THE MOOD OF THE CRC – “What is the mood of the Christian Reformed Church these days?” This question came to me from a representative of a different Christian tradition recently. I answered with what must have seemed rather ambiguous vagueness. It is always hard to know just what the mood of a sizeable group of people is. And it’s not made easier if that group shows signs of dissatisfaction with its own history and inheritance.

Curiously, two opposite pages in a recent Banner issue (pp. 18, 19, July 29, 1985) reminded me of that question because both seem to indicate something of our denominational state of mind, as revealed by people in influential positions.

“Folk Islam/Point of Contact” is a review of Phil Parshall’s Bridges to Islam (Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Book House, 1983). In this book Parshall, a missionary to Muslims in East Asia, is reported to describe the apparently more moderate “folk Islam” in contrast with the fierce, rigid attitudes and doctrines of “orthodox Islam” (the kind we read about daily during the humiliating Iranian hostage crisis).

The review is written by Dr. Bert DeVries, chairman of the department of history at Calvin College. Not just another Ph.D. in History, he boasts a Bachelor of Divinity degree as well, meaning that he also has some expertise in theology.

Prof. DeVries writes a glowing report of Parshall’s book. Why? Listen:

Can you imagine praying side by side with a Muslim, on your knees, forehead touching the ground, he in the name of Allah, you in the name of Christ? Does this sound inappropriate, sacrilegious? After you read Bridges to Islam, you will not think so. This is but one of the ways in which Phil Parshall . . . broke down the religious barriers between himself and his Muslim friends.

Other significant mood indicators might be statements such as: What I admire most about the book is the respect that it shows for Islam and Muslims. Parshall does not begin with the traditional notions that Muslims are mistaken and stubborn; rather, he sees in their religious practices a genuine yearning and searching for God (italics inserted).

As a mood this looks to me like more of the kind of strong desire evidenced by many among us, especially people of influence, to be known as broad-minded, non-judgmental, respectful of all kinds of people, so that we might be recognized as far removed from that past era of insistence upon strict moral principle and doctrinal truth. We need bridges rather than fortresses nowadays. Not in testimony against but in sharing with others will we make ourselves useful in the Cause of the Lord.

Right over the page in the same issue of the July 29 denominational paper we find a department cleverly titled Q/A. Its editor is the Rev. William D. Buursma, CRC pastor in Kalamazoo. He is asked, “Do the words in Revelation 22:18, 19 refer to the entire Bible, or do they warn against adding to or subtracting from only John’s Book Revelation?” Buursma’s answer is simple: “There is no way that John could have been referring to Genesis, Judges, Matthew, or other parts of the inspired record.”

Why not? Editor Buursma builds his case on such considerations as the fact that “some commentators” regard John’s statement in 22:18, 19 as a kind of copyright practice used in his time, and that “reputable scholars” think John was referring only to his book. Also, he reasons, John could not have known that his book would be selected as the final book of the Bible.

There is a different mood in the Belgic Confession, Article VII, I think. That article is worth quoting:

We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures; nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.

Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If anyone cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house. (Since the new translation of this creed is not generally available and does not differ substantially from this older version, I quote the older).

DISCLOSURE OF CHURCH FINANCES – It seems that a Florida city has adopted an ordinance requiring churches raising $10,000 or more a year to register with that city and report how much they collect and how they’ll spend it. Lawrence Velvel, representing the city, is reported in USA Today (Aug. 6, 1985) to say that this law “pertains to all groups that are charitable. It does not discriminate. It applies to everybody.” Similar ordinances, he said, exist in hundreds of cities across the country.

Such laws are being opposed, of course. In Atlanta while the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was hearing an appeal in this matter a motley group of protestants (Church of Scientology, the National Council of Churches, Seventh-day Adventists and the American Jewish Committee), some two hundred strong, was marching through the downtown area to draw attention to their complaint.

In this day of big–business-religion requiring financial disclosure does cause problems. Television evangelists, for example, are building huge centers for the housing, feeding and entertainment of people as well as their edification through Gospel meetings. I heard one say recently that more than 4,000,000 guests had registered in his establishment the previous year. That is big business!

Tax laws did not envision such projects. We can expect more litigation, I’m sure, as the ever greedy palms of government reach out to get “its share” of the mega-millions involved.

All of which is hardly new. There is always some tension between the message of Him who “though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich” and the affluence of some Christians. Christ’s faithful followers tend to prosper, especially in a country such as ours. Then problems come! For example: then we take on manners and customs which make our church activities seem closed except to people of our own station and success.

PASTORAL LETTER – Under date of July 3, 1985 the officers of the 1985 synod of the CRC address a letter to all members of the church. Such letters do not appear every day, and we ought to pay attention to it. I’m going to quote the letter in its entirety. The numbers inserted indicate points at which we wish to comment.

