Back-to-God Hour

This year’s 450-page synod agenda begins, as usual, with the stirring report on the denomination’s radio and television outreach, its Back–to-God Hour. “We have a longer tradition of broadcasting than any other denomination has,” and it is characterized as a distinctively church activity. It reaches out ‘“to every inhabited region in major world languages, stressing at all times the word of the cross and calling men everywhere to faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ, urging them to join themselves to His church; all such programs shall convey the message of the infallible Scriptures, in harmony with the Reformed confessions . . . .”

Our thirty-year-old TV effort is comparatively low-cost, approximately equaling what we spend on radio.

Our quarter-century old Arabic broadcast draws an increasing response in the Muslim world. Rev. Victor Atallah, an Orthodox Presbyterian missionary , now works with Rev. Bassam Madany in follow–up. The work in Spanish, led by Rev. Juan Boonstra continues to draw a large response. The report states that, “Because of the highly sensitive nature of the political and social situation in this region, it is our conviction that, in the interest ofmission strategy, our church should not express itself publicly on political matters in Latin America.” “It is our conviction that our work on behalf of justice and righteousness and our primary task of bringing the gospel of Christ will be best served if we do not unnecessarily produce statements that hinder the work of the agencies in areas in which the political/social situation is confusing and volatile.” Our broadcasts to China have “the potential of reaching 90 percent of the country’s population.” A Russian broadcast is still an experimental program. There are also extensive Portugese, French, Japanese and Indonesian language programs.

Home Missions

The 19-page home missions report, among its rather routine details, states that approximately half of the field budget will be invested in ministries among non-Anglo people or minorities. If this happens to be the character of the people among whom we have opportunity to bring the gospel, it may be worth noticing. If it represents a deliberate priority on the basis of race, it is the racism which we must oppose. We notice that after many years as a mission school Rehoboth Christian School is becoming parent-controlled.

Publications

The Board of Publications focuses attention on its long-range plans observing that ”They may not be kept secret; like battle plans in which the church is our enemy (or, more typically, like advertising campaigns in which the church is our “market.”) We owe the church both the dignity and the credibility which can only be achieved when we ask her, “Would you like us to take.you there? and when we listen to her answer.” It observes that Christian Reformed Church users now represent Jess than a third of its total accounts. It wants to change its name for something less parochial to facilitate its sales outside of the denomination. It proposes to take over the job of the liturgical committee (p. 71). (Who decided that the church must be condemned to perpetual liturgical experimentation?) It wants to take over the job of the World Literature Committee. It proposes to get into film, radio and/or TV. It wishes to publish a new monthly periodical for church leaders and would like also to begin publishing a monthly Calvinistic news magazine. It wants to update its equipment, provide complete customer services, and relocate its operations in larger facilities to be provided by the denomination at between 1.5 and 2 million dollars (SIC report. p. 242).

The Synodical Interim Committee (pp. 238–244) endorses Publications’ desire for larger building facilities on the ground that this would provide more room for other growing denominational agencies in the present building when it is vacated by Publications. “While the Board of Publications is an agency of the Christian Reformed Church, it has become, especially during the past decade, consciously and increasingly less ‘agency-like’ and more ‘business-like’” (p. 241). It “is also by far the largest organization housed within the denominational building.”

It appears that the Board ofPublications is seeking to build an empire (something comparable to the Vatican or Zondervan’s) that extends considerably beyond what the church authorized its servant to do. Many who in recent years have found the Board’s educational materials unsuitable because of the abandonment of the systematic training in Biblical doctrine which once characterized our catechism classes, and have had to look elsewhere to obtain such materials (our Reformed Fellowship markets some of them) will likely see little valid reason for such commercial expansion. If the denomination does not take a critical look at this expanding church venture into business, the IRS might want to do that.

A special problem which the Board is bringing to the synod is the case of an employee, Paul Stoub, who refuses to pay half of his income taxes on the grounds that they go for military expenses, which violate his conscience. While the church must respect the conscience of its members (even when they are misguided), when the federal government laid claim to wages owing to him, the Board felt that that claim should be paid. Since Stoub protested against this decision, the Board is referring the matter to the synod. They can hardly expect the church to sustain refusal to pay taxes (Romans 13:6, 7) . That is encouraging anarchy.

The Board defensively supports the new Banner editorial policies (which permit it to promote views in conflict with the churches’ creeds or conscience. See May Outlook, p. 2). pointing to the fact that subscriptions are increasing. It also reports, “Film reviews returned to these pages without (so far) a whisper of complaint” (p. 62f.). After the death of Rev . W. Haverkamp, it has employed as editor-in-chief of the Wachter, Dr. Siert Woudstra, until the publication’s scheduled demise late in 1985.

