NO HERESY! – We mentioned before the fact that Classis Chicago South of the Christian Reformed Church was to meet in special session to consider charges of heresy against Rev . Neal Punt by the consistory of First CRC, Lethbridge, Alberta. After considerable discussion classis decided that the defendant was not guilty of violation of his church’s creeds (most specifically, the Canons of Dort).

Readers of OUTLOOK deserve a full and fair report on this incident. We’ll try to provide it soon. Now, however, apartheid in far, far away South Africa holds the dubious distinction of being the only recently recognized heresy in the CRC!

THE ISSUE SUMMARIZED – Most of us know that there is a religious denomination known as “Seventh–day Adventist.”  There are a number of interesting things in their history and practice (you can read of them in any good book on the different “churches” found in North America). In recent years this group appears to have put forth a more aggressive and progressive image, reflected in an excellently edited monthly entitled MINISTRY. It is sent free-of–charge to clergy everywhere.

In its March 1985 issue this journal reveals that the matter of ordaining women to the official Gospel ministry is “on the docket” among Adventists as well as many others. A very well–written statement of the argument for the introduction of this practice appears under the authorship of a certain Willmore Eva; another opposed is written by Bernard E. Seton. From the descriptions offered both appear to be or have been denominational executives.

Mr. Eva’s contribution (Pro) begins with an excellent statement of the difference between the two positions with respect to their Scriptural interpretations. Without further comment (except to insert asterisks intended to point up sensitive areas) I quote here his summary of the “hermeneutical difference” between those who feel biblically warranted to recommend the ordination of women and those who don’t. (Once again, recall that “hermeneutics is the study of the methodological principles of interpretation,” in this case of the Bible). Eva writes:

In Adventist discussions of the legitimacy of women in the ministry, much of the disagreement over the Biblical data arises because of hermeneutical differences. The problem is not merely academic. It lies near the heart of our struggle to stand together. Complicating our hermeneutical differences is the fact that the Christian church in our century faces many issues that had not arisen during the Biblical period. For this reason we must be especially responsible in the way we apply Scripture to any social or ethical question.

We might characterize one of the two hermeneutical approaches . . . as the literalistic approach. Its proponents tend to focus upon Biblical statements or specific scriptural cases. In contrast, proponents of the second hermeneutic tend to look for the general principles they find inherent in the flow of Scripture. They also take into account the historical and cultural dynamics within which the inspired writer worked.

One can readily see how two divergent, even opposing positions may be taken upon a question if two different hermeneutics are employed . Those who follow the first hermeneutic tend to view the others as ignoring, rationalizing, or compromising undeniable scriptural evidence. They also tend to accentuate the demands of law in Scripture when settling ethical questions.

Conversely, those who adopt the scriptural approach that settles ethical questions by wholistically searching out Biblical principles tend to see their counterparts as unaware of the central thrust of the combined Biblical and historical evidence. They see them as dogmatic in their adherence to positions the Bible never intended to be of eternal import. Their view of ethical questions tends to be dominated by their view of God’s grace.

Our good readers can readily see that Seventh-day Adventists may look to us as be ing a bit strange, but that their thinkers are not necessarily stupid! One is tempted to comment extensively on these things, but I think we’ll just leave it up to each one to draw his own conclusions.

CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TEACHERS NEED “DOCTRINE BASE” – In the CATHOLIC FREE PRESS, a Worcester, MA Roman Catholic diocesan weekly, Pope John Paul II is quoted as saying ”that systematic study of Church doctrine is ‘indispensable’ for full-time and volunteer religion teachers.” The Pope is reported to have told a general audience at the Vatican “that local Churches cannot merely rely on people who are willing to teach but are inadequately prepared in doctrine.”

There is a program of catechetical indoctrination in the Roman Catholic Church and its teachers are called catechists. Pope John Paul values their work highly, this report indicates, regarding their training and effort as essential “for the development and vitality of the Church.”

The Pope is said to have encouraged catechists to study in specialized institutes that can fully prepare them in Church doctrine. “Doctrinal formation is a fundamental necessity, because catechesis cannot be limited to teaching a minimum of truth that is learned and repeated by memory . . . A more systematic study is indispensable. In fact, sometimes circumstances have led those responsible for catechesis to have recourse to the collaboration of people of good will, but without an adequate preparation. Such solutions are generally deficient.”

We of the Reformed persuasion can afford here to be reminded of an important truth, even if the reminder comes from Rome.

