Translation or ILLEGITIMATE Revision

The Wachter editor (Aug. 18, 1985) expresses indignation (“When you read such a thing your blood can boil!”) at the charges expressed in the pages of the Outlook (March, 1985, pp. 8f., June, pp. 17 f.) that a translation committee deceptively revised our Belgic Confession, and suggests that an apology would be appropriate.

The church’s creeds are its officially approved confessions of its faith in the teachings of God’s Word. If anyone has objections to them, the way to correct them is by the gravamen procedure. In 1977 a committee was appointed, not to make any substantive changes in the confession, but only to update its language. In going about its work the committee translated, not the officially approved creed, but an allegedly early and unapproved version of it. Dr. Norman De Jong was a delegate in 1979 (when the synod refused to approve that substitution) and in 1983 when the translation matter again came up for discussion. He pointed out in our March, 1985, Outlook that in those discussions, “although it did not come to the attention of the synodical delegates in 1979 or 1983, and has not been cited by the committee when calling attention to the ‘revisions,’ the male language used in reference to the ecclesiastical officers has all been removed and replaced with non-sexist language.”  Thus the Biblical qualification that holders of these church offices be men (1 Tim. 2,3; 1 Cor. 14:33ff.) which we have always confessed in this creed, was quietly removed from it under the guise of merely up-dating the English. Need anyone apologize for calling that deceptive?

Readers may be interested in the Synod’s handling of the matter (Acts, pp. 787f.). While the committee attempted to justify its revisions by appeal to French and Dutch versions, Overtures 59 and 60 (pp. 639, 640) exposed the fallacies of its arguments. The divided Synod, in what has the appearance of a political compromise, approved the committee’s revision of Article 30, but rejected that of Article 31, keeping the masculine pronouns!

Encouraging Church Disorder

The Wachter editor, in the Aug. 13 issue already mentioned, reported that the Synod had declared that “adjunct” officers were not in conformity with the church order. His “interpretation” of that decision should be noted. He repeatedly observes that the Synod did not say that consistories which had introduced the practice of having “adjuncts” should stop it. Although conceding that this neglect was “naturally unintentional,” he considers it very significant. At considerable length he pleads for the consciences of those who disagree with the Synod decision, and for the need for a church order that is not “static.” “A really living congregation will always at one or more points be somewhat ahead of the church order.” “It is not at all unusual that a Spirit-led church is ahead of the rules!” He suggests proceeding in the same direction with having these adjuncts, for, “Who can say in what direction the Spirit will drive our churches?”

It should not be forgotten that the Florida Classis attempted to ask the Banner editor to give account before the same Synod of his editorial utterances in conflict with Scripture and the creeds, but had its effort brushed aside on a technicality. When the denomination permits its official publications to publicly contradict the Bible, creeds, church order and official Synod decisions, how can it keep the respect and support of its members?

DODGING Denominational Responsibility

We need to consider some of the implications of the Synod’s dismissal of the Florida overture. Although that overture was, by action of the officers ruled legally before the Synod (p. 678) and was accordingly considered by the Synod, the overture, including a justification and precedents for its procedure of going to the Synod, does not appear in the Acts although the Board’s and committees’ debatable arguments for rejecting it are printed (p. 728; of April, 1985 Outlook, p. 10ff. and Rev. E. Heerema’s article in this issue).

The advisory committee, looking for a precedent for refusing to consider the matter, rather surprisingly, cited the action of the Synod of 1976 (9 years ago) in refusing to consider the legally presented objections to the classis’ approval of Dr. Allan Verhey. Anyone familiar with both cases can find little similarity between the two-except that in both cases the Synod wanted to evade doing its duty under the church order. One dereliction of duty is used to justify another!

Suppose the classis should follow the procedure the Synod said it should, addressing the man, his consistory and his classis. This would entail delays of perhaps a year or two. Then, if the matter ever got to Synod by this route, that Synod could reasonably answer, “You have followed the wrong procedure! Your objection is against the editorial policy of the Banner over which the consistory and classis had no jurisdiction. If you had objection to the man’s handling of his job you should have objected to his bosses, the Board of Publications and Synod!” They are responsible for what the church publishes in its papers.

The drastic implications of this case should be considered. It is evidently telling us that the only way you can object to something produced by the churches’ board of publications is by starting a personal heresy trial against the author. The Board and Synod for whom these people work are refusing any responsibility for what they are doing. If this principle is to be generally accepted, as the decision indicates it should be, it means that the Synod and Calvin Board can also not be expected to take responsibility for what is taught in our seminary, a parallel denominational institution! Thus the churches are losing control over our growing denominational bureaucracy! The denomination is already giving the churches very little accounting for what its agents are doing with their money. (Surprisingly little financial information can be found in our 864-page Acts.) Now it is also refusing to take any responsibility for views and doctrines promoted in our official church papers . The message of the Synod is beginning to get through to the church members. The multitude of long-suffering concerned among them are being told, “If you are convinced that something is going wrong in the church, it is your duty to start procedures to correct it—and we will do what we can to stop you!”

P.D.J.

Synod Injustice

Synod of 85 decided that in the matter of training candidates for the ministry and licensing them for preaching, the reins would stay in the hands of Calvin Seminary and its Board of Trustees. No principle reasons were given for this decision, of course, because there are none to give. If Reformed church polity and principle arguments had prevailed, Synod would have changed the (new) rules.

Even though students studying at other Reformed institutions such as Mid–America or Westminster will be required to take that extra year at Calvin, the same Synod granted special concessions to students from other ethnic backgrounds (Asians, Blacks, Hispanics & Native Americans). They will not have to take the regular course of study required of other students. It appears that Synod was so eager to avoid even the appearance of discrimination to those of non-white background that it fell into the error or “reverse discrimination.” It’s a case of measuring with two measures, or of “straining out the gnat but swallowing the camel.” There is something about this whole business that is not above board. It smells a bit of hypocrisy. I personally think it’s time that some consistories and classes take a stand and say: We have the right to license candidates and to ordain them when they have had qualified Reformed training, even if they haven’t been at Calvin. Why should we continue to submit meekly to all these unjust rules? Righteousness and truth have a higher priority than petty ecclesiastical rules.

J. Tuininga, Lethbridge, Alta.