Two months before the annual denominational synod is to meet the agenda of materials with which it must deal have been published, to be made available to all who hold special church offices. As usual, the OUTLOOK surveys this (496-page) book.
Back-to-God Broadcasting
The first of the reports gives account of the denominational broadcasts “in nine languages, reaching practically the entire world.” The agency makes a point of the fact that although it endeavors to use the newest and best electronic facilities available, it aims to bring exactly the same message of “Christ crucified” that was brought by the Apostle Paul.
In addition to its domestic and foreign Englishlanguage radio and TV programs, it has for 28 years been sending out the gospel in Arabic. Rev. Victor Atallah, Orthodox Presbyterian missionary in Cyprus, has been working with listeners to the broadcasts of Rev. Bassam Madany, especially the many who respond from Egypt. A Spanish language broadcast, directed by Rev. Juan Boonstra, uses 237 radio stations. It is paralleled by a Portugese broadcast directed by Rev. Celsino Gama in Brazil. A Chinese outreach over seven stations, headed by Rev. Isaac Jen, features evangelistic sermons and study programs designed to train house-church leaders in that most populous country in the world. It has an office in Hong Kong. Its responses have multiplied four times in two years. French broadcasts of Rev. Aaron Kayayan have received a remarkable response in African countries. A Reformed church begun in Zaire less than two years ago, assisted by a missionary of the Eureka Classis Reformed Chu rch in the US, Rev. Paul Treick, now consists “of upwards of seventeen congregations and possibly of as many as 15,000 people who have responded to the French ministry” (p. 20). Our broadcasts also continue in Japanese, Indonesian, and most recently, in Russian. The Committee seeks a per family average contribution (“quota”) of $54.30 plus $17.70 for its TV outreach.
Calvin College and Seminary
The Calvin Board reports 238 students enrolled in the seminary and 4,053 in the college. It has withdrawn its earlier proposal for a denominational student aid fund because of the volume of adverse reaction from the denomination, citing the objections that the proposal (1) would usurp local authority, (2) mean another denominational quota, and (3) did not meet the needs of students at other Reformed seminaries and pre-seminary students (p. 27). The board seeks a 5% quota increase, plus an additional amount to finance a seminary “multicultural education program.” In the OUTLOOK we have from time to time pointed out that the current “multicultural” fad, in principle contradicts the gospel’s removal of such ethnic differences between Christians, and promotes the kind of “discrimination” it is supposed to be removing.
The seminary administration has to train and recommend students for approval as candidates for the churches pastoral ministry. We are informed that among the applicants for such candidacy this year is Mr. Clayton Libolt. It should be recalled that Mr. Libolt applied for candidacy in 1981, and was recommended by the seminary faculty and Board. There was “significant opposition” in both bodies, however, and in a public interview before the synod he was unwilling to give unambiguous answers to questions about the fall, and to state that Adam was a historical person, and that there were a real serpent, a real tree, and a real speaking voice. He was denied candidacy after revealing these defective views about the Bible (OUTLOOK, Aug. 1981, p. 7; Jan. 1982, p. 17). Subsequently he, in an Aug. 23, 1982 Banner article, restated his conviction that “Genesis 1–3 cannot be read straightforwardly as history.” On Nov. 4, 1982, speaking at Calvin Seminary “On Reading Genesis,” he suggested that the Fall be taken as a mere story to illustrate man’s development from childhood to adulthood. He denied that there was any qualitative difference between the Bible and other books and he approved a portrayal of God’s law as a false invention of Moses (OUTLOOK, Jan. 1983, p. 6). As he again applies for candidacy, the seminary faculty, board and synod will have to determine whether his views have become more orthodox, whether the denomination has now departed far enough from its confessions to (like Classis Lake Erie, which continued to defend and license him—Acts 1982, pp. 604, 605; 1986 Yearbook, p. 427) tolerate the heretical views he expressed, or whether they will maintain the position stipulated by the synod in 1982. The Synod then declared that “adherence to the confessions, as required by the Form of Subscription, includes those utterances of the confession that affirm the historical factuality of events recorded in Genesis 1–3” and instructed “the Board of Trustees and all assemblies which deal with admission to the ministry of the Word to require of the candidates a clear statement of commitment to the confessions including those utterances of the confessions that affirm the historical factuality of the events recorded in Genesis 1–3” (Acts 1982, pp. 107–108).
