WHAT SHALL WE DO ABOUT THE BAPTISM FORM?

Last year’s synod asked that our consistories discuss the proposed new form for infant baptism and express their reactions to it. That request is likely being overlooked by many busy consistories. Yet the view of baptism that will be presented to the churches every time a child is baptized is a matter of considerable importance. If we fail to give any attention to Synod’s request now, we shall have only ourselves to blame if a form is eventually prescribed that is less than satisfactory. It seems to me that this matter deserves attention, critical attention, now.

Some of the weaknesses of our old form are well known; The heavy, sometimes awkward phrasing, the improperly scholastic introduction of our obligations: “Whereas in all covenants there are contained two parts, therefore are we…,” the prayer “that they…may leave this life, which is nothing but a constant death,” the suggestion of presumptive regeneration that appears in the concluding prayer—these and more peculiarities have been repeatedly cited as calling for improvement.

Does the proposed new form offer us something better? A critical discussion of it provokes the following observations:

(1) It is generally characterized by a shift of cmphasis from the objective teaching of the Scriptures, which, though sometimes awkwardly, is expressed in the old, to a subjective preoccupation with the emotions of the worshipper. At times, as in the “Prayer of Preparation” this is carried so far that it becomes an affectation bordering on the theatrical a fault to be especially avoided in prayer. What would prompt one to use such florid language as “a faith that can stand the light of day and endure the dark of night”? Or what is meant by “drink deeply of the well of living water”?

(2) There is in the new form, as the committee secretary has informed the churches (The Banner, Jan. 23, 1970, p. 4) a deliberate effort to minimize the teaching element in the sacrament, which the biblical characterization of the sacrament as a “sign” indicates should be stressed. (Romans 4:11; cf. Matt. 28:20, “teaching them…”)

(3) The doctrine of sin is minimized and that of judgment disappears from the form.

(4) Titling the largest part of the form “Promises” fails to do justice to other essential elements of the sacrament such as its implied command, “Repent and be baptized.” (Cf. “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” Acts 2:38; Luke 3:3.)

(5) The new form makes a needless and unwarranted concession to the notion that Christ was immersed. (Prayer of Preparation; compare the committee secretary’s report in the Jan. 30 Banner, p. 19.)

(6) There is no explanation of the reasons for infant baptism as there is in the old form, a deficiency the more serious because of the general lack of acquaintance in North American Christianity with the reasons for practicing it.

(7) Parents are no longer asked to acknowledge that their children are included in the Lord’s covenant and church.

(8) The new form is more vague and less definite than the old, specifically in the vow in which it replaces “acknowledge the doctrine which is contained in the Old and New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian faith, and which is taught here in this Christian church, to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation” with the relatively undefined and weaker “affirm the truth of the Christian faith which is proclaimed in the Gospel and confessed in this Church of Christ.”

(9) The covenant responsibility of Christian parents to instruct their children and cause them to be instructed in the Christian faith does not get the clear recognition that both the Scriptures and the needs of our time demand, as they do in the old form.

A comparison of the two forms would appear to indicate that the old form despite its weaknesses, which should be remedied, is on the whole better than the new. The churches would therefore be better served by improving the old than by adopting the new either as a substitute or as an alternative to it. The common use of one good form at such crucial points in the churches’ worship as the administration of the sacraments would better promote the spiritual unity and health of the churches than the use of two or more diverse and inferior ones.

DENOMINATIONAL PERJURY

We are not accustomed to thinking of the church which is our spiritual home and which we love as guilty of something criminal. But before we dismiss the charge implied in the title as preposterous let us just look at a few facts.

Our Office Holders’ Promise

Whenever anyone assumes the office of minister, elder or deacon in our churches he signs the “Form of Subscription” to our Confessions of Faith (which is found in the back of our Hymnals). In doing so he binds himself saying:

“We…promise diligently to teach and faithfully to defend the aforesaid doctrine….”

“We declare, moreover, that we not only reject all errors that militate against this doctrine and particularly those which were condemned by the above mentioned Synod (of Dordt), but that we are disposed to refute and contradict these and to exert ourselves in keeping the church free from such errors.”

