Synod met on the campus of Calvin College beginning on Tuesday morning, June 9. As usual the accommodations for synod were delightful, everything being arranged for an orderly and comfortable environment in which to carry on the business of the Christian Reformed Church. The first session of synod was in charge of the pastor of the host church, Rev. John Bergsma, of the Alpine Ave. CRC of Grand Rapids. After opening with Scripture reading and the prayer for the opening of ecclesiastical assemblies from the liturgical section of the Psalter Hymnal, Rev. Bergsma proceeded to call for the election of officers for the Synod of 1981. This is always an emotional time, of course, with all the delegates wondering who will be elected for these offices. The outcome showed that Rev. John De Kruyter was elected president, Rev. John Bergsma, vice-president; Rev. Milton Doornbos, first clerk; and Rev. Martin Geleynse, second clerk. So ended the first session of synod. All the delegates were recessed to their various committees.

Wednesday, June 10

During the first few days of synod, most of the work is carried on in the meetings of various advisory committees. This means that not too much activity goes on in plenary sessions of synod. This is primarily true because everything that is handled by synod in an official capacity is first considered by a committee which has been appointed from the delegates to that particular synod. In recent years these committees are appointed by the officers of the previous synod, together with the Stated Clerk of the CRC. The real work in a sense, is carried on in these advisory committees. It is there that issues are discussed, debated, and finally brought to the floor of synod by way of recommendation. Often it happens that when a committee begins its work, there are sharp differences of opinion based on different understanding of issues, and different interpretations of Scripture. This difference simply reflects the division within the Christian Reformed Church. In a very real sense synod, and thus also the delegates to synod, are a microcosm of the CRC at large. This explains the nature of these advisory committees.

A matter of some significance was handled by synod on the first Wednesday. Synod of 1980 had approved the organization of a separate classis for the churches in the Indian mission field. Now the implementation of that decision was before Synod 1981. It was a time of rejoicing when synod approved the recommendations to aut horize the organization of Classis Red Mesa of the Christian Reformed Church. Rev. Paul Red house spoke words of appreciation to the synod for this encouragement. One of the elder delegates from Classis Rocky Mountain, Mr. Herbert Thomas Jr., a member of the Navajo Indian tribe, also spoke of this new step in our mission endeavor.

Thursday, June 11

On Thursday the report of the committee to review the work of the Synodical Interim Committee was presented to synod. This was Report 35 in the Agenda for Synod. Of special interest was the recommendation dealing with “Interim Functions” of the SIC. The third recommendation of the Study Committee was that “The Synodical Interim Committee shall identify, analyze, and make recommendations to synod with respect to matters of denominational concern, which do not fall within the mandate of existing denominational agencies.” The note attached to this recommendation in the Agenda of Synod states “the third function is new and reflects our belief that the SIC has been too timid in tackling new concerns. It would encourage the SIC to analyze issues and present proposals to synod regarding matters which now either go untouched or require the appointment of study committees.” There . was a good deal of discussion regarding this. Rev. Geleynse said that in his opinion, the SIC has not been too timid in the past in dealing with issues and presenting them to synod. Rev. James Howerzyl, delegate from Classis California South, made a motion to delete that third recommendation. In the first roll-call vote it was found that synod endorsed the thinking of those who felt that the SIC did not need to be encouraged to “identify, analyze, and make recommendations to synod.” The recommendation was deleted from the report.

   

Clayton Libolt

Also on Thursday synod recommended and approved the candidacy of 28 men for the Ministry of the Word in the CRC. Synod also approved the candidacy of 9 others who were finishing up their requirements in the Seminary. At a later synod session, many of these candidates were presented to synod, and in a specially moving service, they were addressed by the president of synod and offered the congratulations of the delegates. The procedure has certainly improved in recent years over previous synods when few if any candidates were even present at synod.

One of the more important events involving candidacy was the case of Clayton Libolt. Mr. Libolt is a graduate of Calvin Seminary, a doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan in Mid-Eastern Studies. He was also seeking candidacy in the CRC. The advisory committee took note of the fact that even though he was endorsed by the faculty of Calvin Seminary, and by the Board of Trustees of Calvin College and Seminary, there was significant opposition to his candidacy both by one member of the faculty and by several board members. So the advisory committee interviewed Mr. Libolt in its committee sessions. The result of those interviews was that the committee recommended that a full interview be conducted on the floor of synod.

