To experience a Christian Reformed synod as a delegate is a concentrated, complex and sometimes confusing business which makes a survey and analysis like this very difficult. This year’s synod faced more than the usual number of very crucial matters, and many delegates sensed that things were going on which might well have serious implications for the future of the church.

I have written this kind of report before (in ’74 and ’77, for example). Although in my opinion these reports were accurate, helpful and very gracious, some disagree. A person I once regarded as a dear friend is said. to have labelled these writings “Piersma’s personal prejudices.” I didn‘t find that opinion comforting. This report, like all others, is written from a certain prepossession (“a fixed conception in the light of which anyone or anything is judged”–Webster). As a Christian Reformed minister bound by a solemn oath (repeated at synod, incidentally) “to teach and faithfully defend” “all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the Confession and Catechism of the Reformed Churches, together with the explanation of some points of the aforesaid doctrine made by the National Synod of Dordrecht, 1618–19” because they “fully agree with the Word of God” (Form of Subscription), I could hardly do otherwise.

In other words, I’m trying now not only to tell you what happened, but also something of what I think are its significance and consequence. There is room here, of course, for difference of opinion. I don’t know of another way, however, for real, profitable discussion of situations, practices and issues without free and open expression of such opinion which among Christians, ought to be possible without undue bitterness, anger or rejection.

The simplest method to follow is chronological. That means t hat we will review synod’s days of meeting in their regular order.

Monday, June 11

Synod is traditionally introduced by a “presynodical worship service.” This was held in the historic Eastern Avenue Church, now celebrating the 100th anniversary of its organization. Eastern Avenue is well-known in connection with the historic debate on Common Grace, at the 1924 synod in Kalamazoo. Although H. Danhof was as much involved in that controversy as H. Hoeksema, somehow Eastern Avenue (Hoeksema’s church) came to be identified with that struggle, out of which the Protestant Reformed Churches arose as a result of the deposition of Hoeksema and Danhof. Synod started out on historically awesome ground!

Tuesday, June 12

Synod was called to order by one of the host congregation’s pastors, Rev. Vernon F. Geurkink. Opening devotions included reading of Matt. 23:1–12 and the singing of Psalter Hymnal number 398, “The Church’s One Foundation.” It was quickly evident that, whatever else, synodical delegates sing well to get her!

After calling the roll, synod proceeded to ballot for president. On the third ballot Rev. Leonard J. Hofman from Classis Holland was chosen. Rev. Bastiaan Nederlof from Classis Hamilton was elected on the second ballot to the office of vice-president. Similarly, Rev. Louis M. Tamminga of Classis Toronto and Rev. Henry Vander Kam of Class is Florida received a majority of votes cast for the offices of First and Second Clerk, respectively.

Synod adjourned so that Advisory Committees might have the day to work on their assignments.

Wednesday, June 13

Synod was s hocked to learn Wednesday morning that one of its members died during the previous evening. Elder Peter Mast of Volga, S.D., representing Classis Minnesota South, was stricken with a heart attack while attending his advisory committee meeting at about 8:00 P.M., and was pronounced. dead a little after 9:00 P.M. in a Grand Rapids hospital. He was 57 years of age. In the presence of the widow and a daughter, Miss Jan Mast, synod was led in appropriate memorial devotions by its first clerk, Rev. Louis Tamminga.

The first item of business was adoption of a recommendation that “synod authorize the making of an official audio recording of the entire proceedings of the general sessions of synod,” and that CRC–TV be granted “permission to videotape highlights of the 1979 general sessions of synod for news releases and promotion purposes.” This meant that delegates were required to sit under hot, bright lighting at times.

A significant procedural matter was passed at the same session when it was decided “that new study committees to be appointed by synod shall be nominated by the advisory committee which recommends the study with the advice of the officers of synod.” Study committees have played a considerable role in the life of the CRC during the past few decades, to put it mildly. Previously their nomination was by a special synodical advisory committee. Since study committee recommendations get both privileged as well as prior consideration, it is “politically” very important to get the right kind of recommendations.

Synod ’78 decided that there was a fourth office in the church, the office of evangelist. Three decisions were taken on this matter at this point: (1) It was decided not to declare this office to be a full-time position (as requested by Classis Chicago South); (2) to continue to limit the exercise of the office of evangelist to congregations not yet organized (vs. an overture from Classis Kalamazoo); (3) to “add to the ‘Guide for Conducting Church Visiting’ in the section ‘Regarding the Deacons,’ question 5, the following question: ‘do they promote world benevolent causes, and does the congregation respond adequately?’” This was in response to an overture from Classis Quinte in Canada.

