The seven churches of Orange City and Sioux Center called a meeting of the churches of the Classes in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and South Dakota to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the CRC.
The commemoration was a celebration and a conference (at Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa) for reflection on Report #44, on the “Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority.”
Celebration
The celebration on Tuesday evening, April 13, 1982, featured Dr. Lester De Koster, former editor of The Banner, and Dr. George Van Gronigen, president of Trinity Christian College.
Dr. De Koster spoke on our Precious Heritage. Our precious heritage is the self-sufficient local church, which enjoys self–sufficiency in five ways:
1. The local congregation enjoys all the marks of the true church: faithful preaching of the Word, faithful exercise of discipline and faithful administration of the sacraments; 2. The local congregation is self-sufficient because there Christ lodges primary and original authority as He rules through the scepter of the Word; 3. The local congregation is self–sufficient because here resides the power of the keys of the Kingdom; 4. The local congregation enjoys possession of the hermeneutical cycle, which is the proving grounds of the Word preached, so that the Word preached can be put to work; 5. The local congregation is self-sufficient as the ecclesiastical mother of the believers, baptizing, nourishing, disciplining, and preparing them for life hereafter. This heritage is our vision, says De Koster.
Dr. Van Gronigen challenged us with our Promising Future. The future can be promising as we maintain strong adherence to Scripture, and an unyielding adherence to our confessions. We need more development confessionally in the area of the covenant, the kingdom and the Holy Spirit, said Van Gronigen.
Debate
The next day 400–500 people came for the conference on Report #44. Many churches in the six classes area sent delegates. The conference was divided into two parts. First was a debate between Dr. Gordon Spykman, Professor of Religion and Theology at Calvin College, and one of the authors of Report 44, and Dr. Lester De Koster. The topic of the debate was: “Should Report 44 continue to be the position of the CRC on the nature and extent of Biblical authority?” Dr. Spykman took the positive position and Dr. De Koster, the negative.
Dr. Spykman presented the current status, historical roots and main points of Report 44. Though the Synod of 1972 only adopted the seven pastoral guidelines, the Report 44 refuses to die. The roots of R. 44 are part of a quarter century of development. Spykman rehearsed the history of how the issue came to our Synod, as a request from the Geformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands, by way of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. The G.K.N. now have answered their own question in the document entitled GOD MET ONS, which was reviewed thoroughly by Dr. Louis Praamsma in The Outlook–November, 1981.
In analyzing R. 44, Dr. Spykman pointed to the fact that it deals with a single plan of redemption from which point of view all Scripture is to be interpreted. R. 44 warns against an atomistic approach to Scripture.
Dr. De Koster in his position that the CRC does not need R. 44, asked two very basic questions: Who wants R. 44? And if one does want it, why does he want it?
Who wants R.44? The lay-people do not want it. It was not requested by anyone in the church. Neither do the host of critics want it. There are many who do not read and they do not want it either. Who really wants it? Those who profit from it want it. The theologian who wants to advance a speculative idea wants its protection. The actual function of R. 44 has been to secure room for theological speculation.
R. 44 has an “accordian effect,” says De Koster. An accordian effect is used in novels, in which the hero and the heroine get close and then something comes to drive them apart. R. 44 has an accordian effect in this way: there are stirring creedal affirmations—what Scripture says, God says; but then there are the qualifying conditions presented, namely—the authority of Scripture is properly understood only when we open our minds concretely, know to whom it originally spoke, are aware of the historical-redemptive context and are aware of the cultural conditions in which it was spoken. Any theologian can “drive a speculative truck through this,” said De Koster. Another example of the accordian effect is this: Report 44 maintains that mystery surrounds the authority of the Bible on the one hand; but the next forty pages try to fathom the mystery. Another example is the statement that the Belgic Confession underlies this report and this report can only state the Belgic Confession in different ways; but in the development of this principle in Report 44, there are points stated which we do not find in the Belgic Confession at all.