The interview was conducted by Rev. John Vriend, delegate from Classis Grand Rapids East. He was given about 30 minutes of interview time, followed by another 30 minutes for delegates to ask questions. It became apparent almost at once that the problem regarding Mr. Libolt’s candidacy had to do with his view of the opening chapters of Genesis, and particularly, with his conception of the factuality of Adam and Eve, the serpent and the fall. He was asked, “Was Adam a historical person?” Libolt refused to answer in a yes or no way. He would only say that in his opinion it was possible that he was a historical person. The chairman of the advisory committee, Rev. Peter Brouwer, asked Libolt several questions to bring out his views of the opening chapters of Genesis. “Was there a real serpent? Was there a real tree? Was there a real voice speaking?” To each of these questions there was the ambiguous response that these things were not transparent to the historian. At the end of the interview, synod  went into its only executive session for deliberation and decision.

During this time it became apparent that there was more going on than a candidate on “trial” for his candidacy. What was happening, in the opinion of this reporter, was that the Seminary was on trial. One delegate told me that if Clayton Libolt would be approved as a candidate, he would take a different position regarding the new seminary movement. However, the problem was not whether synod would approve this candidate; the problem was that to the delegates of synod, he was a product of our Seminary. It was my opinion that the “alternative seminary” weighed heavily on the minds and hearts of many at synod during the discussion that took place. And the responses of two of the seminary professors added to that opinion. One of the delegates asked about the endorsement of Mr. Libolt by the seminary faculty. Dr. John Kromminga, seminary president, answered that in the opinion of the majority of the faculty , his positions were within the Reformed confessions, particularly in light of “Report 44,” (the 1972 synod report on the Bible’s authority). Seminary professor, Rev. John Stek said that it was impossible for one who had not studied extensively the problems involved in the interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis to really understand the nature of those problems. In response to a question as to why one of the Seminary professors had taken exception to Mr. Libolt’s candidacy the chairman of the advisory committee said that this exception was due to the candidate’s denial of Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible. Libolt’s view, often associated with what is called the “Hypothesis Theory” of the origin of the Pentateuch, is that there were many different sources of this material, all of which was edited and put together by Ezra or someone like him in the post-exilic time of Israel’s history. This is clearly a denial of what our confessions maintain as to the authorship of these books.

At the end of this executive session, synod voted by ballot and the result was that Clayton Libolt was rejected as a candidate in the Christian Reformed Church. Rejection is always a difficult thing to do. There is no doubt that it was a great disappointment for this man. But synod acted decisively, and in my opinion, with good reason.

Friday, June 12

By this time in the work of synod, many of the decisions were rather routine. This very nature of advisory committees .determined that those matters which did not involve difference of opinion were handled quickly and easily, and therefore brought to the floor of synod soon after these committees began their work. As a result, by this Friday a great many decisions were taken involving this kind of non-controversial, routine matter. However, one of the items dealt with on Friday was the appeal of the Dutton CRC regarding the “Verhey Case.” This appeal had been made against the action of Synod 1979 which first had rejected the recommendation to “declare that it is persuaded that Dr. Allen Verhey clearly and unambiguously confesses the Bible to be the fully reliable and authoritative Word of God, and that he seeks through a careful method to avoid arbitrariness in interpretation.” Then Synod 1979 had adopted the recommendation “that synod accept with gratitude to God Dr. Verhey’s confession that the Bible is the fully reliable and authoritative Word of God, and his intention to avoid arbitrariness in interpretation by means of a carefully articulated method.” The Dutton consistory appealed to synod that Synod 1981 “rectify and complete the unfinished resolution” of the 1979 Dutton appeal on the grounds that the second recommendation adopted by Synod 1979 was substantially and verbally the same as the defeated recommendation. But Synod 1981 refused to reopen the case or to sustain the appeal of the Dutton Church. It did add by way of amendment that synod “expresses its appreciation to the Dutton Church.”

Saturday, June 13

At every Synod there are matters of particular importance. One of these was the overture from Classis Grand Rapids South requesting synod to sever relations with the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (GKN). The grounds for this overture are: “A. The decision of the GKN regarding practicing homosexuals, together with its clarification, in response to the request for clarification from the RES, is contrary to Scripture. B. The synod of the GKN has not heeded the concern expressed by our synod. C. The GKN has neglected the stipulations of ecclesiastical fellowship such as ‘communication on major issues of joint concern’ (Acts of Synod 1974, p. 57).”

Prior to synod’s dealing with this overture, opportunity was given to the two fraternal delegates from the GKN to speak. They were the president of the Synod of GKN, Rev. A.C. Hofland, and the Stated Clerk of the GKN, Dr. Weijland. Both men spoke ably and with passion urging our synod not to sever relations with their church. Appeals were made to the common heritage of both our churches; to the fact that the GKN is our “mother” and that no separation should take place. We were urged to be tolerant of their situation in grappling with the difficult passages of Scripture that deal with the matter of homosexuals. Dr. Weijland referred to the movie based on the Battle of Arnhem called “A Bridge too Far.” He said, Please do not do anything to make a “bridge too far” in our relationships.