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

The Synod of 1985 has requested its officers to address a pastoral letter(1) to all Christian Reformed consistories and congregations. The recent synod was once again faced with the fact that our denomination has been divided on many key issues(2). Synod noted with deep regret that a divisive spirit within our denomination has made its negative impact upon a united witness to the world on behalf of Christ our Savior(3).

Perhaps the sharpest polarization(4) is evident in the controversy which revolved around the role of women(5) in the life of God’s family. The synodical decisions (taken only after much prayer and extensive deliberation) involve, first of all, a reaffirmation of the 1984 decision that women may serve as deacons in the capacity defined by Synod 1984(6). At the same time, synod ruled that the “headship” principle implies that women are not to serve as ministers or elders(7).

It is our fervent prayer that these decisions will be helpful in restoring trust and peace among us(8). We urge every member and congregation to use Christian restraint and moderation in stating our congregational, consistorial, and personal convictions. We particularly urge our pastors to give leadership in the healing and reconciling process so essential for true unity in our fellowship(9). We pray that all of us may be willing to acknowledge that we individually and collectively still “see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.” Now we “know in part,” but some day we shall “understand fully.”(10).

In our personal and communal pain, we can find comfort in knowing that the Lord Jesus is still the King of His church. His spirit has been promised to us and will overcome our misunderstandings and lead us into all truth(11).

With gratitude to God, we reflect on His blessings to us as a church in the years of our history. We praise God for the many wonderful programs and ongoing ministries carried on by our beloved denomination(l2). We now look forward to the future, following the example of the apostle Paul, who said, “. . .One thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” Philippians 3:13–14.

May the “Shalom” of Christ be with you all.

The Officers of Synod

Calvin Bolt, President

Peter Brouwer, Vice-president

William Buursma, First Clerk

Jack Westerhof, Second Clerk

This is the “pastoral letter” addressed to all CRC members in the interest of a restored peace and unity in the church. One can only rejoice at the concern of synod and its officers for that blessing. Disharmony, disagreement, distrust is a terrible experience for Christians to endure. We’ve had our share of that misery during past years, and one can only join these men in fervent prayer for its elimination.

Men who achieve such preeminence in the church as those who are elected to serve as officers of synod will surely not resent any well-intended comment and reaction to this very important document. I’m sure it will receive more thorough treatment than our limited space and ability allow, but I beg the privilege of expressing a few opinions on the awesome issues described in this letter. I follow the numbering inserted into the text.

(1) Well-intended as it is, I have serious doubts about the propriety of this kind of communication in a Reformed church. The letter is pastoral, which means, I suppose, something which is concerned with the souls’ welfare of those addressed. My problem is that the letter was obviously not drafted at the time of synod’s gathering, which means that it was written after the official authority of the signers is over. I think I recognize here a further tendency toward a kind of hierarchicalism, the kind that sees “synod” not as a temporary gathering (with temporary officers) but as something with at least a quasi-permanent character, and its authority as “higher” rather than “broader.”

(2) Synod, says its officers, saw once again that our church is divided “on many key issues.” This is an alarming statement! One can only wonder why any church should be marked by such division of conviction. The letter goes on to make several suggestions as to the cause and seriousness of the CRC situation.

(3) The origins of these divisions are not innocent but malicious, if this statement is to be taken seriously. A “divisive” spirit may not be tolerated in the Christian church. For decades we read to our congregations that those “who seek to raise discord, sects, and mutiny in Church” are guilty of a “gross sin” so serious that they “have no part in the kingdom of Christ.” That is just about as bad as it can get, and the sheep who are now being pastored by this letter ought to realize it. Maybe the former officers of Synod 1985 will provide us with more specific information on this matter? My personal opinion is that neither side ought quickly to be accused of divisiveness with respect, say, to the matter of women’s admissibility to church office. The two sides on this score have radically different viewpoints. Difference of viewpoint can be honorable. Divisiveness is not.

(4) At the risk of being repetitious–the term polarization is similarly frightening to any sensitive member of the Christian church. It has to mean what my dictionary calls “division into two opposites.” If polarization is “sharp” among us we can only look forward to more trouble. I think we ought to abandon this term utterly, and recognize that it has no proper place in “God’s family.”

(5) I know this might sound a bit “picky,” but why do we talk about the “role of women” in the church? As I understand it, this term implies that a person’s behavior is determined by his/her status in a given social situation. I’m disgusted to notice that we are often told by certain people that the issue here is whether women are equal to men in the church. Of course they are! They enjoy a perfect equality as bondservants (slaves) of Jesus Christ. If any should achieve office he does not gain status, but only a heavy responsibility as Christ’s anointed servant. Most often in Scripture the best ofGod’s people shrink back from this kind of assignment rather than put themselves forward as people obviously competent, spiritually, intellectually, etc., to hold office. (Maybe we ought also in this connection to be done with the expression ministerial status).

