The Proposal to Join

What could long have been forseen has happened: The Interchurch Relations Committee of the Christian Reformed Church recommends joining the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC). It does so on erroneous grounds and with a radically revised notion of ecumenicity as compared to the church’s past stand.

The World Alliance is a theologically mixed group of churches to which belong the Presbyterian Church which did not tolerate Dr. Machen in its ranks, and also the United Church of Christ (Congregational), called by the N.Y. Times the “most liberal Protestant church in the United States.”

Through various circumstances, some of which are explained in the Agenda report of the IRC, this committee waited some twelve years before giving the church the information it needs to make up its mind. Within the very short time allotted I shall endeavor to set forth my objections to the committee’s proposals and to the grounds adduced.

Objections: We Must Compromise to Join!

Ground “a” (p. 203, Agenda) states that the CRC “meets all the requirements for membership (in the WARC) as outlined in the constitution.” However, this is not so. The constitution makes a reference to the Reformed confessions but it goes on to state that it understands the Reformed tradition to be an “ethos” (way of life), rather than “any narrow and exclusive definition of faith and order.” Only those churches that agree with this definition of what it means to be “Reformed” are eligible. But the CRC does not see things this way. For the CRC, being Reformed is , first of all, strict adherence to the Word as explained and confessed in “narrow and exclusive definitions.” See for example, the rejection of Arminianism, Catholicism and other errors in its creeds. To become a member of WARC the CRC admits implicitly that it will not appeal to these narrow and exclusive confessions in its associations with WARC. This the CRC cannot do without becoming untrue to the Form of Subscription which states that we shall “diligently teach and faithfully defend the aforesaid doctrines,” i.e., the precise formulations of the Three Forms of Unity. If the CRC is true to its calling it will not want to qualify for membership in W ARC. Neither does it qualify.

Ground “a” also states that the CRC “can subscribe, without compromising its Reformed confessional and ecclesiastical character, to the constitutional basis of WARC.” What has just been said also applies to the second part of ground “a.” WARC wants churches that tone down the precise formulations of their creeds. It is erroneous to suggest that to join WARC means that there is no compromising of the church’s confessional character.

The False Appeal to 1944

Ground “b” of the Agenda report states that to join WARC is in keeping with the principles set forth in the 1944 report of Ecumenicity. That report spoke of some churches being fully Reformed, while others were Reformed in name but less so in practice, or not at all. The 1944 report urged the CRC to work toward “restoring” some churches, but it did not ever consider joining with them in a common alliance.

The Agenda report suggests that it is faithful to “1944,” while in actual fact it is a major departure from it. The Agenda report scores “1944” for its feeling of “superiority.” It tells the church to consider that differences in the perception of and loyalty to biblical truth which exist between churches (p. 221) are due to human and sinful limitations which affect all churches , including the CRC. While this is a useful reminder, it virtually rules out any concept of error or outright departure from the truth such as is signalized by the Belgic Confession, articles 28, 29. These articles clearly allow for some churches to be virtually “false” churches. This is different from saying that all churches equally suffer from a limited vision into God’s truth and that therefore we can no longer agree with the principle enunciated in 1944.

If we must get off our high horse of “superiority,” why then do we carefully cultivate “churches in ecclesiastical fellowship” while relegating the others to a somewhat secondary status? Does this not smack of the spirit of “1944”?

The IRC’s appeal to “1944” is entirely misplaced and cannot possibly serve as grounds for joining WARC. The committee presents the church with a radically different approach to ecumenicity from that which has been accepted among us.

An Alliance With Liberals

Continuing in the same vein, the Agenda report admits that the theological spectrum of the membership of WARC “runs the gamut of current theological options,” (p. 227). Anyone who is at all aware of today’s theological scene knows that this means that W ARC harbors error next to truth. The Acts of Synod 1959 give us a list of the contradictory and often erroneous views held in it. Theology since 1959 has not become better; it has grown worse . We should not dignify the denial of the infallibility of Holy Scriptures as just a “theological option,” not to speak of other denials of truth. And we should not delude ourselves that within that dubious and self-contradictory context we can expect to bear a “Reformed witness.” Our witness-bearing is a priority paralyzed by the admission we make upon entering the WARC (see above). There cannot be an appeal to well-defined and “exclusive” formulations of the truth. Such are anathema among the membership.

Ground “d” (p. 203) states that membership in WARC will enable the CRC “to support and strengthen the Reformed witness of those churches in the alliance” which carry on such witness. This is applying an individualist standard to what is essentially a corporate act. The corporate act which the CRC is asked to perform is to join an organization whose weaknesses have just been set forth. By joining WARC the CRC will be saying: Together with liberals and evangelicals we can “further” the faithful proclamation of the Word (Constitution, art. III, p. 232).

As I see it, this reasoning is the height of self-delusion. One either agrees with an organization’s purpose or one does not. One either has a reasonable expectation that the purpose can be realized by the membership he joins or one has not. Does the committee want to tell the CRC that just any “theological option” can help “further” the faithful proclamation of God’s Word? To pose the question is to answer it. Maybe the committee thinks it can be done, but it is clear that it cannot be done. How can those who themselves are disobedient to the Word through their erroneous theologies actually “order the life and worship of the Church in obedience to his Word”? (p. 232, art. III).

The committee’s ground “f,” concerning the warm reception given to those CRC people who were in some way connected with WARC over the years means nothing. Confessionally weak organizations always show this cordiality toward those who still stand firmly for the truth , provided the latter are willing to sacrifice their “exclusiveness” and “narrowness” upon joining. Otherwise, the cordiality suddenly stops.

“Selling” It to the Churches

More could and should be said about this thoroughly weak report and its inclusivistic stand on ecumenicity. But time is pressing. As I have said earlier, this most important issue in which the church is invited to go down the path of world ecumenicity as commonly understood will have to be dealt with in a hurry. The committee in the meantime has all the advantages. It has known all along what the church did not know. It can now prepare its case, carefully analyzing some last minute and hastily prepared critiques. This is the basic unfairness of it all. Is this the way the grand cause of ecumenicity is to be promoted?

If the CRC joins W ARC there will then be delegates from WARC addressing our synods, probably Dr. Alan Boesak and others. Standing on the same spot where the CRC office bearers solemnly vowed to adhere to well-defined and exclusive definitions of truth, these WARC delegates will urge us to catch the wider vision and to be done with lesser things such as creedal particularity and diligent defense of creeds and dogmas. They will not do this blatantly, but this will be the context from which they speak.

One of the IRC members who will seek to defend the committee’s product before synod is the Rev. C. Boomsma. At one time he sponsored a report that agreed that there was no good reason for the CRC not to join the World Council of Churches. He should come well–prepared. This time he need not be bothered with another proposal as he was at that time. His viewpoint has now become the majority one. There is no real difference between joining WARC and joining the WCC. Rev. Boomsma is also the one who only a few years ago in a public address which was later published suggested, however carefully, that the strict binding to the creeds as demanded by the Formula of Subscription had perhaps proved a hindrance to theological expression among us.

It is this Rev. Boomsma who will defend the position at synod that the CRC, when joining the WARC, need not be afraid of compromising its confessional character.

In conclusion, and for reasons stated above, I consider a vote for joining WARC a vote for the demise of the CRC as a confessionally faithful body and the outcome of a colossal delusion.

Note: Marten H. Woudstra is Professor of Old Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary at Grand Rapids, Michigan.