It takes some time before the decisions of the most recent Synod can be judged by the church. Often there is one particular issue which has demanded the lion share of the Synod’s time and bas also been debated pro and con in the church papers before Synod meets. This past Synod had quite a number of important issues to deal with, but not one of overriding importance. I believe that there are certain patterns which have been disclosed by the actions of the Synod of 1987. We have had some very excellent articles of information on the actions of the past Synod in the religious press, but it is also well to get a certain amount of commentary on what has been decided.

One committee reported to this Synod concerning the often discussed matter of the calling of ministers in our denominations. There have always been certain weaknesses in our system of calling although the committee stated that “normally it presents no problems.” In fact, even though there are weaknesses in the method, our system also has certain strengths which may not be lost. In our system of calling, both the congregation and the minister have freedom! The congregation may call whomever it pleases and the minister who is called may either accept or decline the call. These are freedoms which may not be lost. In many churches these freedoms do not exist. The matter of calling has been studied time and again in the history of the church but no one was ever willing to tamper with the system we have.

The committee which reported to the Synod of 1987 was willing to “take the bull by the horns!” They came with “a bold suggestion.” This is putting it mildly. The committee proposed that Synod “allow” a church to issue a “term call,” i.e., a call for a specific period of time. Where our method “normally presented no problems” the abnormal is now addressed. The advisory committee at Synod expressed the wish that more attention had been paid to the work of the Holy Spirit! Is this “remedy” not like killing a fly with a sledge hammer?

You have noticed, of course, that a church is allowed to issue a term call. It doesn’t have to! Here we have another sizeable step in the direction of congregationalism. Personally I also wonder if this will not be an excellent way of paving the road toward the acceptance of women preachers. Why not try it for a couple years!!! As I say, this is a personal view, but is it so far fetched? We have been on a steady course since the adoption of Report 44 on the Nature of Office and Ordination by the Synod of 1973 of “hollowing out” the offices in the church! This is a serious matter. The office of the minister of the gospel is no longer considered to be a calling, it is a job! We give “tenure” to our professors and, I believe, rightly so. However, the ministry of the Word is denigrated again and again. It has been a one-way street since 1973. I will return to this a little later.

It is only three years ago that Synod decided it was proper to elect women to the office of deacon. Many thought this wasn’t so bad because this was not a ruling office(?). It has become well known that there are some of our churches who already have women elders and the Synod of 1987 was faced with the question whether or not a woman ought to be allowed to become a candidate for the ministry. This is going fast!!! Her appeal was turned down. But this is not the end of the matter. She has appealed to the judiciary code committee. It will be very interesting to see what this committee reports at the proper time. Although it was turned down (the appeal), nevertheless there were 22 registered negative votes!

Another item in this same connection was the decision of Synod to appoint a committee to study the matter of “Headship” once more, as it pertains to the church. It is not long ago that a committee reported to Synod on this matter and Synod agreed that the man‘s headship is found in both the home and the church. Well, let that headship in the home stand–that won’t hurt anybody. But, don’t you see, if that headship is also found in the church, women will not be able to serve in at least some of the offices! It is going fast!!! Is anyone listening? The advisory committee which dealt with this matter seemed to be somewhat disturbed. This committee speaks of the goodness of the Lord on the decision which was taken in 1984 (allowing women as deacons). The same committee makes mention of the Pastoral Letter sent by the officers of the Synod of 1985 to the churches being used to maintain the peace and unity in our denomination. These words were written right after the committee had stated that “there is serious unrest in our churches. Consciences are troubled.” It doesn’t seem as though the peace and unity in our churches is too strong. Indeed, the Lord has been good to our denomination in spite of the decision of 1984, which, as I had informed Synod in a Minority Report in 1981, was unscriptural. A pastoral letter, very nicely written, does not take away the effects of wrong decisions!

There was also the matter of restructuring the workings of the various agencies of the denomination, commonly called “Vision 21.” I imagine this is necessary. Not many years ago we used to hear of the evil of Boardism—we are far beyond that. Today we have a bureaucracy which is growing by leaps and bounds. We will have to spend between three and four million dollars to house all these growing numbers. The bureaucracy is taking over. It can only increase in numbers. The church and its business is now pretty well controlled by the bureaucrats. Unless we institute “Particular Synods” some time soon the problem will continue to grow. It seems strange that there were so many overtures against Vision 21, but Synod, though not implementing it as yet, goes along with the general concept. A “Super” board should make for more efficiency. Facetiously I would say, if you want the efficiency of the business community in the church, why not send proxy ballots to all the members. Then Synod would not even have to meet!

