All who hold offices in the Christian Reformed Churches will be receiving copies of a 515 page book prepared to acquaint them and especially their 160 representatives with matters that will have to be discussed and decided at the June meetings of the denominational synod. As usual, the OUTLOOK attempts to provide a review of that volume for its readers. Despite its formidable size, a hasty survey of the book shows that one report, that of the Belgic Confession Translation Committee (pp. 265–405) takes up 140 of the over 500 pages, so that this agenda, like that of last year, is, on the whole, considerably shorter than usual.

Back to God Hour: A Uniquely Church Venture

The first report, that of the churches’ world-wide electronic outreach with the gospel, is in a number of ways a very encouraging introduction to the book. Unusually well–written, it sets a pattern of portraying the gospel and our God-given opportunities for bringing it that provides an excellent starting point from which to consider and evaluate the rest of the churches’ life and activity. Joel Nederhood, Director, and Ira R. Slagter, Executive Director, call our attention to fundamental gospel principles that (1) Jesus is the only Savior, (2) that we are divinely called and privileged to bring that message to the lost world , and that (3) it is God’s revealed purpose to bring people of all nations together in this way into His church as “the body of Christ.” We are privileged to be used in doing this in 9 languages, using not only radio, but also television. Our broadcast work is distinguished from others by being a church program. “As far as we know, there is no other denomination which committed itself to the use of broadcast media to carry on its mission to the world in the same way the Christian Reformed Church has” (p. 13). This broadcasting (1) is one of a number of ways in which the church brings the gospel and (2) it is controlled by the churches. “In terms of this control, there is little similarity between the work of the Back to God Hour and other media ministries today.” (3) As a church venture, its ministers speak for the churches, and (4) their aim is to lead people into the churches. This well-stated church-perspective on bringing the gospel not only directs those who are engaged in broadcasting. It places a corresponding responsibility on each of our churches to seek, by the grace of God, to live up to the Biblical direction and evangelical concern which hearers of their radio broadcasts have been led to expect from them. Closer acquaintance with each church should show that it sincerely seeks to live up to its radio advertising. In some cases visitors do discover that when they visit the local church, but in 4 decades in our ministry I have encountered some saddening complaints that they did not. The unique denominational radio-local church tie should tie both partners to one gospel ministry.

As English increasingly becomes a world language the English broadcasts gain a wider outreach. At the same time, because of 1982 budget conditions, and the variety of activities, also using TV, a number of stations, including some important ones, have been dropped, so that the domestic network is smaller than in 1981.

This year is the 25th anniversary of the beginning of our foreign language broadcasts, the Arabic broadcasts, headed by Rev. Bassam Madany, into the Islamic world. These broadcasts elicited almost 7,500 letter responses in 1982. Rev. B. Madany observes that our commitment to “the Christian faith as a total message for all of our life” gives an advantage in dealing with Muslims who “are committed to an ideal of a faith which encompasses everything.” It is important to approach them “not simply with a vaguely defined evangelical point of view, but from the fullness of the Biblical faith” (p. 18).

The Spanish language broadcast directed by Rev. Juan S. Boonstra and its literature have a growing outreach in Latin America. A catechism presenting basic Christian doctrines is especially in demand. The Portugese language ministry in Brazil increasingly involves local Presbyterian churches so that some thirty such churches sponsor the broadcasts.

Chinese programs are now broadcast fifty times a week from six stations to mainland China, so that it is estimated that they can reach 900Jo of that nation of a billion people. Most of the 2,400 letters reaching the Hong Kong office in the last four years were written by young people who have known nothing but socialist indoctrination. Because of the great need among the perhaps 20 to 30 million Protestant Christians now estimated to be in China, for Bible study and doctrinal instruction, many of the programs concentrate on that. The Far East Broadcasting Company has been asking for more of such doctrinal and theological programs.

French programs now reach especially into France, Quebec and the French-speaking parts of Africa. Rev. Aaron Kayayan, their minister, receives 200 to 300 letters per month. A group of listeners in Zaire increased from 100 to 12,000 and are asking for catechisms and other Reformed material. The Reformed Church of Japan is closely involved in the Japanese language broadcasts. Broadcasting in the Indonesian language under the direction of Rev. Junus Atmarumksa, a Chinese Christian convert fro m Buddhism , is addressed to the people of the fifth largest nation in the world. Our broadcasts in the Russian language over Transworld Radio for the last 2\tl years are heard throughout the Soviet Union.

