Back-to-God Broadcasting

“The Sovereign Lord has given me an instructed tongue, to know the word that sustains the weary. He wakens me morning by morning, wakens my ear to listen like one being taught” (Isa. 50:4).

“Praise the Lord for the word that sustains the weary! Praise the Lord for the way He wakens us each day and tells us the message that must be announced to the world. Our message is ancient, but God says, ‘Ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls’ (Jer. 6:16). The age-old message has never been needed more desperately.

“In the writings of our brother Isaiah, the message we proclaim over the airwaves can be found. ‘Turn to me and be saved all you ends of the earth; for I am God and there is none other. I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants. Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord , and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. I will create new heavens and a new earth’ (45:22, 44:3, 55:6, 7, 65:17).

“In Christ Jesus all the prophet‘s words have been fulfilled. Now it is the blessed duty of the church to herald the message of salvation through the cross to the ends of the earth. On the pages that follow, which scan our denomination’s widespread work and outreach, every issue, every plan must be evaluated in the light of the Savior‘s program which will bring every knee in obeisance to His glory. We submit this brief summary of this agency’s work with the prayer that those who read it may give God the adoration for what He has enabled our church to do in this particular expression of our mission. May it be read with interest, evaluated with wisdom, and used to provide us who represent you with direction and counsel.” Could one think of a better introduction to the whole agenda of the church than this superb preface to the report on its work of broadcasting the gospel?

Our program of bringing the gospel through the electronic media differs from many others in that it is supervised and supported by the church and in that it employs natives of foreign countries to prepare messages for these countries and to broadcast them.

In addition to many broadcasts and follow-up in the English language at home as well as in other parts of the world, this agency has been bringing the gospel in several other languages. The first of them is Arabic, in which Rev. Bassam Madany has for over a quarter of a century been addressing the Arab (Islamic) countries. F rom those parts of the world, largely closed to other forms of missionary testimony, there is coming a growing mail response of more than 9,000 letters a year. Spanish programs, under the direction of Rev. Juan Boonstra, are going out over 237 radio stations. Chinese programs under the direction of Rev. Isaac Jen cover the great land and feature (1) evangelistic programs, (2) programs targeted to young people and (3) a “Theology of the Air” designed to give urgently needed training to the multitude of house church leaders who have appeared throughout the land. Rev. Aaron Kayayan reported in our last OUTLOOK on a new Reformed church movement which has appeared in Africa largely in response to the French broadcast he has been leading. In addition to extensive Japanese and Indonesian broadcasts, there is also a Russian language program, which has recently doubled its coverage. The denominational program is under the over-all direction of Dr. Joel Nederhoed who has been its (English) Radio minister since 1960.

Publications

In contrast with the careful and clear, Biblically supported and formulated, objectives of the radio work, the report on the churches’ publications begins with a vague slogan about aiming at “an evangelized church in a covenantalized world.” It proceeds to eulogize The Banner, (p. 48, 57, 58). It defends The Banner’s editorial policies even against having to be justified before the synod when Classis Florida (April OUTLOOK pp. 10–12) brought and was denied placement of an overture asking for an accounting for its editorial policy’s evident conflict with the form of subscription.

Publication of the Dutch paper, De Wachter is to end this year.

By its own testimony, our publications organization is becoming “less like a traditional church ‘agency’ and more like a Christian publishing company”—over two thirds of the customers for at least some of their products are now outside of the denomination (pp. 49, 52). It states, “As another example of our businesslike approach we more and more look to our customer’s needs to help us determine the direction we should go, and the products we should develop.”

The agency’s own admissions raise some questions about the propriety of a church setting up what is more and more becoming a general publishing company which increasingly gears its production to the wishes and desires of its customers, most of whom have no connection with the churches who are supposed to own it, subsidize it and pay its capital expenses. The reader may gasp at reading that last year’s proposed over one and a half million dollar new printing plant has now swollen to a Synodical Interim Committee request for FOUR AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS for this expansion (involving in one way or another an increase in quotas of about $10 per family for the next 10 to 15 years—see pp. 308, 304).

