Reform and transform are words of which we Reformed are fond. They are the operative words in favorite slogans: “The church must constantly be reforming itself” and “the church must transform the world.” These are good slogans, provided that they are properly, that is Biblically , understood. The difference which we see drawn in the Bible between the world and God’s people is a radical one; a difference or division described by the word enmity (Gen. 3:15, Rom. 8:7 , Ja. 4:4). and traversed only by words such as conversion (Matt. 13:15,18:3 , Acts 3:19 , 28:27, Ja. 5:19), rebirth (Jn. 3:3, Gal. 4:29, 1 Peter 1:23), and transformation (Rom. 12:2).

Usually when we think of conversion or transformation, we think of them in a good sense: conversion or transformation from the worldly mind to the Christian mind. But it is also possible to speak of conversion or transformation in the opposite direction: from the Christian spirit to the worldly spirit. The Bible speaks of those who have “made a shipwreck of their faith” and of church’s “candlesticks being removed.” Therefore we may say that a formerly faithful church which becomes transformed (i.e. conformed to the world) is no longer a faithful church.

The church must be reformed, not transformed to be like the world. What does it mean to be a reformed (that is, a reforming) church? The best answer I can give in a nutshell is another slogan: “Committed to an inerrant Bible, a holy church, and a faithful witness in our time.”

     

An Inerrant Bible

First of all, a reforming church is a church committed to an inerrant Bible. For how shall the church reform itself according to God’s Word if it has a slippery grip on that Word? All real reformation in the church is rooted in a return to God’s inerrant Word. As in King Josiah’s day, a return to the Word of God brings a renewal of the covenant (see II Kings 23). A return to the word of God was also the root of the 16th century Reformation as evidenced by the slogan it produced of “sola Scriptura”—Scripture alone. Reformation means back to the Bible and back to obeying it, not drifting away from it in faith and practice. And we in the CRC have drifted.

“But,” the “progressive” says, “we all believe the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and practice;” why do you insist that a reformed church be committed to an inerrant Bible?

First (and there really needn’t be a second or third reason), that inerrancy is a Biblical doctrine has been demonstrated and maintained by many faithful theologians of past and present such as Warfield, Murray, Young, Van Til, Packer, L. Berkhof, Schaeffer, and Gerstner, to name but a few. Those who say that the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and practice but not in historical or factual matters have already given up a matter of faith which the Bible infallibly teaches.

Second, inerrancy has been the doctrine of the Christian church throughout the ages, including that of the 16th century reformers (see, for example, Lindsell’s Battle for the Bible or Montgomery and Packer in God’s Inerrant Word).

Third, history has shown that, as Lindsell states, “once biblical inerrancy is scrapped, it leads inevitably to the denials of biblical truths that are inextricably connected with faith and practice” (Battle for the Bible, p. 139). The United Presbyterian Church and the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland are but two examples.

Inerrancy, many have said, is a watershed issue. In changing one’s position on inerrancy, one crosses a divide on one side is found the church being reformed by God, on the other the church being transformed by the world. On what side of this great divide does the CRC stand? You say “Our Confession of Faith is clear when it says that ‘nothing can be alleged’ against the Scriptures and that we believe ‘without any doubt all things contained therein’.” I agree with you (and CRC Synods until at least 1959 agree with you). The Belgic Confession clearly holds to the inerrancy of Scripture; it sees no need for a careful definition of the nature of Biblical authority, as though one aspect of Scripture were authoritative and another aspect not Scripture is authoritative. Period. But above the period an asterisk has, in effect, been placed and the footnote says: “*except for historical, factual, and non-redemptive aspects—see Report 44 and the Contemporary Testimony.”

On issue after issue that faces the church we are told that the Scriptures are culturally-conditioned, unclear, or not binding for us today. It has been well said that Holy Scripture is being reduced to “apocryphal” status—we may read it with profit but not confirm any point of faith or of the Christian religion by it. A transformed church has only the words of men. A reformed church is a church committed to the inerrant Word of God.

A Holy Church

Although in King Josiah’s day the Word was rediscovered after cleaning the temple, most often these occur in the reverse order: when we truly hear and obey the Word of God, we are moved to clean God’s house. A commitment to an inerrant Bible brings a commitment to a holy church.

As I see it, to speak of the church reforming itself, or better, of God’s reforming His church, is to speak of the church’s sanctification. God’s church must pursue holiness—a holiness of corporate purity as well as piety. His church must constantly be pursuing reformation according to His Word. This it must do to remain the true church. If it does not actively work at corporate purity also in the area of theology and doctrine it will soon be transformed by the world into the world. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (I Cor. 5:6 ff.).

