Some Editorial Advice

The editor in the August 17 Banner stated that the 1979 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church “was a landmark Synod” which might become a “turning-point” in the life of the denomination. He saw it as revealing the presence of a “conservative” majority within the denomination, with which he identifies himself. Whether 1979 will prove to be a real “turning–point,” he is convinced, depends on whether and how that “conservative majority” directs and uses its power. His counsel is that this power must not be used negatively, “by going reactionary and lashing out at random against persons and trends and minds among us,” “by lopping off the head of a Verhey or a Boer, mistaken as they both seem to me to be” but positively, “by pursuing constructive programs in obedience to the Word.” “Put your energies into affirmation of the Truth of the Word and the Confessions-and error will crumple of its own inner hollowness.” He sees this proper, positive, confident, conservative course exemplified in the present policy of the “conservative” BANNER which opens its pages to the expression of a variety of contrary opinions (in contrast with the more restrictive editorial policies of other magazines such as the REFORMED JOURNAL or OUTLOOK). Somehow the conservatives by such an exclusively positive course must surmount the more adroit opposition which frustrated their efforts at the recent Synod, if 1979 is indeed to become a favorable turning–point in the life of the denomination. This is Dr. De Koster’s advice.

A Fatal Flaw

It is reassuring to have other observations about the strong conservative representation at our last synod confirmed. And the editor’s observations about the way in which that apparent conservative majority were out–maneuvered by rigged committees and parliamentary trickery can be confirmed by many observers as well as members of synod. But his suggestion as to the course the “conservative majority” in the denomination ought to adopt, despite its probably wide appeal, has, I am sure, a fundamental flaw which will ensure its failure.

The Need to Be Positive

The flaw in the advice does not lie, as I see it, in the stress on the need to be positive. We do indeed need energetic “affirmation of the Truth of the Word and Confessions” and “constructive programs in obedience to the Word.” The Lord ordered that in making “disciples of all nations” we should teach “them to observe all things which He had commanded” (Mt. 28:19, 20). His apostle taught by precept and example not to “shrink from” “declaring the whole counsel of God,” not neglecting “anything that was profitable” as he preached “repentance toward God and faith toward or Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:27, 20, 21). The definitive character of the Reformed faith has always been its effort to present and practice this complete Biblical gospel which, as the Apostle Peter put it, includes “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3) and which as Paul said, is inspired of God to be “profitable” “that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:17). I’m sure that the present malaise of our churches, which seems to make many of our members, including leaders, susceptible to t he lure of empty novelties including those of today’s Liberalism, must be the result of wide-spread and long–time neglect of thorough preaching and teaching as well as obedient practice of this “while counsel of God.” One hears plenty of complaints about the lack of that both in pulpits and in teaching programs for the children. If a live “conservative” movement is to have any substance and lasting influence it will certainly have to be initiated and sustained by such positive preaching and teaching of our Biblical and confessional Reformed faith.

Obedience to God’s Word Requires Discipline

The flaw in the editor’s advice, as I see it, lies not in his stress on such a positive program but in his presenting that positive program as an alternative to be pursued instead of trying to discipline those who in faith and life undermine or oppose this Biblically Reformed faith and life. These two are not opposites, but the first requires the second. It is impossible to really positively promote the gospel without opposing whatever forces are trying to destroy it. We are told that we must pursue “constructive programs in obedience to the Word.” That Word throughout commands us to oppose those who in faith or life turn from or lead away from the gospel and for bids us to tolerate them. Recall Paul’s warnings to “turn away from” those who “are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine” of the apostles (Rm. 16:17, cf. Tit. 3:10). Recall how he had to order the easy-going, tolerant, Corinthian church to “Put away the wicked man from among yourselves” (1 Cor. 5:13). Remember that the Lord Himself in the letters to the seven churches commended the Ephesian church because it would “not bear evil men” and tried “them that call themselves apostles, and they are not and didst find them false” and because it hated “the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” (Rev. 2:2 and 6). On the other hand, the Lord sternly rebuked the Pergamum church for tolerating “some that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication” and also “some that hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans” (2:14, 15). In the same way He rebuked the Thyatira church for tolerating “the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess; and she teacheth and seduceth my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols,” threatening to bring His own judgments on the unfaithful (2:20ff.). Consider in this connection too His concluding warnings to those who venture to tamper with His Word (22:18, 19) that they would receive His judgments and forfeit a place in His city.

It is because of such clear Biblical directions that our and other Reformed Churches have had to insist that faithful exercise of church discipline was a third “mark” of the true church, an inescapable result of the first such mark, the faithful proclamation of the gospel. To ignore that biblical principle and to explain the exercise of discipline as a mere psychological symptom of insecurity, as the editor does, completely misrepresents the matter. (He himself some time ago rightly warned against this tactic which instead of fairly meeting an argument of principle, dodges it by asking, “Do you feel threatened?”) It is not a feeling of insecurity but obedience that compels a faithful Christian church to exercise the discipline commanded by the Lord. And correspondingly, it is not a sense of confidence that moves a church to open its doors to all kinds of false teachings, but an indifference to the commands of its Lord.

He will not let us turn His church from being the “piller and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) into being a mere debating society in which all opinions have equal standing.

