“Are you going to write again about that ‘United Reformed Church’ idea and the response you received. In words to this affect someone recently prompted me to write on this subject again.

Did this questioner speak for many other CRC readers of the editorial as well as himself? Would that it were so! I believe that be was a rare exception. If there were others, one wonders whether they (1) couldn‘t care less about the whole matter (2) whether they prefer to be mere spectators rather than participants in this (3) or whether, for one reason or another, they think it to be the better part of wisdom not to stand up and be counted.

As these lines were being written, a well-informed and deeply concerned former elder in a large local RCA congregation said to me: “do you know what our greatest enemy is? Apathy!” And that’s exactly it! The present CRC apathy to the increasing erosion of our former staunch and vigorous commitment to the Reformed faith, together with open and ever bolder attacks upon it are nothing less than appalling. He who is “a liar and the father thereof” (John 8:44) is having a field day, while even our “watchmen on the walls of Zion” refuse to he disturbed.

But isn’t the whole thing hopeless?

Some answer “yes.” But they are listening to the voice of frustration and fear instead of faith. Or they argue “Why keep on beating a dead horse or trying to breathe life into a corpse?” These are the quitters who never win, not the winners who never quit. Ezekiel’s vision of dry bones may have something to say to them.

Repeatedly it must have seemed to Paul that his Lord’s cause was altogether hopeless. But the great apostle marched to a different drummer and he listened to a higher voice. He wanted to know nothing of the quitter either in himself or in others.

To the Galatians Paul wrote: “And let us not be weary in well-doing; for in due season we shall reap if we faint not” (6:9).

And to the Thessalonians: “But ye, brethren, be not weary in well–doing” (TT Thess. 3:13).

Hope thrives only when, like Peter, James and John, we see no man save Jesus only as the One Who builds His church. And if it be His will, already on this side of glory, to effect and bring forth a union of those united in the Reformed faith, Hc surely can and will bring it to pass.

Pity those who are always vocal among the critics of the church but are never found among the builders. Of the Frenchman Voltaire we are told that he was opposed to all organized religion. No wonder then that Thomas Carlyle once addressed him with the scathing rebuke, “Have you only a torch for destruction? Have you no hammer for building?”

To be united and zealous only as critics of one’s church will surely prove to be frustrating and counter-productive. Only those are entitled to criticize who at the same time are joined with our Lord as He goes on building His church to make it what He would have it be.

To pray for, to pursue, and to propagate the realization of the “United Reformed Church” should be the aim which we still cherish as a part of our Lord‘s building program and regard as our ongoing challenge.

Now a word about responses to that editorial

Excerpts from these may be cited.

1. From the Far West, a faithful subscriber writes: “Some years ago I wrote you about starting a new denomination that would uphold the infallibility of the Scriptures and also accept the three forms of unity as being the best guidelines available for a true church. The CRC has for many years failed to act on issues that needed prompt and decisive attention. To name a few—Report 44, Dr. Boer, 1973, and now the latest —the Verhey case. Result has been one committee after another and more and more compromises . . . . (My) brother (a retired CRC minister) assured me the CRC would set these things in order. My answer was that this would take a miracle.” 2. And from a subscriber in Western Canada the following: “. . . the CRC was on trial already for more than thirty years and has failed ever since . . . . Neither do we have to be a Luther or a Calvin, but who and wherever we are we must be true and faithful to the Word of God, and then you must liberate yourself from a ‘church’ (that) tolerates deviations from the Word of God, such as the teachings of Professor Kuitert, Dr. Verhey, and many more . . . ‘We know that secession is a terribly serious business,’ you say in your article. And it is. But secession can also be a God-given calling and task, and at the same time . . . God’s doing to purify His church.” 3. And this from nearer home, in Michigan: “A United Reformed Church may be exciting to you, but the hour is late. You waited too long. The CRC is in need of drastic housecleaning; but it will not happen because the foes, the experts are within the gate, and the majority of the members love the establishment. . . . It is just a dream, fantasy, on your part. r have many dear friends, also four brothers and five sisters in the CRC. They are complaining all the time. But wiII they leave? Oh No! They have all kinds of reasons and you know what they are too . . . .” 4. Of special interest also is a clipping from a Canadian newspaper sent by an Alberta correspondent who writes, “Although I agree that it would be desirable to have an unambiguous, consistent, and enthusiastic CRC, I do not believe that a new denomination is the real answer.”