Spykman replied in his rebuttal that in answer to the question, “who wants it,” the situation in the world demands a statement. We need to further define the nature of Scriptural revelation. “Who profits from it?” asks De Koster. Spykman replies: The whole church. Spykman suggested that in the points where R. 44 is rough, it should be “smoothed out,” and “cleaned up” so it can serve the church.
De Koster responded that the R. 44 never defined “authority.” What does God say authority is? In the story of Jesus and the centurion we see it. “I am also a man under authority,” said the centurion, “I say to my servant, do this and he does it, . . .” The Belgic Confession says simply: “Believe all things in it.”
De Koster also asked, “What are guidelines?” They are more than advice, less than law. “What are they? I cannot accept them.”
The pastoral advice is that for which no one asked. “If I were a pastor and gave advice that has been troubling the church for the last ten years, I’d seek another profession,” said De Koster.
Discussion
The panel discussion followed. The panelists were: Fred Klooster, professor of Systematic Theology at Calvin Seminary and one of the authors of R. 44, John Sittema, pastor of the 1st CRC, Pella, Iowa, Jelle Tuininga, pastor of the CRC, Lethbridge, Alberta, Alexander De Jong, pastor-emeritus, Chicago. The moderator of the panel was James De Jong, professor of Religion at Dordt College.
The moderator asked this question: “What is the problem with R. 44?” Dr. Klooster answered first: “I don’t know what the problem is. I don’t think the critics have told us. If it is simply the presence of the report, and its removal would bring unity, remove it. But the problem is deeper. There is mistrust and differences of opinion.”
Rev. Sittema said that R. 44 says good things in “snippets.” The problem with R. 44 is that it teaches that we have to get through and behind t he Scripture to get at the events of the history of redemption. So the report drives a wedge between the event and the description of the event.
Rev. Tuininga said the heart of the issue is the way we look at Scripture, either atomistically or with its central focus on redemption. R. 44 helps us to read Scripture correctly, so that we look at Scripture as the saving revelation of Jesus Christ.
Dr. A. DeJong said that though he had no problem with the redemptive focus of R. 44, he sees the problem in R. 44 as the same problem in R. 36, namely the R. 44 “leaves open the possibility to mutilate the text.”
Dr. Klooster responded to Sittema that the thrust of R. 44 is the reliability of the message. It has been used to put perimeters around Dr. Allen Verhey and Mr. Clayton Libolt. It has not been used officially to cover departures. –(Though the Synod of 1981 rejected the candidacy of Mr. Libolt using R. 44, he was endorsed by the Calvin Seminary faculty and Board of Trustees because they considered his position allowable within R. 44. The Synod of 1979 exonerated Dr. Verhey’s interpretation of Genesis 3, Matthew 19 and Matthew 28, following the recommendation of the Neland Ave. consistory which used R. 44 to do so. Acts of Synod 1979, P. 93.)
Dr. Alexander De Jong said–that the walls around Scripture must be air tight. The Christian Church historically handled the doctrine of the natures of Christ at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. in that way, saying that the “human and divine natures of Christ are without mixture, without separation, without division and without change.” In a similar manner we must “box in” our doctrine of Scripture. The Christian Reformed Church should be a flagship on the sea, leading the way with a strong, uncompromising position on Scripture.
Resolutions
The conference of two delegates from each of the churches represented, adopted the following resolutions:
- We thank God that we were able to discuss these differences today;
- That the consistories who called the conference appoint a committee to prepare a mandate and appoint a committee to evaluate and present a critique of R. 44;
- That the consistories address their concerns to this committee;
Tapes of the speeches, debate and panel are available for $6.00, from radio station KDCR, Sioux Center, IA 51250.
The Christian Reformed Church is put to a test after 125 years. Is she able to take hold of an issue which reaches to the very deepest roots of her existence and can she prove able to meet the challenge? The Mother Church in Holland surrenders to liberalism in GOD MET ONS. What are we going to do? Our consistories have an awesome responsibility.
Let us exercise the marks of the church, the keys of the kingdom, the original and primary authority Christ gave us, and with God’s help, direct the Church to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 3).
Thomas C. Vanden Heuvel is the pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Orange City, Iowa.