By now many readers of this magazine will know that prior to the latest meeting of the Council of the Christian Reformed Churches in Canada (held in New Westminster, B.C. Nov. 12–15, 85) a conference was held on the topic of “Trends in the Christian Reformed Churches Compared with Developments in the Geref. Kerken in the Netherlands.” Two speakers, Dr. Paul Schrotenboer and the Rev. Jacob Kuntz, gave special attention to the question: Is the CRC 25 years behind the Geref. Kerken? Their conclusion (and that of the Conference as a whole) was that there is very little comparison between the two churches, and that the phrase “25 years behind” is neither accurate nor helpful. Respondent Kuyvenhoven, editor of The Banner, agreed: He doubted whether the question was even worth a conference, since “those who make the charges are not so young and fewer in number.” Rather than comparing ourselves with the Gerefermerde Kerken, we should concentrate on facing a more serious threat which we have in common, namely, “the global cancer of secularism” which is all around us. So the Conference concluded.
I don’t share the view of the speakers. Rev. R. Sikkema at the meeting of the Concerned Members in the CRC in Chicago addressed the same topic as that of the above-named Conference, but he came to quite different conclusions. I would urge readers to purchase this tape and to listen to it personally and in various groups and societies. Sikkema did a thorough analysis of his subject, using (among other writings) a booklet written by the late Prof. Dr. K. Dijk in 1964, entitled, Koerswijziging in onze kerken? (Change of direction in our churches?). Note the date of this booklet. Sikkema made the point that the speakers at the Conference in New Westminster should not have compared the present CRC with the Dutch churches today, but rather with those churches 25 years ago (around the time Dijk wrote his booklet). Then the speakers might have come to a quite different conclusion, for when one does this (also by reading Dijk’s booklet) then he finds that the similarities between the two churches are very striking (not to say disturbing). Trends present in the Geref. Kerken at that time later became developments in those churches, and Sikkema warned that similar trends in the CRC today could very easily develop into disasters, as they have done in the Geref. Kerken. Even Kuyvenhoven was reported to have said, after listening to Sikkema’s speech, “It worries me.” And well it might.
Let me give a summary of some of the trends that were present in the Geref. Kerken in 1964, as given by Dijk:
a) There were changes in church life: new song books, much more emphasis on liturgy, more experimentation in worship, decline in catechism preaching, diaconal work becoming more like social work in general.
b) Changes in life-style: from an identifiable Reformed ethic to one quite indistinguishable from a worldly one. Previous strictures with regard to Sunday observance and a Christian life-style were considered narrow-minded. One could now do pretty much as he pleased on Sundays, even watch commercial sports either at home on T.V. or at the arena; dancing, card-playing, a form of lotteries at school and church bazaars were all considered “fair game” for Christians. One writer of those days said “the Reformed ethic” had disappeared.
c) Changes in confessional outlook and allegiance: a questioning of the Canons of Dort, particularly with regard to reprobation; revoking the decision of 1926 with regard to the first chapters ofGenesis; underlying this was a different hermeneutic.
d) Changes in ecumenical outlook: Closer ties with the Hervormde Kerk and a desire to join the World Council of Churches, with a resulting widening of the gap between the Geref. Kerken and other smaller confessional bodies (Christelyke Gereformeerd, Vrijgemaakt, etc.).
It should not be necessary to make the “application” to the CRC. Anyone who cannot see the striking similarities to the situation in the CRC today is quite blind. One has but to mention names like Boer, Stek, Verhey, Menninga, the Reformed Church of America, the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, etc. to make the connection. Dijk also mentioned the women issue—first voting-rights and then office rights, and the dwindling attendance at the second service on Sunday. The similarities are too obvious to deny. Seen in that light, “25 years behind” appears to be quite an accurate judgment. Anyone who still doubts it, should read Dijk’s list of trends again.
About our common enemy, secularism, does one have to say anything more? Are not the above-mentioned trends (present in both churches) evidence of a thorough-going secularism in the churches and among their members? What else is that but a “being conformed to the world” and following the spirit of the age? If this is not secularism, what is it?
It is nice to posit “secularism” over-against the clear manifestations of it that are present in both church communions. As if the two are quite different. Most people will be quite ready to agree that “secularism” is our enemy today, provided you don’t make it concrete by mentioning our own synodical decisions and ecclesiastical trends. We’re all against “secularism” as long as it doesn’t touch down close to home, as long as it is not further defined. Such a declaration is quite harmless and therefore useless. Says Schaeffer: “To accommodate to the world spirit about us in our age is the most gross form of worldliness in the proper definition of the word.” and that is exactly what the trends in the Gereforneerds Kerken 25 years ago and those in the CRC today boil down to: gross worldliness, hence secularism. And unless we are transformed by the renewing of our mind and heed the warnings of I John 2:15–17 and James 4:4, both in our personal lives and in the corporate life of the church, the salt may soon lose its savor and become good for nothing.
J. Tuininga, Lethbridge, Alta.