A Reader’s Question

From one of our California readers we have received the following letter: Dear Editor of the Outlook,

I would like to see you write an editorial in the Outlook on the following: Are we who are members of the Christian Reformed Denomination responsible for the decisions of Synod? I have in mind the Dr. Verhey Case. He does not seem to believe in the infallibility of the Scriptures. Are we all now guilty of not believing in the infallibility of Scripture (Dutton Consistory excluded) since Synod has granted Dr. Verhey admittance to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments?

Our Responsibility for the Denomination

The question which our correspondent raises is difficult. We can hardly be held individually responsible for every action of the church body of which we are a part. We have a responsibility for our own congregations and to and for members of the congregations to which we belong that we do not have toward members of others who may even be unknown to us. At the same time we have a concern for and some responsibility for the actions of the whole denomination. Our assemblies, consistory, classis and synod and our processes of overture and appeal provide us with a way by which such responsibility can be exercised. When, as in the Verhey case, a member or church is convinced that a significant error has been made, one has the opportunity and duty to try to get it corrected. That is what the Synod of 1976 said when it decided “that synod remind the appellants that if they remain convinced that the position of Dr. Verhey brings him into conflict with the Confessions they must follow the procedures outlined in the Form of Subscription and the Church Order,” (Acts 1976 p. 95). Others, however, also have that opportunity and responsibility. The Verhey case was and is a test case. If the synods continue to refuse to decide that his way of criticizing and contradicting the Scriptures is wrong and not to be tolerated in the churches those Synods are responsible for permitting him and others to mislead the churches by contradicting the Scriptures. The churches and classes whose representatives form the synod share that responsibility. Two years ago when a decision to admit women to offices in the ruling body of the churches had been pushed through the synod in defiance of the plain teachings of the Bible to the contrary (Note especially I Cor. 14:33–38 and I Tim. 2:11–3:1.)there was an unprecedented volume of protests which compelled this next Synod to (at least temporarily) halt the practice. This route of overture and appeal is the way the churches and their members must act to try to keep the body faithful to the Scriptures. Bringing such basic issues to the synods gives all the opportunity and corresponding responsibility to try to influence and maintain the faith and faithful practice of the denomination.

It Must Not Be Exaggerated

When Dr. Verhey contradicts the Scriptures and is admitted to the ministry does that make all of us who are members of the denomination guilty of denying the Scriptures? That is the question being raised. It seems to me that to say it does is saying too much. “Every one of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12) and we have some responsibility for trying to help and correct our brother and our neighbor, but we can hardly be held accountable in the same degree for every error or wrong done by our church assemblies. When some church or classis lets a member get away with adultery does that make all of the members adulterers?

It Must Be Faced

When, however, as in the present case, objection is raised to the churches’ action and the matter is repeatedly appealed to the largest church assembly so that the churches know about it the responsibilities of others become greater. Suppose that despite all of our prayers and efforts Dr. Verhey and his views are permitted by the synods and allowed to control the training of our future leaders and ministers, do we not become guilty of condoning and supporting this by our continuing membership, payment of quotas etc. That is the question that increasingly troubles many of our conscientious church members.

The Question of Separation – When ?

How bad does a church’s action have to be before a Christian has to leave it? We hear of an increasing number of our church members who become convinced that the practice of the denomination or of local churches has deteriorated to the point at which they can no longer in good conscience be members, and so they leave us to affiliate with other churches that are still trying more consistently to be faithful to the Scriptures and the confessions.

Others of us see it as our duty for the present to continue to work and pr ay within our churches for the reform and correction of the increasing error. Look what under the blessing of God has been accomplished a few years ago among the Missouri Lutherans when the same critical misuse of the Bible dominated their church administration and schools. When enough members became aroused they spoke up and the error was officially repudiated.

Some among us say that it is our Christian duty to stay with the denomination until it disciplines us or in some other way prevents us from holding and preaching the gospel. It seems to me that that is saying too much. Liberal churches today usually do not discipline evangelical Christians. They often like to keep some of them for recruiting new member s. (When a church goes liberal it loses its gospel and evangelistic appeal.) Or they like to keep some for advertising purposes, so that people will say, “If that prominent evangelical is still a member conditions in the church can’t be too bad.” But may a Christian permit himself to be “used” in this way? If it becomes apparent that we are part of a church which is not merely weak and inconsistent, but which is really subverting the gospel, must we not leave it? God’s Word says, “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers . . . come out from among them” (2 Cor. 6:14ff.). Today many Presbyterians are leaving their large denomination which is banning preachers who will not accept women officers and is defending the denial even of the deity of Christ.

