptism, public profession of faith, and a new translation of the old form for infant baptism. The committee would have us move toward variety; let each church use the form it wishes. While the old forms have had their weaknesses, it seems to me that in each case the new forms are generally inferior. There are faults of style.

A prayer is about as inappropriate a place as one could find for such affected language as “openly mark us with a faith that can stand the light of day and endure the dark of night.” The prayers in which we ask others to join should be simple and clear. This figurative language is neither. More serious than the faults of style are those of content. The Overtures of Escalon (Numbers 2, 3 and 4, pp. 484, 4&5) and of Classis Grandville (Number 16, p. 532) call attention to these. They deplore such flaws as the weakened emphases on sin, the need for regeneration, the relation of the covenant to baptism, Christian education, adherence to the Reformed doctrines of the church, love for the Lord, the need to “forsake the world” and submission to the discipline of the church. Those who would like to escape these unpopular biblical principles may welcome the changes as making the forms more “up-to-date.” If we are concerned about maintaining the biblical Reformed faith we ought to resist this kind of change and be satisfied only with real improvement. On the baptism form, Escalon observes (Overture 2) that it is not a translation but a paraphrase, weaker and less precise than the old. I would have to add that the paraphrase has the same unbiblical, scholastic reasoning as the old in saying “Because all covenants have two sides . . . .” We are indeed placed under obligation but not for this reason. It also contains, as did the old, at least the suggestion of presumptive regeneration in the concluding prayer that they may only “grow and develop in Jesus Christ.”

The expression “baptism, whether by immersion or sprinkling” involves a needless concession to Baptist views. If it is argued that “immersion” is a better expression than “dipping in,” we may observe, as John Murray in his book on Baptism shows clearly, that “dipping” does not always involve, and in some cases cannot mean “immersion.” Why bring up the method at all?

Minister Exchange – The Ministerial Information Service committee seeks approval to enter a new area, that of arranging pastoral exchanges where these are desirable.

SCORR – The Committee on Race Relations, which last year’s Synod report urged should “more completely reflect the use of funds” (Acts 1975, p. 51 ), finds itself with a broad mandate “to remove race prejudice” but with no field of work of its own, and therefore it is getting involved in all kinds of other agencies and activities. Their problem in this respect is the creations of Synods. Do we need separate continuing committees for every serious problem?

Marriage Guidelines – An earlier report on this subject was not accepted by the 1973 Synod because it was “not convinced” that part of it was “in accord with the biblical teaching on marriage” (p. 318). That report wanted to make the meaning of the Greek word for “fornication (porneia) broader than illegitimate sexual intercourse, thus in the light of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, making divorce permissable also for other reasons.

The ’73 Synod also criticized that report because “The contractual, covenantal nature of marriage is minimized in favor of a ‘relationship of fidelity,’ thus opening the possibilty for thinking that a marriage‘s real beginning and ending depends on some undefined personal commitment to each other by the parties involved.”

A new committee asked to study the matter reported last year, and had its report referred to the churches for study. That new report, while it contains many good things on the biblical view of marriage, ends on the critical point right where the previous committee did by opening the door to other unspecified reasons to warrant divorce. After stating repeatedly that “physical infidelity” is “the unique possible ground for divorce” it proceeds to contradict itself: “There may . . . be other kinds of actions, situations and conditions that in the judgment of a consistory can only be judged to be the equivalent of unrepentant unchastity in signalling 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” (p. 334). And so the door is thrown open as widely as a consistory may wish to make it.

All this is aptly pointed out in a POSTSCRIPT by one of the committee members, Rev. Adam Persenaire. While he agrees with much of the report on the Bible teaching concerning marriage, he strenuously objects to stretching the statements of our Lord to cover the equivalent to unrepentant unchastity so that “each consistory can make its own interpretation of what constitutes the equivalent of porneia” (p. 346). By this kind of word-juggling and further by bringing in the question of people’s “intention” (p. 351), something that does not enter into our Lord‘s teaching on this point at all, “the committee recommends that the church can even bless what Jesus calls adultery”! And so divorce, instead of being recognized as “a gross, public sin, giving great offence to both God and His church” becomes for the committee merely “a serious shortcoming among many others”! Again it becomes obvious that the church is under increasing pressure to conform to the spirit of the age and let those who want to divorce and remarry do so with its permission or even blessing.