Calvin College and Seminary

The Calvin Board’s 7-page report asks the synod to approve its list of faculty and staff appointments. (See the article in this Outlook which points out that even seminary appointments are no longer decided by the synod.) An overture (Number 29, p. 442) from Southern California proposes transferring Calvin College from the control of the denomination to that of a society by 1987. Another from the First Church of Chino, California, (Number 31, pp. 445–450) seeks to maintain the right of a consistory to inquire concerning the confessional views of seminary professors when they become questionable. Despite the fact that all who hold office in our churches have declared in the Form of Subscription that they would “be always willing and ready” to provide further explanation of their “sentiments respecting any particular article of the confessions of faith,” the Calvin Board has denied that a consistory has the right to ask such questions. The Church, therefore, asks the synod to affirm this right guaranteed by the Form of Subscription.

World Missions and World Relief

A major problem which is likely to demand much attention at the synod is that of relating our world mission to our world relief activities. These two programs representing the same churches and working in many of the same places are under separate and quite different organizations. The resulting confusion and friction moved last year’s synod to appoint a special commission with extraordinary powers to correct this intolerable situation. That commission now reports (pp. 377–407). It proposes to retain the separate world mission and world relief organizations coordinating them under one board and executive committee (pp. 393, 395) with two directors. Although the report acknowledges that “the heralding of the gospel is central to the church’s mission” (p. 383) and cautions against entering into commitments to other churches or agencies without our churches’ approval (p. 382), and getting into developmental programs which are broadly humanitarian instead of Christian (p. 385ff), and against letting the secondary material help become primary and the means become ends (p. 388), it proposes in its organizational restructuring to place missions and relief side by side as equals in a new combined organization to be called Christian Reformed Board ofWorld Ministries. It proposes that half of the delegates to this board be “diaconal,” nominated by diaconal conferences. It is clear that the practical politics of the situation are prompting what amounts to a major restructuring of our Reformed or “presbyterian” church government with its rule by elders. To overcome administrative problems, the proposal chooses frankly for the authoritarian management structure of the world relief committee rather than that of the mission board which tried to maintain the Reformed principle of parity of office (p. 403). It defends this admittedly “secular organizational and human relations theory” supported system on the basis of efficiency. The gospel testimony of many other missions has been displaced by material, political and social programs. Our mission administration has already shown a strong inclination to move in that direction. If that movement is now to be accelerated by being merged with material and action-oriented relief programs, the future of our continuing denominational gospel missions becomes even gloomier.

Interchurch Relations

In the report on interchurch relations one notices that the committee has appointed Professor John H. Stek and Dr. Fred  H. Klooster to meet with the commission of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands regarding their Liberal document on biblical authority entitled God Met Ons (p. 169). The report gives much attention to relations with South African churches. It appointed a committee consisting of Dr. John H. Kromminga, Dr. John H. Stek, Dr. Nicholas Wolterstorff, and Dr. Henry Zwaanstra “to study the question of whether apartheid is a heresy.” The Interchurch Relations Committee concludes that it is a heresy and that “any church that does not vigorously oppose such an ideology must be judged guilty of disobedience to God‘s Word and to Christ its Lord” (p. 179). Although we cannot defend South Africa’s reportedly discriminatory laws , one wonders who constituted us the judges of those churches. The business becomes even more dubious when we observe the report of the committee’s consultation with our churches’ race committee, SCORR (which specialized in making increasing discriminatory grants on the basis of race, ostensibly to remove race discrimination) which is also sending a delegation to South Africa (pp. 220, 179). Could not our churches, with the same logic, be charged with heresy because we are not vigorously protesting against immigration laws which keep many foreigners from freely entering into the U.S.? Is the fact that religious Liberals everywhere have made South Africa their favorite “whipping-boy” an adequate reason why our churches “must get in the act”?

Liturgy

The Liturgical Committee presents its revised collection of prayers (which probably few will use). More significant is the fact that it proposes to remove the old forms for baptism and the Lord’s Supper from the new edition of the Psalter Hymnal. While the old forms had weaknesses, many in the churches find some of the newer forms more tasteless or offensive. It seems that the committee is now reaching the point where it will compel the churches to swallow its concoctions.

Synodical Interim Committee

In 1978 Classis Sioux Center overtured the Synod to have salary and fringe benefit schedules reported in the agenda on the ground that “the constituency paying the quotas is entitled to this information.” After this was adopted by the synod, following synods received a new kind of “financial and business supplement” to the agenda which, unlike the rest of the agenda which is sent to all who hold office in the church, is only given to the synodical delegates and made available to consistories who make special request for it. Thus, information regarding this financial matter was still kept secret from the constituency whom the synod acknowledged “is entitled to” it. Last year Classis Sioux Center again overtured the synod to request quota-supported agencies to comply with the earlier decision to report salaries including fringe benefits. The synod also adopted this overture, but the report of it is included in the 1983 Acts (p. 701) between decisions to engage a paid consultant to determine what salaries should be. Now the Synodical Interim Committee reports (p. 230) that the review of these salary recommendations is “in progress.” Why does it have to take over a year for even our synods to get an answer from our executives to the simple question, “What are we paying you?”