The clipping is an article with a LONDON (AP) dateline. It reports the opposition aroused in England by the recent publication of that anti-christian and infamous book, The Myth of God Incarnate, edited by John Hick of Birmingham University referred to in the newspaper article as a “United Reformed churchman.” In view of that book’s attempt to convince the readers that the account of Jesus’ deity is a myth and not literally true, our correspondent from Alberta calls attention to the great disparity between the out-and-out heresy of someone identified as a “United Reformed churchman” and what I envisioned as a sorely needed “United Reformed Church.” We ought to consider that there is an ocean between ourselves in the U.S. and Canada, and the heretical John Hick and his ilk, whose views are as far apart from ours as the poles. I do not feel that their misuse of the name “United Reformed” should constrain us to abandon it as inappropriate for the church which our divine Lord, if He tarries, may someday yet be pleased to bring into being here.

5. The Reformed Record, the Official Publication of the League of Christian Laymen (Reformed Church in America) Inc., saw fit to reprint our “Desideratum – A United Reformed Church” editorial in its August, 1977 issue.

It is gratifying and encouraging to find their attached footnote: “We feel the information and the warnings.. are so well stated that our people must read it. Let us pray that God by His Spirit may turn the tide in all REFORMED churches. Without His blessing, we are helpless.” Headers are invited to contact the League of Christian Laymen (RCA) Inc., at Box 317, Stout, Iowa.

Obviously, there also are brothers within the RCA who with us are deeply concerned about departures from the Reformed heritage. We do well to cultivate a closer acquaintance with them and join hands and hearts before the throne of grace for the preservation and proclamation of the Reformed faith.

As wrong trends and developments multiply in denominations still nominally Reformed, and as those who aid and abet such departures from the Reformed faith and life become increasingly entrenched in denominational positions of leadership and power, it becomes ever more obvious that we cannot expect them to encourage the emergence of a truly United Reformed Church. One correspondent observes that, instead of looking toward such denominational leaders we would do well to regard people of the ACRL and the Christian Reformed Church (he might have included the League of Christian Laymen [RCA], Inc.) as possible supporters in seeking to realize a URC. Our Lord throughout the history of His people, has used minorities to achieve great victories for the preserving of the “faith of our fathers” and in the building of His church.

6. Rev. C. Van Baren of the Protestant Reformed Church writes in a recent issue of The Standard Bearer (Feb. 15, 1978): THE OUTLOOK also reports that they have a new editor. . . . Through his editorial writings, the Rev. Vander Ploeg has correctly pinpointed many of the ills of his denomination. The diagnosis, however seemed easier to present than the cure. Perhaps that ‘is understandable. The closest to a ‘cure’ that Rev. Vander Ploeg proposed was the formation of a ‘United Reformed Church’ consisting of conservatives of all of the Reformed churches of the land. But this remained only a ‘dream’ (italics mine). Specific action, God–required action, was not presented . . . . We as churches would also much like him (Rev. Peter De Jong, THE OUTLOOKS new managing editor) and others, to see what we have suggested for many years, that there is a clear-cut relationship also between current trends and that view of common grace adopted by the CRC in 1924. At least we would hope that the idea is no longer rejected out-of-hand.”

We believe that our PR brethren are sincere in their rejection of the position which the Christian Reformed Church adopted on common grace more than a half century ago and we respect their right to reiterate their rejection of this year after year after year. They ought to manifest the same regard for our sincere conviction that our position on that matter is Biblical and is not per se the Pandora‘s box out of which our difficulties have necessarily arisen. There is much in the PR churches that we highly esteem. Our unresolved honest differences should not keep us from praying and working for the ideal of a truly United Reformed Church.

7. Another publication that gave generous attention to the “Desideratum” editorial is Clarion (The Canadian Reformed Magazine). Co-Editor C. Stam writes a “Response to a Desideratum” that is clear in its intent, pointed. and critical, but also sympathetic, expressing goodwill and assuring us of their intercessory prayer for us. At the close of his article, Rev. Stam offers the following guidelines for our consideration:

“1. Those involved should not only voice their concern and criticism about the apparent deformation in their Church, but should faithfully examine and clearly promote the way which God has given in His Word to reformation, even if this means inevitable, sad secession. Search the Scriptures and the Creeds!