It was evident already last year that the publication board was inclined to seek unlimited expansion in many directions. This year’s report picks up one of its proposed new ventures, “the publication of a monthly periodical . . . to aid and equip . . . church leaders” perhaps “in multilingual editions.” It admits that in this proposed venture, “we were in a typical ‘answer in search of a question’ situation” (p. 62). In other words it wanted a “leadership periodical,” and now it sought reasons to warrant having it, consulting with and advised by the Calvin College Social Research Center! And so it seeks an enlarged new printing plant. A synod, plagued to a greater extent than ever before by the destructive effects of the feminist heresy which has been promoted especially by our denomination’s publication and educational agencies, might properly hesitate to authorize one of its agencies to engage in a costly expansion program to train and guide the whole denomination’s leadership. Its ability to give that kind of leadership to the church is hardly being convincingly demonstrated.

The committee also wants to produce video materials (p. 61).

A further indication of the ambitions of this committee to expand its power is found in the proposal, in connection with the production of the new Psalter Hymnal, that the liturgical committee be merged with it. This, in effect, means that the publication committee, and more specifically, its “temporary” musical editor (p. 63), be put permanently in charge of the denomination’s liturgy! Have the churches ever indicated that they need such a permanent agency, and, more particularly a woman “bishop” to dictate how they are to worship God?

In connection with the new hymnal, this board also decided “that synod be requested not to entertain motions from the floor that would add, delete, or alter any particular hymn but to entertain motions that refer back to the Board of Publications any inclusions, omission, replacement, or alteration . . .” (p. 55). Who is supposed to be governing the churches, the synod or this board?

       

Liturgy: Dance

The perhaps last report of the Liturgical Committee (pp. 242ff.) (which envisions merging with the Publications Board) is devoted to defending and promoting the liturgical dance in view of the fact that the committee believes that some churches are now “ready” for it. It traces the past discussions and decisions about dancing, and by a survey of history, studied manipulation of the rather scanty Biblical references (to children’s games and David’s “dancing,” for example), citing of unspecified cultural changes and appeal to a few academic specialists, seeks to rationalize now making liturgical dancing a feature of congregational worship! It tries to make its radical proposals more acceptable with a number of pious qualifications: The dancing must be “an act of worship,” not “some form of entertainment” and must only “be done in an edifying manner.” “The committee would regret it if the synod’s decision should result in serious division among us. Yet the development of liturgy cannot be frozen at a certain moment” (pp. 253, 254 , 256).

It is curious that at the time when more of our churches than ever before are showing that their confidence in the denominational leadership has been rudely shaken, this proposal should arise to further demolish that confidence. If any people had illusions about the propriety and spiritual sensitivity of some of our more recent liturgical innovations, this final proposal of the committee should help to disillusion them. The committee’s rationalizations somewhat resemble those of Aaron when he attempted to justify his concessions to the Egyptian calf–style of worship at Sinai with the announcement, “Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord” (Ex. 32:5). He forgot, as our committee and church forget, that God was not merely concerned about Whom we worship, but also how we worship Him . The first commandment is followed by a second which warns of His “jealousy” about that point. As our increasingly forgotten catechism points out, this commandment clearly teaches that we are not to worship God “in any other way than He has commanded in His Word” and that “He wants His people instructed by the living preaching of His Word,” rather than by visual imagery. Perhaps few if any things in the agenda, document more clearly than this committee proposal our current departures from this guide.

It may be recalled that Dr. Samuel Volbeda once produced a well thought-out, but complicated “uniform order of worship” for our churches. Despite its virtues, when it proved too elaborate to gain general acceptance, it produced more diversity of worship than there was before. One senses that our last ten years of amateurish multiplication of liturgies have been inspiring more impatience and disgust than respect in large areas of our churches. Is it too much to hope that this synod, instead of encouraging and financing this committee’s proposed expansion under the Board of Publications (where it is envisioned as guiding not only the denomination but also the broader family of churches!), may call a halt to its ill-considered and expensive adventures?

Missions

As our churches themselves reveal a disconcerting uncertainty about the proper worship of the true God, difficulties also increase in missionary efforts to lead others to such worship at home and abroad.

The rather brief home missions report (pp. 26ff,) seems largely preoccupied with the mechanics of organization a five-year plan and 46 “goals.” It lists the many places where work is carried on and expresses some concern about a decline in financial support.

