Past Development

The Christian Reformed Church has been known for many years as one of the strongest Reformed churches in this country. From a very small beginning of four small congregations in 1857 it grew into a sizable denomination. It did not rival the size of many of the other denominations in our land, but of the Reformed bodies it was one of the largest. It was a church which took its confessions seriously. It knew what it meant to be a church of Jesus Christ in the midst of this world. The churches were filled two. or even three times, every Sunday. Church attendance was not a problem. Why? One of the main reasons was that the Scriptures were opened on the Lord’s Day and the Catechism was faithfully preached. True exegetical preaching is also very practical. because the Scriptures are able to speak to the heart of a person better than any man is ever able to do. There was a deep loyalty to the church. There was a real confidence in all the institutions and agencies of this church.

Because of the above, the church grew. Although much of the growth was the result of immigration. the church extension of those years should not be minimized. It seemed that everything the church did flourished and prospered. The members and leaders of the church realized their responsibility for the teaching of its children and young people and a union of Christian schools was established which might well be the envy of other denominations. In spite of the tremendous cost, Christian elementary schools, Christian high schools and Christian colleges were established. The cause of missions was not neglected, as some have charged. For the size of the denomination and its immigrant background. it did a great deal for missions both at home and abroad. The Back–to–God Hour began very small—one station in Grand Rapids—and today it reaches virtually every part of the globe. God has been good to the Christian Reformed Church! I thank my God daily that He has allowed me to work in this church practically all of my adult life!

But, the reader may have noticed that I have repeatedly used the past tense in the previous paragraphs. Sad to say, this was necessary. because things have changed. This is no profound statement. because there is always change in this world in which we live. Only the truth of God does not change because He does not change.

Current Decline

Certainly we are aware of the fact that the church attendance, especially at the second Sunday service, has fallen off dramatically in recent years . Although there are still some churches whose attendance, even at the second service is fine, their number becomes smaller every year. What is the reason? No doubt there are many reasons. But, if the strong exegetical preaching of a former day drew the people to the church services, is it possible that weaker preaching of today does not attract them? One hears more and more that the catechism is no longer preached regularly in many Christian Reformed Churches. The church in a former generation did not have to compete with television, but we should also remember that the fourth commandment is much older than the oldest television program!

Those who hold office in vacant churches will understand me well when I say that they have a very difficult time in calling a minister and that they have difficulties which did not face former generations. The two main questions in former days were: a) Is he eligible and b) Is he competent? Today the main question is: Where does he stand on the issues in the church today? Don’t tell these elders and deacons that everyone of the ministers is in “good and regular standing!”

To our regret. it must also be stated that some of our institutions and agencies no longer claim the confidence of many of our people. This is a fact, and their love for these causes then diminishes. These are serious matters. We do not come to these conclusions lightly. but must also face the realities.

When this decline began is difficult to say. Did it begin in 1952, in 1959, in 1970, in 1972, in 1973 or in 1984? No doubt all of these dates will seem important in the future. but we are still too close to these dates to have the proper perspective to evaluate that. Historians will have to give us more definitive answers later in the history of our denomination.

     

Causes of Decline

When the question is asked: What caused the decline to become evident? I think the answer is not difficult to find.

In the estimation of this writer, the report on “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority” of 1972 and the report on “Office and Ordination” of 1973, laid the groundwork for today’s problems. Therefore, when I say that the evidence for the decline in the Chr. Ref. Church is the question of Women in Office, I do not mean that that is the disease, but that it is the symptom of something more deep–seated. While the majority of our people did not understand all the ramifications of the two reports (of 1972 and ‘73) mentioned, the matter of “Women in Office” they understand very well!

For about fifteen years we have debated this issue. The issue did not come “out of the bosom” of our church; it came to us by way of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. It was a problem in the Netherlands and the Dutch churches moved the Reformed Ecumenical Synod of 1968 to act on this matter. It had never surfaced in our churches before this. We allowed others to write our agenda for us for fifteen years! No less than five study committees dealt with this matter. In 1978 the Synod already approved the concept, but the implementation had to wait till 1979, because changes in the Church Order were involved and these must wait one year for ratification. Even so, there were already 38 churches which had ordained women as deacons before 1981!

