With considerable curiosity many of us went to the extensively advertised conference of the concerned at South Holland, Illinois, on April 29. No one could predict how much response there would be to invitations to such a meeting, though we were aware of a widespread conviction (and prayers) that holding one should be attempted. Hopes were gratified when an estimated 300 came, some from places as far away as Los Angeles and Edmonton, and in the evening the number swelled to possibly 600.

The meetings began with an introductory devotional by Rev. Warren Lammers, pastor of the Dutton Church at Grand Rapids and president of the sponsoring organization.

Our Historic Heritage

In a highlight of the opening session, Dr . W. Robert Godfrey, Church History professor at Westminster Theological Seminary at Escondido, California, and an ordained C. R. minister, addressed the gathering on “Our Historic Heritage.” As an enthusiastic convert to our faith he shared the concern about the Christian Reformed denomination‘s present course which prompted this meeting, a concern about the loss of “joy and commitment to the Reformed Faith.” He traced the denomination’s commitment to maintaining that Faith to its early immigrant origins, noting its problem of distinguishing what was Reformed from what was Dutch custom. He traced its effort through the post-World War I controversies with Bultema’s dispensationalism (1918), Jansen‘s Biblical criticism (1922) and Hoeksema’s bitter and more disruptive anti-common grace split (1924).

After that struggle (which James Bratt’s book attributed to a “confessionalist” tendency to fight) a reaction set in toward a peaceful and smug toleration which masked increasing differences. The speaker observed that to dismiss today‘s differences as merely characteristic of people who are concerned about confessions is to radically misunderstand them. Whereas the old questions arose about how to build on the accepted Reformed foundation, today’s questions arise about what the foundation is. In 1925 there was still a common, unreserved commitment to Holy Scripture and the Creeds, resulting in a piety ofheart and action, and a (Kuyperian) recognition of Christ’s claim to all of life . In those earlier years the revealed doctrine ofGod’s Word was commonly recognized as the proper foundation and source of our life . (Louis Berkhof’s life-work of clearly teaching that doctrine is still highly and widely appreciated and used outside of our circles, although it is increasingly despised and discarded within our churches.) Today this doctrinal foundation is being displaced within our churches by appeals to human experience, with that experience being used as a basis for criticizing doctrine. What is being forgotten is that defective experience results from defective doctrine, and that our experience must be evaluated, channeled and directed by God’s Word.

What has happened to our earlier consensus? What went wrong, to arouse our concern today?

In 1952 there was a shake-up at Calvin Seminary in which almost the whole faculty was fired for intolerable wrangling, to make way for a new one which should seek moderation, coexistence and peace. (While peace should be sought, it should not be “peace at any price.” The orthodox must “speak the truth in love” and reveal a sanctified way of life.)

     

The growing crisis in the Dutch churches in the 50s, highlighted by the radical shift in the theology of G.C. Berkouwer and the changes in the life and doctrine of those churches, has influenced our churches especially through leaders who studied there.

The devil constantly tries to divert us from the claims of Christ to make accommodations to the world with the promise of success, wealth and respectability. Thus we are pressed to join the World Council and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, with some which deny Christ and His Gospel and are therefore no longer Christian churches at all.

We have experienced the death of many stalwart leaders who had helped to shape the life and Biblical commitment of our churches, and present positions of denominational leadership are no longer held by people like them. James Bratt’s book observed that the synod’s 1959 declaration that the Bible was infallible was the last unqualified triumph of the Confessionals in the church. Since that time there has been a steady weakening of Reformed commitment in synod decisions of the 60s, 70s and 80s. The speaker cited mid-1890 predictions in De Wachter that as our churches adapted themselves to their environment, the Calvinistic doctrines of Dort would become “antiquated curiosities,” psalms would be replaced by hymns, choirs would replace congregational singing, the catechism would no longer be taught and there would be an indiscriminate search for novelties—all of which are coming true. Our church members must look at the real changes in our churches which plainly show a decline—The Bible is no longer permitted to function as the Word of God when we pick it apart. We do not treasure and proclaim the Biblical doctrine of election confessed in the Canons which stresses the sovereignty of God in our salvation -so that Jesus is our salvation. And our Church Order of Dart is being amended out of existence, as decision-making is shifted from the church assemblies to boards. The shift in church services is from Worship to sensational entertainment, as people, evidently “just don’t want to hear the Word of God.” Christian discipline and stable family life have been disappearing from our churches, along with observance of the Lord’s day, sacrificial giving, knowledge of the Bible, personal piety and prayer. Thus, in summary, the speaker described, where, according to his observations, we are and the route by which we have arrived here.