Our Current Missionary Practice

What are our churches, all of whose office holders have made this solemn commitment doing about keeping that promise? On our largest and fastest growing foreign mission field we are today officially full partners in and giving complete support to (the “T.C.N.N.”) a school that Our missionaries led in setting up to teach prospective ministers Baptist, Anglican, Brethren, Lutheran and Methodist doctrines as well as what “Reformed” doctrines can in the opinion of the head of the school be harmonized with such an ecumenical program! And some of these doctrines which this school was established to teach are the very doctrines condemned as heresy in the Canons of Dordt which we have promised especially to try to keep out of the churches! Can one honestly call that kind of policy anything else but “voluntary violation of an oath” or “perjury”?

How Did It Happen?

A little review of the tortuous history that preceded this decision helps us to understand how we came to make it but does not excuse it. Our churches originally took over responsibility for a mission field in Africa from an interdenominational mission (The Sudan United Mission) with the understanding that we would both cooperate with that body and maintain the Reformed character of our work. Our missionary leadership on the field, however, has over the years shown itself considerable-more concerned about ecumenical cooperation than about maintaining faithfully the biblical doctrines of the Reformed faith, and Synods from time to time had to resist and warn against this tendency. When this missionary leadership had to train pastors for the church which was developing on the field it established a seminary which was not committed to the Reformed faith but which was dedicated to teaching all of the diverse beliefs held by the cooperating groups. Our Synod in 1959 after very thorough study of the whole matter decided that “In response to the invitation to be a member of the TCNN Synode expresses its appreciation, but regrets that in view of its total commitment to the Reformed faith it cannot see its way clear to be co-responsible for the college which may present many different doctrines.” It instructed its Board and missionaries to work toward “establishing a Reformed Theological Seminary.” (Acts 1959, pp. 46, 47.) And so that and subsequent synods, although continuing to loan a missionary professor to the TCNN and even to pay most of the costs of students from our mission who were studying there, continued to regard this as a temporary expedient and to maintain that what our commitment to the Reformed faith demanded was a seminary that should teach it without compromise. In spite of these decisions of our synods our missionary leadership on the field continued to work for the united school and to oppose the development of one that would be committed to the Reformed faith.

Some years ago our churches, in addition to the field in which we had previously been working in Nigeria, took over from the Dutch Reformed Church Mission of South Africa the responsibility for work among the Tiv tribe in which they had been engaged for 40 years. These South African Reformed missionaries had been more exclusive in their commitment to the Reformed faith than our more ecumenically oriented workers. The Tiv Church, the “fastest growing church in the world” facing a desperate need for ministers (it had only 30 pastors for over 160,000 church attendants!) about three years ago began asking our church for help to get a Reformed Seminary to train pastors. The TCNN was too small to meet a need of such proportions and, even more serious, as the letter of the Tiv churches to our Synod of 1968 stated was this consideration:

“We desire a positive Reformed training for our youth, something which cannot be done in TCNN because of its very character. This, in fact is our greatest concern and the first reason why we want our own Reformed Seminary.” (Acts 1968, p. 96.)

The missionary leadership on the field, in effort to head off any movement toward a Reformed Seminary, rushed a proposal to our Synod to gets its full support for an enlarged TCNN. The majority of Synod, now plainly less concerned about maintaining the Biblical doctrines of the Reformed faith than previous synods had been, gave its endorsement to full participation in the union school and continued delaying tactics in dealing with the legitimate request of the Tiv church. And so the majority of the 1968 Synod finally permitted itself to be pressured into accepting a course that betrays its own confessions of faith.

A Challenge to the Evangelical Character of the TCNN

Before the Synod of 1968 made its decision abandoning the position of previous Synods-which had insisted on “total commitment to the Reformed faith” in this matter, one of our missionaries, Rev. T. Monsma, in a term of teaching at the comparatively small TCNN had become aware that some of the instruction being given there could not be harmonized with an orthodox view of the Bible but reflected liberal “higher exegetical” theories. He wrote in his semiannual report to the Board of Foreign Missions, dated March 4, 1969:

“The problem of divergent teachings at the Theological College of Northern Nigeria first came to my attention during December, 1967, and January, 1963, while I was serving on the staff there. The extent of the problem became more apparent as the months passed by. There is in much of the teaching at TCNN a willingness to accept uncritically much of what the higher critics have said regarding the authorship, unity, and authority of the Scriptures. There are also divergencies from the evangelical position in other doctrinal matters, but I feel that the attitude toward higher criticism is the root problem. I could not reconcile these teachings with the statement that the TCNN is an evangelical school.” (Acts, 1969, pp. 514, 515.)