A Prior Parental Responsibility

When we are considering the matter of our responsibility for our churches we should bear in mind that more personal, direct and urgent than this is the responsibility which the Lord places upon each parent for the training and welfare of his or her own children. Recall the Lord’s words, “Whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Mt. 18:5, 6). And remember the Apostle’s injunction, “And, ye fathers, . . . bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4), and his broad warning, “If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (I Tim. 5:8).

Today many Christian Reformed parents are deeply concerned about that responsibility, acknowledged by them when they presented their children for baptism, to ensure that their children are thoroughly trained in the doctrines of the Christian faith. As editor I get as much or more correspondence about this subject than any other. It is a common complaint in many of our churches that, following a synodical decision of 1973 (Acts 1979 p. 232), the thorough, systematic teaching of Biblical doctrines, as was traditionally done in catechism classes has been discarded in favor of the piecemeal, less doctrinal and more diversified united church school curriculum. Many burdened parents are asking what they can do to compensate for the deficiency of their church in this important matter. And they are often ordering catechism books which continue to be supplied by the Reformed Fellowship and others. I believe on the basis of observations and correspondence that this need of systematic doctrinal training of children, as well as concern about the kind of church into which those children’s lives are being channeled, is a main reason why a number of families transfer to other denominations. A number of our churches, bypassing the official novelties, are continuing to provide catechism classes using the best books they can find.

John Calvin’s Answer

In our present difficult situation it may be helpful to us to recall the position which John Calvin had to take amid problems somewhat similar to our own. In the confusion of the Reformation time he had to oppose some Anabaptists and others who in their zeal for a pure church did not hesitate to leave or split a church in which they found errors. Calvin maintained that the existence of scandal in a church did not require that one leave it. He cited the Lord’s parable of the net containing good and bad fishes (Mt. 13:47–58) and that of the field with good and bad seed (vv. 24–30). He mentioned the vices existing in the Corinthian church and observed that despite those serious faults (which Paul tried to correct) he continued to address and deal with it as the Lord’s church. “Even if the church be slack in its duty, still each and every individual has not the right at once to take upon himself the decision to separate.”* Citing the example of the Old Testament prophets, he observed that if they “had scruples against separating themselves from the church because of many great misdeeds . . . of almost all the people, we claim too much for ourselves if we dare withdraw at once from the communion of the church just because the morals of all do not meet our standard or even square with the profession of Christian faith.” Recalling the example of the Lord and his apostles he observes that “a godly conscience is not wounded by the unworthiness of another, whether pastor or laymen; nor are the sacraments less pure and salutory for a holy and upright man because they are handled by unclean persons.” As long as a church “cherishes the true ministry of Word and sacraments” Calvin regarded it as a grave sin to leave it (Institutes IV, I, 10-19).

On the other hand, while Calvin recognized that there were still many Christians within the Roman Catholic Church, he considered that because of its departure from the doctrines of the gospel it was no longer a true church and a Christian was morally bound to leave it. “If the true church is the pillar and foundation of truth (I Tim 3:15) it is certain that no church can exist where lying and falsehood have gained sway” (Institutes IV, II).

This biblical distinction between true and false church as Calvin analyzes it is more briefly summarized in our Belgic Confession of Faith Articles XXVII–XXIX.

The Reformed Fellowship and its paper were begun over a quarter of a century ago as a united effort to work and pray for the strengthening and deepening of our Biblical Reformed faith and life. Let us continue to pray and work as the Lord gives us opportunity and responsibility, within or outside of the same denomination, for a Church faithful to the Lord and His gospel, united in Christian faith and life.

*In the paragraph which follows Calvin cautioned against exaggerating our responsibility for the conduct of others. Speaking of celebrating the Lord’s Supper he wrote, “For when Paul urges us to a holy and pure partaking of it, he does not require that one examine another, or every one the whole church, but that each individual prove himself (1 Cor. 11:28). If it were unlawful to partake of communion with an unworthy person, surely Paul would bid us investigate whether there is anyone in the multitude whose uncleanness pollutes us. But when he requires each one to prove himself alone, he shows that we are not at all harmed if anyone unworthy foists himself upon us. What follows agrees with this: ‘He who eats unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself ‘ (1 Cor. 11:29). Paul does not say “upon others,” but “upon himself.” And justly. For individuals ought not to have the authority to determine who are to be received and who are to be rejected. This cognizance belongs to the church as a whole and cannot be exercised without lawful order . . . ” (Institutes IV. I. 16).

It will be of interest to our readers that the new Thornapple Valley Classis, made up of the smaller half of what was the large Classis Grand Rapids East, at its January meeting, decided to support the Dutton consistory’s appeal of the Verhey Case to the 1981 Synod.