Classes Chatham, Grand. Rapids South, and Sioux Center asked synod “to designate the New International Version of the Bible as one of the versions acceptable for us in worship services.” Synod decided to withhold action on these requests until its Bible Translation Committee can complete its review in 1980.

The large standing committee at work to revise the Psalter Hymnal reported considerable progress in this gigantic task. Synod endorsed its understanding of the nature of church music by reaffirming the following statement:

The music ofthe church should be appropriate for worship-that is, it should be liturgical and have aesthetic integrity. The music of worship should serve the dialogue between God and His people. It must be true to the full message of the Scriptures and reflective of biblical Christian experience. Along with this biblical motif, the music of worship should give expression to the other motifs of liturgy: the catholic, the confessional, and the pastoral. The music of worship should satisfy the aesthetic laws that are conditions of good art, such as imaginative craftsmanship and seriousness of expression. It should reflect the church at worship today and throughout the ages in ways that are relevant, enduring, festive and dignified.

It seems that this is a strong committee and that its work promises to be of great help to the worshipping church. Our church organists, choir leaders, Christian School music teachers and other interested might find the reports on this subject as found in previous agenda and acts of synod very profitable.

Thursday, June 14

The CRC owns and. operates two institutions for higher learning, Calvin College and Calvin Theological Seminary, which means that they, too, are directly under synodical control. This requires that synod approve appointments, and so it did: 12 were granted “new terminal appointments,” three were given “new administrative and professional appointments to the staff of Calvin College,” three were reappointed with tenure, 36 were granted faculty reappointments, four were named as administrators, librarians or other professional staff people, three were granted honorable emeritation (Dr. Harold P. Geerdes, James P. Hoekenga, Dr. Earl Strikwerda), and six were cited for 25 years of service to the college: Prof. Ervina Boeve, Dr. James Bosscher, Dr. John Hamersma, Dr. Charles Miller, Dr. Peter Oppewall, and Dr. Marten Vande Guchte.

Two seminary professors were approved for reappointment: Dr. Richard De Ridder and Dr. J. Marion Snapper (each for two years). In effect 37 men were declared candidates for the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments in the CRC, 32 immediately and five upon completion of academic requirements. Rules for procedure for appointing a president of Calvin Seminary were adopted. Changes were minimal, we thought. One was that the nominating committee constituted by the Board of Trustees is to include four members from the Board (elected), three from the faculty and, this is the change, two members–at–large elected by the Board from a nomination prepared by the Board of the Seminary Alumni Association.

A very important procedural matter adopted at this point dealt with the nature of the open interviews with candidates for the editorship of The Banner. These candidates were Rev. William Buursma of Kalamazoo, Dr. James DeJong of Sioux Center and Rev. Andres Kuyvenhoven of Mississauga, Ontario. It was decided

that synod appoint the reporter of Advisory Committee 6 (Rev. Donald Negen) to conduct a brief interview with each nominee to be followed by questions from the floor. Each nominee shall be questioned for a suggested maximum of 30 minutes

Before Friday afternoon, the time set for these interviews, the Advisory Committee came with additional regulations regarding this procedure, which, in our opinion, were unfairly restrictive. They read as follows:

That synod grant delegates opportunity to interrogate the nominees from the floor with these two qualifying guidelines:

1. Each delegate may ask only one basic question.

2. Questions about non-adjudicated matters coming before the Synod of1979 may not be asked. (italics inserted)

This type of thinking has now become quite standard in CRC synodical deliberations (professors in the Seminary way back in 1951 were advising candidates, then subject to interrogation before a full synodical session, not to answer questions bearing on issues being considered but not yet settled by that synod). For reasons too numerous to mention here, I think that this kind of regulation is unfair to all concerned, and out of harmony with the kind of open, free and candid discussion the church of Jesus Christ ought always to allow and to demonstrate! Any number of delegates came from classes that were overturing synod to reverse the 1978 decision on the eligibility of women to hold the office of deacon in the consistories of our congregations. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to ask questions on this vital issue? Surely no worthy candidate for so crucial a post would resent this!

The first major debate came on Thursday when recommendations reached the floor dealing with the Synodical Committee on Race Relations (SCORR). The advisory commit tee had split on this matter into a majority which recommended, in line with SCORR’s wishes,

that synod establish a second staff position for SCORR for the task of recruiting and developing minority leadership within t he CRC, for an initial term of two years, to be filled from a nomination(s) presented by SCORR.