Publications
The publications board briefly traces its history up to its current expansion program. It notes its “steady shift away from the traditional ‘church agency’ model for financing” toward becoming “a Christian publishing company that is governed by the church and is supported financially by the sale of its products.” As such, it is “attuned to customer needs” in determining what and what not to publish (p.34). (And we need to bear in mind that a substantial majority of those customers are not within the denomination p.39). The claim of being almost self-supporting overlooks the fact that its fielding is not paid for by its sales, but by church quotas.
The report highlights the board’s effort to publish a new Psalter Hymnal next year. In connection with that project our April, 1986 OUTLOOK called attention to its decision (ignoring all church order requirements for changing the churches’ creeds) to have its Liturgical Committee hastily revise the Heidelberg Catechism. Was the Board ever authorized to tamper with the creeds? The report now states that “A third part of the present Psalter Hymnal, ‘Doctrinal Standards . . . was not even mentioned in the synodical mandate, although synod clearly expected that this section would again be included . . . for committees assigned to produce new translations of the Belgic Confession and Canons of Dort were urged to complete their work soon so that approved versions could be included . . .” (p.43). The unauthorized catechism revision (approved only by the Publication Board’s executive committee and not even the whole board) is now submitted to the synod as a suggestion (!) “that the synod consider updating the language used in the Heidelberg Catechism so as to make it conform to the standards of vernacular (non-archaic) and inclusive language that have been used in revising the Psalms and hymns and the liturgical forms” (pp. 44, 45). Among the grounds for the recommendation is “c). The changes suggested are judged not to alter the essential meaning of the catechism.” The wording of those changes does not even appear in the Agenda being sent to the churches, but is said to be included in a “separately prepared Agenda Supplement” (p.71)! What those changes are can be learned from a special CRC Publications Report (#3) containing “Proposed Psalms Hymns and Bible Songs for the Psalter Hymnal” of which a copy has been sent to each church. Its Appendix B contains the creed revisions. There we notice that the Catechism question and answer 6 is altered from “Did God create man so wicked and perverse? No. God created man good . . . so that he might truly know God his creator, love him with all his heart, . . .” to “Did God create us so wicked and perverse? No. God created us good . . . so that we might truly know God our creator, love him with all our hearts,” Similarly, answer 9 is altered from “God created man with the ability to keep the law. Man, however, tempted by the devil, . . . robbed himself and his descendants of these gifts” to “God created our first parents with the ability to keep the law. They, however, tempted by the devil, . . . robbed themselves and us of these gifts.” Notice that in the (feminist) effort to eliminate masculine language the evident allusion to the creation of Adam is replaced by the dubious statement that “God created us good” and that Adam’s representative role in the fall is replaced by that of “our first parents.” Does that elimination of Biblical covenant doctrine (Rom. 5:19) not “alter the essential meaning of the catechism”? Consider another of the revisions. Although one of the language considerations prompting the changes is said to be making the number and person of pronouns more consistent, we notice in question and answers 110 and 111 that there is an inconsistent switch from singular to plural in order to avoid masculine forms. The feminist prejudice obviously takes precedence over consistency of language. The Agenda really raises the question: Will the . . . synod endorse this irresponsible and illegal, sexist revision of the (recently revised) Heidelberg Catechism?
