REVERSE DISCRIMINATION? – In our country there is a rather recently introduced social policy called reverse discrimination. It calls for the allocation of jobs and positions according to some kind of racial formula. Often it is geared to numerical percentages. If a given community is twenty percent black, fifteen percent hispanic, sixty-five percent white then the schools should have that kind of racial mix on its staffs.

This obviously can cause some difficulty. Because the matter of actual superiority on the part of the candidates for acceptance to graduate schools, promotion to advanced positions, etc. is now not an absolutely determinative factor. At a given point the question is not what a certain applicant knows or can do, but rather his racial origin. Even if he is less qualified.

I was reminded of this in a recent issue of The Banner (Nov. 4, 1985) when reading that “Minnesota South wants ‘Conservatives’ at Calvin” (p. 24). Reporter Rachel TeGrootenhuis tells us that Classis Minnesota South of the Christian Reformed Church “adopted, by a large margin” a motion that “Calvin Seminary work toward a better theological balance on its faculty, urging the appointment of more conservatives.” This plea is not without urgency: it asks that “positions remain open if ‘no persons of that type (conservative) are available.’”

This action originated with the Ebenezer Church of Leota, Minn. , pastored by Rev. Robert Tigchelaar, who is reported to say that his consistory believes the “agencies of the church should follow the direction of the church and not (operate) the other way around.” (That is a reminder we can endorse!)

Ms. Te Grootenhuis also tells us that classis had some trouble deciding just what the word conservative means. Apparently this discussion did not quench support for the recommendation, however, because the term was allowed to stand.

I’m sure I would have voted for this overture from our Leota consistory. However, I must add that it makes me both sad and worried.

I’m sad that the CRC now recognizes officially that there are such radically different types of leaders within her bosom. Please don’t misunderstand: I know what our Minnesota brothers are talking about. ButT wish it were not so. It is good and pleasant when one sees that his brothers and sisters make it their great delight “to dwell in blest accord.” To me it requires a kind of hardness of heart, a kind of acquired indifference, to live happily in terms of established, serious differences of faith and conviction, especially within a single denomination (and a relatively small one at that).

I’m also worried. Because I don’t know how this Minnesota plea can be honored. Questions which must arise are: How many of the sixteen men who staff Calvin Seminary ought to be “conservatives?” What is the test for real conservatism? Is conservative really the right kind of idea (wouldn‘t confessional be better)? Doesn’t this get us into the business of an unfortunate and distressing kind of labelling? Doesn’t it also make us act politically rather than ecclesiastically in our church assemblies?

Once again, I appreciate the effort of the Leota consistory and South Classis in Minnesota. I endorse the intent of this action. But I’m not sure it is the real cure for the problem it signalizes.

THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED TRADITION – Since Synod 1985 the pages of Christian Reformed periodicals make frequent reference to tradition. “The Problem of Tradition in the Christian Reformed Church” is a recent contribution appearing in unabridged form in CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL (April 1985} and in condensed form in the BANNER (Oct. 21, 28, 1985). The full–sized piece goes twenty pages. The writer (or speaker—it was originally delivered as an address at Calvin Seminary and Dordt College in October of 1984 and January of 1985, respectively) is evidently “one out of our circles” who has “made it” on the outside. He is listed as “director of The Medieval Institute and associate professor of history at the University of Notre Dame,” Notre Dame, Ind. (That is the one with the football team).

Dr. Van Engen offers a good analysis of the current state of affairs in the CRC. He does not mince words. One would be quite naive to think that this scholar who looks at the CRC from the vantage point of a cam pus representative of quite another tradition sees “the problem” from a strongly conservative point of view. Early in his article he tips his hand by stating:

Loyal as our people remain, more and more of them, possibly even a majority, harbor the vague foreboding that their dear church too could go the way of all those fallen churches once so roundly criticized—a truly unnerving perception, this, and one sure to provoke more outbursts against those charged with “abandoning the truths of Scripture.” But what does Scripture in fact have to say about the various items usually cited as marks of our “slippage?” On a second Sunday service, nothing at all, and on Lord’s Day observance in general, only what was prescribed for the Old Testament Sabbath. On dance and drink, moderation rather than abstinence. On weekly rather than quarterly communion, a pretty clear endorsement. On more expressive and involved liturgies, much in favor. On women in office, nothing so clear as to convince us all. And even on creation, nothing much beyond the teaching itself.

The whole matter of the state of affairs in the CRC in terms of its tradition is worth a lot of time and our best efforts (even though Van Engen boldly asserts that “we have no intellectual or theological tool with which to analyze our difficulties, our shifting tradition”). Prof. Van Engen deserves full treatment of his contribution, and I hope someone from the side of the spectrum OUTLOOK represents will do it.

