People who have to study the materials for our denomination’s June synod may welcome a slimmer volume than most of those of recent years, 384 pages instead of some that have been twice that size. It includes few study committee reports, which have, according to a recent decision, been previously sent to consistories for earlier study. Cutting down needlessly wordy materials is highly desirable, but this drastic abbreviation has disadvantages. The World Missions report suggests one must now look for information about our mission elsewhere (p. 72). Many matters that used to be presented to the synod for decision are now decided by boards. This harmonizes with the general process of restructuring our denomination (particularly in the continuing work of the “Vision-21” committee which does not report this year) into a hierarchy which gives ever less account to the churches it is supposed to represent.

World Wide Communication

The Back to God Hour notes our freedom to promote the gospel in comparison with the restrictions in Soviet Russia. It lists our English language outreach, Arabic program into the Muslim world, Spanish language broadcasts over more than 200 stations and broadcasts in Portuguese. Chinese presentations are aimed at evangelism and helping “house-churches.” French broadcasts into Europe, North Africa and Quebec have resulted, among other things, in a church in Zaire. Japan, Indonesia and Russia are also objects of our extending outreach.

Educational Confusion

In the Calvin College and Seminary Report one notes especially the Board’s investigation, exoneration and defense of Professors Menninga, Van Till and Young against whom there were objections because of their teaching of evolution. Our April and May issues have covered this matter in greater detail, highlighting the fact that we may not compromise the Biblical revelation of God’s creation with the arrogant theories of the leaders of our country who, as Herman Bavinck said, have agreed to totally and finally clear “out . . . whatever of the old Christian world-view consciously or unconsciously still remains in our laws and morals, in our education and civilization.” When our churches and schools compromise with that, they are, like many others before them, surrendering to the enemies of Christ and His Gospel. How can we continue to confess that we “believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,” and at the same time believe and teach that the latest guesses of unbelieving “scientists” rightly explain away everything that God’s Word says about how it happened? Classis Alberta South in Overture 29 (pp. 376, 377) strenuously objects to this committee and board action. It asks the synod to study and evaluate it because “the contention that these chapters (Gen. 1–11) do not present events that really happened is certainly in conflict with our Reformed confessions and in conflict with Scripture itself.” This should be a major issue before the synod.

Among the appointments which the board has made to the seminary faculty, that of Dr. Henry De Moor in the area of church policy, is opposed by overtures from two classes, Alberta South and Hamilton. Their reason is that he “holds and defends” women serving in all church offices, contradicting “the official position of the CRC” (p. 367). This is a valid objection. The trouble is that what he holds is already being promoted by a large part of the seminary faculty.¹

Beside the problem of his views on women in office, we ought to take note of his views of the structure and authority of the church and their bearing on our present problems. Dr. Louis Praamsma’s excellent little biography ofAbraham Kuyper, Let Christ Be King, (Paideia Press, 1985, p. 86) highlighted his struggle to reform a corrupt and hierarchical church. Kuyper “in his penetrating study of the essentials of the church . . . stressed the primacy of the local congregation with its officebearers, and the office of all believers as the source of all the special offices in the church.” Dr. De Moor in Chapter 10 of his thesis, Equipping the Saints (pp. 225–247), despite his superb research, is intensely critical of both of these Biblical principles, tending to dismiss them as mere concessions to secular democracy. For him, the church exercises Christ’s authority, but must not encourage “democratic” notions about the office and authority of local churches and the “office” of members. (1) The calling and office of the believer, far from being a mere product of modern democratic political notions, is one of the most pervasive and, through the centuries, one of the most neglected doctrines in the Bible ( cf. my articles in Dec. ‘85 and Jan., Feb., March and April, ‘86 Outlooks). (2) And the “original” authority of the local consistory and elders is the only part of our denominational structure that is explicitly grounded in the Bible’s teaching. The whole elaborate bureaucratic system of authoritative boards, committees and directors, which our denomination is still industriously developing, is a Roman-style perversion of everything the Bible teaches about Christ’s church (as the 16th century Reformers stated and Thomwell showed the Presbyterians a hundred years ago). Obviously this hierarchical view of church polity, taught to prospective ministers, can only encourage the Liberal bureaucracy that increasingly seizes power over our churches, and discourage any Kuyper-style efforts to correct it.

