A 1974 Editorial View

In the spring of 1974 the previous Outlook editor, Rev. John Vander Ploeg, addressed this subject in a series of editorials. A dozen years later it may be interesting and useful for us to recall some of his observations. In the February issue he listed 16 changes in the denomination which were compelling conservatives to consider this matter. Then he proceeded to explain that polarization (“the attraction to a certain pole or center, in distinction from another, for the purpose of fellowship and action”), “in church history . . . precedes secession.” He observed that this had been the sequence in our Reformed churches’ history in 1834 and 1857, and in the more recent development of what is now the Presbyterian Church in America. He was convinced that the time had not yet come to advocate immediate secession. More efforts should be made to correct the errant course the denomination was taking. He wrote, “Secession is not justified until those concerned are convinced by sufficient evidence that a church has passed the point of no return. The pure preaching of the Word, the proper administration of the sacraments, and the faithful exercise of discipline are the marks of a true church. When these are abandoned, whether it be by a formal decision or in actual practice, conservatives will have no choice except to seek their church membership and fellowship elsewhere.”

A month later, in pursuit of the same subject, he recalled the Biblical example of polarization found in Malachi 3:16–18. When Israel was “on a toboggan of apostasy,” “they that feared Jehovah spake one with another; and Jehovah hearkened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before him, for them that feared Jehovah, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith Jehovah of hosts, even mine own possession, in the day that I make; and I will spare them; as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.”

“To polarize in the CRC or in any other denomination for no just cause would be divisive, irresponsible, contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture, and therefore completely indefensible. However, not to polarize when the time is at hand is to aid and abet the infiltration of apostasy by one’s failure to take a united stand against it.”

The editorial cites the exhortation of Jude 3 and 4 to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.” “The ‘faith’ of which Jude speaks is not the act of faith but rather the object of our faith-the sound doctrine or teaching of Scripture.” “It is for this ‘faith’ that we are to contend earnestly.”

The Bible Is the Point of Decision

“It cannot be said too often that it is precisely at this point—what a person believes about the Bible—that liberals and conservatives always come to a parting of the ways. And it is therefore also precisely at this point that issues disturbing the peace of the CRC give rise to serious controversy . It is the Bible as the Word of God that is at stake repeatedly as controversy arises about issues, one after another; the authority, the infallibility, the inerrancy of Scripture; creation or evolution; the historicity of the early chapters o f Genesis; the extent of God’s saving love; ecumenical involvements and affiliations; women in church offices; preaching of the Word; close versus open Communion; the charismatic movement or Neo-Pentecostalism; lodge members in the church; and so on . . . . As these controversies arise one at a time, it may be possible to play down the seriousness of them for an unwary constituency, but let’s not be fooled. The alert and informed conservative should be able to see the over-all design of the father of lies as well as the pattern in what he is doing.

“It is the Bible as the authentic, inspired, infallible and inerrant Word of God that is at stake. Satan knows only too well that, when he once succeeds in shaking our hold on Scripture, the rest is easy.” We are reminded that at the beginning of the Bible we are introduced to this devil’s tactic with his question, “Has God said?” and that the Bible ends with a final warning against it (Rev. 22:18 and 19).

“And so we rally around the Word—not around any man . . . . That’s the polarization we advocate, something that is always written large in the history of every reformation of the church. And for that no apology is needed.”

“To ‘contend earnestly’ and to ‘hold fast’ we must meet together, talk together, walk together, and act together.” “If God is for us who is against us?” (Romans 8:31). “The closer we draw to the Word, the closer we draw to each other.”

Polarization, a Necessary Step, Not an End

The editor’s writings on this subject aroused considerable response. A minister of another denomination directed attention to the dangers of the polarization Vander Ploeg had advocated. He saw the possibility of such a course turning the denomination into an internally divided church, a “modaliteiten Kerk” like the larger Reformed churches in the Netherlands. If concerned people settle for that—“do not take the ultimate step of obedience: call the church back, in word AND DEED, to the Word of God in accordance with the Reformed Creeds,” this might “prevent the emergence of a truly Reformed Church (with which we could then unite).” Vander Ploeg reassured his correspondent, “I do not envision polarization as a permanent solution to the conservative’s problems in the CRC but rather as a prelude or precursor to what ought to follow . For liberals and conservatives to remain indefinitely in tension under the same denominational roof, whether the CRC or any other, will eventually become intolerable.” He cited the corporate responsibility we share as members of the denomination, the constant tensions, controversy and frustrations that must characterize living in a divided house, paying of financial quotas for causes that come to forfeit our confidence, and the threat to the eternal welfare of children and grandchildren as considerations that make remaining in such a pluralistic denomination intolerable.