It was, obviously, a charged atmosphere at synod in which now a discussion must take place regarding the overture to sever relations with the GKN. The advisory committee recommended “that synod office again formally request the GKN to reconsider, in light of what we believe to be the explicit witness of Scripture, its extremely controversial and regrettable statement of pastoral advice on the matter of homosexual disposition and experience (‘beleving’). That synod, in view of the present position of the GKN on homosexual disposition and experience, redefine the terms of ecclesiastical fellowship with the GKN as follows: a. That we continue an exchange of fraternal delegates to major assemblies; joint action in areas of common concern; communication on major issues of joint concern; and the exercise of mutual concern and admonition with a view to promoting the fundamentals of Christian unity.”

The committee further recommended “that we discontinue occasional pulpit fellowship and fellowships at the table of the Lord.” The issue was clear to the advisory committee. It was that the GKN permitted practicing homosexuals to belong to the church and remain in good standing. It neither condemned nor condoned their behavior. In the meetings of the advisory committee, Rev. Hofland explained the position of his church. He told the committee that a distinction must be made between two individuals of the same sex living together in a relationship of trust and love on the one hand, and a homosexual who goes to the gay community and lives a promiscuous life. That, he said, is clearly wrong. But if two persons of the same sex live together in such a relationship of trust and love, that is beautiful. To say the least, this admission on the part of the president of the GKN synod came as a shock to most of the members of the advisory committee. And for that reason the committee came with the recommendations to discontinue occasional pulpit fellowship and fellowship at the table of the Lord. The grounds for such action were that the decision of the GKN allowing practicing homosexuals to be members of the church is clearly contrary to Scripture. Further the Scriptures forbid us to condone fellowship with those who live immorally. The committee felt it owed it both to ourselves and the GKN to take a definitive stand on this issue at this time lest by our failure to speak we inadvertently encourage a way of life that is contrary to the Word of God.

Even though the advisory committee recommended discontinuing occasional pulpit fellowship and fellowship at the table of the Lord, it did encourage such fellowship with those members of the GKN who did not endorse their church’s stand on this matter. The matter now was before Synod. Rev. John Vriend objected to the word “explicit” in the recommendation of the committee. He felt that while it is certainly true that the decision of the GKN was controversial, it is not true that Scripture is “explicit” in its condemnation of practicing homosexuals. He recommended the deletion of the word. But synod by a vote of 65 to 85 defeated that amendment. He then urged that the decision of the GKN was not “regrettable” as stated in the recommendation. But again synod did not endorse his appeal. Synod adopted the first recommendation urging the. GKN to reconsider its regrettable and controversial decision in the light of the explicit teaching of Scripture.

At this point synod adjourned for the week-end.

Monday, June 15

The advisory committee’s recommendations to discontinue fellowship at the table of the Lord and occasional pulpit fellowship was in sharp disagreement with the report of the InterChurch Relations Committee. This is a standing committee in the CRC which deals with the relationship between the CRC and other church bodies. Obviously the overture from Classis Grand Rapids South regarding severing relations with the GKN was of great interest to this committee. Under the leadership of its chairman, Rev. Clarence Boomsma, this committee was given the privilege of presenting its views regarding the overture, and our relations with the GKN. As a standing committee, it had precedence over the advisory committee because its views were different from that of the advisory committee.

Rev. Boomsma urged that synod not sever relations with the GKN, even on these two matters of fellowship at the table and occasional pulpit fellowship. He noted that the GKN had finally answered the communication sent to it from our synod regarding our disappointment with its stand on homosexuals. And therefore, Boomsma said, we are finally speaking with each other. Let us give more time for that discussion. Rev. John Stek, one of the professors of our seminary, suggested that it is hardly justifiable to make a break with the GKN on merely an ethical matter. He went on to say that the issue of apartheid in the South African churches is something that merits separation, but not an ethical issue such as homosexuality. What was amazing to this reporter was that Professor Stek saw the issue as just an ethical matter, whereas the advisory committee and even the fraternal delegate knew it to be a matter of Scriptural interpretation. After more discussion, much of which was emotional on the part of delegates whose relatives are members of the GKN, the question was called resulting in the adoption of the recommendations of the InterChurch Relations Committee, and thus the rejection of the recommendations of the advisory committee. Synod will continue dialogue with the GKN, and if necessary at some later time, possible separation in pulpit and table fellowship can be considered.