Awakening to see our position and condition calls us to repentance, first for our own waywardness, and to a renewed trust in and commitment to our Lord and His gospel. We must bring that gospel to all kinds of people around us. We must work at teaching the whole Gospel faith which we have been neglecting many in our churches have never heard it—and we must live it and fight for it.

In the Tuesday meetings , Rev. Richard Blauw of Chino, California spoke on our problems with the office of deacons as we get away from the Bible; Rev. Raymond Sikkema of Hamilton, Ontario presented a Canadian perspective on the CRC; and Rev. Aaron Kayayan, who has charge of the French broadcasts of the Back-to-God Hour presented a Reformed view of missions. (Because of space limitations, we hope to deal with some of these addresses later.)

Our Present Predicament

In the evening Rev. Nelson D. Kloosterman, professor at Mid-America Reformed Seminary at Orange City, Iowa, described for the crowded church where the C. R. denomination is today. Citing a couple of local incidents, he showed how the 15-year, sometimes bitter and divisive synod debates about women in office, far from being settled by synod decisions, were now simply being projected into each congregation.

Instead of delineating the widespread movement toward congregational independence, or the denominational agencies’ grabs for power, or the ecumenical drive toward merger with the RCA—warnings which would come too late to do any good—the speaker pointed out that for 15 years we have been seeing that at the heart of our problem was the doctrine of the Bible—our failure to listen to the Word of God in the church. Referring to Jeremiah 23:1–4, he observed that the standard by which we must assess our denomination was God’s Word. There God said that because the spiritual shepherds of His people had scattered and failed to care for them, He would punish the shepherds. Each of us needs to ask whether we have been giving the necessary time to studying and teaching God’s Word to those we are supposed to lead. Our performance must be measured by the standard of God’s Word and by our confession of it.

In our churches’ Belgic Confession Article 32, while we acknowledge the need for wholesome order in the church, we also reject all man-made laws “to bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatever.” See how that confession is plainly violated by last year’s synod’s declaration that “a church is held accountable to classis for its share of the quota payment determined by the number of its member families” (Acts 1985, p. 811), a decision unsupported by a shred of Biblical evidence. In that Confession article 32, we also “admit only that which tends to nourish and preserve concord and unity, and to keep all men in obedience to God.” Note how the 1984 and 1985 decisions to allow women in office did not promote “concord and unity” but discord and disunity and were supported by only one irrelevant text. The decision to, in the name of Christ, compel payment against one‘s conscience is an immoral law-far removed from the voluntary “cheerful” giving taught in God’s Word (2 Cor. 9:7). Thus our synods have tried to compel consciences and made ordinances which “depart from those things which Christ, our only Master has instituted” (Belgic Confession).

Such developments are driving us to action—to concerted action. In our trying to act, the speaker saw three dangers against which we must be alert. (1) Some have said that all that we have been doing is talk among ourselves. This is misleading. There has been a flood of overtures and appeals –which were “reduced by the denominational machinery to a puff of exhaust”—and there have been good minority reports—There has been much more than talk. (2) Some are saying that we must break the denominational bureaucracy. But we must beware of trying only to correct structures when our problem is really the churches’ departure from God’s Word. (3) Merely organizing a confessional movement to oppose the evils in the church, as many in the Dutch churches have long been doing, despite strenuous efforts, proves ineffective, because the denominations simply disregard the opposition. “We must beware of the danger of consolidating within the Christian Reformed Church a nucleus of confessional conservatives that would continue for the next generation or two, to fuel reaction to symptomatic ills in the CRC, to the detriment of a constructive, Biblically balanced, Reformed, obedient faith-life.”