It should also be noted that the Board has similarly revised the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed and “respectfully suggests that synod consider updating the language” used in them. Some of the changes indeed remove “archaisms.” “Sitteth” becomes “is seated,” “thence” becomes “there,” “proceedeth” becomes “proceeds,” and “spake” becomes “spoke.” Other changes are more significant: In “for us men and for our salvation” removal of “men” and the following “for” is suggested. “Remission” is changed to “forgiveness.” When “according to the Scriptures”, which seems to echo the Biblical text of 1 Cor. 15:4 even in the NIV, is changed to “fulfilling the Scriptures” there is a significant change of meaning. Whether the change is an improvement may be debated—but it should be debated rather than slipped past the synod without the delegates, much less the whole church, noticing what is being done! Is this the way we now change fundamental creeds? Need anyone be surprised that a growing number of our over 300,000 church members seem to be losing confidence in their denomination when a few people in a subcommittee are permitted to change the confession of faith they will make each Sunday without as much as telling the churches what they are doing?
Missions
The Home Missions report states in an early paragraph, “Many Christian Reformed people are concerned that their church remain a true manifestation of the church of Christ . . . People who work hard to keep the church strong and pray that God will preserve the church should also pray that God will add to the church, and should themselves engage vigorously in the task of bringing the gospel to others” (p.87). It calls attention to our denominational growth rate of less than 1 percent. Then, expressing some of the more doubtful and controversial preoccupations of the administration, it suggests a need for getting more “women and multiracial persons” in the board (which is elected by classes to represent them, not to serve the desires of the board). Isn’t it possible that pursuing the anti-discrimination fad is helping to kill our growth rate? Evidently reflecting a parallel bureaucratic trend, the “secretaries” are now to become “directors.” The report lists areas and personnel in home missions. It stresses “its commitment to promote the multiracial character of the denomination” to which “nearly 50% of the fields budget” is devoted (p.98). Here again we confront the racism we, as Christians, are supposed to be trying to eliminate! A little later it highlights its “New Church Development Among Blacks” which “envisions the development of a new autonomous black congregation within the CRC” with a “long range goal” of “the spawning of other new black churches in the same general area” (p.100). This begins to look like promoting an ecclesiastical “apartheid!” A little later, after citing the way “North America’s foremost church consultant” characterized its “Evangelism and Worship Workshop” as “the best on the market,” it ruefully concedes, “unfortunately, all this activity has not yet translated into significant growth for the denomination” (p.102) and notes a pervasive decline in denominational loyalty.
Our World Missions and World Relief are undergoing a major shakeup in the process of being placed under one new “superboard,” the Christian Reformed Board of World Ministries. Having two agencies (for missions and relief) representing the same churches working independently with differing policies in the same places with the same people was an intolerable arrangement that had to be corrected. Placing them under one board now raises inevitable problems, but the report at one point remarks, “The difficult days are over and we already see greater harmony because of closer cooperation” (p.125). In the placement of the two activities under one board involving new constitutions the missions organization expresses to the synod its concern that the new combined organization is already not properly stressing the “Centrality of the Proclamation of the Word” as the synod had instructed it to do (p.126). Although the preamble of the new constitution states “In this task the announcement and proclamation of the Word has the central place,” the mandates of the board, the mission and the relief organization “do not make any reference to the centrality of the proclamation of the Word.” It seeks to remedy this crucial deficiency by amendments. The point properly raised by the missions administration touches what is likely the most threatening characteristic of this massive reorganization, the threat that in the multiplication of subsidiary activities the bringing of the Lord’s gospel gets crowded to the side or out, as it has often been throughout the history of missions. When even in the early structuring of the constitution this central concern is being overlooked, some drastic correction is heeded to save the enterprise.