Capital Punishment

The second of the items of special importance coming to synod was that dealing with capital punishment. The study committee came to synod by way of the agenda with its recommendations “that synod declare that the Scriptures lay no general mandate on modern states to exercise capital punishment; that the Scriptures do permit modern states to inflict capital punishment; and that according to the spirit of Scripture, capital punishment is prudently exercised only under special circumstances and not as a general rule.”

The advisory committee was split into three groups on this matter. The majority of the committee took the position of the study committee. A minority of two differed essentially with the majority in that it recommended that synod declare “that the Scriptures lay a general mandate on states to exercise capital punishment for murder.” A third minority of one wanted synod to declare that “Scripture does not permit modern states to inflict capital punishment.” This position was taken by elder delegate from Classis Kalamazoo, John Hofman, a defense attorney, who argued that capital punishment removes all opportunity for repentance and conversion from the murderer, and it takes the judgment belonging only to God away from Him. The first minority position was taken by Rev. Ralph Pontier, delegate from Classis Florida. Rev. Pontier was an able speaker for his position, but synod adopted the majority recommendations. The most important aspect of this entire discussion on capital punishment was really not so much what synod says about it. For obviously synod does not exercise capital punishment. No recommendation was even made that this report be sent to the governments of the United States and Canada as the t hinking of the CRC on this matter. The most important thing was the view of Scripture which was represented by the study committee report. The key passage in the Old Testament dealing with this issue is Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” One would think that this clear passage of Scripture settles the matter. But the study committee said that this text must be taken as a kind of proverb. We cannot take it as a command of God, binding on modern states in all times. The fact that synod adopted its recommendations is unfortunate, to my mind, because those recommendations are based on that kind of Scriptural interpretation.

Tuesday, June 16 – Women in Office

The issue that has been at the center of controversy within the CRC for nearly ten years finally came to the floor of synod. The question of women in church office was discussed before a house full of visitors. The chairman, Rev. John De Kruyter, began by welcoming the visitors, and informing them that whereas they were more than welcome to listen to the discussion, he would not tolerate any outbursts of applause. Rev. De Kruyter was at his best during this entire discussion.

The study committee had come to synod with one majority report, and two minority reports. The advisory committee likewise was divided, one majority and two minority recommendations. But the amazing thing to many at synod was that the majority of the advisory committee took essentially the position of the one–man minority of the study committee, Rev. Henry Vander Kam. The recommendation was that synod “postpone indefinitely the implementation of the decision of the Synod of 1978 regarding the ordination of women as deacons.” The first minority recommendation of the advisory committee was essentially the same as the majority report of the study committee. It recommended “that synod allow consistories to ordain qualified women to the office of deacon, provided that their work is distinguished from that of elder.” Then followed the proposed revisions of those articles in the Church Order that would have to be changed to coincide with that recommendation. The second minority recommendation asked that synod simply allow churches to ordain women as deacons, making no distinction between the office of elder and deacon.

The chairman ruled that since the first minority of the advisory committee report was substantially the same as the majority of the study committee report, it had the precedence on the floor of synod.

The recommendation would essentially change our concept of the office deacon. It would effectively put the deacon out of the consistory room as far as authority over the church is concerned. A lengthy study in the committee report by Dr. James DeJong showed that historically this was the position of the Presbyterian churches ever since Reformation times. But the discussion that followed soon showed that not very many were happy with this kind of compromise. John Vriend urged synod not to adopt this recommendation. He said it was a put-down to the office of deacon as well as to women. He said he hoped that if it were adopted, not one single woman in the CRC would allow her name to be placed on nomination for deacon. Rev. John Hellinga, delegate from Classis Huron, urged synod not to adopt this recommendation or that of the second minority because, he said, the unity of the church is more important than women in church office. The church is obviously not ready for women in church office. Rev. Jacob Kuntz of Classis Hamilton, took the opposite position. He said that women in church office is like the place of women in our homes. They do not stay in the kitchen, while the husband is in the living room. Together husband and wife make decisions. And the wife has the right to authority in the home as well. It should also be so in the church, he urged. “Why,” he said, “even THE OUTLOOK had an article by a woman telling synodical delegates how they ought to vote on this issue.” When many of the delegates broke into laughter, he said, “And I like that! They ought to be allowed to speak and exercise authority.”