Love Requires Discipline

This discipline is not prompted by ill–will. To speak of “lopping off the head of a Verhey or a Boer” is to caricature and totally misrepresents the motive and purpose of the discipline which the Bible commands. We notice in Matthew 18:5,6 that it was the Lord’s love for His “little ones” that explained some of the sternest warnings he ever uttered concerning the seriousness of causing them “to stumble.” And He went on in the following verses to give instructions about how discipline must be exercised in order to prevent or remove such offenses. Dr. Verhey in his examination for ordination said that he wanted the church’s supervision. As objections to his views have three times in t he last four years been brought to the synods, the synods have three times refused to give the unambiguous answers that he and every other office-holder and member have a right to expect of them. It becomes increasingly obvious that in our time there is no more serious threat to the faith and life of the church than the current attacks on the inerrancy of the Bible. Yet the regrettable fact is that our synods, delinquent in their dealing with such cases, have been increasing the offenses rather than removing them.

The Bible teaches that God who imposes this duty to discipline will hold accountable all who neglect it. To illustrate that truth it recounts in consid.erable detail the career of Eli, ancient Israel’s high–priest and judge. Although he expressed his disapproval of the way in which his sons were disgracing their office he refused to exercise the discipline needed to stop them. For that gross neglect of duty the Lord held him accountable, and brought a judgment upon him and his house which would never end (1 Samuel 2–4).

A Vital Matter

The editor’s suggestion in a subsequent Banner that a healthy church needs both liberal and conservative minds, while it may apply to minor matters of personal taste or differences of conscience (Rm. 12), does not apply at all to the kind. of issues with which we are confronted. To say that a healthy church needs members and leaders who contradict the Bible is as foolish as to say that a body needs a disease such as cancer to maintain health. The Apostle Paul applied this comparison with a cancer (or literally “gangrene”) to the teaching of those in the early church who erred concerning the truth of the resurrection (1 Tim. 2:17).

Someone might object that it is inappropriate to apply a warning against a heresy regarding the resurrection to views such as those of Dr. Verhey which, the synod committee stated. concern in each case only a “detail” of interpretation. But that committee allegation is false, as Dr. Verhey emphatically stated in his defense in the Agenda (p. 482),

Incidentally, I do not “except” the resurrection from this kind of investigation. Indeed, if this kind of investigation demonstrated that Jesus had not been raised, I would become a Jew. The gospels stake their case on history, after all. But such an investigation, while it cannot “prove” God took Jesus from the dead, clearly demonstrates that it is not historically unreasonable to accept such a claim.

Notice that by this kind of “critical” investigation which he insists must be applied to every Bible fact and teaching including the resurrection he also admits nothing can be “proved;” it can only be shown to be “not historically unreasonable.” In other words, not mere “details,” but everything in our faith is made debatable by his method.

The last part of the Dutton appeal, which has been ignored by the consistory, classis and synods dealing with the case, shows how this critical approach is applied also to the whole field of Christian moral activity. There this view attacks explicitly the Reformed principle that the Bible is our only rule of faith and life as that is most clearly confessed in Article 7 of our Belgic Confession.

The fact of the matter is that the “higher critical” attack on the Bible, which our churches excluded in their dealing with Dr. Janssen a half century ago and which they now tolerate in the expressed views of Dr. Verhey, Dr. Boer and the number of professors in our college and seminary who defend and use this method, is as destructive of the Christian faith and life as were those early errors regarding the resurrection. As in the case of a cancer, the destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but if nothing is done to stop this “critical” handling of the Bible it eventually destroys every teaching of the Christian faith. While not everyone who entertains these views may pursue them to their final conclusions, a little study of the history of formerly orthodox, but now liberal churches clearly s hows the destructive process at work “eating” its way through the Christian faith and life “like a cancer” until nothing firm or sound is left.

A responsible doctor, on becoming aware that a patient is suffering from cancer, even in a limited area, immediately begins to use whatever methods seem most promising to stop the disease. He tries to save what he can, but sometimes, seeing the life of the patient threatened, he may resort even to radical surgery. The Bible warns us that false doctrines which attack the fundamentals of our faith, such as those regarding the Lord, His resurrection, and his Word, must be opposed and corrected as effectively and quickly as possible. If possible, those who err are to be corrected; if they persist in their error, the church, to be faithful, to its Lord and to save its own faith and life, may have to resort to the surgery of discipline. The Lord, speaking about this matter, said that it is better to lose even a hand or foot “rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire” (Matt. 18:8). Refusal to use this remedy which the Lord ordered is like temporizing with cancer hoping that it will go away of itself. The disease doesn’t go away, but gets worse. And delay in treatment may be fatal.

Prospect

If better days are to come for our churches we must not only, as the Banner editor suggested, pursue a positive program of teaching and preaching God’s Word, but also restore the long and widely neglected discipline of faith and life which God’s Word commands. One can hardly see how better times can come for the churches as long as they let their leaders go on denying the Bible which they say they believe, and let those who are training their future ministers teach them to deny it. A “conservative majority” will have to stop the official doubletalk of the church and have to oppose and discipline error, if it is effectively to serve the Gospel and is to expect the Lord to prosper it.