The brief survey of our mission fields reveals that there were 120 missionaries living in Africa. In Nigeria, our older field now reports nearly 70,000 baptized members, over 150,000 people attending church in more than 50 congregations and 425 worship centers. The later, Tiv church now has over 100 congregations, over 2,100 worship centers and about 275 ,000 attendants. In the older area 18 pastors are being trained at the TCNN (the union seminary championed by Dr. H. Boer) and Veenstra Seminary, 400 students are enrolled in continuing education and 250 future church leaders are being trained at Smith Bible College and three Bible schools. Among the Tiv, the Reformed Theological College of Nigeria established by the Tiv church (to which the Reformed Fellowship has given some help from its beginning) now has 60 students and Benue Bible Institute has 80. That church operates hundreds of primary schools, 37 secondary schools, and one teachers’ college, and is trying to set up a Christian liberal arts college. These activities are being carried out by the churches there with our missionaries taking a dwindling part in them. Our mission had 8 fields and projects in Latin America during 1985 involving 78 missionaries (including their wives). In the growing work in the Dominican Republic our missionaries now work with about 160 groups with an average attendance of about 6,000 people and about 200 leaders in training. About a thousand students are getting a basic education in fourteen Christian schools. The Mexican work still suffers from the church split to which our mission troubles contributed. In Japan 8 missionaries are developing churches in 13 places; in the Philippines we are represented by 18 regular missionaries (single or with families), and in Taiwan and Hong Kong by six.
The World Relief programs (now being placed under one board with world missions) are concerned with relief of extraordinary need and with development. Especially in the case of the latter, the Board tries to avoid creating continuing dependency. The reports show that many of our activities are channeled through a variety of other churches and agencies. Some of the programs and promotion lead one to wonder about what social, economic and political involvements they entail. When we read of seeking to enlighten our members about social issues such as refugee policy, battling poverty and Central America (p.148) and of the Canadian branch’s efforts to “seek ways to change the system of repression and violence” and its membership in the Interchurch Committee on Human Rights in Latin America (p. 153) we sense the misguided church involvement in promoting socialist revolution that characterizes most of the Liberal churches of our time.
Especially striking in the reports of this now-being-combined committee is the fact that both are having to complain about a drastic reduction of (quota) support by the churches, the mission agency indicating a shortage that could reach 23% and the relief organization mentioning having to borrow $400,000 from the bank. The mission report “requests synod’s assistance in making internal and external changes to regain the confidence of the churches which is necessary for continued and increased financial support of (mission) ministries” (p. 130). This is undoubtedly the synod’s (and our) problem. We must and will support missionaries whom we have reason to believe are faithfully bringing the gospel, but we may not support those who consider it part of their mission to promote aberrations from the gospel such as socialist revolution.
The world relief statistics on pp. 154, 155 are worth pondering. They show a reduction of the coming budget from 7.3 million to 6.5 million dollars, but that the combined US and Canadian “administration” items of $536 thousand are not reduced at all. In the $6.5 million reduced budget, addition of listed items shows that well over a million dollars still go for “fundraising,” “diaconal development” in the US and Canada and “administration.” This does not include another item of about $100,000 for “hunger education.” We can and do give for programs we have reason to believe feed the hungry, but can anyone be blamed for not similarly giving for mere “hunger education”? We are informed that a number of midwestern churches include many farmers who are going bankrupt. Is it surprising that these churches and their members are failing to meet quotas that cover administrative salaries which run as high as $67,865 (p. 241)? (To these must be added unlisted fringe benefits which when they were still reported included items such as 9% “vacation” bonus.) The mission administration has abundant reason to suggest some “internal and external changes to regain the confidence of the churches.”
Fund for Needy Churches
The Fund for Needy Churches report proposes some further restrictions on denominational support for small churches (p. 172ff.).
