This is one of several articles I have written about whether the Christian Reformed Church should ally itself with the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC). It is written upon the editor’s request. I do not relish disagreeing so strongly with the members of the Interchurch Relations Committee (IRC) which has been promoting this matter. But the cause of true ecumenism must be given preference over personal feelings of friendship and esteem.

What is WARC?

As its name indicates, WARC considers itself an alliance of Reformed churches. Nowhere in its publications, constitution or by–laws is any question raised about the Reformed character of the alliance’s members. Yet, as the IRC report frankly admits, the theological opinions of the member churches cover all “theological options.” In today’s context this means that WARC harbors churches which tolerate error. It is with these kinds of churches that we are now being asked-to “further all endeavors to proclaim the Word of God faithfully, and to order the life and worship of the Church in obedience to the Word” (Constitution art. III, Agenda, p. 145).

This is one of the reasons why the Rev. Gerard Bouma, one of IRC’s members, dissents from the committee’s recommendation. Heargues, and rightly so, that “the CRC ought to abstain from membership as long as WARC admits on an equal basis . . . churches where denial of the faithful proclamation of the Word of God is not militated against, and where denials of some of the most basic and crucial doctrines of Christianity are tolerated” (p. 120).

WARC’s watchword bas always been inclusivism and tolerance. Marcel Pradervand, long-time General Secretary of WARC, states in his history of theWARC that “the founders of the Alliance had no narrow Reformed spirit and they were anxious to bring together all Evangelical Christians” (A Century ofService, p. 25). What he fails to state is that WARC also harbors churches whose views are anything but evangelical. The chief spokesman for the United Church of Christ, the Rev. Avery Post, said in an interview with the Grand Rapids Press of Sept. 20, 1986: “The death knell may have been sounded and some people think American liberal churches are dying. But I don’t see it that way. Things don’t look gloomy from where I am.” The United Church of Christ is one of the “Reformed” churches which will be the CRC’s “ally” when we, what God may graciously forbid, join with WARC. This church is one of the US’s leading liberal churches. Are we, together with that kind of church, or with the United Church of Canada, going to “proclaim the Word of God faithfully” and to order the churches’ life “in obedience to the Word”? How much wishful thinking can one engage in?

   

Principle Should Decide

But, the IRC observes, there are so many other churches in WARC and with them we may feel some “kinship.” These churches presumably will benefit from our Reformed input, together with that of the Reformed Church in America. This reasoning is pragmatic. It leaves out of account the principle at stake here. What the CRC is asked to do is to join an alliance of allegedly Reformed churches, churches of which the CRC itself says that they belong to, the “circle 2” churches of which the 1944 report on Ecumenicity spoke so well. These are churches that have a Reformed background but have become delinquent either in doctrine or practice. In 1944 the CRC said that we ought to deal with these kinds of churches on an individual basis, approaching them in love and patience, without a feeling of superiority or Pharisaism, seeking to correct and restore them.

The IRC, on the other hand, while appealing to the same Report of 1944, proposes that the CRC join  with these churches, some of whom are delinquent, that we form an alliance with them. Now an alliance is what the word says. It is a solemn covenant, a league. Those covenanting have common aims and share similar ideals. These they seek to realize in their alliance. But the orthodoxy of the CRC with its clear cut confessions can never share the same ideals as the liberalism of these United Churches.

The Alliance Not a Forum

The IRC makes it appear that the Alliance is really a forum for dialogue. But dialogue is not the issue. As far back as 1944 we have been committed to dialogue with all sorts of churches, non-Reformed Reformed churches, Protestant churches that have never been Reformed such as the Baptists, and fmally, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. A fme ideal, based on sound principles of ecumenism, but never put into practice.

Dialogue is not the issue. The issue is that we are asked to become allies with churches with which we cannot be if we are true to our signature under the Form of Subscription. The Alliance demands of its members that they leave everything that is “narrow” or “exclusive” out of the confession (Art. II, p. 145). Moreover, it says that the member churches of WARC must “recognize that the Reformed tradition is a biblical, evangelical ethos, rather than any narrow and exclusive definition of faith and order.”

WARC Restricts Confessional Witness

The IRC has taken note of some of the objections I and others have voiced and in an appendix (pp. 156 ff.) it has sought to counter these objections. The gesture itself is appreciated. I wish it would have been done earlier, in the papers in which I wrote. But there is at least some gain in an attempt to meet the other’s mind. However, IRC’s explanation of the matter just raised the matter of “ethos” rather than.. etc., is baffling, to say the least. The IRC maintains that it is not WARC’s purpose to say that the Reformed tradition is only ethos and that hence the member churches must reject narrow and exclusive definitions of the faith. (p. 160). I call this a baffling explanation, because my dictionary tells me that the word “rather” means: “preferable from the point of view of wisdom, justice, etc.; more properly, more correctly speaking.” In other words, WARC wants us to say that our Reformed tradition, which in a confessional church like the CRC is clearly expressed in the Forms of Unity, is “more properly speaking,” an ethos.