The Committee, in its second appendix (pp. 245–248) proposes that the rules adopted by the synod in 1978 regarding accrediting various agencies for denominational support be more consistently and firmly enforced!

Committee on Headship In the Bible

Since this 94-page report is reviewed elsewhere in this issue, we need give little attention to it here. The 54-page majority report is strong and clear in its analysis of Bible teaching, but inconsistent and weak in its conclusions. Although it clearly points out that the Bible forbids placing women in ruling offices in the church, it recommends permitting them to become deacons, although these, in our churches do share with elders the government of the church! The First (5-page) minority report asks that we consistently apply this clear teaching of the Bible and limit the churches’ governing offices, (including that of deacon) to men. The (35-page) second minority report is an exceptionally good example of how one can try to misinterpret a large body of Bible teaching to say the opposite from what it says. The report is, for example, determined that the first chapters ofGenesis shall say nothing about man having any priority or differing role from those of woman, despite Paul’s argument to the contrary (I Tim. 2:11–15) and it is equally determined that Paul’s clear differentiation of roles in I Tim. 2; I Cor. 14:33–38 and Eph. 5:22–33 shall be explained away and dismissed as political compromises which flatly contradicted Paul’s own teaching and practice. This material is a good contemporary example of the kind of twisting of the Scriptures by the scribes of our Lord‘s days which elicited some ofHis harshest condemnations (Matt. 23).

In connection with this report, Overture Number 12 from Southern California’s classis asks the Synod to reaffirm its 1975 decision that women be excluded from ecclesiastical office unless compelling Biblical grounds are advanced for a change (pp. 431, 432), Overture Number 13 from Toronto would leave the matter of ordaining women as deacons open to the choice of individual consistories. Overture Number 14 from the church at Pinellas Park, Florida, asks that the practice of restricting ordination to church offices to men be maintained, arguing this on the grounds of the Bible, of observations of our old mother churches in the Netherlands and of our relations with other orthodox Reformed church bodies. Overture 15 from the Maranatha Church of Edmonton would admit women to be deacons as clearly distinguished from elders, while Overture 16 from the Third Church of the same city would throw all offices open to women.

Other Matters

Report 36 from a synod committee proposes that we remove some ambiguities in the practice of receiving ministers from other denominations by making the rules so stringent that no such minister may be received until the synod is convinced that failure to admit him would “be a unique loss for the denomination” (p. 414)! Such an outrageous restriction suggests a union trying to enforce a closed shop. In contrast with this, Overture Number 2 from Northern Illinois wants to modify access to the pastorate with a multitude of unspecified racial (or racist?) adjustments. When did the Lord ever authorize us to make racial qualifications to the service of His gospel?

Overture Number 1 from Rocky Mountain Classis wants to admit children to participation in the Lord’s Supper by simply setting aside the requirements of self-examination (I Cor. 11:17–34) which the Bible prescribes. It is evident that the argument for admission of children is really an outgrowth of the kind of “presumptive regeneration” notions which have helped to demoralize our mother churches in the Netherlands.

Overtures 3, 4, and 5 ask for a study committee to deal with the problem of alcohol abuse.

Overture 10 from the church at Vergennes, Vermont, would have churches which refuse to abide by our Church Order be denied support from our fund for needy churches, because it is unfair to expect churches which live by the Church Order to support those who will not, and it is as reasonable to expect aided churches to respect the Church Order as it is to expect them to meet certain financial requirements.

Overture 11 would revise the quota system, basing it on individual members rather than families. Overtures 17 and 19 would have those licensed to exhort also sign the Form of Subscription. Overture 22 wants the dance decisions revised to warn against increasing abuses in this respect. Overture 25 would enforce lay and clergy balance in membership on denominational boards. Overture 26 would remove what it considers offensive wording in the Belgic Confession about the Anabaptists and Overture 27 wants to remove from the Heidelberg Catechism Question and Answer 80’s warning against the heresy of the Roman Catholic mass. Overture 30 asks that we face frankly our differences with the Reformed Church of America.

A survey of the synod agenda prompts two observations concerning it: 1. A mere month is far too limited a time for churches to study and respond to it. If our churches are to become familiar with these materials, that concern them and in which they are represented, they should have several months to study and respond. 2. Reports increasingly show that our boards carry on most of the churches business with very little reference to or consultation with the synods for which they are supposed to be working. Recommendations from the boards submitted for synod decision are very few. The synodical interim committee in its “recommendations” six times uses the formula “the synod take note of . . . .” If our autonomous executives are going to run our churches’ business with little or no reference to synods, why should we waste the time and money to have synods at all? Our churches badly need a return to Biblical church order (with government by elders) as well as to Biblical doctrine. Let us pray and labor for both.