Because of the broadcasts’ church relation and church aims a great deal of effort also goes into followup contacts with those who respond.

Calvin College and Seminary

The Board of Calvin College and Seminary presents a 7 1/2 page routine report. We note the change of seminary presidency with Dr. James A. DeJong replacing Dr. John H . Kromminga. Discussions continue with Profess or J. Stek (regarding the objectionable views of Genesis). “Neither the board nor the faculty has indicated a suitable time for termination of the discussion” (p.37)! Regarding the college, we notice the reference to a plan to “meeting the challenges of expanded services and declining enrollments” (p. 39). The Board approved a policy of allowing social dancing (which has been going on for some time) along the lines of the 1982 synod decision.

World Missions

The World Missions report on its work in twenty countries overseas notes its improving relations with the emerging churches in a number of our mission fields in which there have been tensions, as those churches take over an ever larger measure of responsibility for work in their own lands. The executive committee in 1982 included eleven lay people and seven clergy. Just under half of the 8 million dollar budget is covered by quotas, a quarter by the churches’ salary support of individual missionaries. In the report one senses the fact, about which a member of another board complained, that the boards are being diverted into becoming primarily promotional agencies to serve those in central office instead of being the boards of directors which as the churches’ representatives they are supposed to be. (There is a real danger that, not necessarily by design , but in the process of development, those elected to serve the churches in denominational offices become their managers—just as they did in Roman Catholic history. It seems that only a determined insistence on the Biblical, church–order principle that the authority of local consistories is original and that of other church structures is delegated from them can halt that development.)

The board is recommending continuing to arrange the loan of some pastors to the Reformed churches of Australia and New Zealand. Its report calls attention to the continued remarkable church growth in Africa, where churches in our fields are taking over an ever larger part of the work, in areas such as education as well as evangelism. Regarding the China situation the report states:

We have learned these past two years that the church on the mainland has grown in numbers and is capable of witnessing in a land where the government is hostile. Although the church is tolerated at present, this is merely a step toward containing its growth and curtailing its activity until finally the government will seek to eliminate the church completely. In spite of this, it is estimated there are thirty million Christians in China (p. 57).

Considering this mission report in general, the reader is struck by a certain preoccupation which appears in it again and again with the social and political problems in various fields. (Note, for example pp. 50 and 61 which read more like political than missionary reports.) This stands out in marked contrast with the emphasis of the report on our world-wide radio work. It suggests that the preoccupation with the social and political is hurting and even destroying our missions. The depressing history of liberal missions was characterized by just such a shift to the social and political, and they have proceeded to fulfill the Lord’s warning, “Ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt have lost its savor . . . it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and trodden under foot of men” (Matt. 5:13). Although we have to be concerned about people’s material as well as spiritual needs, our own materialistic preoccupations can distort our view of the gospel and prevent effective testimony to it. The continuing friction indicated at a number of points between the mission organization and the separate world relief organization, which are both expected to work with the same people in the name of the same church, increases and complicates this problem, and will have to be resolved.

World Relief

The World Relief Committee indicates that it has come to concentrate more on “long term education and development” than on “direct food relief” (p. 98). We note that its general fund is reported at $3,432,866 and that “investments produced income of $353,462” (p. 113)! As it has “the sizable reserve (over $1 million) currently” in the World Hunger Fund, it “requests the permission of synod to use up to $500,000 from the World Hunger Fund in the years 1983–85 for emergency and direct hunger relief, provided the need is documented, funds are used effectively, and long-term hunger projects (Sierra Leone and any others approved by synod) are not endangered” (pp. 99, 100). If the synod approves, some of the vast sums our churches gave for “world hunger” may actually feed the hungry.

Since the committee is involving itself in causes of poverty, it is led to consider such matters as “refugee and immigration policy, transnational corporations, and land use and the family farm” (p. 101). It observes that in moving in this direction “One of the difficulties is the danger that might be created—not mainly for our own staff but for the nationals in the country—if CRWRC is associated with an antigovernment stance. Our people can leave and/or appeal to the Canadian or United States embassy if they are threatened. Nationals cannot. This problem became acute when our Central American field director was kidnapped in Guatemala. Part of the church was telling us to ‘be prophetic’ about the abuse of power in Guatemala; another part was telling us not to endanger Guatemalan lives by taking a public antigovernment stance” (p. 102). (The relief agency acknowledges this more frankly than the mission does!)