A final article in the April issue summarized the argument for a policy of polarization. (First the editor addressed a misunderstanding some had suggested when they mentioned that ministers might be restrained from taking a position because of fear of losing their pensions. He pointed out that such pensions are protected by law and would not be lost even if they left the denomination). The polarization must be guided by the Scripture and with a prayer for the Lord’s guidance. The editorial cited Isaiah 20:8, “To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them.” (Though some might call this appeal an “over-simplification,” he warned against “over-complication.”) “There will be ‘no morning’ for the CRC or for any other church unless we are polarized or crowded and kept very close to the living Word. Unless all our ways radiate from the living Word . . . the darkness will grow even deeper and the light will never dawn.” Our activity will have to be positive and constructive as well as negative and destructive. And it will have to be directed toward encouraging one another as well as toward helping others who do not yet share our faith. “Polarization means that the lone voice . . . will be joined by others, thus making it possible to turn up the volume for the cause of Christ.” Although aiming at reformation of churches that may be seriously deficient (as were some of the churches mentioned in the first chapters of Revelation, for example), this polarization may turn out to be a necessary step toward a responsible and viable secession. That “must be preceded by polarization and a lot of groundwork if it is to amount to more than a splinter movement. Without this there could be what someone has called a ‘flaking off’ of members here and there , but not a movement that could draw a substantial number to secede.” The Presbyterian Journal which had on its cover “Advocating continuation of a Presbyterian Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed faith,” for many years polarized conservatives and resulted eventually in the rise of a relatively large and growing conservative’ denomination. Rev. Vander Ploeg urged the united study and discussion of issues that concern the gospel and church, arranging meetings that address them, organization of local chapters of the Reformed Fellowship, and the promotion and use of our periodical, the Outlook , in support of this cause to which we have long been committed.

A Banner Update

In the August 26, 1985, Banner, retired Calvin College Bible professor, Dr. John H. Bratt, considering present threatening developments in the denomination, takes up the same subject in an article entitled “Seceeders or Schismatics.” He observes that differences (which are always found in the church) at times ” harden into granite positions, polarize the church, and approach the breaking point. We hear ominous rumblings about separation. And that is tremendously serious . . . .”

He describes a “legitimate secession” when, because of sin, the ‘faithful remnant’ is forced to separate from the church. When does the breaking point come? It comes when the parent body retrogresses to the point that it loses its claim to be the true church of Christ and demotes itself to the level of a false church. It happens when the church descends to that level of falsity which distorts or scuttles the biblical doctrine of salvation: vicarious atonement, redemption through the blood of Christ on the cross, and salvation by grace through faith.” Then he cites the examples of John Calvin, Hendrik De Cock, Abraham Kuyper, and J. Gresham Machen, who each faced such a situation, protested against it, were disciplined by the erring church and led secession movements.

Bratt sees as “pivotal” the doctrine of “salvation by grace alone (along with the related doctrines of the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, his physical resurrection, and his second coming–doctrines which Calvin calls non-negotiable).” “If a church jeopardizes, waters down, compromises, or repudiates that doctrine, that church lapses into the category of being a false church. Unless that falsity is rectified , secession must follow in order to preserve the faith.” “But, as long as the church maintains that key biblical doctrine of redemption, separation is wrong” and, in Dr. Bratt’s judgment, to be denounced as a sin.

When the Church By-passes Creeds

Although Dr. Bratt’s simple, straightforward introduction of the matter is clear and helpful, it slights two of the three Biblical and confessional “marks” of the true church, the sacraments, and Biblical discipline. (Belgic Confession XXIX). Furthermore, even in dealing with doctrine, it does not adequately consider what has become the outstanding characteristic of today’s theology, its systematic and commonly justified double-talk. In the days of Calvin, DeCock, Kuyper and even Machen, when one pointed out the errors of the church he was disciplined by the apostate body. In today’s religious world that almost never happens, and it can hardly be expected to happen . Theologians from the Amsterdam Free University and our own who have been enlightened there or in the equally “progressive” liberal establishments here, inform us that truth itself now means something totally different from what it used to mean. Whereas it used to mean conformity to fact, it has now come to mean something purely “relational.” If that means anything, it means that what used to be called a lie, if it makes for improved relations, becomes, by this new definition, “true.” A January, 1971 Outlook article on “The Inroads of Subjectivism” and a May, 1977 article on “A New Sales Pitch for Modern Theology” called attention to this “existentialist” way of thinking that is being promoted among us as well as around us. According to it, one can say that he still subscribes to such doctrines as “the atonement,” but understand by that not an event which may or may not have happened as recorded centuries ago, but a present religious experience symbolized or illustrated by those old Bible stories. Thus Biblical events and doctrines are not so much denied as simply by–passed or “reinterpreted.”

The Bible maintains that truth and falsehood exclude each other (I John 2:21). When the devil succeeds in selling today’s church the notions that such antithetical distinctions no longer exist, that one may change word meanings as he chooses and that doctrines are no longer important he has new and more effective tools to confuse the church and silence its gospel than questioning or denying individual doctrines.

In the light of this development in our own and other churches, we need to consider that while no one among us may be denying the deity of Christ or the atonement, our Interchurch Relations Committee, for example, is according to Synod reports, still firmly determined to have us join and make common cause with those who do.

This kind of uncritical joining with unbelievers is not only being promoted by some leading church executives. It is just as evident in member thinking expressed in the public columns of our churches’ official periodicals. The September 9 Banner includes a letter advocating greater freedom–”Are we burdened with a ‘Christian Torah’?” and enjoining, evidently without any qualification, love of the Buddhist, Catholic or communist. Another on the· same page deplores characterizing Eastern (non-Christian) Religions as “Designed to Deceive,” saying, “I have never before felt such rage at the church of my youth. When I control or deny my ‘feelings and emotions’ I deny God in me. When I feel my emotions and act according to my feelings, there is only hate of evil and love of God, myself, and my fellow human beings in me.” Probably more significant than such extreme letters is the common complaint that very little doctrine is being preached and taught in many churches. When official policy more and more freely promotes or publicizes such doctrinal indifference, whether the denomination officially repudiates a creed or simply ignores it, can hardly decide the question whether it is sin or a duty to leave that denomination.

At any rate, the problem of what must be done by CRC members who want to remain true to the gospel, becomes ever more pressing and calls for more attention and for our united prayer and consultation.