In order to understand our growing problems with church order (or really, DISORDER) we must recall that in 1973 the synod decided that the Bible permitted the church to adapt or modify the number and function of its offices as it saw fit (Acts pp. 64, 673). Four years ago Rev. Henry Vander Kam informed us that in our seminary, of whose Board he used to be president, the · Biblical doctrine of the church had not been taught in the Dogmatics department in fifteen years. When our churches dismiss God’s Word as our guide to church behavior we really turn our backs on the Reformation and invite the return of hierarchy and every other abuse that called for it. After 20 years of this rejecting the Bible’s guidance we should not be surprised at the problems or confusion that trouble our churches. These must multiply when we disregard the Lord’s warning: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46).

Publications

The Publications Committee reports that the long delayed hymnal is still not published and that a World Literature Committee is being developed seeking to coordinate what has been done through non-church organizations. The Liturgical Committee is now called CRC Worship Committee and one of its objectives is “to advise synod” on “the guidance and supervision it ought to provide local congregations in all liturgical matters” (p. 40). Notice the implied bureaucratic assumption—Who ever gave the synod or its committee a duty to “supervise” the worship of local churches?

   

Mission Obscured

The Home Missions report highlights its grandoise plan to increase the denominational membership from just over 300,000 to 400,000 in twelve years, breaking this down into a variety of target figures. While every Christian and church must try to bring a gospel testimony to unreached neighbors, and the report outlines efforts to encourage this, the attempt to organize this from the top down as though it were a sales campaign for a commercial business seems remote from the way the Lord said He would build His church. When we presume to tell Him how many members we want (and then even suggest of what color they must be) we are asking for a fiasco.

When in our outreach to other countries problems multiplied because our World Missions and World Relief were operating separately often in the same areas, our synod determined to combine these two organizations under yet another board, that of “World Ministries.” Reportedly “problems are being resolved and increasingly ministries are being coordinated.” It is significant that some mission staff “resist the reorganization because they think it is modeled too much after secular Western corporate structures” (p. 73). The competition between two foreign agencies of the same churches had to be corrected, but this combination of missions and material relief increases the threat, observed in past years by the mission organization, that our bringing of the gospel be displaced by all kinds of material and social (or even political) programs. Spotlighting exactly such a perversion of the gospel, is a recommendation of the “superboard” “that synod petition the government of the United States to terminate its participation in the Nicaraguan war, and petition the governments of Canada and the United States to seek peace, justice, and stability in Central America by every other possible means” (p. 69). This needs to be seen in the light of other indications that our agencies and at least some of our relief missions people, like the Liberal church organizations with which they like to cooperate, have been supporting the Communist movement in Latin America (see the September 1987 Outlook). Last year Classis B.C. Northwest overtured the synod to instruct its World Ministries CRWRC to discontinue giving aid to CEPAD in Nicaragua, because this “appears to be a tool of the communist Sandinista government,” supported by the World Council and similar agencies. The very substantial documentation with which it accompanied that overture, was never even given to the synod advisory committee which had to deal with it (through an oversight, the stated clerk said). Therefore all that the committee and synod received was propaganda from the relief administration which supported CEPAD, with the result that it continued to have our support! How can any Bible-believing Christians have confidence in or support “missions” or “relief” that pervert the gospel by joining Liberal churches in promoting the anti-Christian Communist revolution? We saw Liberal churches pursuing such a policy 40 years ago in China; now we see our own doing the same thing.

