Dr. Ralph J. Danhof was the stated clerk of the Christian Reformed denomination from 1945 to 1970. He prepared this paper for a meeting on Sept. 29, 1970.

Christian Education has always been seen by the Christian Reformed Church as a necessity for self-preservation, from a kindergarten to a university. This is evident from our Church Order, Art. 71 “The consistory shall diligently encourage the members of the congregation to establish and maintain good Christian schools . . .” To limit this statement in our Church Order merely to Christian grade and high schools is incorrect. It rather implies all education. The question is “Shall the church own and operate these schools of Christian education?” In 1912 it was decided by synod that, “It is correct in principle that the college proceed from a society, but that the church neither can nor may transfer the college until a society has come into being that offers sufficient assurance for the Reformed Character and scholarly standard of the instruction for its own financial strength.” There has been agitation until recent date that Calvin College should be owned and operated by a society, and even though the synod of 1957 spoke of a derived right to operate a college, it was also stated that a church cannot own and operate a college within the limits of the church as an institute. (Acts 1957, p 45. Note also overtures of Classis British Columbia).

For our purpose the decisions stated are sufficient. The Church Order in Art. 71 would not disapprove of the establishment of a Christian school, college, university or seminary, owned and operated by a society of Christian believers. In fact the CRC has given its blessing to such institutions as Dordt, Trinity, Reformed Bible Institute, Westminster Seminary, Association for Advancement of Christian Scholarship and has even placed all these schools on the accredited list as worthy of financial support by our churches. There can, therefore, as such, be no objection that young men obtain a theological training in an independent seminary governed by a society. In fact the decision of the synod of 1912laid the groundwork for the establishment of Grundy College, 1916–1930’s. Also the Free University of Amsterdam with its department in Theology is operated and governed and financed by a society, and there is only a doctrinal agreement between the church and the faculty of the theological department. Moreover, we have not objected to acceptance of men who were graduated from independent seminaries, e.g. Westminster. I refer to the case of Zetterholm who did not even spend the required one year in our Seminary—but more of this requirement in another connection.

It is not absolutely necessary that a church own and operate its own seminary to provide ministers for its churches. A church cari, if it so desired, make use of the graduates from seminaries not under the jurisdiction of synod as long as the synod has assurance that such a seminary(ies) are sound in doctrine. This view is expressed by Dr. H. Bouwman, Gerefmeerde Kerkrecht, vol. 2, pp. 502, 503. Rev. Martin Monsma must also admit, as he does in his Revised Church Order Commentary, page 44, that “Our churches do not mean to say that all who look forward to the ministry in the CRC must necessarily and under all circumstances attend Calvin Seminary.” He adds, “. . . we feel for the element of truth found in the principle of what the Dutch call ‘vrijie studie.’” The decision on Free Study by synods of 1932, 1934, was not one of acceptance or rejection, but action was withheld. The real question is not, “In what school did a man obtain his education?” but “Does the applicant have the qualifications academically and does he have the soundness of doctrine and life to be able to serve the church in propagating and defending the Reformed truth?” There is more than one sound seminary in the world, and the heart of the matter is “Does a person meet the qualifications exacted by the church?” I do not enter upon the question how an independent seminary can preserve its orthodoxy when not under control of a synod or classis. In short, this will depend upon the caliber of the men who comprise the board and the faculty of such an institution. But a seminary can equally deteriorate even though it is under supervision of a board appointed by a synod. When the government of a board or synod becomes liberal the seminary governed by such persons will also deteriorate and men who have liberal views and tendencies will be sought to fill the chairs within the faculty.

