A UNITED REFORMED CHURCH?

Allow me a few comments with respect to what the Rev. Vander Ploeg has been writing about that “United Reformed Church.” In the April issue of your magazine, he expresses his concern about the lack of response to his initial proposal. He attributes this to one of three reasons; they couldn’t care less; they prefer to be spectators; they don’t want to stand up and be counted.

I don’t happen to fit into any of those categories. I too am quite concerned about a number of things going on in the CRC today. Generally speaking, we are losing our character as a REFORMED church. The desire to be a confessional church is lacking among us today, especially among many of our leaders. They would rather, it seems, that we become a “generally evangelical” church. I am disturbed about this and am wilting to stand up and be counted in the effort to counteract this trend.

At the same time, I am not enthusiastic about your proposal for a “United Reformed Church.” I’ll tell you why.

In the first place, I believe your proposal borders on the schismatic. I don‘t think we may ever plan a secession (if that’s what we want to call it). We must work for the reformation of the church at all times, and if that would lead, eventually, to a secession, then the Lord will make that plain in His own good time. We must simply be obedient to His Word and commandments, and resist all actions that conflict therewith. If that leads to the eviction of those who want to be faithful to God’s Word and our creedal standards, then so be it. That will then be the time for further planning. It could, indeed, also happen that the duty of separation comes before eviction. When exactly that time comes is very difficult to say. Circumstances may differ, and there is never a clear black/white borderline in such matters. But to plan ahead of time for eventual separation, is to my mind unbiblical, and tends to the schismatic.

We must not too quickly call for separation differ.

We must not too quickly call for separation either. Over against the Cathari, Donatists and Anabaptists of his day, Calvin said that “among the Corinthians no slight number had gone astray, in fact, almost the whole body was infected. . . There was corruption not only of morals but of doctrine.” And he says that the Galatians were “all but deserters of the gospel.” Yet Paul does not hesitate to call them churches. The point being that we must not too soon give up on the church. Every secession or reformation has within it an element of schism, as Prof. K. J. Popma has pointed out. And if the latter element gets the upper hand, then the “cure” may he worse than the disease. The body of Christ is rent and bleeding enough today without adding to it unnecessarily.

A second reason why I’m not enthused about your proposal is that it is unduly idealistic and unduly illusory. The grass always looks greener across the fence, and it may be tempting to wish for something that we didn’t have, but the point is that God places us right where we are in the present, and that is where we have to work and do His will, come what may. There never waS and never will he a “United Reformed Church” of the kind you envision. It wasn’t there in Paul’s day, John didn‘t find it among the seven churches of Asia Minor, and we won’t find it today. Simply because we won‘t find perfection on this side of heaven.

In conclusion I want to say that what I write here is in no way to he interpreted as if to say, “let’s grin and bear it.” By no means. It is our solemn duty to act in harmony with what we promised when we signed the Formula of Subscription, and to oppose heresy and error in doctrine and life wherever it shows itself. We need more of the spirit of Guido de Bres who said he “would offer his back for stripes, his tongue to knives, his mouth to gags and his whole body to the fire” rather than deny the truth expressed in his confession. Would we had more of that spirit in the CRC today!

At the same time, let’s speak the truth in love, stand up for the right and honor of God, and seek the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One more point while I’m writing: Why does OUTLOOK never offer a word of praise or commendation for organizations like the C.L.A, (C)., the C.J.L. Foundation or the Association for Public Justice in the U.S.A.? In other words, why does OUTLOOK not have more of a genuine “Kuyperian” emphasis? Or, to say it still differently, why is OUTLOOK not more Calvinistic? After all, Calvinism is much more than “doctrine” or the so-called 5 points of Calvinism. But one would hardly know it by reading the OUTLOOK.

Sincerely,

J. TUININGA

MORE REACTION TO “I HAD A STRUGGLE”

Dave Van Dyke, a Calvin College student sent us this letter, reacting to the Banner article to which other OUTLOOK writers have also expressed objection.

The “I Had a Struggle” article of the February 28, ’78 Banner really disturbed me. In that article the author explains a 4.billion-year age for the earth. But how he attempts to reconcile God’s Word to the “scientific facts” of evolution and his “solution”—theistic evolution and rejection of historicity of Genesis 1–11—raises more problems and questions than it answers, and it reveals a disturbing trend in the C.R.C. today.

The problems that attempts to harmonize Scripture with evolution and historical geology face include the facts that secular science has rejected all of them, and that the message of the Bible is inconsistent with any form of evolutionary theory. Theistic evolution has a hard time answering questions about the creation of the soul, the creation of Eve, and the meaning of the terms “made in God’s image,” “the breath of life,” and “formed from the (nonliving ) dust,” which refer to the creation of Adam. Evolution of any kind contradicts the clear Biblical teachings that the creation was “finished” and “good” on the 7th day; that Adam and Eve were the first human beings; that God created life in fixed and distinct kinds; that sin, death, and universal decay began with the Fall (not with evolutionary imperfections); and, that Christ’s death was necessary for redemption. Since evolution is also incompatible with Christian ethics and has been the basis for communism, atheism, scientific humanism, materialism, racism, existentialism, the “New Morality,” and a host of other ungodly philosophies, it should be evident that true Christianity and evolution just do not mix.