Pursuing its broadening and increasingly confused vision, the world relief report states at the outset that it aims to be “true to the Lord’s command to help the ‘least’ of this world,” overlooking the fact that the Lord never said that, but said “the least of these my brethren.” Although we have to be concerned about all men, “Christian relief” is not the same as “world relief.” Developing its sociological vision, the report proceeds. “Expatriate staff multiply their impact by concentrating on institution building. High quality and independent institutions and groups need competence in the areas of management, financial control, community control, technical mastery, and skills in evangelism linkage and wholistic ministry.” It proposes to expand its work in East Africa by linking up with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanzania, to help it train “diocesan development officers and local church development committee members in areas of management and leadership” thus “synergistically empowering poor communities in Tanzania to develop themselves . . . .” What does all of this jargon mean? Apparently our expert sociologists and bureaucrats try to train other sociologists and bureaucrats for overseas churches, but what, if anything, has this “concentrating on institution building” to do with the mission of Christ’s church to bring the gospel? The organization is seeking also to expand its activity in our home churches, complaining that, “Putting in place measurable results-focussed evaluation systems meets with initial skepticism and concern” (p. 82)!

The Committee for Educational assistance to Churches Abroad has been modestly trying to help those churches to train leaders and helping their schools to obtain books. It complains that the “Vision-21” proposal to assign them a slot under the tighter authoritarian bureaucracy was made without consultation or consideration of their largely volunteer work.

Unholy Alliance

Last year our Interchurch Relations Committee sought approval of its “Ecumenical Charter,” which after some minor changes, it was given. The gist of that document was that we are in principle one with every church and should try to realize that unity through ecumenical dialog. Although the changes emphasized somewhat our continued adherence to creeds, the charter was loose enough to free the committee for whatever ecumenical adventures it might wish to pursue. Now, as was predicted, appealing to that Charter, it recommends that our synod join the “World alliance of Reformed Churches.” One member of the committee, Rev. Gerard Bouma, emphatically disagrees with this recommendation and explains:

My motivation is not that I refuse true ecumenical contacts with other churches, also with churches in Circle 2 (Jess Reformed). But an ecumenical relationship should not be of such a nature that it will compromise the CRC. WARC in its Act ofUnion states that the member churches “together affirm their faith in Jesus Christ.” Article III of the constitution states that, amongst others, one of the purposes of the alliance shall be: “to further all endeavours to proclaim the Word of God faithfully.” The CRC ought to abstain from membership as long as WARC admits on an equal basis into its membership churches where denial of the faithful proclamation of the Word of God is not militated against, and where denial of some of the most basic and crucial doctrines of Christianity are tolerated.

Rev. G. Bouma is right-as is Dr. M. Woudstra who writes in this Outlook. Overtures 20, 21 and 22 voice the same strong objections (p. 372). Joining the organization ALLIES us with some of the most apostate churches we can find, including the United Presbyterians (whose toleration of denial of Christ’s deity recently drove out the Evangelical Presbyterians), the even more Liberal United Church of Christ and the United Church of Canada. Although the Alliance constitution makes a qualification for membership, “recognizing that the Reformed tradition is a biblical, evangelical and doctrinal ethos, rather than any narrow and exclusive definition of faith and order” (p. 138), the committee states as ground for joining, that we meet those requirements and can join without compromise (p. 120). The committee is thereby, in fact, denying our creeds which are nothing but “EXCLUSIVE DEFINITIONS OF FAITH AND ORDER.” If they do not exclude deniers of what they say, they are not creeds at all! Our joining is supposed to “support and strengthen the Reformed witness” of other churches in the alliance, but how can we strengthen what we have denied by joining the organization? The warm welcome that we are assured is hardly adequate reason to disobey the stern injunction of God’s Word, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” (2 Cor. 6:14).

The Committee in an appendix (p. 156) attempts to meet objections and justify its recommendation. Its argument totally relativizes every doctrine, stating that we must “recognize that every church of Christ, as part of His Body, manifests evidence of the work of the Spirit of Christ within it, by which the CRC may be enriched through contact and dialogue.” Notice how explicitly this contradicts every warning that Christ and His apostles issued against “false Christs and false prophets” who “will deceive many” (Matt. 24:11), attacking the church from outside like “savage wolves” and misleading its members from within (Acts 20:29 ff.). Of such warnings the committee wants to hear nothing, as it determinedly takes us into the fellowship with the betrayers of the gospel that it has long sought. It tries to justify our alliance with what it admits are Liberals “which are very tolerant of heresy” with the excuse that these are only “a very small minority” (p. 159)—as though that justified joining them! The Lord did not say “Do not be yoked together with too many unbelievers.” In false teaching we face a deadly threat, not of numbers but of character—like CANCER, the Bible says (2 Tim. 2:17). The committee tries to minimize the seriousness of this ALLIANCE with the excuse that we can witness to the unbelievers after we join them.