Interchurch Relations
This report asks the synod “to clarify its instruction,” identifying issues it wants discussed with the Reformed Church in America (p. 183). Discussions with the reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKN) continue. Although the discussions of differences are friendly , there is no indication of any return of those churches toward orthodoxy in faith and morals. Simultaneous assemblies of a number of conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches are again scheduled to be held in 1987 at Calvin College. The Committee has for some time tried to have us join the (Liberal) World Alliance of Reformed Churches. Until the synod decides the matter in 1988 it continues to send observers to that body. It is also considering our rejoining the National Association of Evangelicals which we left many years ago. The crisis in the Reformed Ecumenical Synod is reported to be worsening, because of the Liberalism of the Dutch churches (GKN) and the arguments with the South African churches about racism. The loss of conservative member churches and the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa’s suspension of membership and withholding of funds have brought serious financial problems to the RES. Two RES documents are offered for synod approval. The first, a testimony on human rights, (pp. 196-199) is a pompous, wordy and vague statement which never defines the rights it advocates and contains generalizations which cannot stand up under scrutiny. Phrased in universal terms, its pleas for reconciliation seem oblivious to our Lord’s statement, “I came not to send peace but a sword” (Mt. 10:34) and to His distinctions of believer from unbeliever. To indiscriminately condemn capitalism and communism in favor of pluralism appears as foolish as it is useless. Must we defend the “rights” of all religions including the Muslim Fundamentalist’s religious “right” to persecute under his laws? The following Declaration of Human Rights (pp. 200, 201) is at least more specific, though it also raises questions. Do all have a “right to vote”? Most countries have never had and do not today have it and our children do not. Criminals in prisons are properly deprived of certain civil rights. Are all of these proclaimed “rights” Biblical teachings or mere modern social theories, which because they are only that provoke useless controversy?
Creeds and “Contemporary Testimony”
A special committee now resubmits its 1985 careful translation of the Canons of Dort for final approval by the synod (pp. 285 ff.).
The Contemporary Testimony Committee also submits its latest recent revision (containing over 200 changes from the previous 1983 document which was circulated among the churches) seeking synod approval. Creeds have historically been formulated to clearly confess Biblical truth and distinguish it from and defend it against threatening errors. In our time, however, creeds are sometimes formulated for an opposite purpose, to cover and protect popular errors by vagueness and ambiguity. Regrettably, this document seems to fall into the latter class. Even its name and purpose has from the beginning been ambiguous. It was admittedly not called a creed in order to gain easier acceptance, yet is being widely promoted and used to displace the Catechism. Written in poetic form, it was so vague and imprecise that it from the beginning needed a “commentary” to explain and defend what it intended to say! In spite of being called “contemporary” it does not attempt to exclude some of the most popular and threatening errors of our time. Dr. C.P. Venema in the March 3 Christian Renewal observed that regarding the authority of the Scriptures, the nature of social justice, evolutionism, contemporary feminism, worship and neo-Pentecostalism it seemed deliberately vague, and that it was so unclear on gospel fundamentals “that there is no compelling reason why a universalist could not embrace it as a statement of his own faith.” One of its writers pointed out in a Banner article a while ago how in dealing with homosexuality it had been carefully formulated in deference to homosexuals. The staff of Christian Renewal in its Feb. 17 issue suggested that the many objections to the Testimony may be better understood in the light of the fact that a clear majority, five out of the nine members of the Testimony committee “share a perspective influenced over the years by the Institute for Christian Studies” (the Toronto AACS school). Perhaps this may help to account for its refusal to speak clearly where church confessions should and its inclination to express unconvincing opinions on matters in which a church has neither calling nor competence. Two classes’ overtures (11 and 12) oppose and would delay its acceptance. The churches might be better rid of this unsatisfactory substitute for a creed.
Children at the Lord’s Supper
Because agitation has arisen to have children participate in the Lord’s Supper (a practice promoted in the Liberal World Council of Churches, and correspondingly, in the Dutch Reformed Churches (GKN) as well as others) some of our churches have introduced it and a study committee was appointed. Its report (pp. 346 ff.) concludes that “The biblical requirement for meaningful participation in the Lord’s Supper is faith that discerns, remembers, and proclaims the body of Christ while partaking” (p.365) and that “Consistories properly supervise the Lord’s Supper only when they require a profession of faith on the part of all who partake” (p. 366). Reacting against what is probably a too common practice of not making or expecting a confession of faith until the age of 20 or later, the committee seeks to promote much earlier confession and communion-following the tradition of Calvin and the early Reformed churches who thought it appropriate at age ten to fourteen. Some members of the committee would make this much earlier; A. Helder in a minority report, arguing for the age of seven and for participation before a confession of faith, and Russel Maatman in another minority report, arguing that they should be included at any age because they are in the covenant.