We are now faced with the issue: what must our reaction be? One could weep because of the changed direction the church has taken in a comparatively short time. One who loves the church and has given his life to that church, is deeply wounded if he sees her go in the wrong way. There are many who say: “Leave well enough alone.” “Don’t rock the boat.” “You will only have your name blackened if you speak against it.” However, is this a responsible stance to take? To ask the question is to answer it. The time for platitudes is past. To bemoan the situation as it is today and then go right along with it is of no avail. Those who believe that it will not hurt them in their particular place of work are hiding their heads in the sand. They have also adopted a congregational form of church government. We must have something to transmit to the generations which shall follow us. A prophetic word must be spoken at the proper time.

The Correcting Word

What is this prophetic word which must be spoken? It is simply this, as I informed Synod in a minority report in 1981: that we believe that it is contrary to Scripture to ordain women to office! It is also contrary to Article 30 of the Belgic Confession. Synod itself admitted that it is contrary to the Church Order—witness the changes which had to be made in the Church Order to accommodate women in the office of deacon. Article 29 of the Church Order states that “Decisions of ecclesiastical assemblies shall be reached only upon due consideration. The decisions of the assemblies shall be considered settled and binding, unless it is proved that they conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order” (Cf. Article on “Settled and Binding” in the Outlook, May 1984). Our fathers gave us many checks and balances. This is one of them. If the church Order must be changed or modified to make room for certain pronouncements of Synod, we have an autocratic or hierarchical Synod! It then virtually becomes a dictatorship. The principles by which the decisions of Synod are to be judged are then removed! We are dealing with a dogmatics problem and with a church government problem. These two often go together in the history of the church.

Again I ask: “what must our reaction be?” There are many who have expressed their concerns about this matter for the last fifteen years and their concerns became greater as the day seemed to approach when the Synod would finally agree to the ordination of women as deacons. However, natural as that concern was, it is not enough to be concerned. A brother in Canada wrote me not long ago that there were approximately 700,000 members in the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Nether lands in 1944. About 550,000 of these, he said, were verontrust (concerned). Approximately 100,000 left the church to follow Drs. Schilder and Greijdanus. What happened to the other 450,000? I suppose that most of those will go back to the Hervormde Kerk in 1986. Abraham Kuyper led the people out of this church in 1886 and now, exactly one hundred years later, they have come full circle and are going back from where their fathers came. One can be “concerned” until the last day . . . but that will not save the church!

Dr. K. Dijk, the veteran theologian of the G.K.N., wrote a little book in 1965 “Koerswijziging in onze kerken !” (“Change of direction in our churches!”), He speaks as a man who is deeply concerned for the churches of which he is a member and office-bearer. Surely, there are many fine things still to be found in these churches, he says, but their direction is wrong regarding many issues. He complains about the preaching in their churches. No longer are there theme and divisions. He complains of the church attendance and the knowledge of the nature of the church. He sees laxity in discipline and no longe r faithful and regular catechism preaching. He warn s against overturning the position taken by their Synod in 1926 against Dr. Geelkerken, who doubted the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis. He warns against joining the World Council of Churches. After this book was written, his warnings were not heeded, but the Synod reinstated Dr. Geelkerken (posthumously) and joined the World Council ofChurches. When I read this man’s book and heard him cry his heart out, I asked . . . “Where were you when the prophetic word had to be spoken?” He agreed to the deposition of his colleagues, Schilder and Greijdanus in 1944! The word of one man . . . spoken at the right time, can often have great effect.

From Offering to Tax

No decision of Synod stands by itself. If it is a decision of some importance, it will affect various other matters. We have had the “quota” system for years and it has served the church well. I have been a member and officer of more than one board which had to make its budget and then present it to Synod with the request for the needed quota. There was a time when we had both quotas and “assessments.” This went on until 1940. At that time Synod decided that the term “assessment” was not a proper ecclesiastical term. It reminded too much of the word “taxation.” The church doesn’t “tax”! Already at the Synod of 1985 the matter of quota payment was challenged by a couple who did not want to give to an institution which taught that having women in office was perfectly proper. Synod turned down the appeal of this couple and made it very clear that this “quota” had to be paid by them or by others for them! Synod 1940 said they are all “quotas”; Synod 1985 said in effect: these quotas must be regarded as “assessments”! Someone immediately protested this action as causing someone to give against his will. Is this not a conscience matter? Is there not such a thing as corporate responsibility? May I give to an institution or agency of which I am convinced that it is teaching or implementing teachings which are unbiblical? Don’t make someone else pay for that which I do not wish to support, lest he trample on my conscience!

