John Vander Ploeg, Jr., President of Ship-Pac Corporation of Kalamazoo, and former President of the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee, is the son of Rev. John Vander Ploeg, the former editor of THE OUTLOOK. This is his afternoon address at the Oct. 1, 1981, annual meeting of the Reformed Fellowship in the Kelloggsville Church.

It is a special privilege to address this group regarding the Synod of 1981 and my feelings about it. Synod was interesting, frustrating and eye-opening.

It will be my purpose today to give some impressions of Synod and, I suppose, of our denomination and its present situation. In addition, I will be presumptuous enough to suggest some new approaches for the future, especially in relation to the role of elders in our denomination.

First of all then, some impressions that made an impact on me might be of some interest to you.

A Very Political Body

Synod and the participants constitute a very “political” body at work. Perhaps some examples would be of interest. The advisory committee on Interchurch Relations which I was privileged to chair had as its main concern the relationship of the CRC with the GKN church in the Netherlands, of particular concern to the committee was the matter of their permitting “practicing” homosexuals to take Communion in their churches.

We spent many hours listening to two official representatives from the GKN and to our seminary ad. visor, Dr. John Kromminga. One of the men from the Netherlands admitted that it was “possible” that two homosexuals had been “married” in one of their churches and it was also “possible” that at least one of those two was preaching in their church.

The committee decided to recommend quite a strong stand including the discontinuance of granting permission to GKN pastors to preach in the CRC and to no longer permit free participation in communion on the part of GKN members coming to a CRC. So much for background.

Rev. Clarence Boomsma, chairman of our Denominational Interchurch Relations Committee arranged for the two delegates from the GKN to speak on the floor of Synod on Saturday morning. They both made emotional pleas for tolerance and delay. A brief debate was held but we soon adjourned for the weekend.

Our committee planned to have several members speak on Monday morning in support of our position. Monday arrived and the Chair called on Rev. Boomsma to present the recommendations of the standing committee, claiming precedence over our advisory committee. He spoke eloquently, not from the traditional side of the auditorium but rather, from the special podium reserved for committee repartees. (The reason for the move, he said, was to give all present a better chance to hear.)

Almost immediately after he finished, a delegate moved to “call the question.” That move was successful and only one of our many speakers had the opportunity to speak in support of the advisory committee. It was a brilliant move on the part of Rev. Boomsma and his supporters but it had the effect of blunting the many hours of work done by a fine committee.

At the next break, I told Rev. Boomsma that he was the ablest politician I had ever faced. I went on to say that I thought he had done a disservice to the denomination. His response was, “I don’t consider myself a politician. I prefer to think of myself as a statesman.”

Influence of the Seminary

The second major impression made on me was that our seminary exerts a very big influence on the synod, often on the wrong side of the issues. Elders especially, are intimidated by seminary professors. My observation was that they not only supported bad positions but they also lacked real ability and leadership.

Minimizing Elders

Thirdly, elders, on the other hand, are a very small influence. They often would speak–up in our committee with what seemed to be very sound and well thought out positions, yet, on the floor of synod, with a few good exceptions, they seemed to prefer to let the clergy do the debating.

I believe more elders should be offered leadership roles in the synod. They should be given the opportunity to hold an equal number of officer positions and committee chairmanships. We had many qualified elders at the Synod of 1981 but they were not given the chance to lead.

I was also impressed by the fact that we do have many talented people in our denomination, especially in our major denominational agencies. The top administrators and middle managers of our mission boards, The Back to God Hour, CRWRC and our colleges are among the most able men I have ever met and we should thank God for them.

Increasing Polarization

Finally, one gets an impression that our denomination is continuing to polarize around two sets of positions that seem to drift ever farther apart. Our synod seemed to be unable to make any firm decisions. We seem preoccupied with the status quo forever patching a leaking ship. That sounds like a lot of bad news. Much of it is. If it is true, what will the future bring for the CRC? I would like to suggest two possible courses.

Two Possible Courses

1. We could maintain our present course and keep on patching. If we do, the results will be most unpleasant.

We will continue to compromise. We will continue to be unhappy and frustrated.

We will see a further erosion of our beliefs, positions, our creeds and our church order.

Individual congregations will rebel by not paying quotas or by leaving our denomination. At the very least, they will not implement synodical decisions.

Potential conservative leaders will no longer be willing to get involved.

Pressure will continue to build for division. Already we see a movement beginning to have another seminary.

Mediocrity will be the accepted standard in our pulpits.

Finally, the ultimate calamity will arrive when God and His Holy Spirit decide to leave us.

2. Is there any other course? I believe there is. A new course that will glorify God and preserve our church will require several things:

First of all we will need alert, courageous, and well informed elders. That will require a commitment on the part of those elders and training for them to provide the knowledge.

Secondly, we will need ministers that we trained in leadership and schooled in appropriate interpretation of Scripture and how to preach it. We will need a strong organization in our church made up of ministers and lay people that will be:

1. Courageous. 2. Vocal on issues. 3. Positive (not negative) in its approach to the future. 4. Able to use the very best public relations to get the message out. 5. Be self-regenerating by attracting members of each new generation.

Finally, we will need ministers who are willing to make decisions and then be able to convince others of the rightness of those decisions.

What would the result be if we were able to follow this brave new course? The results would most certainly include the following:

We would have a renewal in the CRC that would be the most exciting thing we have ever experienced.

We would then attract talent into the ministry that would compound the renewal. We. would attract talented lay people to positions of leadership in the church. We would experience both spiritual growth and numerical growth.

Above all, we would know the real and unlimited blessings of God –that can only come when we do what is right.

Will it be easy? Nothing that is truly worthwhile is ever easy. It will be difficult, but to exert such leadership will be the most rewarding thing we could do. To follow our present course can only lead to calamity.