The board wants to expand–its efforts, asking for offerings, approval of investigating a second “hunger” program (like Sierra Leone), approval of investigating a refugee program in the Horn of Africa, and of beginning a pilot program in Ecuador. Is it not a good time to exersize some caution before venturing into more dubious, expensive social and political experiments? One wonders too about the propriety of our continued support of liberal agencies such as the Church World Service (p. 105).

Mission-Relief Cooperation

A special committee was appointed in 1982 to study the problem created by having mission and relief committees working separately although representing one church in many of the same places. Its 17-page report (pp. 461–478) reveals the depth, extent and complexity of the long-standing problems between the two agencies. The committee, considering the possibilities of (1) merger, and (2) negotiated agreements, proposes instead (3) appointing a World Missions-Relief Commission with executive authority to coordinate the efforts of the two agencies, reporting annually, with its conclusions submitted to the synod for final action. In connection with observations already made in this survey the report observes that “Probably the most acute and vexing questions faced by the Christian mission today lie in the area of human rights and social justice . . . in the future perhaps the near future, such issues will doubtlessly become more prominent and divisive in the CRC’s total mission to the world” (p. 467). On the same page it points out that “Financial policies and procedures of the two agencies are a secondary . . . cause of difficulty between them. Friction over the funding of the Sierra Leone project, tension over the handling of the World Hunger Fund, the fact that the CRWM (mission) is financially under tighter synodical control than CRWRC (Relief) is, and the fact that currently CRWM is in a program cutback owing to a budgetary shortfall whereas CRWRC has a fund surplus-these are points of strain in agency relations owing to financial factors.” When we pile up surpluses for political and economic education while cutting back and downgrading gospel preaching, we must recall our Lord’s warning, “Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the son of Man shall give to you” (John 6:27).

Domestic Matters

The Board of Home Missions makes a routine report on work in about 140 fields. It too reports reduced income and makes budgetary cut-backs.

The Board of Publications recalls its 15-year history of consolidating the churches’ printing efforts. In our educational programs the Church Order provides that “The Heidelberg Catechism and its Compendium shall be the basis of instruction” (Art. 64c). Despite the rule, this method was “consciously abandoned” with the adoption of the “United Church School Curriculum,” (Acts 1973, p. 232). This report indicates that “over the decade (beginning in 1972) the church approval of these materials increased as teachers became accustomed to the curriculum, editors reflected sensitivity to critics, and a full span of materials became available” (p. 89). These are again being revised and replaced. The board notes that it is serving many more non-Christian Reformed churches than our own (845) churches which use its literature (p. 91). Is the acceptance of these materials because of their excellence or because over the passage of the years many of our church members no longer know the kind of systematic, Catechism-based training the Bible doctrine which was once the strength of our Christian Reformed churches? That (catechism) kind of curriculum material is still available (Our OUTLOOK office handles some of it), but one has to look for it mostly outside of our churches’ official publications.

The Board would look into the possibility of private publication of our Dutch church paper, De Wachter when the denomination discontinues it.

A report on the labors of 17 military and 18 reserve and national guard chaplains and 39 institutional chaplains notes the attacks on the principle of military and state-funded chaplaincies (p. 123) and defends business and industrial chaplaincies (pp. 126–131).

The Church Help Committee which has served the churches for 89 years is to be replaced at the end of the year by a Denominational Loan Fund.

The Committee for Educational Assistance to Churches Abroad states that (1) it limits support “to churches abroad that specifically request aid for promising leaders,” (2) that these “must be applying for training not available in their home country, and that they

(3) must conscientiously intend to return to their homeland to fill pastoral, administrative, and teaching positions in their churches. To the committee’s knowledge, all students who have completed study under its sponsorship have returned to their home churches (p. 134)—suggesting successful results of a prudent policy.

Interchurch Relations

The major item in the report of our committee which deals with relations with other denominations is that about our “deteriorating relations” with the old mother-churches of many of our members, the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands. Frictions between us and them have arisen especially because of the “trends and decisions” in those churches in matters of theology and Christian ethics and life. At the bottom of these disrupting changes on their part is their changing and liberal view of the Bible clearly set forth in their report on its authority, God Met Ons. They claim that they are trying to do justice to the human side of the Bible (p.150–1). On the basis of that changing view of the Bible they defend their toleration of homosexual practice on the part of their members, although they still want to continue a polite talking relationship with our churches.