What must we do? Recall how we conclude Article 32 of our Belgic Confession: “For this purpose, excommunication is requisite, with all that pertains to it, according to the Word of God.” “For this purpose,” that is, to maintain the body of Christ’s church, we need, not an “institutional face–lift,” not creating a “church within a church” or repeating appeals to the major assemblies to listen to God’s Word, but CHURCH DISCIPLINE. We face the painful duty of the discipline of the denomination by the church in order to maintain the church for God’s honor and for the salvation of our coming generations.

How can we do this, when the official avenues of appeal and protest are closed by synod rules? How can a minority discipline a majority? The Bible and our confessions show us the way. They teach us that the power to discipline resides in the local consistory and is exercised by those whom the Lord has appointed to office. Discipline is to be carried out by local churches and their consistories, working together in covenant fellowship and obeying Christ according to His Word.

In trying unitedly to carry out the discipline which the Bible and creeds enjoin, we need free and open discussion to reach a proper strategy for action. Historically, differences about strategy divide conservatives. We must pledge to one another, in fidelity to God’s Word and our confessions, to consult with one another and to walk and talk together to arrive at a proper, common course. This cannot be done hastily.

The speaker suggested that at this juncture a common declaration by this gathering might be in order that the synod decisions of 1984 opening church offices to women and that of 1985 concerning compulsory quota payments are not binding. To encourage Biblically responsible stewardship, he suggested introducing a 2-envelope system, one for local and the other for denominational activity. In view of the deteriorating denominational condition, he urged the creation, support and use of alternative institutions within the CRC. This involves that our consistories assert their divine right to license candidates and call ministers of the gospel. He suggested too that young men committed to Reformation who are preparing for the ministry in our churches be encouraged to study at schools that are also committed to such Reformation. The speaker highlighted the need for increased publishing of sound educational material for the churches’ catechism classes (of the kind available through the Reformed Fellowship). Finally he encouraged believers and consistories who feel conscience-bound to prepare to leave the denomination to consult with other consistories to seek concerted action. These were his suggestions for our present course.

On Wednesday morning the assembly divided into five sections: Rev. Robert Heerema of Wyoming, Michigan, introduced a discussion on Biblical Church Unity; Rev. Edward Knott of Forest Grove, Michigan, took up the subject of proper procedure in bringing matters to a classis or the synod; Rev. Ted Hoogsteen of Brantford, Ontario introduced the subject of the faulty Contemporary Testimony which is to come up for adoption this year; Rev. Ray Lanning of the Bethel Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan, addressed the Quota Question; and Rev. Randal Lankheet, of Jamestown, Michigan, reflected on the provocative question, “Can a Conservative Student Survive at Calvin Theological Seminary?” Because both the simultaneous meetings and our space limits make it impossible to comment on all of these, let’s note only the last two.

Rev. R. Lanning pointed out the “wrenching contradiction” we encounter in our church quotas in the fact that while they are supposed to be advisory guidelines for voluntary giving, they are being regarded and presented in our church center as taxes which must be paid. While our synods will not say that they are taxes, they try to more and more stringently enforce their payment by the “delinquent.”

This system of enforced automatic payment (which is the envy of some other denominations) has created an inflated “run-away” denominational superstructure, just like taxes create big government. In the large Presbyterian Church some years ago when unlimited funding had produced unlimited and irresponsible growth, failing support forced a 50% cut in the size of the bureaucracy and, the following year, a further 1/3 reduction. As long as the agencies are permitted to run the quotas we may be sure of annual increases.

The speaker observed that our churches are falling behind in. the development of local ministries, largely because of denominational quota demands on the churches. And the denominational agencies are experiencing a crisis of confidence, which it is proposed that we remedy by stricter enforcement of quotas. The churches show signs of rebelling against these demands. The Sunshine Church ofGrand Rapids, the largest in the denomination, is refusing payment of a large part of its quota, and others, on grounds of conscience, are refusing to support what some agencies are doing.

The system is in trouble because it is in conflict with the teachings of the Bible. God’s Word, in 2 Cor. 9:7 tells us that “God loves a cheerful giver.” Taxes deprive us of the privilege of giving; we do not “give” quotas; we “pay” them. It is no wonder that these lack God’s blessing. 1 Cor. 16:2 instructs us to give as God “has prospered” us, but quotas, as flat-rates are blind and insensitive to the state of the church and the prosperity of its members. 2 Cor. 8:14 teaches us that in the need of Christian brethren the flow of giving should be from the affluent to the needy—that is not Grand Rapids. The Macedonian Christians had shown an extraordinary readiness to give (2 Cor. 8:5) “their own selves to the Lord and to” the missionaries, confident that they were doing the will of God. This is the proper remedy for the “crisis of confidence.” In this kind of confidence no quotas are needed.