My only observation here is that it seems that the people who thought it necessary to shoot down the CRC tradition are coming around rather late in the game with their suggestions and solutions. Happily, Van Engen’s positive suggestions for the new establishment of a good and necessary tradition are remarkably similar to those which our fathers recommended. What could be better than this:

Any adequate view must include at least, it seems to me, the following five themes: (1) a view of reading Scripture that makes use of the best available scholarship (as Calvin already did) and that sees the New Testament in the light of the Old as well as the Old in light of the New; (2) a view of God that does full justice to the scriptural insistence upon his awful righteousness and holiness and upon his being the unique source of creation and redemption; (3) a view of the church that begins with the people but makes mother church the cohesive and authoritative center of community life—a striking mix of high and low church emphases; (4) a view of sanctification that makes a holy and penitent lifestyle essential to the expression of our faith, our living out of Scripture; and (5) a view of creation and human faculties that draws upon their full resources in the carrying out of our divine mission, our vocation (p. 87).

A few remarks: (1) before we discuss tradition it might be helpful to know if the term presumes that everything the Christian does and says is merely an expression of how he thinks in terms of his times, its influences and its needs; (2) the concerned had better hurry—many of our youngest and best are already in or on their way to the Assembly of God church down the street.

A SPECIAL COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS – This heading is taken literally from a moving article in Perspectives in Covenant Education, published by the Protestant Reformed Teachers’ Institute. It is written by Mary Beth Lubbers, teacher in the South Holland, Ill., Protestant Reformed Christian School. We include it here in its entirety. It needs no further comment!

Jeffrey Lenting will not graduate from our school this year. Under ordinary circumstances, however, he would have, for Jeffrey will be 15 years old on May 17. But the circumstances surrounding Jeffrey are not ordinary. Jeffrey is a very special little boy-teenager.

Jeffrey has eyes , but they have never beheld the breathtaking beauty of springtime nor the look of love on his parents’ face as they care for him. Jeffrey has legs, but they have never walked or skipped or kicked a soccer ball. Jeffrey has arms, but they have never been used to steer a bicycle or to hug his brothers and sister. Jeffrey has a mouth, but he has yet to speak his first word or delight his family with a note of song.

Jeffrey is severely handicapped in mind and body . He has never comprehended the simplest instruction. This is not to say that Jeffrey has no understanding. I have seen him respond to his father’s gentle touch and to his mother’ s loving voice. And certainly his parents and relatives could give you other examples of his responses. With a doubt, too, God speaks to Jeffrey in ways that are too deep, too mysterious for us mere mortals to understand. Nevertheless, Jeffrey has little or no awareness of life as we so richly enjoy and imbibe it.

Jeffrey even has difficulty breathing on his own. Often he is hooked up to an oxygen machine. Nor has Jeffrey ever eaten any ordinary food. He has never sat down to a meal of pot roast, mashed potatoes. and green beans—nor has he ever complained about any of his meals. His mother says that he is a very grateful little boy—grateful for the smallest service rendered, the slightest recognition of his needs. Jeffrey eats a thin gruel heavily dosed with medicine to prevent the convulsions which would otherwise rack his already frail and crippled body. And even this he has great difficulty swallowing. only achieved by the second spoonful forcing the first spoonful down his throat.

I stood by Jeffrey’s bed last Sunday evening; for that, after all, is where Jeffrey spends every day, every hour of his life curled up in a near-fetal position. It was a totally humbling experience, and it always affects me profoundly for many days afterward. “My life in all its PERFECT plan was ordered ere my days began?” Sometimes the Lord makes this a very difficult confession.

Did Jeffrey sin? Did his parents sin? Has the church sinned some great corporate sin? Why has God dealt with us in such a heavy way? To ask these questions is to turn quickly to the Gospel of John where Jesus Himself answered this question for His people clearly and for all times: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”

God’s ways are too wonderful for us. God’s works are too “awe-full” for us. God’s ways are past finding out. So we will not attempt to find out either. Rather we con and will acknowledge His supremacy in all our lives. We will bow before His awesome sovereignty in His dealings with us, weak vessels of clay fitted for destruction. “I was dumb, I opened not my mouth; because thou didst it” (Psalm 39:9).

With Jeffrey, we all look forward to the day when the eyes of the blind shall be opened, the ears of the deaf unstopped, the tongue of the dumb unloosed; when broken hearts shall be bound up; when we shall run and not be weary, walk and never faint. Sometimes I try to envision the very special, altogether lovely places that God is preparing for all His little Jeffreys (“I go to prepare a place for you . . .”). What a love and tenderness must go into their preparation, every detail for their heavenly comfort and bliss attended to by Father’s hand.

Our son, the Lord willing and by God’s grace, will graduate on Friday evening, May 31. We will celebrate this occasion. It is fitting that we do so. for this is an important milestone in his life and ours. And that is just what it is—a milestone, an earthly marker along the road of life. While we all await the Great Commencement Day—that day of new beginnings when we shall leave this earth forever to walk down the long bejeweled aisles of heaven into the loving arms of Father. What a day of pomp and celebration and rejoicing that will be! Then we will all sing one great “class song.” It is the song of Moses and the Lamb. “Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints” (Revelation 15:3).