(6) This means no change from the 1984 decision to permit the calling and ordination of women to the office of deacon in spite of more than fifty overtures, protests and appeals . Two observations: first, from conversations with a number of people since Synod 1985 I note that they are convinced of the futility of appeal to class is or synod in the CRC. These are good people , serious-minded, eager to be and remain “Christian Reformed,” and their spirit is now one of hopelessness and despair. It seems that many regard this or these as of no importance whatsoever, but I should like to say that this does not augur well. Second, I fear that some feel that this decision isn’t all that important, especially since it carries the rider, “in the capacity defined by Synod 1984” (that “capacity” is: “the work of women as deacons is to be distinguished from that of elders”). Please note that this says nothing so far as the nature of that distinction is concerned. And please note that the same specification regarding ministers, elders, evangelists applies to the office of deacon: “Only those who have been officially called and ordained or installed shall hold and exercise office in the church” (Art. 3, Church Order). There isn’t the slightest indication of some kind of inferiority of deacons to elders, nor ought there be in view of The Church Order, Art. 2, “These offices differ from each other only in mandate and task, not in dignity and honor.” It might not be difficult to predict just what the line of argumentation will be when those who want all offices in the church open to women make their next move.

(7) It is very heartening, of course, when synod declares the office of elder (teaching and ruling) as not open to women. However, the text of this decision is not encouraging. It states: “That synod declare that the biblical ‘Headship Principle’ as formulated by the Synod of 1984, namely, ‘That the man should exercise primary leadership and direction setting in the home and in the church’ implies that only male members of the church shall be admitted to the offices of minister and elder.” Note that office is described as “leadership” and “direction setting.” This is another accommodation to the idea that ministers, elders, deacons and other people in divine office are where they are because of their obvious competence, not primarily because they have appointment and calling from God. Also: this decision is looked upon as a brake on the aspirations of the “women-in-office people” among us. I doubt if they are so compliant as to take this decision as some kind of “law of the Medes and Persians!”

(8) Fervent prayer is good, indeed! But wouldn’t this revelation of the passionate desire of our synodical pastors have been more impressive if some explanation as to why it might be expected to work such a blessed effect were offered? Synod chose to reject the many pleas for elimination of the 1984 decision. All these people got for their trouble was reaffirmation of the decision they were protesting and a statement that women may not be elders. Why should that bring renewed trust and peace when there is no change whatsoever in the synodical decisions? Incidentally, the letter makes no mention of the fact that synod now removed the “conscience clause” excusing ministers so-disposed from ordaining women as deacons. All ministers MUST do this now, like it or not. Will that decision restore trust and peace?

(9) The letter at this point is potentially very dangerous. In my opinion anyone who says much now about the problem is going to fall quickly under the judgment that he lacks “Christian restraint and moderation.” I suspect we are in for a very difficult time, if the writers of the pastoral letter are right. We need, say they, leadership so that the “healing and reconciling process” may restore “true unity in our fellowship.” This indicates a grim situation. The hopeful expression here is “true unity.” I’m glad that the pastoral letter signatories remind us that unity is something which must conform to the law of God, that it is a normative thing. They will not object, therefore, if someone vigorously points to that law in the effort to realize such peace.

(10) I find this reference strange as well as serious. One might say something about the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13 suggested. My discomfort comes from an additional consideration, namely, that if everyone admits that he doesn’t see very clearly, peace will be the result. I doubt seriously if harmony can be restored in the way of acknowledged ignorance. My friends on the other side of the women-in–office issue see very clearly and know very much. I wish often that I could match their intelligence. But we disagree conscientiously on what we see.

(11) One can only say Amen! to the obvious intentions of the letter at this point. However, is the fact of Christ’s Kingship over the church (see the description of that awesome reality in Revelation 1) much comfort to us if we are not in agreement with His royal word? And if His Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth (John 16:13), has He been misleading us for something like 2000 years on the matter of women’s eligibility to hold holy office in the church? Or is that leadership of the Spirit some kind of evolutionary process by which we shall eventually reach God’s truth?

(12) Again, we agree! It is a crying shame that discord and disagreement must appear to threaten the good work of the CRC for more than one hundred years. Fact is that we “conservatives” agree so strongly on this point that we prefer to bear the stigma of a dozen labels rather than disturb the welfare “of the many wonderful programs and ongoing ministries carried on by our beloved denomination” by demanding innovative changes. May the witness of a church truly Christian, that is, Reformed never disappear from the earth!

These are just a few casual comments on the letter Synod 1985 felt it ought to send to the churches. Once again, I appreciate the tone, the good intentions, the love for the CRC the letter evidences. As my remarks indicate, however, I do not feel that it will solve many problems. It seems to me that we will have to work much harder, care even more deeply, repent most sincerely, and possibly strive with one another even more vigorously if we are going to find the “true unity” we need.