Even the text in which the Lord most strenuously denounced such actions (Matt. 19) gets twisted to justify them! Church leaders in Bible times were condoning “putting away one’s wife for every cause.” If our church wants to give in to that apostasy it will accept the report. If it wants to be faithful to its Lord it will have to agree with Rev. Persenaire’s Postscript. The elaborate counselling and professional help recommended from the committees’ viewpoint also inspires less than confidence.

Loan of Ministers – A problem has arisen because of the “loaning” of CRC ministers to serve as pastors in churches and or undenominational churches and agencies, After careful study, a committee recommends that “A minister may be granted a temporary release from service to the congregation for the purpose of serving a local church outside of the CRC . . .” when there is a “demonstrated need for a CR ministry” and the church seeking his services “is desirous of the Reformed religion and seriously contemplates affiliation with the CRC or some other Reformed body, or is already in a Reformed communion . . .” and the minister “acknowledges it as his duty” to bring such a church into such a Reformed fellowship, Such a “loan” arrangement is recommended for two years at a time.

“Evangelist” or “Minister of the Word-Evangelist” – The long–debated, knotty problem of ordaining “layworkers in evangelism” returns to this synod by way of a divided report. A majority of 4, on the assumption that the church is free to adapt or modify offices as it sees fit, recommends that a 4th office of “evangelist” be established, A minority of 3 recommends that, inasmuch as their work is the same as that of ministers working as missionaries, these layworkers should be ordained as “Ministers of the Word-Evangelist.” One senses in the argumentation some of the mischievous results of the 1973 Report on Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination, That report, reacting against an opposite extreme, insisted that the only authority of office was that of “service.” The Synod tried to “doctor up” its conclusions by adding a few lines about authority but the one-sided emphasis remained, promoting confusion in our thinking about the “offices.”

As one tries to weigh the two reports in this agenda, I believe that the minority has a somewhat better argument—I would question the propriety of multiplying “offices” as we see fit without the Bible’s warrant, and of taking the position that the layworker in evangelism does the same work as an ordained missionary now does, However the propriety of ordaining two classes of “ministers” so that there is no longer the biblical and Reformed “equality” between all who hold the same office is a serious objection to its advice. Would not ordaining them as “elders,” though this also has drawbacks, be less open to objection, After all, “ministers” also are only full-time “elders” who teach (I Tim. 5:17).

Form of Subscription – In 1973 Dr. Harry R. Boer attacked the Form of Subscription as too restrictive and as hindering theological progress and he overturned the Synod to create a new one, Classis Chicago South, while not accepting his overture, presented one of its own to alter the present form so as to permit one who objected to the Creed to publicize his views after submitting them to his consistory.

The Synod of 1973 did move in the direction asked by the Chicago overture, but it delayed final ratification of the change until 1974, The ’74 Synod delayed decision, appointing the committee which now reports, The committee after thorough study of the matter finds Boer‘s objections to the old form of subscription not supported by the facts, The Form was designed to safeguard the church against the false teachings of those who deny its creeds, It was not, as Dr, Boer misinterprets it to be (and finds it wanting) “the instrument by which the church” examines and amends its confessions (p. 431).

A review of the history of gravamens does not show the hierarchism that Boer charges it does, When Dr. Boer insists that the Form should express mutual obligations of the church as well as of the office-holders he forgets that the latter “are in office to serve the church, and the church does not exist to serve them” (p. 434).

The report advises the church not to ratify the amendments adopted in 1973 because they, “by stressing” what is a secondary function of the form (at best), tend to neglect and obscure the primary purpose of the Form (p. 435), It also recommends adoption of certain “guidelines and regulations” to eliminate some misunderstandings which lead to objections against the Form, The subscriber to the Form does not “declare that these doctrines are all stated in the best possible manner, or that the standards . . . cover all that the Scriptures teach . . . Nor does he declare that every teaching of the Scriptures is set forth in the confessions, or that every heresy is rejected and refuted by them.”

The report goes on to say: “The basic assumption of the church in requiring subscription to the Form . . . is that ‘all the articles and points of doctrine’ contained in the confessions . . . ‘do fully agree with the Word of God.’ The burden of proof, therefore rests upon the subscriber who calls upon the church to justify or revise her confessions.”

Two brief minority reports disagree with these recommendations as too restrictive, Dr. John Stek would simplify the subscription so as to declare “that we heartily believe the Word of God written in the inspired writings of holy Scripture, as interpreted, summarized and defended in the confessions of the Christian Reformed Church,” Not only is this much less explicit regarding the creeds than our present Form, Someone has raised the question whether that word IN was just a slip or deliberate, Do we only believe the Word of God written ill the Bible-however little or much that may be perhaps as much as the creeds cover? Or do we believe that the whole Bible is God‘s Word written?

A second brief minority report by Dewey Hoitenga, Jr. asking for a complete revision has little to commend it except the observation that professors should have to place gravamens with their consistories just as other officers do. We hope that the church on this point will not move along with the general trend to modify or replace its subscription so that any officer can teach or deny what he pleases. The Church must not forget that it has an unchanging Bible given by inspiration of God, and also creeds which while not infallible, have been earnestly hammered out by the church under the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 17 and 16:13, 14) over many centuries. These should not be open to question every time someone prefers a passing fad or thinks he has a new idea.

In this connection, another committee was appointed to advise the synod on what to do with the 1975 communication of Dr. Harry Boer publicly questioning the biblical grounds for the doctrine of reprobation as taught in the Canons of Dort. This committee (p. 479) states that Dr. Boer’s communication should be regarded as a “gravamen,” an objection against something in the Creeds. Instead of then recommending that it should be properly dealt with as such by the responsible assemblies, it recommends that “the request of Dr. Boer be open for public discussion and study.” This procedure is contrary to that prescribed in the Form of Subscription that consistories, classes, and Synods judge such matters. Dr. Boer has not attempted to argue the case about the Scriptural teaching. He merely stated that “the two texts adduced in Article 6 are certainly not perspicuous in teaching what they are alleged to teach,” and “Scriptural support adduced for it by Reformed theologians does not impress me, and in any case I am not bound by their exegetical judgments” (Reformed Journal, April 1975 ). Why should he, unlike every other office-holder in the church, be permitted to throw the doctrine of the creed into public question by totally unsubstantiated charges?

While a survey of this doctrine as biblically taught may be a wholesome and needed thing, no member should be permitted to break all rules of church order at will. To permit this is to invite anarchy.

Lapsed Membership and Discipline – A committee was appointed in 1974 to deal with the common problem of church members who neglect their own churches, still claim to be Christians and to be attending other churches, and who are not for other reasons subject to discipline. It recommends that synod declare that a baptized member who for two years has lived in this way may by consistory action have his membership declared “lapsed.” This procedure, already followed in dealing with those who have moved away from the church area, appears to be a good solution to a too common problem.

On the broader subject of church discipline Classis Quinte brings a 35-page Overture (No.9, pp. 487ff. with 3 pp. of footnotes!). It is a remarkable piece of study concluding that the role of the ordinary church member has been far too generally neglected in church discipline. Much of the argument is well worked out, although at one important point overstated. Who of us can agree with Coleman (the “authority” at this point) that in the church under the apostles “the supreme authority was vested in the people”? Do not the pastoral letters and such passages as Hebrews 13:17 show this to be untrue? ‘The conclusion drawn that all discipline must begin with the action of individual members and that the Church Order, and forms of confession of faith and for the Lord‘s Supper must be revised accordingly strikes one as an overreaction. The matter deserves study. Eastern Canada‘s Overture (No. 22, p. 537) would eliminate secrecy from (the earlier announcement?) of discipline under Church Order Article 86, because this is the business of the congregation. It does become public at a later point.

Synodical Interim Committee – Problems have arisen between the Synodical Interim Committee and various other agencies whose work it is supposed to “coordinate.” A study committee (p. 469ff.) observes that these arise because a committee which is supposed to be for “service” is given a mandate which could easily be interpreted to make it a boss. It recommends procedures to avoid the difficulties observing that “the primary responsibility for such coordination lies with the agencies themselves” (p. 477). It also observes that “While coordination should result in greater economy, more staff is presently em· played in the denominational building than before Coordinated Services came into existence (p. 475)! It appears that some “services” need trimming just as in the Federal Government.

Women in Office and Service – Last year‘s committee on women in office feels that the decision made at that time rules out licensing women to exhort in preparation for such office and that therefore further study by it of this matter is not needed (p. 459). Classis Lake Erie, not satisfied with last year‘s decision against women‘s ordination wants to reopen the matter on the grounds that it was settled too hastily (Appeal No. I, p. 538). Another committee for “the use of Women’s Gifts in the Church” reports on what it has done to survey and promote the role of women and asks the Synod to enlarge its mandate. One wonders about the need for such a committee do we have to have a committee to respond to every publicity campaign in our society (p. 460ff.)?

Overtures – Overtures (pp. 484ff.) are relatively few. Tn addition to those already mentioned, No.1 from Escalon asks that decisions on creed and church order matters require a 2/3 vote to carry, and No.5 from the same church would have a rule that each person should not serve on more than one Synod committee at a time. These appear worth conSidering. No. 6 from Muskegon would have deacons serve in church assemblies, appealing to the 1973 Report on Ecclesiastical Office -mare confusion arising out of that report.

Classis Quinte (No. 7) wants to change an old rule about the membership of a wife separated from her husband remaining in the same church and (No.8) to amend the Church Order Article 13 so as not to require synodical deputies to approve every call for a minister for special service.

Biblical Authority – Peoria church wants to have a committee study and try to resolve divergent views of ministers on the historicity of Genesis 1–11. The Classis said that it should follow proper church procedure in dealing with ministers who deny this. This seems to be an appropriate answer.

In this connection, the Dutton Church is appealing to Synod (p. 538) against a Classis Grand Rapids East decision to approve the ordination of a candidate after he had said that he did not believe that the serpent spoke to Eve as reported in Genesis 3 and that the earthquake reported in Matthew 28 should be understood as an eschatalogical symbol and not necessarily as a fact. Such n view is contrary to Scripture, to the Belgic Confession Article V, and to the decision of the Synod of 1972 (on Report 44). That synod warned against a “method of biblical interpretation which excludes or calls into question . . . the event-character . . . of biblical history, thus compromising the full authority of Scripture as the Word of God” (Acts 1972, p. 69). If we admit to the ministry men who hold such views, we in principle give up the biblical authority for our faith, and no longer have any valid ground on which to deny to others the right to hold and teach further departures from it. The history of our Dutch mother-churches shows how the permission to question or deny the events of Genesis 3, rejected by them in 1926 and permitted in 1967, has opened the way for denial of all kinds of biblical doctrines, including those of the creation, fall and atonement.

The Cascade church (p. 541) appeals the failure of the synodical deputies in this case to report to the Synod their reservations about the examination and the condition under which they give approval.

More Overtures – Overture 12 from Hackensack seeks support for a human life amendment against the growing atrocity of abortion. Orange City asks sup· port for a biblical defense of Capital Punishment. Both invite Christian support. Classis Grand Rapids East’s overture to get the RES to put pressure on the South African churches to object to sever police regulations against terrorists strikes one as church meddling in matters of which we know little, a long way from home. The same classis (No. 14) would have the Wycliffe Translators recommended for support and Sioux Center would like to see the New International Bible version get similar support. Both invite sympathetic consideration. Overtures 17, 18 and 19 would realign the churches of Hudson and Hackensack into 2 or 3 classes.