As a recent graduate from Calvin Theological Seminary, Rev. Randal Lankheet commented on the peculiar problems that the conservative student encounters at the denomination’s seminary, and suggested some ways of trying to deal with them. While he did not say that Calvin openly discriminates against conservative students, such a student confronts pressures against expressing opinions based on the Word of God. He recalled how a student who had expressed objections to criticism of the Bible experienced subsequent harassments. Of some 17 seminary professors, only 3 or 4 publicly oppose placing women in church offices. A prominent mark of the educated is supposed to be open-mindedness, a readiness to question everything. In controversial matters, one will not hear both sides presented at the seminary.

The conservative student will have to study harder than others, will have to go out of his way to be personable and accommodating, and will need to seek the support of others in trying to maintain his minority views. Especially those who have attended other seminaries will experience additional pressures and sometimes extra inquisitions and harassment. Can conservative students survive at Calvin Theological Sem1nary? Some do, and may, on occasion, even emerge with honors. But they face adverse pressures because of their convictions.

Our Future Course

The final speaker was Rev. Arthur Besteman (who is transferring from Zeeland to the Beverly Church of Wyoming, Michigan). He addressed the question, “Where do we go from here?” He saw the present denominational course which prompted the concern occasioning this conference as an example of what Francis Schaeffer outlined in his last book as The Great Evangelical Disaster. Our churches’ unfaithfulness to the Lord and His Word that constitute the “disaster,” had been shown by many, including speakers at this conference. In such distressing circumstances, the writer of Psalm 143 (v. 5) encouraged God’s people by recalling the Lord’s work. God’s covenant faithfulness has continued to be shown among us in churches which still seek to be faithful to His Word. The speaker cited the 35-year history of the Reformed Fellowship and its publications, in the face of the antagonism and ridicule which testify to its influence. Recently it has been joined in its efforts for the Reformed Faith by Christian Renewal, which is gaining readers on both sides of the US-Canada border. Since 1982 the Mid-America Reformed Seminary is becoming established, despite the hostility of denominational leaders. This Conference has shown that even among some of the students at Calvin Theological Seminary there is evidence of Reformed movement. Despite abundant cause for concern, there are also reasons for confidence.

But many are asking, “What can we do?” Some are saying that the only thing we can do is leave the denomination, and some have done so. The speaker advised serious consideration before making such a move. The psalm contains the appropriate prayer, “Teach me to do your will” (v. 10). He recalled the remarks of John Calvin about the Lord’s continuing correction of the Corinthian church despite its gross abuses. Because we try to maintain a Reformed witness within the denomination, we are unjustly accused of trying to split it. The divisions in the church are coming, not because of us, but because of those who tamper with the Word of God, the creeds and the Church Order.

What can we do? We must make sure that we know what we believe, studying the Word of God, and our churches’ confessions of it. We must demand that that be preached in our churches. The speaker cited Abraham Kuyper’s own conversion through the influence of a godly parishioner. If one cannot get the Word of God in one’s church, transfer to another that has it. Beside our own future, the future of our children is involved. We must insist that the Biblical doctrine be taught in catechism classes, and that we find a church in which it will be done. We must work with others who seek to maintain the Biblically Reformed faith, and not permit ourselves to be divided by differences of opinion over minor matters. And we must pray. In the words of the famous missionary, Judson, “The future is as bright as the promises of God.”

At the conclusion of the conference a number of resolutions were adopted.