When he felt compelled to object to this kind of teaching he was first persuaded to leave the matter to the TCNN administration to handle. His objections were kept “bottled up” by that school administration until after our 1968 Synod, assured of the fine evangelical character of the school, had decided to give it unqualified support. When it became apparent that the TCNN administration would not do anything about the complaint, Rev. T. Monsma felt that he must in good conscience bring the case to the attention of our missionary administration on the field. The Nigeria General Conference appointed a committee of missionaries to investigate the series of charges. That committee was assured by the TCNN staff that their personal views and classroom teaching were more orthodox than the higher critical views expressed in the textbooks and other printed materials which Rev. T. Monsma had cited as grounds for objections. On one of the criticisms, although the committee observed that “terminology used in reference to Scripture in The Christian Faith by M. Thomasen (a long-time teacher at TCNN) differs from the usual evangelical terminology” and it noted “with concern the lack of a study of inspiration and of the Scripture’s witness to itself which one might expect to find in a course of introduction to theology,” the committee judged that the notes were evangelical. The committee was satisfied with the explanations given by the TCNN staH and reached two conclusions: The first was a recommendation to the TCNN administration “that in presentation of material in printed form, the evangelical position be clearly set forth in opposition to other positions.” The second was an apology for the suspicions regarding the TCNN. (Agenda 1970, p. 245.)