The things mentioned above are all evidence of tremendous change in the affairs of the church. I have lost count of all the articles of the Church Order which have been changed by the last four Synods. Woe to anyone who would write a commentary on the Church Order! It would be out of date next year. Of course, the Church Order may be changed! This is no infallible document, but it has turned into a Saturday night massacre in recent years!

There are some things which do not change. Regardless of the debatable nature of the matter, certain things are “set in concrete.” Dennis and Annette Bredeweg appealed to Synod of 1985 to be allowed not to pay their quota to an agency of the denomination which they felt they could not support. Their request was denied. One delegate to that Synod recorded this protest: “Please note my protest against requiring any individual to contribute to a church cause against his will.” The Synod of 1987 was again asked about this matter but the answer was the same. When Synod has taken a position, regardless of its rightness in the estimation of any particular member, all must pay! If this is not dictatorial, what is? I thought in my naivete that it was an inalienable right of every person to give to the cause he desired! I believe the position ofSynod is unbiblical, unreformed, and even unamerican!

I will just touch on one other item in which there is no change. Overture 22 asked Synod to revoke the rule that students graduating from other seminaries must spend one year at Calvin Seminary. Synod did not agree to revoke this rule. In brief this is the history of this rule. It was entirely logical when this rule was adopted. It goes all the way back to 1900, but it was especially in 1924 that the rule was spelled out very definitely. There was good reason for this rule. The Synod of1922 had stated that “students who have not studied at definitely Reformed institutions must pursue the course of study of the last year at our Theological School.” This decision corrected and amplified the decision of1900 which said that students who had studied at other theological schools were to have one year at Calvin Theological Seminary with no year specified. Synod of 1922 gave as one of its grounds that the Reformed character of many theological schools was difficult to determine. The Synod of 1924 reiterated this position because many students had gone to various seminaries after the Janssen case of 1922. The rule was also reasonable because there was no other seminary in the country which taught Chr. Ref. Church History, Chr. Ref. Church Polity or the preaching and teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism.

Now there is a Seminary (MARS) which teaches the above three subjects, and it is a seminary whose Reformed character is not difficult to determine! Overture 22 asked that an equivalency exam be required of those who had studied at other seminaries. In other words, they should not be let in the back door! Let us be fully persuaded that they are competent! Synod’s answer was “No.” The grounds are weak. Synod really gave no clear answer to the overture. This is a sore spot and will not go away!

A similar problem surfaced in the Netherlands just over 100 years ago. Dr. Abraham Kuyper had started the Free University in 1880. In the year 1885 the first theological candidate appeared. This was Mr. J.H. Houtzagers. He had finished his theological studies and now they couldn’t get him ordained! Why not? The candidate had to come from Leiden, Utrecht or Groningen. These were the theological schools of De Hervormde Kerk. Finally the congregation of Kootwijk called this candidate. Dr. Vanden Bergh, a neighboring pastor, agreed with Kootwijk. He was examined and then ordained. Kootwijk and Voorthuizen, where Dr. Vanden Bergh was the pastor, were the first congregations to break with De Hervormde Kerk. The Doleantie followed in 1886.

In light of all the above, what must be done? This is the question which is being asked more and more. There is the possibility of doing nothing. But how long is the conservative element in the church going to be able to take it? Do you really believe that we will not have women elders and ministers? The question is not if? but when? Everyone is hesitant to split the church. I refer you to the article which I wrote in the Outlook of March 1986. We are not splitting the church-the Synod of 1984 did that! We need not join others-we are simply to go calmly forward as the Chr. Ref. Church!

In the above mentioned article I estimated that within five years we would have women in all the offices.

There are only three and a half years left on that schedule. I am not revising it. It was a conservative estimate. Some say that it cannot happen because the rules are against it. When the other two offices are attacked it will be all new material, and, therefore, acceptable.

There seems to be no conception of the meaning of the term church! As a result, there is little conception of either the meaning of office or of worship. A leader publicly denies the validity of the articles of the Belgic Confession on the Church. An Episcopalian priest is allowed to occupy one of our pulpits . . . and nothing is done!

All these are serious matters that call for action. The liberal element in the church has won the recent battles. It is becoming a juggernaut. Can anything stop it? Will we have anything left to bequeath to our children and children’s children?

Winston Churchill once said: I do not plan to preside over the dissolution of her majesty’s empire. Are you planning to help pay for the ruin of the church?

H. Vander Kam is a retired CR pastor living at Orange City, Iowa.