The Interchurch Relations Committee now recommends “That synod suspend those elements of the ecclesiastical fellowship agreement which refer to pulpit and table fellowship except by local decision of the consistories.” Grounds for that recommendation are, (1) their recent synod decisions “allow ministers and members to engage in a lifestyle that , in our judgment, is contrary to the Scriptures” and to our 1973 synod decisions, (2) “Our concerns and protests . . . have not moved the synod of the GKN to reconsider or modify its position,” and (3) “the laxity with which the GKN deals with ministers who openly promote views conflicting with the Reformed confessions” (p. 153). It is noted that this decision would not prevent local consistories from welcoming to pulpits or the Lord’s Supper those whom they judge to be loyal to the confessions and Scriptures.

Five of the overtures from various classis call for similar action. Three of them, one from Orange City (Number 1) (with more detailed grounds), one from Alberta North (26), and one from Minnesota North (35), would eliminate intercommunion and pulpit fellowship. The other two, one from Grand Rapids North (2), and one from cadillac (27) would sever the existing relation with them as “churches in ecclesiastical fellowship.” Grand Rapids North’s argument (p. 482) is that “The failure to discipline Wiersinga (who denies the Atonement) and trends in both doctrine and practice in the GKN since 1974, despite repeated and urgent admonitions from the CRC, make it impossible to argue any longer that the GKN adheres to the confessions we share or pays any mind to the CR views.” “It is an abuse of the term ‘fellowship’ to indicate a relationship characterized, on our side by persistent criticism and admonition, and on the GKN side by equally persistent indifference to, or curt dismissal of, our fraternal warnings. It is time the CRC gave integrity to the concept of ‘Churches in Ecclesiastical Fellowship’ by excluding the GKN from among them.” “A ‘fellowship’ based on persistent admonition . . . and persistent rejection of such admonition . . . can hardly be a genuinely Christian form of official relationship.” “There is no evidence since 1974 that the CRC has exerted any influence upon trends in the GKN. That is more than time enough to expose the fallacy of ‘fruitful’ dialogue.” “Breaking the ‘fellowship’ relation would strengthen the arms of the minority struggling against trends within the GKN by indicating to the ecclesiastical world that the CRC shares their efforts to awaken the GKN to the dangers of the direction it has chosen. Other forms of admonition have clearly lacked this impact.” At the same time the overture points out that “Necessary and where possible ‘fruitful’ correspondence between the CRC and the GKN need not be impeded in any important way through this decision.”

It is evident that the lnterchurch Relations Committee which in the above matter is moving in the same direction of the overture, has shown a tendency to stretch relations with more liberal churches and movements. The committee, like others which nominate their own successors (see nominations on p. 158), sometimes seems out of tune with the convictions of our churches in this respect. As was pointed out in April and May OUTLOOK articles, the committee has for some time been maneuvering toward getting us affiliated with the old and thoroughly compromised World Alliance of Reformed Churches, long-time promoter of the World Council. Although it places a two-man report on the Alliance general meeting (which was so preoccupied with condemning South Africa that it had little or no time for matters of faith (cf. pp. 163–167, especially p. 165 top lines), the committee intends to make its recommendation regarding our joining the alliance next year.

Liturgy

The Liturgical Committee submits its motley collection of prayers ranging from older sources including some of Calvin and even one of St. Francis to some selected from a contemporary collection. It replies to objections to some of the prayers with the excuse that because they have been borrowed from a printed source they may not be edited. Why bother with them at all? Who is asking for them? A new form is submitted for the ordination and installation of ministers. In passing, one notes in it the familiar “office-bearers,” which seems to be a Dutchism—it doesn’t appear to be an accepted English usage (p. 187). In the prayer there appears the pompous but meaningless petition for help “to endure the heat of the day and the darkness of the night!” That kind of affected rhetoric strikes one as especially offensive in a prayer (p. 189).

Race

The Synodical Committee on Race Relations over the years has been handicapped by two fundamental objections to its existence. (1) It is dedicated to the self-contradictory aim of removing race discrimination by giving special support to some while denying it to others only on the basis of race. To give help to needy people and deserving students invites general appreciation and support. To give it or deny it only on the basis of color, as this committee does, is to practice the very sin which the committee is supposed to be opposing. (2) Having no field of operation of its own, the committee receives funds and gives them to others who do have their own assigned areas of work. This is an inherently wasteful procedure since a large part of the funds given it are used to operate the extra, unneeded office. The committee is asking for an increase in the per family quota to $3.15 plus an additional 80 cents. Since it also draws support beyond the quotas (p. 212), although the agenda no longer contains most of the financial reports, it is evident that this committee is disposing over a third of a million dollars per year. The committee is also asking for a special promotional Sunday. How long will our hard-pressed churches which have to curtail basic activities such as missions continue to increase their support of this self-contradictory and inherently wasteful program?