Another more telling verdict had been reached a year earlier by the Executive Committee of the Tiv church which has had to rely on the TCNN to train its more highly educated candidates for the ministry. In May 1969 that committee recorded its dissatisfaction regarding the teachings at TCNN: “It is not the desire of the NKST (Tiv Church) to separate from the TCNN or the Tarfaya (fellowship of churches to whom the TCNN belongs). But this separation is coming of its own accord because the teaching at TCNN is no longer the true teaching of the Bible. If this erroneous teaching will continue, NKST will not agree. This is the reason for separation. “The NKST Synod of 1968 examined TCNN students. They said that not all the Bible is the Word of God. And they also said that Moses did not write the Pentateuch.” It should surprise no one that this school, not tied to any specifically Reformed (or any other church) confession should be equally difficult to hold to any less clearly defined “evangelical” position. The Issue of Our Reformed Commitment Raised and Dismissed It should he observed that even if there were no question about the generally evangelical character of the TCNN, unqualified participation in and support of such a school which must by its very nature as an ecumenical institution teach the Arminian doctrines held by some of the churches it represents, would still betray our Confessions and contradict the promises we have made before God to keep these false doctrines out of the churches. Last year the attention of the Synod was called to these facts in two protests against the 1968 decision. (Acts 1969, pp. 525, 526, 531, 532). The protests pointed out that 9ur fun participation in and support of TCNN “contradicts the promises every office holder in our churches and every delegate to the synod, in particular, makes in signing our Form of Subscription to our Confessions.” The protests further recalled that this contradiction had been recognized by previous synods, especially that of 1959, and had restrained those synods from taking any such action, and that this issue of principle had been completely ignored by the 1968 Synod in the grounds it gave for its decision. Now that the issue of principle was raised what would the Synod do about it? The protests were rejected on three grounds: The first was… “a. The synod of 1968 exercised its prerogative to change the decision of the synod of 1959 on the basis of its own reflection of the issue and in the light of historical developments since the synod of 1959.” Notice how completely this evades the point at issue. The fact that one synod can, of course, change the decision of another says exactly nothing about the rightness of the decision. And a loose reference to “historical developments” is equally irrelevant to the point at issue unless those “historical developments” are that our churches no longer believe what we still say we believe! This consideration of “historical developments” is only to the point if lying has become legitimate in the decade since 1959. In the second ground the Synod attempts to advance something a bit more substantial. It states: “b. The nature of our participation in TCNN is not in conflict with our commitments in the Form of Subscription as evidenced by the doctrinal basis of the Constitution of the TCNN.” Let us take a closer look at that “doctrinal basis of the TCNN.” It is available to us in the Agenda for Synod 1970, p. 244. The first thing that one observes is its extreme brevity. There are 8 short allusions to such doctrines as the Trinity, the incarnation, atonement and return of Christ, total depravity of men, justification by faith, the work of the Holy Spirit, the future, the inspiration, authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures, the Christian ministry and sacraments. A little closer reading reveals something very odd about two of the items. “2. The incarnation of the Son of God, His atoning blood, and reign, and His personal return.” Why is there no reference in this article on Christ to his all-important resurrection? We read on to item 6 and find this remarkable sequence: “6. The immortality of the soul, the resurrection of Christ, with the eternal bliss of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the wicked.” Notice that where this item deals with men and we would expect to find some reference to the resurrection of the dead we find instead “the resurrection of Christ”! How does one account for this anomaly? A comparison of this “Doctrinal Basis” with the version submitted to our mission Board a decade ago makes it apparent that these oddities of Articles 2 and 6 are the results of some rather remarkable deletions. The earlier version of these two articles read: “ii) The incarnation of the Son of God, His atoning blood, His bodily resurrection, His mediatorial intercession and reign, and His personal return.” “vi) The immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the judgment of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ, with the eternal bliss of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the wicked.” In the later versions of the Basis, cited at least since 1963, the phrases “His bodily resurrection, His mediatorial intercession” and “the body, the judgment of the world by our Lord Jesus” have simply been cut out! And the result is this mutilated and illogical jumble that seems to have been good enough to serve the TCNN as a confession in so far as they needed one for at least the last seven years! One wonders why reference to the bodily resurrection of Christ and his mediatorial intercession and the believers’ resurrection of the body and the judgment of the world by Christ have been deleted from this already fragmentary confession. Certainly these are not matters of indifference to any evangelical Christian! But even more significant for us than the curiosities of this “basis” is the fact that last year’s Synod appealed to this fragmentary and mangled confession as a proof that in identifying ourselves with it we are keeping our promises to “exert ourselves” in keeping Arminianism out of the church! Could anything be more obviously ridiculous? The third ground given by the synod for rejecting the protest is: “c. Within the cooperative framework of the TCNN full freedom is allowed to our representative on the staff to provide a reformed training to the students of our churches in Nigeria.” This consideration is just as little to the point as the others. The fact that Reformed teaching is tolerated at the TCNN along side of teachings that may at various points contradict it by no means proves that we are keeping the promises we made in our form of subscription by joining it. 1n that Form we did not promise merely to tolerate true doctrines! We promised to oppose false ones and to try to keep the church free from them! Instead of proving its faithfulness to its subscription by this argument, when the Synod was ready to water down the demands of that form from opposing false doctrines to merely tolerating those that are true, was it not showing rather clearly the degree of its own apostasy? It seems to me that it said rather loudly that it would no longer oppose false teachings. As far as it was concerned it would now settle for tolerating truth along side of falsehood in the church! If any further proof were needed that our Churches in officially identifying themselves with the TCNN in 1968 were guilty of perjury to their promises regarding their own confessions, the Synod of 1969 by the irresponsible way in which it answered the protests has given it. And so we are officially committed to being part of an institution that compromises the faith that we confess and we continue officially to hold back from giving the help being asked by our Tiv sister church to get the adequate seminary it needs to train its leadership in that faith. One hears of much discussion from time to time about our churches’ relative ineffectiveness in evangelistic outreach—we lose members faster than we gain them. To anyone who considers the kind of course we are steering in such missionary matters as the TCNN there is little room for being mystified by our evangelistic failures. When we increasingly in principle and ill practice contradict the faith we claim to hold we can hardly expect either the respect of men or the favor of God. That faith is the faith of aggressive and uncompromising commitment to the full gospel. The Lord has blessed and will continue to bless that kind of faith. But unless we heartily return to it, the future of our churches will be as bleak as the history of others who preceded us first in compromising and then in denying the gospel.