We approached the conference wondering what the response would be to the invitations to such a meeting. We left it aware of the many reassuring evidences of interest in and support for a united effort to promote the Reformed faith. Although there were differences of opinion, there were differences among those united by a common commitment to the Lord and His Gospel. Many who are so committed are being drawn (or driven) together by the increasing, official betrayals of that Faith in the denomination. The differences often arise out of differing perceptions of just how far that betrayal has gone. Some, especially those who are newly aware of these developments, envision a return of the denomination to its confessed Biblical doctrine and life; others who have been confronting the problem for a longer time may see matters more comprehensively. The Lord might grant a miracle of Reformation. One of the Missouri Synod Lutheran leaders described his denomination’s return to orthodoxy over a decade ago in that way. But even that denomination is in danger of losing its gains through compromises. We must resist and refuse to support that kind of compromise in every way that we can. But we must do more than resist what the churches’ misleaders are doing . We must, as speakers said, put more effort into positive proclamation and teaching of the whole Biblically Reformed gospel. And we must do this not merely as a Reformed witness within an increasingly apostate body, but constructively working, fighting and praying for a church that will believe what it says and say what it believes. That must drive us toward ever sharper division from those who are determinedly dragging the church in an opposite course (2 Cor. 6:14–7:1). Our pursuit of that Biblical Reformed objective must be genuinely ecumenical, seeking to draw together people who today are separated by church boundaries, but who, becoming increasingly aware of living amid “the great evangelical disaster,” are also increasingly aware of being drawn together in the thrilling work that the Lord has done, is doing and will do with His whole gospel until He Himself returns. The future of such a course is indeed “as bright as the promises of God.”

P.D.J.

The following tapes of the conference are available from CMCRC Tapes, P.O. Box 1335, South Holland, IL 60473, for 3 per tape plus $1 for postage and packaging: #1 Godfrey, #2 Blauw, #3 Sikkema, #4 Kayayan and Lanning, #5 Kloosterman, #6 Besteman.

Resolutions of the Concerned Members of the Christian Reformed Church Conference April 29–30, ‘86

PREAMBLE

1. We take our stand without reservation on Holy Scripture, the confessions of our church, and the Church Order (prior to 1984), and seek to be a positive reforming influence in the Christian Reformed Church by calling the church back to her confessional basis. 2. We are concerned about evidence of departures from our Reformed standards and heritage in the Christian Reformed Church. We refuse to honor synodical decisions that undermine our Reformed confessions. 3. We declare ourselves firmly opposed to any and all such weakenings of our Reformed heritage, and we urge others to join us in our efforts. 4. We are concerned about a lack of Reformed leadership in the Christian Reformed Church, especially among those in important positions in the church. 5. We express our concern about much of the educational material that comes from the Board of Publications—materials which do not build up a sound training in the Reformed faith.

I. REGARDING ACTING THROUGH ECCLESIASTICAL CHANNELS

Resolved that individuals and consistories ought to continue and intensify efforts to draw attention to and prosecute departures from Scripture and the creeds, as well as violations of the Church Order.

II. REGARDING THE DECISION OF SYNOD, 1984, OPENING THE OFFICE OF DEACON TO WOMEN

Resolved: 1. that we declare this decision to be in conflict with the Word of God, the Reformed confessions, and the Church Order;

2. that we will not cooperate with or contribute to the implementation of this decision (C.O. Art. 29);

3. that we call upon the consistories of the churches to so declare publicly.

III. REGARDING THE PRESENT QUOTA SYSTEM

Resolved: 1. that we declare the enforcement of quotas to be in conflict with the Scriptures which teach “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7);

2. that, when for conscience sake, individuals or consistories cannot support on agency, institution, or program of the denomination, such individuals or consistories ought to seek out alternative causes which are Reformed in character and worthy of their gifts and prayers.

IV. REGARDING THE COMMITTEE OF CONCERNED MEMBERS

Resolved: 1. that we support the on-going efforts of the committee to assist consistories in bringing their overtures to classes and synods;

2. that we encourage the Committee to consider future conferences on the Christian Reformed Church.

V. REGARDING A CALL TO PRAYER

Resolved that for the reformation and revival of the Christian Reformed Church, believers be called upon to exercise themselves individually and corporately in prayer to God for these great ends.

VI. REGARDING THE CONTEMPORARY TESTIMONY

Resolved that the Conference of Concerned declare that it is opposed to the adoption of the Contemporary Testimony by the Synod of 1986, that it repudiates the notion that the Contemporary Testimony is a Biblically informed confession and declare that if it is adopted, our members will not be confessionally identified by it, nor accept it in any form as a binding creedal declaration.

 

.