MID-AMERICA REFORMED SEMINARY
With much interest and respect I reflect on the thoughts of Dr. James A. DeJong, President of Calvin Theological Seminary, when in the Banner of January 25, 1988, he speaks out his convictions pertaining to the thoroughness, firmness and soundness of Calvin Theological Seminary.
But when called upon to give his estimate of Mid-America Reformed Seminary, Dr. De Jong, I believe, could have been a bit more sympathetic. His views are, as I understand them, that (1) MARS was organized purposefully to be an “alternative” to Calvin. And (2) that the new seminary would have been more respectful had the organizers consulted denominational cooperation. In both of these instances, I believe, there is mistaken thought.
Take the second of the two. It is hardly conceivable that the Christian Reformed Denomination, already having a seminary, would cooperate in organizing an “alternate” seminary.
Secondly, take a good look at the first instance. Did the proponents of MARS really intend that its organization be an “alternate” of Calvin? Let’s see.
For example, one might conceive of a few ministers, getting together over a cup of coffee. Soon drifting into interesting conversation, one suggests, “Wouldn’t it be good to have a seminary of our own”?
I am not saying this because I believe this kind of thinking is held over the heads of those responsible for MARS. However, should anyone conceive of Mid-America Seminary as having its beginnings in something similar to this, let he or she take careful notes of the following.
As far as my memory of the history of the Christian Reformed church goes back I recall a tendency with some of its membership to be concerned about what they believed were signs of infiltration of liberalism. As time wen t on it became evident that there were good reasons for this concern.
Not too many years ago Synod was confronted, among other things, with three important issues: (1) how to understand the first chapters of Genesis through the flood; (2) women in church offices; (3) the reality of some Biblical miracles. These issues did not just spring up overnight, but had been brewing in the consciousness of the church many years before they came to a head.
The concerned undoubtedly did their part at Synod. But trying to exert more influence, they also acted in another way. They had grown significantly, and held meetings in the United States and Canada, discussing what should be done to offset the dangers of liberalism that threatened the spiritual health of the Church.
Through all this activity two options presented themselves: separation, or fighting error from within. Under the circumstances, separation could be construed as a heresy. So moving into the second option the Mid-America Reformed Seminary was born. A commendable beginning indeed! Whenever errors had to be dealt with, it has always been a practice in Christian circles not to separate (unless separation was the only course open), but to fight these errors from within. This became and continues to be the main objective for the institution of MARS.
And I do not believe that Dr. DeJong feels that MARS in any way, be it ever so small, is what he would consider a hindrance to the successful operation of Calvin Theological Seminary.
Ring Star Retired Minister of the Christian Reformed Church Sunset Manor 725 Baldwin St. Jenison, MI 49428
STEWARDSHIP RIGHTS
Dear Editor,
There has been some writing done in criticism of the quota system (eg. “Stewardship Rights,” Arrick, 3-88). I wish to write something in favor of the quota system, not because it is in every way the ideal, but because it has much to recommend it that I do not wish to abandon.
I realize that there is error in the way the quota method is commonly understood and employed, but properly understood it can be a useful way to join together as a church to commit ourselves to support of the church’s mission. Synod has made some progress in clarifying the fact that quotas are not bills which must be paid. Churches are free to contribute less than the full quota without fear of piling up back payments. However, we also encourage generosity by agreeing on some goals together, realizing that the goal cannot be applied equally to all. The quota commitment (or encouragement) can be a healthy way to remind churches that there is important ministry going on beyond the local congregation, within our own denomination. I find it encouraging that many churches which are contributing the full quota commitment are not considering that to mean their bill is paid, but are taking frequent offerings for above quota giving and other worthy causes.
Perhaps with careful teaching we might learn to see quotas as promises to prayerfully and financially support particular forms of ministry within the church.
Blessings, Thomas J. Vos, Pastor First Christian Reformed Church, Wellsburg, Iowa
REPLY
Dear Peter:
Is it ideal? In all honesty, I believe the Quota System is ideal. It is predicated upon the perpetual existence of an ideal situation among the Churches and Institutions of The Christian Reformed Denomination. Namely, that they remain unified in doctrine and practice.
The problem, to me, is that the ideal system no longer matches the real situation. The answer: we need a realistic system of giving that encompasses the doctrinal and practical pluriformity within the Christian Reformed Denomination.
Exactly what that realistic system might be, I don’t know. But whatever system we arrive at, it will have to be a system that preserves the stewardship rights of believers, as found in such passages as II Cor. 8 and 9 – The wisdom and giving policy which God outlines for us and which takes account of the real situation of the Church.
The quota system is ideal. It erred when confronted with reality.
Sincerely,
Rev. Steve Arrick
REDEEMER COLLEGE ON EVOLUTION
(Redeemer College, located near Hamilton, Ontario, in response to an inquiry about its stance on evolution, has given us this statement.)
Redeemer College has a very strenuous interview procedure for every faculty member to be appointed. Included in the interviewing procedure is an interview with the P resident The President’s interview deals primarily with the applicant‘s personal relationship with the Lord and how the applicant seeks to strengthen that relationship. Included in this interview i.s an inquiry into the applicant’s view of Biblical authority and themes of creation, fall and redemption. We are pleased to be able to state that every faculty member at Redeemer College has a commitment to Biblical authority and is involved in the advancement of learning and dissemination of knowledge on the basis of the Reformed confessions, traditions and perspectives. For this reason, the question of evolution has not become an issue at Redeemer College. Redeemer College does wish to give leadership regarding the question of evolutionism and creationism. For that reason, various members of the Foundations and Natural Sciences Divisions are engaged in dialog with professors at Calvin College. Also these professors give public lectures regarding these questions.
EDITORIAL & CIRCULATION OFFICES
I would like to have published in the next issue of THE OUTLOOK the following:
Thanks be to God and praise for giving the Rev. Peter De Jong, Managing Editor of THE OUTLOOK the faith, ability, and courage to write the article “Calvin Surrenders to Evolution, April ’88.” It seems to me that nobody could have made a better critique of the report of Calvin’s Board of Trustees regarding the study of the teachings of three of Calvin’s professors.
Rev. De Jong is one of God’s faithful, caring Watchmen warning us against the lies of satan. I am afraid that God is going to hold some preachers guilty for keeping silent instead of preaching the great need to have faith in God’s Word.
Alice Oosterhouse Grand Rapids, Michigan