Attempts to compromise the Scripture and the “scientific facts” become even more ridiculous when one takes an objective look at those “facts.” Although most people accept a great age for the universe and evolution as proven scientific facts, the truth is that there is very little hard. scientific evidence to support their beliefs; evolution and historical theology are based on unprovable and fallacious assumptions, and a lot of faith. Creation scientists (Henry H. Morris, for one l have pointed out that evolution is neither a natural nor a mathematically possible process, and that it actually often disagrees with scientific evidence. On the other hand. the creationists have convincingly defended the literal view of Genesis on a scientific basis and have shown the remarkable agreement between the Bible and scientific evidence.

If the historicity of Genesis 1–11 can be defended scientifically, then how much more can it be defended Biblically. The creation story in Genesis must he taken literally if viewed in the historic normal manner—in the light of the rest of Scripture. I am disturbed because this trend towards “demythologizing” Genesis our church represents an attack both on the infallibility of God’s Word and upon the very sovereignty and wisdom of our Creator. The sad story of other churches proves that where this sort of “higher criticism” and compromising of the Bible is accepted. the way is open for attack (through “reinterpretation”) on other supernatural Biblical events, such as the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Christ. A rejection of the historicity of Genesis has always accompanied, and is a part of, the growth of modernism in the church. It seems to me that theistic evolution and other such fence-straddling beliefs represent a blind acceptance of the philosophy of our worldly culture, a lack of faith in God, and a sinful rejection of the relevance and accuracy of His Word. It is high time that we as Reformed Christians renew our efforts to develop a truly Christian scientific system, and to base our scientific theorizing upon a genuine, Biblical faith, rather than on the ungodly philosophy of the world.

DAVE VAN DYKE Hudsonville, MI

ON TOLERATING HOMOSEXUALITY

Dear Editor:

Mr. Douma’s article about Anita Bryant and her stand on what once was called “Sodomy,” made me decide to write a few lines on this subject, and add a couple of excerpts from other sources.

It seems that among our spiritual leaders a certain amount of care is taken not to mention this controversial subject. (Ignoring it will not make it disappear but will, not unlike cancer in a human body, give it time to spread and do irreparable damage to the body: in this case, the body of Christ which is the church.) There is also a tendency to have so much compassion with the sinner that the seriousness of the sin is tuned down to just another sin among many. For those who know their Bible this ought not to be done. It has been said, “If Paul had known what we know, he would not have been so harsh on this subject.” Assuming that the Bible authors were guided by the Spirit, this would suggest that God Himself was not aware of all the problems surrounding the issue, or perhaps the apostles gave their personal limited view; limited by their lack of knowledge. Rev. Robert K. Churchill in a letter to Time magazine states a different opinion. He writes: “Nations may revive from dollar slides; and earthquakes may not destroy the U.S. We may forget that the Super Bowls are played on the Sabbath, but as surely as God is holy, judgment falls on a nation who’s sexual promiscuity and sex perversion is a way of life. As America arrives on the scrap heap of nations, Sodom and Gomorrah will ask: What took you so long?”

We may raise an eyebrow at the last sentence in this letter, but to me it sounds more biblical than what I read in the Groninger Kerkbode (Gereformeerde). In an editorial which took up two-thirds of the front page, W. H Vander Ploeg tells us that homosexuality has long been considered an abnormality; physically or mentally. Lately more and more people begin to look at it differently. The article is divided in seven parts, each one with it’s own heading. The number six heading was: “De ander hoort er bij” (“The other also belongs”). This is what Mr. Vander Ploeg states: “In a family with a homosexual child, the parents will have to bring up the courage to face this reality together with the child. Do they regret that he will not be married and will have no children? Are they worried about what people will say? Slowly they learn to accept the homosexual without fear and unbiased within the family pattern, and to make it clear to the family that homosexuality is a normal human condition in which one can live happily. This way, living in many forms of love experiences, the family and its surroundings become rich and happy.

“If the gospel, the joyful message, is working to set free, then also and especial!y the congregation of Jesus Christ will have to be the house where everyone feels at home, with all his difficulties. The congregation has to give hope for a new world, where people give room to one another for each to find his own forms of relationships.”

It is hard to believe that this kind of spiritual guidance goes unchallenged in the church wherein many of us grew up, were baptized and made confession of our faith.

ALBERT MEYER

Mr. Meyer sent us his article which had also appeared in the Onward magazine of the Brantford (Ontario) Christian Reformed Church.