“2. Edifying contact should be relentlessly sought with those churches which by God’s grace are faithful to the Reformed faith, so that when secession becomes real, unity in faith can be pursued without delay. One cannot be content ‘to remain by himself’ (Article 28, Belgic Confession) but must seek and maintain the unity of 1892 (the union of the 1834 Secession churches and those of the Doleantie in the Netherlands).

“3. Emphasis should be placed on understanding deformation not as an isolated incident, but as an historical process, resulting from dated derailment. The ‘concerned’ in the CRC should re-examine their stand on the happenings of 1939-1944 and subsequent years and give due recognition to those who in the past-again by God‘s grace!—stood firmly only for the Reformed faith” (a reference to the rise and history of the Liberated Churches in the Netherlands, known as the Canadian Reformed Churches and the American Reformed Church in North America, the movement in which Dr. K. Schilder occupied a leading role).

Finally, a few observations about our ongoing challenge:

1. As a first priority toward any real rapprochement there must be a mutual recognition and realization that the pursuit of union of all those who are honestly and unambiguously committed to the Reformed faith is a continuing duty. What belongs together should be together. To cherish, to pursue, and also to implement the ideal of union whenever and wherever such appears to be warranted and timely, according to Scripture is not merely an option but a divine mandate. Let no man put asunder what God hath joined together in a common commitment to the Reformed faith.

Do I now see the way to achieve such togetherness today, tomorrow, or the next day? Unfortunately, I do not. However, can and dare we be comfortable if we will not even move a muscle or lift a finger to bridge the unwarranted gaps that divide Reformed Christians? Our Lord’s prayer “that they may all be one” (John 17:21) and Paul’s inspired exhortation about “giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3) are a mandate for God‘s people of our day as well as for those of long ago. The Ecumenism prescribed in Scripture is not to be repudiated merely because so many of today‘s ecumenical churchmen disregard the sound doctrine and the godly walk demanded by that Scripture. Their pursuing a kind of union which God‘s Word forbids should not deter us from pursuing the kind of union His Word forbids should not deter us from pursuing the kind of union His Word commands.

2. Let it also be clearly understood then that there are precious convictions that are non-negotiable, and that the surrender of them is too great a price to pay for union. Before we proceed to organize or unite we must prepare, agree upon and proclaim a “Reformed Manifesto,” a clear and unambiguous statement of basic Reformed convictions founded on the Word convictions that are never to be compromised, curtailed or submerged. 3. Allow me to suggest also that those who may come together to consider the possibility of a United Reformed Church should begin by exploring the convictions they do have in common without demanding that the first order of business must be a reconsideration and a resolving of controversies of a bygone day. Even though considering old controversies may later be unavoidable or necessary as we move down the road together, to make settling them a prerequisite for any common action could result in our being hopelessly stalled before we begin. To avoid insisting or making initial meetings a clearing house for conflicting views, or for airing our hurts and injuries of the past, will probably demand a self-denial which can be made possible only by grace that will be given to all who earnestly seek it. Meanwhile any who, after sincere soul-searching, may find themselves to be conscience-bound to have no part in this should be regarded with Christian esteem by others who do feel free to act together, in the hope that those who remain aloof will reciprocate by showing Christian esteem toward any and all who feel free to proceed without them.

4. The ongoing challenge for those who are tmly Reformed to close ranks and to present a united front should be sharpened by the realization that there is no hope for today’s largely apostate Christendom apart from what the Reformed faith has to offer. If we are unwilling to bestir ourselves for this cause, our Lord may well say to us what Mordecai once said to Queen Esther: “For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then will relief and deliverances arise . . . from another place” (Esther 4:14).

Together with William Carey who, before he became a renowned missionary, had a map of the world tacked over his cobbler’s bench, we too, when confronted by apparently overwhelming obstacles, should say: “Expect great things from God, attempt great things for God.”

This then is our challenge. While others may disparage or even scoff, shall we not press on, knowing that life without a challenge is a life not worth the living.

(Note: When the writing of the above was almost completed, word from a correspondent was received calling attention to the fact that in October 1972 the United Reformed Church in England and Wales came into being. I hope to write more about this Inter.)

“As an aside, attention may here be called to a recent Eerdman’s Publication, The Truth of God Incarnate (Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1977, $2.45) in which “Five prominent theologians join forces to defend the doctrine of Christ’s divinity against recent attacks.”