Creeds

Much the largest report in this year’s agenda is that of the Belgic Confession Revision Committee (pp. 265–405). That committee has had a curious history. Originally appointed in 1977 to make a new translation of the Belgic Confession, instead of translating the Reformed Churches official creed the committee reported two years later with the translation of an obscure, older version of the confession which has not for the last three and a half centuries been the officially accepted creed. It asked the synod to approve its action in substituting the obscure earlier version for the official creed giving as grounds (1) the earlier date of that version, (2) its alleged being written in times more like our own with respect to church-state relationships than the official creed, and (3) some of its features being (in the opinion of the committee) theologically preferable to the standard version (Acts 1979, p. 603). The synod did not accept this recommendation but instructed the committee to translate also the official creed. Accordingly now both versions of the creed are presented side by side on opposite pages. The committee asks the synod to submit whichever version it prefers to the churches for study with a view to seeking final approval for it next year (p. 279).

The action of the committee in substituting something else for the official creed aroused criticism because of its impropriety as well as implausible historical grounds. Dr. L. Praamsma, church historian second to none among us, wrote in the May 30, 1980 Banner in response to Rev. Leonard Verduin (who was prime mover and defender of the committee’s substitution) that he had read the historical arguments with “increasing amazement” and that they reminded him of the Arminian slanders of the Synod of Dordt, “because there are no solid historical grounds” for this new accusation against Dordt. H e protested that “many of these theses of Verduin . . . are no more than hypotheses,” listing a dozen of them. Professor J. Faber of the Canadian Reformed Churches’ seminary had made similar criticisms in the July 19, 1979 Clarion, suggesting that this report invented “fictions of contrasts between Calvin and de Bres” and read like “a bad detective story.” The committee itself now no longer seeks to defend the older unauthorized version, but presenting various views leaves the matter to the synod to decide

Rev. L. Verduin, not satisfied with this act! on, presents his own minority report (pp. 396–405). He (1) argues in favor of the substituted version defending his historical conjectures against the committee’s failure to maintain it. Surprisingly, he also (2) criticizes the committee’s report for failing to do justice to the authoritative status of creeds. “There is a theology abroad in these bewildered times in which so much is made of . . . the Scriptures . . . being ‘tied to the times,’ that men feel free to deviate from them because of it.” “In saying what it says . . . the majority report neglects to close the door on a theology which has already wreaked havoc in sister churches.” “. . . The majority report makes some very strange sounds. It seeks to distinguish between a ‘creed’ and ‘the text of a creed,’ both of which are said to be ‘human’ and ‘historical.’” “Back of the distinction . . . between a creed and its text, lies the tacit assumption . . . that the truth is a vague something, a vapor floating in the air . . . (a) view of truth . . . to which no Reformed person can yield” (p. 404). “The majority report . . . fails to slam the door on a theology which has already . . . made of the pulpit . . . something very like . . . a soapbox.” “To me it seems that in the context of the assertions quoted the person . . . signing (to the creed) is doing no more than stating that he is aware that once upon a time people expressed their faith in those terms, that the one signing does not intend to say, by signing, that he expresses his faith the same way.” Verduin advises against deciding the question of versions at this time.

The committee’s backing away from earlier support of an obscure and unauthorized version of the creed seem to be warranted, but Verduin’s well-stated warning against its loose and casual treatment of creeds also ought to be taken to heart.

The Contemporary Testimony Committee mandated in 1979 offers a draft of its document to the churches. Over the years creeds have been formulated to state the gospel clearly, defining and defending it from misunderstandings and errors. More recently a number of liberal churches have formulated such statements with an opposite purpose, to obscure differences and protect errors. In that class we may include the Presbyterian book of confessions of 1967 and the Reformed Church of America’s “Song of Hope.” Unfortunately, as one reads the proposed “Contemporary Testimony” one cannot escape the impression that it falls into the latter class. Intended as something less than a creed but more than a mere statement of opinion, it is written in poetic form, loosely and broadly enough to inconvenience few if any. Although the commentary in the report speaks more bluntly and clearly, that is not part of the document. In general the document is too “contemporary” and bland to effectively expose the errors of our age and to protect the faith of the church against them. Adopting it may foster the illusion that it ensures a healthy common Christian faith.