What we see evidently beclouding the issue and, to some extent the report, appears to be confusion about the covenant and especially Abraham Kuyper’s old “presumptive regeneration” theory. That notion seems to have figured significantly in the current apostasy of the Dutch churches as it was taken to mean (as Maatman too argues) that conversion is unnecessary in the covenant and church. This is held despite our Lord’s and Paul’s emphatic, contrary teaching to covenant and church members (Mt. 18:32; John 3:3; 2 Cor. 5:20–6:1).
Assuming that all baptised children are already believers and no longer requiring a confession of faith before the Supper breaks down what is left of church discipline. It has contributed to that in the Netherlands and may be expected to do the same here. We must indeed stress God’s covenant promises to believers and their children implied in their baptism, but we must beware of perverting those encouragements to faith into the soul—and church—destroying heresey that repentance and faith are unnecessary to the baptized. The report and its subject deserve the wider study by the churches that the committee recommends (and that overture 10 requests).
Alcoholism
Fifty pages of the Agenda are devoted to a discussion of drinking and drug abuse, a current problem that undoubtedly needs more attention than out churches often give to it. The report, although somewhat repetitious, contains many helpful explanations and suggestions. Membership of the committee obviously included specialists in the field as well as theologians. It is soon apparent, however, that while the product reveals the perspectives of both, it is the doctors who are in charge. If the Bible interferes with the latest dictum of the professional, the Bible will have to give way. That appears to be a main weakness of the report. We early and often hear the cliche, “Alcoholism is a disease” (See esp. pp. 386ff.). We are told that while the alcoholic “is morally culpable for the behavior he manifests as a consequence of his drinking, be is not morally culpable for the development of the disease alcoholism” (p.390). The axiom is repeated that an alcoholic always remains an alcoholic (p.395), despite the Apostle’s statement to former drunkards, “Such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11).
Of an alcoholic minister’s lying, we are told “such denial and deception are symptoms of the disease and therefore, should not be construed as deliberate deceit” (p. 416). “It is . . . recommended that an afflicted pastor or employee’s job security, status, or position, as well as normal promotional opportunities, and salary increases will not be jeopardized, altered, or frozen because of an alcohol –drug-related diagnosis, intervention, or a successfully completed treatment.” Only if the individual resists treatment does the report suggest suspension from office. While we have to extend Christian consideration and help, is this doing justice to a church? The report recommends the AA organization without qualification although its treatment “steps are stated in specifically nonreligious terms.” Although some AA organizations may express the Christian convictions of their members, may we give unqualified endorsement to an organization that will define God only as “a Power greater than ourselves”? The report ought to be given some critical study rather than uncritical acceptance of its recommendations.
Overtures
Among the overtures (pp. 472 ff.) Classis Holland asks some rule changes in synod procedure in the appointment and service of advisors to synod committees (Overture 2). Overture 5 asks that to reduce costs, only 4 copies of the synod Agenda and Acts be given each consistory instead of enough for all consistory members. While consistory members often make little use of their copies, it might be undesirable for the churches to have this material circulated even less than it is. There does seem to be little or no reason for reprinting all of the agenda material in the acts; stopping that duplication would save some costs (and most long reports could be drastically shortened to make them clearer).
Overture 8 seeks to substitute observing World Communion Sunday for “All Nations Heritage” as being more Christian. In view of the Liberal unbelief of many who promote the former, why observe either?
Overture 9 would leave the method of selecting elders and deacons to church discretion. This apparently seeks to open the way for wider use of the lot instead of election. The movement to the lot looks like an unhealthy way to eliminate membership responsibility and put unelected men (and women?) into office.