Our world missions are involved in some 27 nations overseas (pp. 114ft). Their report also notes some decline in financial support. Churches which our missionaries serve in Africa continue to grow, having “an approximate baptized membership of 250,000 and an approximate average attendance at worship of 550,000” (a figure that may soon double the total we could report at home). As the work of these churches in Nigeria becomes more and more independent of us, attention is being given to newer and projected missionary ventures on that continent. The report briefly covers developments in other fields, giving somewhat more attention to the rapid expansion of work in the Dominican Republic and Haiti.

In connection with this report, that of the Synodical Interim Committee devotes several pages (293–298) to the investigation of the mission’s problems in Mexico where its executives were accused of contributing to the split of the Presbyterian body with which we have long cooperated; (The executives in question are leaving or have left the administration).

World Relief

The World Relief Committee reports (p. 148f.) on its far flung activities. It calls attention to a shift in its “focus from owning and operating its own programs to the development and strengthening of local institutions . . . that are engaged in addressing deficiencies in their own communities, regions, and countries.” It notes that its Special Hunger Fund “will need $1 ,000,000 during 1985–1986 to continue to pay for the Sierra Leone and the hunger education program.” We are not told how successful this experiment at large scale relief is proving to be in its 5th year. As the report goes on to survey the various areas where it is involved, it is obvious that its efforts to work with existing organizations in various places raises endless questions about how and with whom we should be so involved.

World Mission and Relief

A major problem that has complicated both our world missions and world relief programs has been that both, representing the same churches and working in many of the same fields, have been working independently under separate and different administrations. Recent synods have resorted to the extraordinary measure of appointing a special committee with unusual authority, to bring the two together. That committee reports (pp. 408ff.), listing the kinds of difficulties that arise in try ing to combine the two agencies under one administration.

We notice especially two objections that arise to its proposed solution of its problem. A committee member, Mr. Gerard Berghoef, in a 4-page minority report ably points out that though the committee tries to combine Word and deed ministry in bringing the two agencies together, it fails to do justice to “the priority which both the Bible and our forms of unity give to the preaching of the Word” (p. 442, italics mine). The “synod must lay down guidelines so precise, and so clear that both board and agencies will unmistakably recognize the priority of the Word preached in creating faith and the role of deed in authenticating that proclamation. This perspective . . . is the key to a harmonious relation in the future” (p. 444).

Furthermore, in effort to resolve the difference between the two agencies the committee is recommending that the synod “appoint a committee to restudy the question of the delegation of deacons to major assemblies” (p. 442). In other words, in an effort to resolve this mission field problem the committee wants to restructure our whole church order by giving the deacons the same authority as the elders in the government of the churches. It argues for doing this because our practice is corning to demand it! Thus it would have the Biblical distinctions between the two offices, already confused in some of our practices, virtually discarded! It would be very unfortunate if the well-intended efforts of the committee to resolve a real problem would result in moving our churches to further reject the guidance of God’s Word in the way we try to carry out His mission.

Calvin College and Seminary

The eighty page report on the college and seminary (pp. 140ff.) is mostly a list of faculty appointments for the synod to approve. Even in the case of seminary appointments there is no longer a choice offered between nominees as the synod’s approval tends to become little mo re than a rubber stamp.

The board has approved a policy of admitting women to the seminary’s M. Div. program , but will not require exhorting in its requirements for the degree for women students. The school will not solicit, promote, or provide opportunities for exhorting by its women M. Div. students, or place them in field education assignments without the clear understanding that exhorting is not required nor expected.

Interchurch Relations

This committee lists the 22 denominations with which ours maintains fellowship, observing that the relationship with the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKN) is now somewhat restricted. It comments on the discussions about that body’s departures from Biblical faith and practice which occasioned the restriction. A recent official tour of our churches by two delegates from it have not removed our objections to full fellowship, but rather confirmed them. Yet this committee wants to continue relations with this denomination.

Our last year’s synod hastily and without troubling to ascertain facts or give any significant Biblical grounds, branded the South African churches’ failure to vigorously oppose their government’s apartheid policy a heresy (Nov. and Dec., 1984 OUTLOOKS). (Judging by the standards it formulated it would have to declare our own churches also heretical because we are not vigorously protesting our government’s “discriminatory” efforts to exclude at least some illegal immigrants from crossing our southern borders.) The committee which had pressed for this action now reports on its dealings with the South African denominations. From both the general report and a supplementary report (Appendix C) it appears that the Gereformeerde Kerk in South Africa has been remarkably longsuffering with the officious judgments by its visitors from abroad, and while that committee of our visitors reports its visit “neither a complete success nor a total disappointment” it advises continuing relations with these South Africans (although the race committee and Overture 24 want to break relations).