And so the discussion went’ on. Then a motion was made to table this recommendation, and go to the second minority recommendation of the advisory committee. This recommendation was to allow churches to ordain qualified women as deacons with no distinction from that of elder. The motion to consider this recommendation was adopted by a very small majority. Now synod was dealing with the second minority recommendation. Then someone urged synod not to adopt this position because, said he, it would violate the concept of headship that is apparent especially in the authority that is granted to both the elder and deacon in Article 30 of the Belgic Confession. The introduction of the headship principle in the discussion turned deliberations toward this new angle. Rev. Douglas Warners of Classis Lake Erie said that if this recommendation is adopted, a door will be opened that cannot be shut. Even though the recommendation calls only for women to be ordained as deacons, it will lead to women as elders and ministers. Rev. James Howerzyl spoke on the perspicuity of Scripture. It is very clear, he said. And it is easy to understand that the Bible does not permit the woman to have authority over the man. At last the vote was called on the second minority recommendation and the motion was defeated.

Now our attention was directed back to the majority of the advisory committee which wanted to postpone the implementation of the 1978 synod decision regarding the ordination of women as deacons. Again there was a great deal of debate both pro and contra this recommendation. At last elder delegate from Class is Toronto, George Vander Velde, asked if he could move to table the recommendation and to present a recommendation of his own. This was permitted. His recommendation was “that synod postpone the implementation of the decision of the Synod of 1978 regarding the ordination of women as deacons, pending the findings of a study committee on headship.” He further recommended that synod appoint a study committee to examine “the meaning and scope of headship in the Bible as it pertains to the relationships of husband and wife and man and woman to ascertain: a) whether headship has implications for authority and leadership in marriage and family, church, business, educational institutions and government, and, if so, how? b) How these conclusions apply to the question of whether women may hold office in the church.” After some discussion, a committee was appointed by the chairman to clarify these recommendations and present them later in the day. This was done, and synod quickly approved the recommendations. This study committee consists of Rev. John De Kruyter, convener; Dr. Anthony Hoekema, Mrs. Martheen Griffioen, Dr. David Holwerda, Rev. Wayne Kobes, Rev. Gordon Pols, and Mrs. Thea Van Halsema. It is to report to Synod of 1983. So ended a long day of discussion on the issue of women in church office.

Wednesday, June 16

The work of synod was just about completed. There were still important items such as the budget matters to be taken up on this last day. One of the important decisions had to do with Christian care of retarded persons. Synod appointed the present committee on Christian care for retarded persons as a service committee for ministry to retarded persons for two years. Synod also heard the appeal from First CRC of Grand Rapids regarding the gravamen of Dr. Harry Boer against the confessional teaching of the doctrine of reprobation. Synod refused to sustain that appeal. Another appeal to synod carries with it some very important implications for the future of the educational institutions of our church. This was the appeal of Classis Chicago South regarding the President of Trinity Christian College. The appeal was based on the decision of the synodical deputies not to permit Dr. George Van Groningen to retain his ministerial credentials as President of Trinity College. Classis Chicago South approved his being called to this position, but the deputies refused to sustain that decision. Therefore it was appealed to synod. The advisory committee recommended and synod decided that the synodical deputies were correct in not permitting a minister to be called to the presidency of Trinity Christian College and retaining his credentials as a minister of the Word. This will surely have ramifications for such colleges as Dordt, King’s College, and Redeemer College, not to mention Calvin, and ministers’ service in any other area outside the institutional church.

And so synod came to adjournment late Wednesday evening. From my observation, I would say that synod acted with some degree of hesitation on many issues. It did, of course, act decisively in regard to Clayton Libolt. But it was not courageous when it came to the GKN. It hesitated and equivocated where it had a golden opportunity to act with strength and prophetic witness regarding the truth of Scripture. It also postponed action again on the matter of women in ecclesiastical office. I do not think this issue will die. It is bound to come up again. This synod had an opportunity to act decisively one way or another. It took a decision which at least postponed final decision for two more years.

Positively, this synod was marked by fewer “political” manipulations than some previous synods. I believe this was due in no small measure to the evenhandedness of the chairman, John De Kruyter. He was given a standing ovation at the end of synod from an appreciative body. Many have remarked about the singing at synod. It is always outstanding, but this year it seemed to me it was even better than other years. This was surely due to the expert accompaniment at the organ by delegates Rev. Jack Vander Plate from Classis Florida and elder Bert Polman from Classis Toronto. It was an important synod dealing with issues that have been with us many years, and will continue to be with us for many more. Our prayer is that the Lord who is the king of His Church will bless what was done according to His Word, and will bring to nought that which is not pleasing to Him. May He be praised by this synod and every one to come.

Henry Vanden Heuvel is pastor of the Bethel Church of Zeeland, Mich., and was one of the delegates representing Classis Zeeland at the synod sessions.