Contradiction With Form of Subscription

If I say of a n object that it is yellow rather than green I mean to say that one should not call this object anything else than yellow. Likewise, the WARC says that the Reformed tradition (read: the Reformed confessions) is an “ethos” and that one should therefore not appeal to the confessions’ “narrow” and “exclusive” definitions as he seeks to accomplish the Alliance goals together with the other allies. This is completely contradictory to the tenor of the Form of Subscription which calls on all office bearers to diligently teach the Reformed doctrines and to oppose and refute all that militates against them. If we should ever join WARC we would thus be saying one thing in Grand Rapids, but quite the opposite things in Geneva, where WARC has its headquarters. Such procedure is unworthy of the Christian demand for integrity and a direct attack upon true ecumenism.

Joining WARC Contrary to True Ecumenism

If the CRC should ever enter into this Alliance it would not thereby begin to fulfill its ecumenical task more fully; it would be abandoning and surrendering it. WARC is presently engaged in a large number of ecumenical conversations, with Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Disciples of Christ and Roman Catholics. These are the groups with which we should have dialogued since 1944. But we failed to do so. However, WARC, with its hybrid character, doctrinally speaking, and with its insistence on inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness, is no substitute for the ecumenical task which is ours as church of Jesus Christ. Out of compassion for the erring and out of concern for biblical truth, we must stay out of WARC’s embrace. It is the highest time we start pursuing the lofty goals of “1944.”

The IRC has served the denomination well in certain respects. Its approach to the Dutch and South African churches has generally been helpful and correct. But in this matter, as well as in that of the R eformed Church in America, it is leading the church astray. It is, in effect, seeking to bring the CRC into the mainstream of the ecumenical movement where a c0nfessional church such as the CRC simply cannot be. It should also be remembered that two of the long time members of the IRC, Dr. J. Kromminga and Rev. C. Boomsma, are on record as holding that the CRC could join the World Council of Churches without compromise of principle. Rev. Boomsma is going to defend the IRC position before Synod. He and I are on friendly terms, but in this we are completely opposed.

What Alliances Are For

Contrary to what the IRC is saying and repeating, the idea of “witnessing” to the Reformed Faith as we understand it is precluded by the very structure of this alliance, or of any alliance for that matter. Allies do not always have to see eye to eye in all things. But the specific purpose for allying oneself with others is not to bring one’s allies to reason or to make them alter their views. Rather, it is to fight a common foe or to pursue a common goal. IRC uses the example of the USA allying itself with the USSR in WWII. No poorer example for IRC’s position could be chosen. Russia did not ask the USA to tone down its emphasis on the Bill of Rights and the USA did not stipulate that Russia should stop being so narrow or exclusive about its communism. The two simply wanted to get Hitler and his hordes to their knees. An alliance is of that nature. It is not for “witnessing” within.

But WARC asks an initial surrender of doctrinal exclusiveness from its members. And it speaks of common goals which simply are not common between orthodox churches such as the CRC and liberal churches.

Changing The LawWith a Case Pending

By adopting the Ecumenical Charter last year the CRC has virtually changed the law while the case was pending. The “law” we had was that of 1944. The case was that of membership in WARC. IRC did not like aspects of that “law,” so it rewrote it and had this new law adopted by Synod of 1987. IRC now appeals to the new “law” to argue its case, which it could not have done had the law not been rewritten. This, it seems to me, is a travesty of all good jurisprudence, which should have no place in the church of God.

No Interest in Churches

Since 1972 the matter of membership inWARC has been before the church. It was placed there by the IRC when it had received two “positive” reports by individuals who had bad dealings with WARC. Neither of the two expressed themselves on the question of membership (Acts 1972, p. 291). The initiative bas come entirely from IRC. From 1972 to 1980 it mentioned this matter annually in its report; there was not a single individual, consistory or classis that demanded action. This deafening silence was getting too much for the IRC and it therefore asked the synod of1981 to “encourage” the IRC to make the study ofWARC which IRC wanted to make anyway. So much for the two “mandates” for the synods of 1972 and 1981. The matter of WARC does not live in the churches. It should never have been raised in the way it was. Yet, affiliating with WARC will affect our church life on all levels. It will do so for ill and not for good.

Ecumenism The Right Way

If there was ever a parting of the ways for the CRC it is now. Already we have gone the wrong way some distance. We are now in ecclesiastical fellowship with RCA, a church which presently goes through an identity crisis of major proportions, prompting the church to have an Identity Task Force. This church, according to editorials in the church’s paper The Church Herald, now says of itself that “there is no commonly held belief that characterizes members of this denomination. In other words, no reference any more within the RCA to confessionally held truths. Simply a fog of incoherent beliefs. Yet we are in full fellowship with this church and are going to have a big joint event next year that will serve to make the fog even greater.

Let us return from ill chosen paths. It is never too late to do so. The cause of ecumenism is too noble to be served byWARC’s fateful compromises. While saying “no” to WARC, let us reaffirm our commitment to the principles set forth in 1944. And let us then get up and practice these principles. This has never been done before. So it is high time we get busy. One of the things we can do at this synod, beside voting theWARC proposal down, is to demand of IRC that it includes among its nomination for new members, people of all opinions in the church. It is gratifying to see at least one minority position coming from IRC at this time. If more of that went on, the church could then make up its mind in light of all the facts and the cause of the Reformed faith would be immeasurably strengthened, not just internally but everywhere. We all have “promises to keep.” Let us keep them with renewed vigor and with commitment to the faith of the fathers.

Marten H. Woudstra is a retired professor of Old Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary.