Courtship with the RCA

Some current developments demand that our churches give special attention to their growing ecumenical relations with other churches. Most of us are aware of a recent movement toward closer relations with the denomination from which our churches separated 130 years ago, the Reformed Church in America. A joint committee of the two denominations has for some time been discussing the relations between them. Our last synod was overtured by one consistory to bring the issues of covenant theology with reference especially to Christian education in Christian schools and of membership in such ecumenical movements as the World Council, National Council and related programs into these discussions. Our synod not only rejected that overture (relaying its substance as mere information), but also withdrew its 1985 mandate to the committee to engage the other body “in discussion of the specific theological and Christian practice issues which pose a barrier to us,” on the flimsy ground that such matters are already under discussion (pp. 613, 614)!

As these now less clearly defined moves toward closer relations proceed from our side, it is perhaps more illuminating to take notice of the way in which they are proceeding from the side of the RCA. Professor Robert Decker (in The Standard Bearer) called attention to the RCA Church Herald’s report that its General Synod took “specific steps toward the CRC, steps which the Rev. David Cooper” (who chaired that synod’s advisory committee on Christian Unity) “described as progress toward possible merger.” That General Synod also referred more frankly than the last CRC synod wanted to do to 7 issues that might need to be resolved including such matters as Christian schools, lodge membership, ecumenical relations, women ministers, elders and deacons, and intercommunion.

While the RCA plainly envisions movement toward such a merger, its attention appears to be directed much less toward this little matter of reunion with our churches than toward the much bigger efforts to remove barriers to a merger with the developing union of Liberal Lutheran churches, as well as with the United Presbyterian Church (USA), a movement that is reported to be pursued with equal vigor from the side of the Lutherans.

Local Promotion

While these union discussions are going on between church leaders, our area churches are also being vigorously encouraged to move in the same direction in their communities. At recent classes meetings they were confronted with “A Partnership Proposal to Area CRC/RCA Churches” from the joint committee of the area “to pair local RCA and CRC congregations together for the purpose of developing mutual understanding between our congregations and denominations, sharing talents and resources, and exploring areas of common concern.” A consideration advanced for the proposal was that “This . . . program will serve as a prelude to the joint meetings of our general synods in 1989.” Suggested as practical ways to implement the program were “periodic exchanges of pastors, special music, choirs, etc. ,” “joint worship services,” “joint lecture series,” joint vacation Bible schools, joint distribution of literature, joint mercy projects, partnerships in prayer, joint young peoples’ and senior “citizens’ activities, joint divorce-recovery groups,” and Bible study series. According to early reports, the churches, with few exceptions, are accepting the program.

The Ecumenical Charter

As this obviously uncritical and often unquestioning promotion of a church union is going on at local and denominational levels, our coming June synod will also be asked to adopt an “ecumenical charter” as a new guide to our relations with other churches. The charter, which was put before the churches at the 1985 synod, was the subject of the June 1986 Reformed Ecumenical Synod Theological Forum. That Forum contained an introduction by Dr. John H. Kromminga, one of the originators of the charter. He recalled that our relations with other denominations had been outlined in an 1898 decision on correspondence with other churches and on working toward some kind of international Reformed assembly. That was followed in 1944 by a more extensive report and decision envisioning contact with all kinds of churches, but seeing that as a duty to be a “teacher . . . to make them conform more closely to the demands of the Word of God” (p.6). We remember that the degree and manner of that contact was to be distinguished as these other churches were considered nearer or farther away from that standard.

A Misleading Introduction

Turning now to the report on the Charter (in the 1985 synod Agenda and Acts, pp. 237ff.) , we find it introduced by the explanation that it is needed because of changes since “forty years ago, when ecumenical relations in the Christian church in general and in the Christian Reformed Church in particular were hardly recognizable in terms of what exists today.” Yet we are to see the charter as “not so much a revision as a restatement of the position of the church” and are assured that it “is based upon broad biblical perspectives and reflects the teachings of such passages as John 17; 1 Corinthians 15; and Ephesians 4; plus a host of others.” (What is more significant, however, is that in the document there is no further allusion to these Scripture passages or effort to show that they do determine the policy being proposed.) Similarly, we are assured that “the charter reflects the teachings of the ancient creeds and the Reformed confessions (e.g., the Apostles’ Creed, Art. 9; Nicene Creed, paragraph 5; Belgic Confession, Articles XXVII to XXIX; Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 21) in their vision of one holy catholic and apostolic church,” but there is also no further allusion to the specific teachings of these creeds. Instead, although we are told that the committee intended to be consistent with the “formative positions adopted by the CRC,” in this document it was “MAKING SUCH ADJUSTMENTS IN EMPHASIS AS ARE SUGGESTED BY THE EXPERIENCE OF THE CHURCH” (emphasis, mine). In other words, what is seen as necessitating and distinguishing this charter is nothing Biblical or confessional, but our experience in the changing church situation!

It strikes the reader as strange that these preliminary items which “it is necessary to bear . . . in mind,” in order to evaluate and interpret it correctly are NOT PART OF THE CHARTER which the church is asked to approve! These necessary preliminary remarks containing—the brief allusions to three Bible passages and references to the creeds concerning the church, are not themselves part of the proposed statement about our ecumenical policy, but are designed to get a favorable hearing for it. Their role appears rather like that of a booster rocket intended to help launch the vehicle and to be dropped off as soon as it is under way!

An Unbiblical Ideal

Proceeding now to the Charter proper, (which is said to be, but is not shown to be “in obedience to Scripture and in agreement with the Reformed confessions”), we see that it begins by affirming the unity of the church as “a new humanity” in Christ. “Both the local and the worldwide church are to be one body because in Christ they are one body.” This unity is then said to ”allow for diversity in worship, theology and church order.” Since this unity must be “a unity in truth,” “in effort to overcome these differences we must not only share with others our perceptions but also be open to theirs.” We are told that “Through ecumenical dialogue we must trust God to teach us all, and thereby unite us through a deeper common grasp of his truth.” Although “the ideal form of this unity is not yet known,” it “is one of mutual renewal and acceptance through mutual giving and receiving.”

Totally lacking in this description of the one united church, “the new humanity,” is the Lord’s and His apostles’ constant differentiation of His church as people chosen “out of the world,” distinguished from the world for whom Christ does not pray, hated by the world, “because they are not of the world,” and “sanctified” (separated) through God’s truth—John 17, the very passage that is listed in the preliminary remarks, but then pointedly ignored. Totally lacking is the Bible’s incessant warning against the “false Christs and false prophets” who will “deceive many” (Matt. 24: 11, 24), and against the false teachers who would arise from outside and from within the churches to mislead them (Acts 20:29 and 30). The Bible nowhere tells us, as the charter in its definitive statement does, that we must join and seek unity with everything that alleges that it is Christian. It warns us not to believe “every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (I John 4:1). The Bible sternly warns us, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness” (2 Cor. 6:14). What has completely dropped out of this proposed new ecumenical vision of the church which we are asked to adopt as our guide, is our Lord’s and His Apostles’ constant warnings against false teachings . . . the Bible’s emphasis on the sharp opposition between true and false, right and wrong, God and the devil. That antithesis is faithfully reflected in the creeds, notably in the Belgic Confession’s (Art. XXIX) sharp delineation of difference between the true and false church. To assert, as the Charter begins by saying, “In obedience to the Scriptures and in agreement with Reformed confessions,” is to begin with a lie!

In the later, practical part of the document, there are, it must be observed, some qualifying provisions . . . “perception of the truth is not a matter of indifference ” . . . “we may not compromise the Biblical message, but through dialogue must seek to come to a deeper understanding of God’s revelation”—“we reject those perceptions that so distort biblical truth that our witness to Jesus Christ is hindered in a broken world.” (W. Van’t Spijker in the Theological Forum (p. 25) calls attention to the serious confusion at this point in the Charter. The churches’ duty to confess gospel truth may not be reduced to our opinion of whether it helps or hinders evangelistic witness.) But these weak qualifications do not cancel the fundamentally flawed, compromising and misleading character of the document as a whole.

Comments from the RES

The 8 responses to the Charter in the RES Theological Forum, although speaking diplomatically as one would expect in such an academic “forum,” point to these inconsistencies in the document. The representatives of the Reformed churches who, in spite of the warnings of the RES against joining the World Council of Churches, are members of it, generally express their gratification as they see The Christian Reformed Church here supporting their own more Liberal policy. But even some of them raise critical questions about this document. Even the Dutch (GKN) representative notes “the degree of uncertainty . . . about predicting the shape which eventual unity is to take.” . . . more could have been said about being “called to testify” . . . “the question of truth is, of course, at stake” . . . “dialogue has limitations” . . . “It is our conviction that the Reformed confession is closest to the testimony of Scripture, and ought therefore to be protected , propagated, and elaborated further.” The Indonesian asks, “How far does the Charter permit the CRC to depart from its traditional stance as a confessional church” (p. 23)? Others, representing the more conservative churches are more critical. Peter Buys of South Africa remarks “that we will have to allow too many of the non-negotiable values of Jerusalem to go to rack and ruin before we will feel at home in the company of the WCC.” And he asks, “Isn’t the CRC indebted to the (other Reformed) churches to submit the charter to them before finally adopting and implementing it? . . . it may happen that the CRC wins a far-off nephew and loses a close brother.” “Dialogue without witness about the distinctiveness of the Reformed faith is senseless,” observes the Australian. The Orthodox Presbyterian misses in the document “a strong” emphasis on the Scriptures as the standard by which we and others must be judged, and warns against relativizing the truth. The representative of the Dutch CRC insists that “the proclamation of the Word as exposition and application of Holy Scripture, is central,” and simply states that he “would not (like the Charter) say without qualification that the ideal form of unity is not yet known.”

Committee or Church Charter?

The Australian representative, Henk de Waard, points out that although “the Charter repeatedly states that the ecumenical task belongs to the whole people of God . . . all members, congregations, consistories, classes and the synod of the CRC . . . the Charter does not say anything about ecumenical activity at the grass-roots level. All attention is given to the work of an Interchurch Relations Committee” (p. 14). This shrewd and accurate observation highlights one of the worst and most mischievous characteristics of the document. In our system of appointing standing committees by which they nominate their own successors, this committee, like some others , has tended to become a closed little group or “club” that over the years takes on an independent character and course of its own that has less and less to do with the churches which it is supposed to represent and serve. This document is so obviously of, by and for a committee that even an outside observer cannot help but notice it! In it the committee simply tells the church what it wants the church to say and what it wants the church to tell it to do. As this little group of people increasingly moves in ecumenical circles, it reflects more and more of the character and trends of that environment to the point where in this charter the Bible and creeds have all but fallen out of sight, to be replaced by the apostate dream of one all-inclusive church body whose “ideal form . . . is not yet known”! This becomes so obvious that an observer innocently asks, “How far does the charter permit the CRC to depart from its traditional stance as a confessional church?”

Seeking Christian Union?

This document will be recommended for approval to our coming synod. In the light of the tendency of recent synods to approve whatever committees recommend and to ignore objections, it seems likely that the June synod will approve it, perhaps with little or no attention to what it says. That will commit us to a radical change of policy. Instead of objecting to the “unequal yoke with unbelievers,” which has historically characterized our churches, we will have declared that it is our duty to join them as long as they want in some sense to keep the name Christian, regardless of doctrinal definition of what that is supposed to mean. Some of our ecumenical adventurers have been trying to persuade us that the World Council shows signs of becoming more orthodox, despite the fact that the Vancouver meeting saw it welcoming a variety of pagan religious leaders and even avowed atheists. Their political and social pronouncements increasingly appear to echo those of the World Council. Four decades ago we saw Liberal religious leaders encouraging the Communist takeover of China. Today we see similar leaders serving exactly the same cause in other areas of the world. (How many trips has our committee taken to South Africa, the troubled land which seems currently to be a favorite target for a Liberal-encouraged Communist take-over?) The adoption of the charter will mean that most of our churches, who rarely notice what committees and synods are doing, before they know what has happened, will find themselves a part of one of the most anti-Christian church movements that the devil has ever inspired to destroy the gospel and church of Christ. Does that sound too strong? Consider how the leaders of mainline churches which the charter will commit us to joining as “Christian brothers”, today promote, defend and pay for the murder of millions of unborn children. Consider too how the World Council of Churches has for years been channeling vast amounts of church-contributed money to Marxist guerrillas who are murdering Christians and destroying their churches. Can anything be more plainly satanic than this?

The criticisms of the Charter should not discourage responsible ecumenical relations with fellow Christians. Many, perhaps most of us, know of RCA churches and members with whom we have a close kinship and with whom we would gladly be one denomination. But those churches and members have long been making futile protests against their denominational enslavement to the World Council. If we now welcome that unholy alliance we will be betraying them and all others who want to remain Bible-believing Reformed Christians and churches . If our churches permit themselves to be misled into adopting this Ecumenical Charter, they may, instead of advancing real church union swell the number of members and churches whom loyalty to our Lord and His Word is driving to seek fellowship elsewhere in churches that still believe the Bible and seek to believe, confess and live its doctrine.

PDJ