The committee also reviews the histo ry of our joining the National Association of Evangelicals in 1943 and leaving it 8 years later, recommending that we rejoin. Some ofus appreciated the NAE while we were members and regretted the decision to leave it. Although there are problems in such affiliations, the objections to affiliation with unbelievers such as those in the Alliance does not apply to it.²

The Reformed Ecumenical Synod, of which we are a part, is facing a crisis especially as it meets this year. Its more orthodox Reformed member denominations have been leaving it, disgusted especially with the faithlessness and immorality of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands (GKN). Those churches, irritated by continuing criticism of their misbehavior, have been demanding a radical constitutional change in the organization to make it less a “synod” and more a mere conference. In the discussions the Orthodox Presbyterians have taken a lead in trying to correct the Dutch Churches, while our delegates have tended to defend those churches. (A recent news report indicated the Orthodox Presbyterians may leave the RES this year.) This spring a basic constitutional change is to be decided, but we are given no information in this agenda (or other recentActs orAgendas of what the constitutional change is. Why the committee secrecy? What is being slipped past us?

Racism Institutionalized

A number of years ago when an anti-racism movement was in the public eye our churches got into the act by appointing a special “race committee” to remove racism. Its activities have over the years especially taken the form of offering special incentives, scholarships and other enticements for non-whites only. To help needy people and deserving students may be a good thing, but to give or withhold such help only on the basis of the color of one’s skin is nothing but hypocrisy—doing exactly what one claims to be opposing and an obviously stupid and very wasteful procedure. Despite objections, one synod after another has continued to increase the quota appropriations for this privileged committee, leaving it free to spend its money for whatever may advance non-white races, and to give special incentives and encouragement to developing “minority leadership.” Non-whites can be ordained with half the seminary education of whites and special efforts are being made to persuade minority churches to join the denomination. Traces of this “reverse racism” turn up throughout the agenda, as agencies report on what they are doing to increase minority leadership. This hypocrisy has become immutable policy as the church prides itself on its unique multiracial programs. It seems futile to point out that God is no respecter of persons and hates partiality, as the denominational establishment persists in advancing the Liberal slogans of “affirmative action.” The report of the race committee (SCORR pp. 213–220) would have us be grateful that an increasing number of students are accepting our racially discriminatory scholarships and it asks for a $6.20 per family quota (a budget of about a half million dollars).

Consequences of this our peculiar racist policy become almost hilarious as one reads the agenda account of our dealings with South Africa (pp. 179–184). In our eagerness to join the popular Liberal chorus of denunciation of that country and show that we are not the same “Dutch Reformed” people as they, our synod a few years ago denounced their (“apartheid”) race discrimination as a “heresy” (while our persistent and blatant discrimination in favor of non-whites is presumably a mark of our superior enlightenment, or perhaps “sanctification”). To deal with and admonish those South African Churches for their racist behavior, the synod in 1985 instructed the Interchurch Relations Committee “to establish a joint committee of four which shall include at least two multiracial members of SCORR—Imagine members of our racially discriminating committee being sent to South Africa to admonish their churches for their racial discrimination! Not surprisingly, their benevolent ministrations were received by the South Africans with something less than overwhelming enthusiasm. A professor argued that their committee “bad no authorization to drop statements approved by previous synods”—which to our reporter seemed letting “a technicality get in the way of what we . . . saw to be the will of God.” Further discussions elicited the reactions that “the synod had no right to set aside earlier statements as long as these had not been . . . proven wrong from Scripture,” and “we don’t have to listen only to foreign churches . . . .” Some remarks were “almost hostile.” “The United States is free to make its one nation if it wishes, but South Africa must be free to maintain its many nations.” The CRC is meddling in matters which it does not fully understand. “What is the CRC doing about problems in its own country . . . about secularization?” The South Africans seem to have been remarkably patient with our arrogant hypocrisy, for even the committee was ready to recommend that we not break fellowship with them before the 1989 deadline which we set before further “punishing” them. Our racist committee further recommended that if possible we have NON-WHITE representatives of the South African Churches sent to our synod in 1989. Our committee bad also been mandated to find “victims of hardship at the hands of the (South African) government” to receive our material aid. To its chagrin, neither the white nor the black churches could offer it such lists. When some asked help to construct buildings or support missionary programs, the committee judged making such gifts inappropriate. Its final suggestion was that perhaps SCORR would be in a better position to fill this part of its mandate (of making racially discriminatory gifts)! It bas plenty of experience. How our admonitions against racism must have impressed the South Africans!