Many of our relations with other churches have come to expression in the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. That body is , in the words of the committee, “in a very critical condition-its very existence is threatened,” “Primarily because of . . . developments in the GKN (Dutch Reformed Churches) . . . doctrine and moral practice, and the racial issue in the South African churches” (p. 203). According to a supplementary report (p. 212) six churches have terminated their membership, five of them because of dissatisfaction with the GKN. What the reports do not stress is the fact that though our delegation to the RES has been somewhat critical of the Dutch churches, it sided with them in opposing efforts to exercise the necessary discipline against their doctrinal and moral apostasy and it took a leading part in the hypocritical and hasty condemnation of the South Africans, thereby helping to destroy this ecumenical organization (Nov. 1984 OUTLOOK, pp. 4, 5).

The World Alliance of Reformed Churches, begun 110 years ago, is the oldest confessional ecumenical body. Unfortunately, it has through its history steadfastly refused to clearly define what it meant by “Reformed” and accordingly has come to include in its membership some of the most Liberal churches of our time. In view of that fact our denomination through the years has refused to join it. The Free Church of Scotland, an active member from the beginning, in 1954 withdrew because “it had been primarily advocating the claims and aims” of the World Council, and “because of modernism leadership” (April, 1983 OUTLOOK p . 17). Now our Interchurch Relations Committee is recommending that we join this organization (p. 203). Dr. Marten Woudstra of our seminary has from time to time called attention to the way in which this committee has, without giving any information to the churches about what was really involved, been moving in the direction of trying to bring us into this alliance (OUTLOOKS, May, 1983, March, 1985, and this issue). His articles showed how the initiatives for such a move came not from the synod but from the committee which would first ask the synod to approve what it wanted to do and then make this approval a synod “instruction.” Now the committee, without giving the churches any opportunity to consider the matter, presses for a decision. As Dr. Woudstra points out, the basic ground the committee offers for such a decision is false: “a. The Christian Reformed Church meets all the requirements for membership as outlined in the constitution, and can subscribe , without compromising its Reformed confessional and ecclesiastical character, to the constitutional basis of WARC.” Article II of the WARC constitution states that membership is limited to churches “in general agreement with the historic Reformed confessions, recognizing that the Reformed tradition is a biblical, evangelical and doctrinal ethos, rather than any narrow and exclusive definition of faith and order.” In making its members’ confessions merely “A” characteristic belief and not any “EXCLUSIVE DEFINITION” this basic article excludes any church that takes its creeds seriously as defining what it believes, and throws the door wide open to the outspoken Liberals of the Alliance.

Similarly, the committee’s repeated appeal to the 1944 decisions of our churches about ecumenical relations to justify our joining the alliance is plainly a misrepresentation, for the committee at the same time severely criticizes the 1944 statement about our ecumenical responsibility as far too narrow, arguing that its “assumption of our superiority and the consequent role that assumption provides for the CRC in its ecumenical task must be modified.” “The 1944 report does not take sufficiently into account the human and sinful limitations that also hinder our understanding of the biblical truth and faithfulness to it.” “. . . We are called to bear witness to the saving work in Christ to which the existence of every church bears witness.” The committee’s report “recognizes that all Christian churches by being Christian churches possess some of the truth and also in some sense practice it, but also that all churches . . . are imperfect . . .” While it is true that there are no perfect churches, notice the unmistakable move toward relativism and the false assumption that in today’s world there are no apostate churches with which we may not have fellowship . When the Lord sternly warns us to “be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:14ff.) may we let considerations such as the welcome we would be given and the committee’s embarrassment at staying out any longer move us to ignore that? No one has given a shred of evidence that this alliance has moved toward holding a more orthodox position—in fact, the committee admits that it harbors all kinds of beliefs—“runs the gamut of current theological options” (p. 227). Why should we now reverse our century-old stance of staying out of this unholy alliance with enemies of Christ and His Word? Our joining would not be an indication of the improvement of the alliance but an unmistakable demonstration of the growing apostasy of the Christian Reformed Church (as the committee itself in some degree recognizes in regretting the conclusion that it anticipates may be drawn from its recommendation – p. 228).

The same movement toward betrayal of the Reformed faith embodied in the committee’s recommendation to join the Alliance is also reflected in its “ecumenical charter” which it wants the synod to accept (pp. 237ff). That charter after passing reference to 3 Bible passages and an equally loose reference to the creeds proceeds “while making such adjustments in emphasis and approach as are suggested by the experience of the church.” Notice from a few quotations the relativism and compromise that result as it turns from the sure ground of God’s Word to the relativities of always imperfect and diverse human viewpoints: “Though all Christians confess one God , one Lord, one hope, and one faith , they give theological articulation to this confession out of different mindsets, conceptual apparatus and terminology, traditions and schools of thought . . . Through . . . ecumenical dialogue we must trust God to teach us all, and thereby unite us through a deeper common grasp of His truth.” “The unity of the church must be visibly manifest. The ideal form of this unity is not yet known. The unity we seek is one of mutual renewal and acceptance through mutual giving and receiving.” “The Christian Reformed Church should seek rapprochement with all churches of Christ . . .” The leveling tendency of this document will be apparent to any careful reader. Will the synod uncritically endorse also this proposed course of compromise with the current ecumenical apostasy?

Creeds

A new translation of the Belgic Confession is being submitted to this synod for final adoption. The report (pp. 337ff.) devotes considerable attention to the harsh expression regarding the Anabaptists in Article 36 proposing that it be included in the text but disclaimed in a footnote. Rev. L. Verduin in a minority report proposes instead that we continue to condemn the erroneous views but simply not mention the Anabaptists by name as people who hold it. That suggestion seems worth considering.

Professor Norman De Jong, a delegate to the synods that dealt with this matter, in our March OUTLOOK called attention to a much more serious flaw in this new “translation” that seems until now to have escaped general notice. The new translation was supposed to merely state in more modern English what the church has officially confessed in this creed. What it did was radically revise at a particularly critical point what the church officially confessed! As Dr. DeJong said, “Although it did not come to the attention of the synodical delegates in 1979 and 1983, and has not been cited by the committee when calling attention to the ‘revisions,’ the male language used in reference to the ecclesiastical officers has all been removed and replaced with non-sexist language. ‘Men’ becomes ‘persons’ and the male pronouns become ‘everyone’ or ‘all.’” If someone had pointed out in what way he thought the creed should be revised and given reasons for making such a revision the procedure would at least have been honest , but when such a radical revision is silently made under the guise of merely up-dating the English this is nothing but a deception (like stealing a family’s possessions when no one is watching). Consider what a serious business this is. There is today no more immediate and divisive heresy threatening the unity of the Christian Re formed Church than Feminism. The points in our creeds that most clearly state what we officially confess as the plain teachings of the Bible about this matter are exactly these articles of the Belgic Confession. When anyone quietly reverses these articles it amounts to a most serious kind of treachery to our Christian confession. If the synod meekly accepts this fraudulent change it will be breaking the promise to maintain the confessions which each delegate solemnly made before God in the opening session.

A new translation of the Canons of Dort is also being submitted for the first time to the churches for their study. In our time when public attacks on the Biblical doctrine of election confessed in the Canons are becoming common even among our leaders, a careful, critical study of the proposed revision of this creed is the more urgent.

Creeds have historically been formulated to clearly confess Biblical truth and distinguish it from threatening errors. In our time, however, it has become common for some churches to prepare creeds for an opposite purpose, to cover and protect errors by vagueness and ambiguity. It is regrettable that the Contemporary Testimony (not called a creed to gain easier acceptance, but widely used as one) is more ambiguous and vague than clear. The comments made in the report (p. 388ff.) though rather bland and not incisive and digressing in many directions, may at some points be useful. Must the church admonish the Israeli government about Zionism?

Race

For a decade the Committee on Race Relations has been engaged in the  contradictory business of ostensibly removing racial discrimination by seeking advantages and making grants on the basis of color. This year (pp. 277 ff.) it comes, as usual, asking an increased quota (from $3.95 to $5.26 per family). It seems that one of its two heads, Mr. Westerhof, is leaving, and the other Rev. W. Ipema, is recommended for a terminal 2–year appointment.

A special committee on Ordination of Pastors from Multiracial Groups (pp. 446f.) is now recommending that Calvin Theological Seminary, in order to accommodate those who come from other cultures, “develop four culturally oriented tracks of study; one for Asians, one for Blacks, one for Hispanics, and one for American Indians . . . at the earliest possible date . . . Each should be headed by a coordinator who is of the culture of that particular track. All four tracks must include special course offerings germane to the culture, and all should have the majority of course offerings on location where that culture is present. Not more than one year residency at Calvin Seminary . . . should be required in any of these four tracks.” There is a great deal more about the special procedures and treatment that should be given people of these diverse cultures.

As Christians we should firmly oppose discrimination on the basis of color. But the way to do that is simply to stop operating with such distinctions. When our churches try to do it by an opposite course of making all kinds of costly special allowances and arrangements for color, as they have long been doing with SCORR, and they give one of its heads a leading role in such a committee as this, by sowing discrimination they are simply going to reap more and costlier discrimination. Although we have always made room for special arrangements for training some ministers where that was necessary, the saving doctrines of the gospel do not come m all kinds of special ethnic varieties and we should not indulge in the nonsense of training ministers for our churches as if they did. Imagine what Paul would have said about such an ethnic heresy as this!

Overtures and Appeals

The Agenda concludes with 64 pages of overtures and appeals. Overture 2 proposes a restructuring of denominational boards. Number 5 wants to provide for choosing for office by lot. Classis Columbia proposes that all important reports be published in the synod acts a year before decision is made a move toward preventing a lot of decisions now made before the churches know about them. Overtures 8, 9 and 10 would move toward requiring two third majority votes on constitutional matters. Overture 23 would have the classes license students attending other seminaries to exhort instead of the change arbitrarily made by the 83 synod placing this under Calvin’s Board. Classis Eastern Canada (Overture 25) proposes that the upper limit of salaries for denominational employees “not exceed double the minimum salary for ministers on the Fund for Needy Churches scale.” It finds the $65,098 (US) maximum adopted last year unreasonably high. The way in which this matter has been handled and as much as possible kept secret, in defiance of repeated decisions of synods has long been a scandal which a responsible government or business would not tolerate. Even the figure reported does not list the extra (in the past over 27%) fringe benefits as a synod said it should. Will this finally get an airing and perhaps some correction? (OUTLOOK March, 1982 and Jan., 1983. Interested consistories should ask the Stated Clerk for a copy of the Financial and Business Supplement to the Agenda for this kind of information to which synods said they are entitled.) Overtures 26 to 29 address the problem of trying to correct the world mission–world relief relationship. Overtures 31 to 41 and 51 ask the synod to clarify the proper role of the deacon in view of last year’s contradictory decisions. Overtures 42 and 43 raise the issue of deacons being delegated to governing assemblies. Number 44 would forbid the device of “adjunct officebearers” to place women in roles from which they are excluded by church order. Numbers 46, 48 and 49 want a moratorium declared on the women in office issue. Number 47 would exclude women from the offices of ministers elder and evangelist. Overture 45 asks for a study of what m the Bible is time-related and what is permanently valid.

The Clerk has, rather arbitrarily it seems, relegated all overtures and other communications on last year’s women in office decisions to the category of protests and appeals. Some fifty of them from classes and churches and additional personal appeals object to those decisions, usually listing their conflicts with Scripture, the creeds and the church order as well as with synod decisions, and calling attention to the trouble they are producing in the denomination.

Conclusion

The Back to God Hour report established a very high level for this year’s survey of the denomination’s business . It is regrettable that as one looks over the rest of the agenda most of the course seems to run down hill. It is not only last year’s decision to place women in office that is disturbing. That is only one symptom among many, of a much more comprehensive and threatening church disease. Its results are betrayed also by the proposals to turn worship into a dance, to put social and economic help on a par with gospel preaching in missions, to relativize all creeds and let them be fraudulently altered at key points, to join some of the most flagrantly apostate churches in an unholy alliance—the list runs on and on. Let us pray that the Lord may grant to our whole church body a genuine return to His Word—or, if the church insists on turning further away from it, will give the growing multitude of aroused members who want to unconditionally commit themselves to that Word the wisdom and courage in God’s time to break the unholy ties that would drag them and their families along with those who don’t.