In our Church Order Art. 6. we come face to face with the requirement concerning Ministers. It states. “The completion of a satisfactory theological training shall be required for admission to the ministry of the Word.” This part of the article creates no problem. It merely demands a satisfactory theological training and leaves undetermined where this training is obtained. In point b of Art. 6 a theological seminary of the CRC is mentioned. The implication is that the CRC has its own seminary where it is training men who will qualify as eventual candidates for the ministry, and that upon graduation from such a seminary also eligibility for call will follow. That the Church operates a seminary must be construed as a protective measure for the Church that is to be served. That is very evident from Art. 6 point c where it is clearly stated of persons who have obtained their theological training in another seminary outside of the one maintained by the CRC, that certain synodical regulations must be met before such persons can be declared candidates and eligible for a call. One of these regulations was adopted in 1924, that at least one year (senior) must be taken in our own seminary before they shall be declared eligible for a call. (Acts of 1924, page 38). This regulation was waived in the case of Rev. Zetterholm, but was strictly enforced in the case of Dr. E. Masselink. This regulation goes back to the Dr. Jansen case when upon his deposition a number of theological students left to enroll in other seminaries. The synod of 1961 added another regulation that “. . . non-regular students shall be declared candidates by synod after being interviewed by the board. Recommendations regarding academic qualifications, doctrinal soundness, spiritual fitness, and personality are to be presented by the board, by the Calvin Seminary faculty and by the faculties of such schools where the applicant has studied.” This regulation places a young man who has received his theological training outside of Calvin Seminary in a difficult position. It is not difficult to see that the Calvin Seminary faculty and also the board of Trustees will not easily waive the requirement of the extra year to be spent at Calvin Seminary, because of the requirement in the pre-emptor examination that two branches of study are a part of examination in CRC history and also in church polity, two branches which undoubtedly would not be offered in another seminary.

Our Church began its own seminary in 1876. The purpose was to assure the churches that candidates for the ministry who came from said seminary would be sound in doctrine and loyal to the Reformed Creeds. This is, of course, a worthy ideal and reason why a church should desire its own seminary. It is a means for its own self-preservation, at least to some degree. Churches usually do not deteriorate in the pew; but rather doctrinal defection begins in the seminaries and through the ministers. It is also true that many seminaries made a very good beginning (Princeton and four seminaries of the Presbyterian U.S.), but gradually began to drift away from sound Reformed moorings. For this reason and for no other the Reformed Presbyterian Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi, was organized. It can, therefore, easily be understood that independent seminaries come into being to stem the tide of liberalism within a given church. Such seminaries do not have the blessing of the General Assemblies of the churches in whose midst they function, but are the object of ridicule and investigation. Recent reports in the minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, U.S. is sufficient proof of the constant effort to remove the Jackson, Miss. seminary out of existence.

Have we as a Church reached a stage where an independent seminary is necessary? I can conceive of another seminary because the one in existence is too small to serve a fast growing denomination. The RCA (Reformed Church in America) has two seminaries, one in the east and one in the midwest. The Presbyterian U.S.A. has five seminaries, four supported directly by the church thru free will offerings. Do we need two seminaries, both supported and supervised by the synod? More than one college was deemed necessary. Why then not more than one Seminary, say one in the midwest as we have a college in the midwest? The burden of proof for needing such a second seminary lies with those who would promote the existence of one more seminary. This then is a possible approach to agitate for another seminary, and such a seminary would have to receive the approval of the synod of the CRC.* At the present moment this does not seem even remotely possible.

Should we seek then an independent seminary? Has the present seminary reached a stage of doctrinal defection that another seminary must replace it? Yes, we have had the Dr. Jansen case, but synod acted responsibly to remove this doctrinal defection. We have also had the B.K. Kuiper matter which was more an ethical behaviour problem, and synod dealt also with this appropriately. Then in 1952 we had the matter of incompatibility among professors in the seminary, and synod also dealt with this by replacing four professors. A more serious doctrinal issue raised its head in the Infallibility issue and the matter of Scriptural inerrancy. This was followed by the Atonement issue (Dekker case) and synod dealt with both issues not as firmly as it should have.

No charges have been made against any of the seminary professors officially. To state that the Reformed faith is being undermined in the seminary must be proved, but, as is often the case, it is not so much what is done that is the object of criticism as the lack of doing what should be done. However, the channels of protest must be exhausted and when this effort proves fruitless, consideration must be given to corrective measures, and that on more than one front.

Our pattern should be Dr. Machen who exhausted his rights of appeal and protest at the General Assembly and finally was left with no other choice than the formation of an independent seminary and of a new denomination.

*The establishment of a second denominational seminary, would, of course, need the approval of the synod. The establishment of an independent school would not. Some may recall the remark of the late Lambertus Mulder when this matter was discussed at the 1982 synod (August 1982, OUTLOOK p. 6). “If I want to start a seminary in my basement, who is going to stop me?” Christian schools may be started without the permission of a church. The Editor