Women in Office

The committee appointed in 1981 to study the Bible’s teaching about the “headship” of men was expected to report at this year’s synod. Its report is delayed until next year especially because of the health problem of its reporter. It asks the synod to “continue for one more year the moratorium on women in the office of deacon” (p. 459). Classis Lake Erie in Overtures 3 and 7 (compare also number 37), Grand Rapids East in Overture 4, and Hackensack in Overture 5 clamor for the synod to remove the restriction against women being elected deacons, alleging that committees would not recognize and synods would not cite Biblical grounds against this and arguing that the synod had no right to stop the practice-conveniently ignoring the fact that the ‘78 decision to admit them was contrary to church order and never properly ratified. The Ridgewood Church overtures the Synod (Overture 6) to open all offices to women, and Classis Toronto asks that election of women as deacons be left to the decision of each consistory (Overture 25). The Hope Church of Oak Forest, lllinois, appeals the judgment of Classis Chicago South against its practice of having women as “adjunct-elders and deacons” (Appeal 1). Classis Lake Erie also overtures the synod to declare that women may not be forbidden to vote at congregational meetings unless they are under discipline. Decision of some of these matters may have to await the committee’s report. Increasingly apparent is the fact that a number of churches and classis are determined that offices will be thrown open to women in defiance of Scripture (I Tim. 2:11ff.; I Cor.14:33ff.), Church Order, or decisions of synods. Our synods will have to stop accommodating this growing anarchy if membership of the denomination is to keep any meaning.

Overture 9 would increase minimum pastors’ salaries, Overtures 10, 36, and 38 would freeze the quotas, Overture 11 would not increase denominational salaries, and Overture 12 would bring home missionaries’ and subsidized churches’ pastors’ salaries into line. Overture 36’s speaking of “quota assessments” (p. 503) betrays the growing perversion of quotas from recommended per family averages into taxes.

Classis Sioux Center (Overture 30) asks that the synod request all quota-supported agencies to comply with the synod decision by reporting salary and fringe benefits schedules in their annual reports, on the synod-recognized grounds that “the constituency paying the quotas is entitled to this information” (Acts 1978 pp. 94, 95). Approval of this overture might go far toward correcting a flagrant abuse highlighted in our March, 1982 OUTLOOK, p. 6. Classis Lake Erie’s Overture 14 would correct the stated clerk’s practice of ruling appeals to synod by consistories out of order if they have not been through classis, as a violation of Article 31 of the Church Order. This too seems to ask for a needed correction of an improper practice. Overture 15 would permit laymen to preside at classis meetings; Overture 19 would prevent the synod from ordering who must be nominated to boards; Overture 20 would leave the appointment of regional pastors and mentors to consistories and classis. Overture 21 would permit an elder to preach if qualified. Overture 22 would critically study the denomination’s structure with a view to preventing over-lapping and to making better use of funds.

In this connection we notice that the Synodical Interim Committee recommends that the Judicial Code Committee be made a standing committee. The committee was established to improve our dealing with controversial matters. Instead of accomplishing that it seems to have been grafting the political complications of the law courts onto our ecclesiastical problems, threatening to make matters worse instead of better. Perhaps this committee should be critically studied and discarded instead of being perpetuated as a continuing part of the denominational bureaucracy.

Overture 29 asks synod advice regarding licensing students from the new Mid-America Reformed Seminary to conduct services. As our eastern classis have long been licensing Westminster students, this hardly seems to be properly a synodical problem.

Overture 32 would correct the 1982 synod’s inconsistent approval of dancing. Overture 33 would increase elder delegates to classis and Appeal 2 seeks approval of> deacons participating in regular home visiting.

The meetings of our churches’ synod call for our prayers. They should be informed prayers. Although elders are called to rule on the Lord’s authority in our representative church government, their leadership is not to be followed blindly. Responsible church members. have a share in the life and labors of the church through representatives and by the way of overture and appeal. One overture (Number 16) proposes cutting the number of agendas and acts to 1 for each minister, 1 for each church library and 2 for each consistory, to save money. Seeing unread copies in some consistory rooms may support the argument, but cutting the circulation of this material will hardly foster a healthy church life. Reports could often be shorter, clearer and more informative especially on finances (Overture 30). They ought to be distributed two months earlier to encourage wider study and discussion. Let us pray, study and work in these matters that concern the life and labors of the Lord’s Church.