Dear Editor:

In your article (“The Child’s Name was God,” December 1979) discussing my convocation address at The King’s College you insist that my speech “perverts in typically Liberal tradition everything that the Bible teaches about Christ’s coming,” resulting in “a humanistic distortion of the Gospel of God.”

That is preposterous. The fact is, I agree with what you say by way of countering the views which you attribute to me. Among your many distortions and misinterpretations of what I said, your most serious charge is that I am less than orthodox in my views regarding the person of Jesus Christ–who is indeed the Mighty God and Jehovah our Righteousness. Your assessment of my address is not only seriously erroneous but also deeply insulting.

Sincerely, Richard J. Mouw, Professor of Philosophy

Editor’s Comment:

I am sorry that Dr. Mouw feels insulted by my criticism of his speech at the King’s College opening. As I have assured him, no insult was intended. I am glad that he disavows what I criticized as the humanistic trust of that speech. Frankly, when I read the speech I was surprised by what he had said, because of some of the more orthodox concern I have observed in some of his other writing as an editor of the Reformed Journal. Dr. Mouw has been offered opportunity to further explain his objections to my criticism, but chose not to do so.

As I carefully reread the speech and my criticism of it I do not see where it was misrepresented or unfairly judged. I quoted enough of it so that the reader can see for himself what Dr. Mouw said, and I do not believe that the rest of the speech alters the thrust of what was quoted. Let the interested reader judge for himself. I cannot see how one can explain the prophecies of Christ’s coming and that coming, as a “fairy–tale” like product of men’s dreams and imagination, while still doing justice to the Bible’s insistence that these things do not come from man but are the unique, direct revelation of God. A humanistic explanation of biblical prophecies and events is not made acceptable if one simply adds “under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.” Paul wrote, “And for this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of the message, even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe” (I Thess. 2:13).

THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH

On November 19, 1979, a small group of people, formerly members of the Bethel Christian Reformed Church of Listowel, organized themselves as a Church of Jesus Christ. This action was taken as an act of faith, believing that their Lord, the Lord of the Church, had called them to this action. The new congregation consists of six families, fifteen confessing members and nine members by baptism.

In organizing this congregation reaffirmed its commitment to the three Reformed Confessions; the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt. As its Rule of Order, it has adopted the Church Order of Dordt as it was held by the Christian Reformed denomination prior to the revision of the 1960’s.

The organizational meeting also chose two elders and one deacon by free ballot. These men, elders P. Vander Lei and Jacob Thalen Sr. and deacon J. Thalen Jr. were ordained into their offices on Sunday, December 2 by the Rev. Harry Van Dyken, who conducted the worship service.

The congregation does not intend to be a competitive body in the midst of the churches. It intends rather to be a living body of Jesus Christ, positively endeavoring by His grace to serve Him and worship their covenant God, Jehovah.

Why did this happen? It happened simply because these members of the Church of Jesus Christ were led by the Spirit to a conviction that the fight against the world is an active one and every congregation and each member is engaged in that battle; and because of conviction that events have transpired, actions have been taken in the Christian Reformed denomination which, in their conviction, will eventuate in a loss of the leading of the Word of God. It is their prayer that there may be that kind of turning which will make this prophecy untrue.

While looking for a more permanent place to worship, this congregation presently worships the Lord at 10:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m . in the facilities of Club 86, about 10 miles east of Listowel on Highway 86.

The name was chosen by the member· ship of the congregation to indicate its de· sire and endeavor to remain true to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Yet it indicates a meaningful expression of continuing as Christian Reformed, realizing that the real basis of unity is the three forms of Unity; the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dordt. The choice arises out of a conviction that the Christian Reformed denomination presently is no longer true to its history and name.

The membership desires to honor as brothers and sisters those who differ, even strongly differ with them on the above matters, and prays that those with whom they differ will respond in like manner.

With thanks to the Lord, we acknowledge a letter from another young family with three children requesting to become members of our local Orthodox Christian Reformed Church.

P. Vander Lei, Ont., Canada

Gentlemen: In the November, 1979 issue of The Outlook there was a list of Christian Reformed ministers who endorse the “Testimony” that appeared in the October and November, 1978 issues of the Outlook. To my surprise I discovered my name on that list. I would ask that my name be removed from that list. The Testimony was endorsed by our consistory; I did not endorse it. Apparently I was guilty of poor communication concerning our response to the Testimony. For that I apologize. But I would ask that my name be removed and my reasons for this request be given.

My first reason concerns the content of the Testimony. I can endorse much of what is said. However, I find the Testimony startling in its omissions. Perhaps the most striking omission is that there is no clear cut challenge to the church to be more actively engaged in seeking the lost. Similarly, there is no affirmation of each member of the Church being gifted by the Spirit for the work of ministry, which includes the spreading the Gospel and the mutual edification of the saints. The vision of the Church contained in the Testimony is much too inward looking to be endorsed. Granted, you cannot say everything. But if this call to renewal is to be taken seriously those matters certainly should have been more heavily emphasized. To sum up, then, my first reservation I would say I basically agree with what was said but not enough was said.

My deeper reservation is a matter of principle. Most of the Testimony consists of a restating of basic Reformed doctrine and its implications in the life of the Church. I indicated my agreement with that doctrine when I signed the Form of Subscription upon entering the ministry in 1973. I meant it then; I continue to mean it now. And I resent it when a parachurch group offers me its “Testimony” and says, in effect, “Sign this and prove your loyalty.” I need not prove my loyalties to anyone except my Lord, the congregation I serve, and the Lord’s delegated authorities—the consistory, classis, and synod. If others feel led to sign such a testimony that is their decision. I do not presume to judge them. And I trust they will not judge me if I refrain from joining with them in signing this, or any other, testimony.

Sincerely yours, R. Broekema, Pastor, Lynnwood, Washington

Editor’s Note on Testimony Endorsements:

I regret the misunderstanding through which, apparently on a phoned in request, R. Broekema was included as, along with his consistory, desiring to endorse the Testimony.

The Gallatin Gateway C.R. Church at Gallatin Gateway, Montana, and Rev. Louis Bouma of Sioux Center, Iowa, have asked to be added to the list of endorsers.