The Synodical Interim Committee report (on p. 137) gives the executive salary scales which now run from a low of$21,896 to a high of $66,725. Of additional allowances, which when still reported some years ago, included other items such as substantial vacation bonuses, our report tells us nothing.

Children at the Lord’s Supper

A major item facing the synod will be two reports about children taking part in the Lord’s Supper. Since these were previously circulated among the churches and were reviewed in our March Outlook, a brief summary can be made here. The Majority Report tries to combine two contradictory views. One is that the Supper should be open to all baptized children of believers just because they· are in God’s covenant and church. The other is that they should be admitted only when they confess their personal faith, because, as the Bible teaches in 1 Cor. 11, they must do it “in remembrance” of Christ, “discerning His Body,” and “proclaiming His death.” The Minority Report, instead of trying to find a compromise between those contradictory views, argues more clearly and convincingly that admitting non-confessing children to the Supper has to be rejected, as it was by almost all the Reformed churches and that our practice of admitting to the Supper only after confession of faith should continue. The Minority appeals to the teachings of 1 Cor. 11, which the Majority tries to evade by its arguments about the covenant, connecting the Supper with Baptism and with the Passover and the supposed educational value of having children “learn by doing.” The Minority shows such arguments to be contrary to the plain teachings of the Bible and destructive to the churches’ order, discipline and evangelism, as they proved to be in the New England Congregational churches which tried to practice them. How can any Christian church have two standards of membership, one requiring members to believe in Christ and the other, in practice, making it unnecessary? Clearly the Minority view is supported by the Bible, and Reformed church history and practice.

Overture 18 from Classis Hudson asks the synod to delay deciding this matter because the churches have not been given the required six months to study it.

More Revision of Creeds

Although the Heidelberg Catechism had been recently retranslated, a committee was assigned to consider further updating it in line with the new hymnbook and to retranslate the ecumenical creeds. To state the matter more bluntly, pressure had been coming from the “feminist lobby” to replace masculine words as much as possible with “inclusive language,” which had been done in other parts of the hymnal. The committee now presents its proposed changes in the creeds (pp. 344–358). Three overtures bear on the matter. One from Lake Erie (19, p. 371) urges adopting the proposed changes so as not to further delay printing the long awaited new hymnal. One from Hudson (No. 16) urges delay so that the churches may have time to study the changes. One from Hamilton (No. 17) asks that the “inclusive language” used not be accepted. The committee making the translation argues that its “inclusive language,” substituting “human” for “man” is actually more faithful to the original German of the Catechism. Doesn’t that clinch the matter? Not necessarily. Hamilton argues that the earlier committee report considered such changes and rejected them because they are not more accurate and especially because the Scriptures (whose teachings the Catechism should reflect) use “man” in the key passages involved. Their argument is substantial, also as applied to other key Bible passages and teachings than the example they cite (Gen., 1:26, “Let us make man”). Changing “God created man good . . . so that he might know,” to “God created them good . . . so that they might know;” “God created man with the ability . . . ,” to “God created humans;” “man’s guilt,” to “what a human is guilty of,” besides being extremely clumsy, substantially change our key statements of covenant doctrine to something less Biblical. We cannot escape the individual masculines of “Just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:19) and “since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man” (1 Cor. 15:21) by grasping for clumsy substitutes and plurals. Why should we try to do it just to satisfy a few hypersensitive feminists’ prejudices?