Do we not confess that discipline is one of the marks of the true church (Belgic Conf. Art. 29)? And is not discipline also to be exercised in matters of doctrine? Do not all professing members of the CRC promise to submit to the church’s discipline if they become delinquent in doctrine as well as in life? Is not the whole point of our Form of Subscription, signed by every office-bearer, to preserve uniformity and purity of doctrine? Where is this type of discipline in the Christian Reformed Church when a Harry Boer writes a book rejecting the conclusions of the Synod of 1980 which upheld the doctrine of reprobation in the face of his gravamen? Where is this discipline when consistories and classes are not even allowed to question Calvin Seminary professors or Banner editors regarding their understanding of Genesis 1–11 or our confessions? Where is this type of discipline when. in violation of the “headship principle” which Synod has declared to be a Biblical teaching. Classis Grand Rapids East merely receives as information Eastern Avenue Church’s declaration that it has had and plans to continue having women preaching in worship services? When Bible lessons put out by the denominational Board of Publications do not recognize and in fact work against this Biblical teaching? Reformed Christians who take seriously their confession of being in duty bound to join themselves to the true church (Belgic Conf. Art. 28) look with grave concern for this mark of the true church in the CRC. Will we be reformed or will we be (are we in large measure already?) transformed? A reformed church is committed to a holy church, a transformed church is not.

A Faithful Witness

Finally, only a holy church committed to God’s inerrant Word can be a faithful witness to the world. How can a church which is itself being rapidly transformed into something which is not the church reasonably hope to transform the world? “If the salt loses its savor it is henceforth good for nothing but to be cast forth and trodden under foot of men” (Matt. 5:13). In a church committed neither to God’s inerrant Word nor to maintaining a holy church in accordance with that Word, the salt of the earth quickly becomes the dust of the earth.

A church leadership that absorbs every new fad in the areas of theology and worship will soon be just as porous to the prevailing social and political views favored in secular academia. Does anyone really believe that the whole “headship” issue arises mostly from a new understanding of the Bible rather than mostly from the secular women’s liberation movement? Or that the impetus for understanding Genesis 1–11 as poetic myth rather than as history comes from the text of Scripture rather than from evolutionary presuppositions? In political matters too, our leaders take their cues from secular academia, in the light of secular liberalism, seeing the Bible as increasingly clear on such issues as Central American foreign policy, international trade, unilateral nuclear disarmament, Marxist liberation movements, divestment from South Africa, and the desirability of an expanded social welfare system, while the Bible becomes less and less clear on such matters as homosexuality, drunkenness, divorce, and abortion. Does this not turn upside down on which matters the Bible is and is not clear? Even a contributing editor of the Reformed Journal has been moved to point out that Calvin College is , to large degree, adopting the leftish political stance of secular academia (Aug. 1985 Reformed Journal). It seems our witness to the world more and more amounts to accommodation to, synthesis with, and even outright adoption of, secular liberal culture. But it is the world that needs to be converted and transformed, not the church!

The witness of the faithful church to a lost world is not first and foremost the social gospel which is emphasized today. As Bible smuggler Brother Andrew has pointed out. a mere social gospel. even if effective will only enable people to go to Hell (we still believe in a hell, don’t we?) with full bellies. No, a faithful testimony to the world is first and foremost the gospel of salvation from sin and Hell through faith in Christ’s atoning blood.

Yet a different brother Andrew would have us look not only to the GKN for leading in the area of the “social gospel” but in the area of the gospel of salvation as well. A recent Kuyvenhoven editorial would apparently have us learn more about evangelizing the world from that nearly dead, heterodox church than from Billy Graham when it presents with approval Free University professor emeritus Dr. Johannes Verkuyl’s criticisms of the Graham-organized evangelism conference called “Amsterdam ’86.” I quote: “In the Bible-study sessions he [Verkuyl] saw dangers of fundamentalism and biblicism. He thinks questions about the nature of biblical authority should be raised. The emphasis in evangelism, he says, should be on the love of God, and God’s judgment should not be used as a threat . . . When the good news is translated into the concrete terms of daily life [good news = good life? DAL], Verkuyl writes, more room should be left for particular cultural situations . . .” (The Banner, Sept. 8, 1986; p.8).

Sad to say, the CRC leadership has already largely followed this advice. Another quote from this same editorial illustrates chillingly where this road leads: “One Reformed [Hervormd] journalist remarked that Graham talks much about conversion ‘a word that has vanished from our churchly vocabulary . . .’ The last time we heard that word it was said that we had to be converted ‘unto the world.’ After that a silence descended that no one has yet disturbed.”

What shall it be for the CRC—a reformed church transforming the world, or a transformed church converted “unto the world?” How long can we be halting between two opinions? The imperative command “Choose you this day whom you will serve” may soon come not only to the denomination as a whole, but also to classes, consistories , congregations, and families. At all levels we must be ready to answer in actions as w‘ell as in words: “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!”

Mr. Kloosterman is on analytical chemist and a consistory member living at 3610 Konkle, Kalamazoo, Ml 49001.