Dr. Richard De Ridder once again wrote “The Year 1985 in Review” in the latest edition of the Yearbook. In this column he notes some general trends which challenge all churches, two of which are “declining denominational loyalty” and women’s leadership in “male-dominated denominations.” This is a need, he says, which “goes far beyond simply opening the offices of the church to women.”

Closer to home, he notes some “current trends” in the Chr. Ref. Church. In this connection he notes “a growing tendency to congregationalism and a general weakening of our common loyalties.” He further mentions a “decreasing loyalty to the Church Order.”

I realize this column is meant to be a “review,” and therefore one cannot and may not expect too much in the way of editorializing in analyzing the problems and seeking for a solution. Nevertheless, such editorializing is present in this column (that can hardly be avoided), and since that is so, one wishes our author would have laid his finger on some of the basic causes of our problems and sought to point to the proper solutions. But one finds very little of that. There is talk about speeches and articles designed to polarize, and of establishing organizations for the purpose of protest and of dissatisfaction about matters which ‘“do not touch the heart of the gospel,” etc. But the real issue is left untouched, namely, lack of adherence to the Scriptures and our confessional standards. That is not mentioned. Apparently the author does not think that is a problem. We are supposed to ” honor obligations” and not try to divert the church “from its central mission and task” by creating disloyalty and distrust. But one would like to ask: What is the church’s central mission and task? And who are responsible for creating polarization and distrust? Was it Ahab or Elijah that was troubling Israel? Was Micaiah the dissenter, or was it the four hundred prophets of Baal? The analogy might not exactly hold in our present situation, but there is enough similarity to make it applicable. Those opposing the “newer trends” in the church are often accused of polarizing and of causing needless division by making mountains out of molehills. After all, these issues “do not touch the heart of the gospel.”

First, one should ask whether loyalty to the Scriptures and our confessions touch the heart of the gospel. The historicity of Adam doesn’t affect our salvation, it is said. No, but Paul places Adam and Christ in the same category, and mentions them in the same breath. If Adam was not historical, how do I know Christ was? And that does touch the heart of the gospel! It all depends on whether the Scripture is reliable or not.

Secondly, one should ask: If issues like women in office are not that important, why are they being promoted and foisted upon the church as if the very life of the church depended on them? Who is making mountains out of molehills? One may push for these things as much as he wants, but woe to you if you oppose them. Then you are causing needless polarization. Believe it or not!

It is good and well to talk about “honoring our obligations” and about promoting “denominational loyalty.” But it ought to be remembered that our basic unity must be a confessional one. Faithfulness to the Church Order and to quota requests were predicated on confessional unity, and when confessional unity is eroded, other less basic forms of cohesion will also deteriorate. We confess in L.D. 21 that “the unity of the true faith” is what really keeps the church together. It would have been well for De Ridder to mention that fact, and to make a plea for exactly that kind of uni ty, also within the CRC.

“Denominational loyalty” has its place. But there is a more basic loyalty, and that is to the Word of the Lord and to our Forms of Unity. The truth is always more important than any kind of “denominational loyalty.” The fact is, there can be and is a kind of “blind loyalty” to churches and institutions which can be a form of idolatry. It takes the form of “my church, right or wrong, my church.” I sometimes wonder how well Jeremiah or Amos would have fared in our circles. The leaders and people got angry at them for telling them things they didn’t want to hear. We probably would have told Amos to get lost too, and not to prophesy against Grand Rapids and our “sacred” institutions, for it is “our school” and “our headquarters” that you are speaking against. (Cf. Jer. 38:1–6; Amos 7:13).

Finally, it is all well and good to say that we must follow “the ecclesiastical road” (de kerkelijke weg). De Ridder says “the denominational structures provide the way for correcting errors or securing information.” Do they? When a decision of synod conflicted with the Church Order, we simply changed the Church Order. Is that the way to “correct errors”? Once again, when there is a deep and loyal bond to our confessions among all the members of the church, “the churchly way” works well. But when that is lost, there is very little recourse to any kind of common authority. Both De Cock and Schilder became painfully aware in their day that “the churchly way” led only to their demise. It was used in a hierarchical and underhanded way to silence critics and to maintain the status quo. Technicalities were used to overturn appeals to the confession. It can happen and is happening again today. I wish De Ridder would have alerted us to these more basic concerns. That could have been a step in the right direction.

J. Tuininga, Lethbridge, Alta.