Overture 13 from California South seeks to revise the second marriage forms before including them in the Psalter Hymnal so that they will recognize the Bible’s teaching concerning the differing roles of husbands and wives—a good idea for a church that seeks to be faithful to the Bible.
Overture 15 wants a new translation of the ecumenical creeds. We should not concede the word “catholic” to the Roman church, and recently appear to have had quite enough of irresponsible tinkering with the churches’ creeds.
Overtures 17 and 18 from individual congregations seek more vigorous action against the South African churches, appealing to our earlier hasty and irresponsible synod decision which threatened them with the charge of heresy—a move to make bad matters worse.
Overture 19 would include Covenant Theology and its implications for Christian Schools, and proper and improper interchurch relations in matters to be discussed with the Reformed Church in America. Our Interchurch Relations Committee has asked for some guidance as to what matters should be brought into this discussion. This overture suggests an appropriate answer.
Overture 20 brings up many objections to song revisions in the new Psalter Hymnal and seeks to change the policy embodied in it before it is produced.
Overture 21 seeks to include the historic older liturgical forms which were scheduled to be discarded, in the new hymnal, arguing that these were supposed to be included and are still widely used—This sounds like a good idea. Their exclusion will likely contribute to grievances of many with the recent denominational course.
Classis Hamilton in Overture 22 seeks to restrict the office of evangelist to men on the basis of the earlier synod’s recognition of the headship of the man and its implications for church leadership-another good idea.
Overtures 24–27 deal with the proposed denominational student fund. 3 of the 4 oppose it. Since even the Calvin Board has decided to drop the matter because of widespread opposition, this may end it unless the synod on the basis of one overture decides otherwise.
Overture 28 would have Wycliffe Bible Translators recommended to receive offerings.
Overture 30 seeks to have quotas placed on a per member rather than per family basis. A subcommittee of the synodical interim committee (pp. 244ff.), in response to an earlier overture, recommends keeping the present per family recommendation with some qualifications for differing circumstances. And it should be emphasized that quotas have been recommendations, not taxes, as bureaucratic practice and even the suggested changes seem to imply. (Failing to follow an unwarranted “recommendation” is not “delinquency”.) Vernon’s Overture 31 seeks to reduce some quotas and freeze others.
Appeal 1 objects to a decision to have a local Christian school taken over by the church and supported by a classis. Number 2 appeals a Toronto decision to approve giving quota moneys to the support of the (AACS) Institute for Christian Studies, since this is a graduate school, not geared to the needs of our church constituency, and has never been alloted a synod quota.
Conclusion
Appeal 3 protests against the opening of the office of deacons to women as contrary to the Scriptures, creeds and Reformed practice and church order.
In this it resembles Zeeland’s Overture 23 which asks that the synod reverse the earlier decisions and “declare that only male members of the church are eligible to the office of deacon.” It points out at length how last year’s decisions had no adequate grounds and violated the requirements of Scripture, creeds and church order.
It is significant that in this synod agenda there are very few overtures and appeals. Where last year there was a flood of some fifty such addresses to the synod on this subject, now there are only two. Does this mean that the churches are acquiescing to the course the synod has chosen? While in some cases they may be doing so, in many others they may and will not. As significant as the falling off of overtures is the equally striking falling off of quota support for synod-imposed causes. When the synod decides to run roughshod over the consciences of 50 assemblies, it can hardly expect that those assemblies will address further appeals to a body that has demonstrated that it will not give them the fair hearing required by Scripture, creeds and Church Order. While they will continue to support individuals and programs that they have reason to believe are faithful to the gospel, they can and may not give blind support to individuals and programs that they have no reason to suppose are faithful to it. Although the overtures and appeals are few, they give the coming synod another opportunity to reconsider the denomination’s course in dealing with these important matters. Will it turn in a more Biblically Reformed direction, or will it pursue its present course toward more confusion and division?