Several overtures address problems raised by the many recent hasty changes in the church order (pp. 364 ff.). Overture 5 would make Calvin a private college and Overture 6 would have the seminary stop giving degrees designed for ministers to women.

Frustrated Appeals

Orange City, Iowa’s First Church (pp. 378 ff.) in 1986, following Church order Article 13, attempted to call the editor of our denominational Banner to give account before his consistory of his doctrinally questionable views about the Bible’s authority as we confess it in Articles V and VII of the Confession of Faith, as the Form of Subscription requires. Its requests were twice arbitrarily rejected by the consistory as lacking sufficient grounds. Its appeal in 1987 to Classis Grand Rapids East against this consistory action received the same kind of brushoff (with an irrelevant citation of a decision of the synod a number of years ago in connection with its refusal to act on our appeal in the Verhey case). The Church now calls attention to the irregularities of this procedure in the light of many contrary precedents and asks the synod to instruct the classis and consistory to do their duties according to the disciplinary rules of our church order.

Classis MinnesotaSouth asks the synod to advise the consistory of Eastern Ave. CRC of Grand Rapids to cease having women serve as adjunct elders, as it has been doing in defiance of the church order and synod decisions. It also asks the synod to instruct the classis to fulfill its duty to correct the church, which it has refused to do.

The history of these cases again repeatedly shows how the Biblical rules to protect the churches against false doctrine and practice are being regularly perverted to protect any who want to spread such false doctrine and practice. Will this synod’s actions be an exception?

Conclusion

We know that there are many faithful Christians in our churches and their agencies. But anyone who follows the decisions of our synods and the development of our bureaucracy had to be often saddened by observing bow Bible, creed and church order are regularly being ignored or perverted. When our schools compromise our Christian confession of the Creator, missionary and relief workers tum proclamation of the gospel into serving the Anti-Christian cause of Communist “liberation,” the interchuch committee allies us with the enemies of Christ, and churches and assemblies pervert discipline into promotion of anti-Christian heresy, the results begin to conform ever more closely to the church that “ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ . . .”—what we in Our Belgic Confession (Article XXIX) confess is a “false Church.” Observing the way synod after synod pursues this deviant course must drive every Bible-believing Christian to stop supporting and separate from the intolerable perversions and to seek fellowship with churches and consistories who will faithfully pray, work and fight for the opposite and ultimately triumphant cause of the Lord and His GospeL

NOTES

1. On April18 Dr. M. Hugen at a public meeting in the seminary sponsored by the women’s committee spoke on “Why I Believe the Bible Requires the Ordination of women.” He argued that the HolySpirit, who was poured out on all believers on Pentecost to make them the Lord’s prophets, was now leading us to understand that the old authoritarian barrier walls between people were broken down so that, despite some incidental “difficult” prohibiting texts, (1 Cor. 14, 1 Tim. 2, 1 Peter), all gifted people might serve in all church offices. “A project proposal entitled ‘Gender Roles: Stability and Change in the Context of a Christian Worldview’ was approved for study in the Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship during the 1989-90 academic year” (p. 27).

2. A particularly bad practice that has developed in the appointment of permanent committees is that of having committees nominate their own successors, with the result that they tend to perpetuate themselves as a small, similarly thinking clique with little relation to the large body of the church which they are supposed to represent. Note, for example, that Interchurch Relations nominates two members from Eastern A venue Church which has distinguished itself for its feminist defiance of church order, one of them, a woman who has served as an illegal associate elder, and the other, a professor who recently caricatured Abraham Kuyper and his foolish and destructive Calvinism (p. 127; cf. Feb. ‘88 Outlook and Oct. and Nov. ‘87 Reformed Journals).