Persisting in Error

Synod o f 1984 had approved of the ordaining of women to the office of deacon. A cry went up from the church! Is this not the reason for 40–50 overtures dealing with this matter to the Synod of 1985? Have you ever seen anything like that? Twelve classes objected to that decision of 1984 and another thirty three consistories did likewise. What did Synod do with these appeals or overtures? I have been told by several delegates to this past Synod that they were disposed of within thirty minutes! Some now say: We must keep bringing overtures to Synod until it listens. This is not only foolishness; it is also contrary to our own rules. Synod is not to be bothered with the same issue again and again unless new material is produced.

As I mentioned before, important decisions of Synod do not stand by themselves, but have other ramifications. There is still a lot more in the pipeline. The ordination of women to all the offices in the church is not an impossibility, to put it mildly. Already there are several women students at Calvin Seminary who are planning to enter the ministry in the Christian Reformed Church. One of them has preached for several months, as was made public this past summer. Let us also learn from history. In 1968 the GKN ordained their first women deacons. Four years later, when we lived there for some time, they already had women in the elder’s and minister’s offices. To make predictions is always dangerous. but, I would predict (conservatively) that we will have women in all the offices in the church within five years!

Other things which give reason for concern—children at communion. This has not been adopted, but it was already considered important enough to justify appointment of a committee to study it. The liturgical dance matter was also turned down by Synod 1985. Is this the last we will hear of this matter? Very few will believe that we are finished with it. How about our ecumenical movement? Some wish to steer us into union with the RCA and some also would like to see us become members of the World Council of Churches. Is it our ecumenical duty to go in these directions? I don’t like to use the term, but the more “liberal” element in the church has “won” in regard to the matter of Women in Office. They might become a little bolder now regarding some of the above mentioned matters.

Who Is Splitting the Church?

The accusation is sometimes made that the more “conservative” group is splitting the church. I have been asked in public and various times in private whether or not I was splitting the church by going to no less than six areas of the church the past year to speak against Women in Office. My reply? Of course not! I would never split the church. That is a serious matter. That church is the body of Christ! But, do not accuse those of splitting the church who hold to the historical interpretation of the Scriptures; who believe all the articles of the Belgic Confession; and who hold to the Church Order! The danger does not come from this source. I have thought about this matter for a long time and I hesitate to say it, but it must be said: THE SYNOD OF 1984 SPLIT THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH! Splitting the church is not something future, it is past tense –it has already happened! Polarization can only last so long. A process has been at work for a long time. The Synod of 1984 accomplished the fact and the Synod of 1985 underscored it! No pastoral letter signed by the officers of the 1985 Synod can remedy this situation. This letter speaks of the “divisive spirit” present in the church. It deeply regrets this. So do

I. Are these decisions (regarding Women in Office) going to help restore peace and trust among us? No, they were the reasons for the disturbance of peace and trust.

Consult for Action

What should we do? I believe it would be well for those who oppose Women in Office to call together a Convention of those who are of like mind. I am fully aware of the fact that one of the Calvin Seminary professors has already written, when speaking of a convention, “whatever that means.” I believe that such a Convention, which is not itself an ecclesiastical body, ought to appoint a committee to sit down with the leaders of the other opinion (this may be the whole Synodical Interim Committee, the President of the Seminary. the Editor of the Banner et al) and talk over our differences and what is to be done about it. Come to a unified position as much as this is possible and avoid all acrimony. I don’t want to leave the church; neither do I want to be robbed of the church I have tried to serve to the best of my ability!

We must work for the welfare of the church! We must have a heritage to transmit to our children and grandchildren.

Others may have a different view of what ought to be done. These suggestions are welcome. The welfare of the church is at stake—we may not hide our heads in the sand!