A few observations:

1. The place of systematic, biblical doctrine ought to be seen anew as of utmost significance for the life of God’s people. There is such a thing as Reformed doctrine, and if we mean to be an honestly Calvinistic church we ought to teach it, know it, stand for it and love it. (Please don’t tell me that a church doing this cannot grow. I know of more than one non–CRC congregation which emphasizes doctrine strenuously, and the growth of these churches by way of conversions “from the outside” far outstrips anything I know among us.) 2. I would add Christian School teachers to those mentioned above as “catechists.” Pastors and teachers in school and catechism ought to agree in, and ought to share a high measure of competence and dedication in doctrinal matters. At this point the distinction I’ve heard made, “I’m an educator, not a theologian,” is not helpful! “The development and vitality of the Church” does depend, humanly speaking, on a solid and loving instruction in the Truth. In that connection some of us have been more than a little disgusted by the replacement of doctrinal instruction with all kinds of “religious and moral teaching.” 3. As Pope John Paul II dared to say, we need more than people of good will in the work of spiritual nurture. We need competence. And we ought not to sacrifice competence to good intentions!

EVENING WORSHIP – As an emeritated minister I now enjoy preaching in the various congregations of the area as needed. It is a very enjoyable experience!

However . . . are we sufficiently concerned about the decline of attendance at the second (usually the evening) service in many of our churches?

As Synod appears ready to appoint study committees for almost anything in recent years, maybe we need a careful, “blue chip committee” to tell us just what is making our people unwilling to give the Lord the time it takes to attend two services on His day.

This might open our eyes to see the cause for more of our troubles.

LIBERATION THEOLOGY – “Liberation Theology,” with its roots in South American nations, has been covered in OUTLOOK a few times. We are not for it.

It strikes me, however, that there is a North American type of “liberation theology” which might be an even more immediate threat for the CRC. To illustrate here is a quote from a report to a CRC classis from one of its (male) ministerial servants engaged in a classically-supported, special campus ministry. He writes:

Recently, I completed a series of visits to different residence halls, speaking on a subject designed to provoke discussion. We called it “Marriage-An Unnatural Act.” It did. Provoking discussion among college students today is a challenge. So many are of the “Choke and Vomit” variety. They want pre-digested quasi–intelligent pablum in order to 1. get a degree, 2. get a job, 3. get rich. Yuppies—the wave of the present.

There are some exceptions to this trend. In our fellowship for example. We are not an organized Church. We are a fellowship. Thus we do not write overtures to classis. We do on occasion write undertures. Here is an example of an underture which would be an overture if we were a church.

We would underture classis to overture Synod to:

1.  Support the decision of Synod 1984 granting the privilege of ecclesiastical office to women.

2. Expand the decision of Synod to open all ecclesiastical offices to qualified and gifted Christian women.

Ground: The Liberating message of the Gospel (italics inserted) revealed in the New Testament proclaims that in Jesus there is neither male nor female insofar as superiority or authority is concerned.

Comment:

(1) I used to wonder how denominations which once professed a certain (in this case confessionally Reformed) doctrine could change so radically. In my last years in the active ministry I met a pastor from one of America’s leading Presbyterian communions who did not own a copy of the Westminster Confession and catechisms. He borrowed a copy from me, returning it later with the comment, “That’s deep stuff.” I came to the conclusion that it is possible to import any kind of thinking into a church by way of (a) the total neglect of church discipline with respect to heresy, and (b) a (subsequent?) sheer apathy.

(2) I say this here because anyone can see that the kind of thinking represented in the citation above is totally different from traditional, Louis Berkhof-Reformed theology. Please note the way we now speak of the New Testament in distinction from the Old (this has every kind of consequence!). Please note that in spite of the fact that various competent people have conclusively argued the invalidity of Gal. 3:28 as proof for the admission of women to church office, people go on quoting it anyway as if its teaching is plainly what they assert it to be. Is it possible that many of us are on a totally different doctrinal and theological path without many being aware of it at all? Or is it true that very few are able to discern such differences and still fewer care?

(3) If theological agreement among us is as divided as the above indicates to me, the possibility of maintaining the vaunted Christian Reformed unity (the basis for our quota system of giving, for example) is threatened, to say the least. Personally, I have no great enthusiasm for giving my money to support the kind of ministry represented by the author of that quoted above. I don’t like saying things like that. And I’m not saying that my denominational loyalties and affections won’t compel me to give in support of such projects. But my enthusiasm is dampened. I think that ought to make some people reflect on the value of continued rejection of standard and traditional confessional positions.