The minority recommended a directly opposite motion. The debate centered about the need for expanded SCORR service, summarized by the majority as follows:

There are two clear areas of need and opportunity for the CRC to continue to build on what has been done up to this point. One is in the area of continuing to assist those churches who are in racially changing or transitional neighborhoods. This is an area in which attention has been directed in the past. The other is in the area of developing minority leadership within the CRC. This is a very real need. Leadership within the minority membership of the CRC has been slow in developing.

A lengthy, rather heated debate followed. Elder John M. Vander Aa of South Holland, Ill. argued that improved minority acceptance and participation ought to develop along more natural lines. Rev. Henry De Bolster of St. Catharines, Ont. raised the question as to whether expansion implied failure since t he nature of SCORR is such as to hope for elimination of such a committee. De Bolster felt that SCORR ought to be able “to work itself out of a job” as CRC people become less racist and more responsive to minority needs. Karl Westerhof, executive secretary of SCORR, argued that this request for additional staff and added expenditure was “building on excellence.” This obedience is, in his opinion, the church‘s willingness to recognize and work with “the ministry of reconciliation.” That means, to quote the secretary’s report from the Agenda, that “in our communal life as the New Testament people of God we are to manifest the power of a Gospel which breaks down all racial, ethnic and cultural barriers” (p. 243). Synod now listened to a long and eloquent speech by the Rev. James B. White, the only CRC “black minister” (his own language), now teacher of sociology at Trinity Christian College. His address included personal anecdotes dealing with his own experience as a student at Calvin Seminary. His argument can be summarized by saying that he hoped that the influence and participation of SCORR in the several CRC agencies might lead to the desired development of “minority leadership.”

Impassioned pleas for SCORR expansion were made by Rev. Charles Terpstra, pastor of the First CRC, Grand Rapids, located in a neighborhood which is, he said, 90% black. Terpstra claimed that his congregation needs a third full-time pastor, that this minister ought to be black in order to serve best in the area of the church, but that such a person is simply unavailable. Elder Ted Taylor of Washington, D.C., chairman of SCORR, suggested that blacks don’t trust us, and that expanded efforts would help to overcome this. Rev. Paul Szto, Chinese pastor, delegate from Classis Hackensack and resident of New York City, argued that improve d structures within t he CRC might prevent loss of minority member s . Rev. Nelson Vander Zee from Bakersfield. Cal. suggested that SCORR was really being timid in asking for only one man. Rev. Donald Postema from Classis Lake Erie enthusiastically presented SCORR as “one of the most exciting boards,” and that synod ought therefore to pass its recommendations. Rev. Merlin Buwalda of Classis Kalamazoo argued that it would be more Reformed to bring the expanded efforts of the church in this area back to the local congregations and classes. Dr. John Kromminga, president of Calvin Seminary, spoke in favor of the majority recommendation, pointing to the fact that all of our educational institutions, Reformed Bible College, Trinity Christian College, Dordt, Calvin are “frustrated with the problem of how to keep minority people from falling between the cracks.” That rather picturesque language meant to describe the sad experience of black students who begin but do not stay to finish their courses of study in our schools. Elder Paul Vos, minority reporter and delegate from Classis Pella, attempted to bring the discussion back to t he arguments of the minority (“there is difficulty in the dual authority structure of the proposed staff position,” “the job description . . . is too broad and ambiguous,” this is “beyond the original mandate of SCORR . . . .”), but a ballot vote revealed that a majority favored SCORR enlargement of staff. It appears that SCORR is here to stay, and that its position is stronger than ever.

The most alarming feature of this debate, in our opinion, is its use of the term reconciliation. I am accustomed to thinking of that precious word in connection with personal salvation. Back in 1971 a half–dozen Calvinists out of the Hervormde Kerk in The Netherlands wrote a Testimony in which these sentences appear:

Our sins are forgiven and our guilt is atoned by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Golgotha’s Cross . . . . We confess that reconciliation means that a new reality was brought into existence by God in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:25; II Cor. 5), and that before I was born! That is the source of all of the joy of salvation. Guilt is an objective reality standing between God and man which, by the sacrifice of Christ, is removed. He who lives out of that reconciliation which He has earned will not be able to live in discord and hatred with his neighbor. But this is a result of the reconciliation, not the reconciliation itself.

This is not the only instance in which I noticed a different kind of vocabulary at work among some at Synod ‘79. I hope it does not betray the acceptance of theologies and ideas which are incompatible with the traditional, confessional Reformed faith.

A new Form for Transfer of Membership was adopted, as requested by Synod ’77. It is brief, noncommittal, and makes no reference to anything other than a commendation to “Christian fellowship” and a request that “your congregation . . . receive them with appropriate pastoral care and counsel.” This just about wipes out the old emphasis upon distinction between churches in terms of anything like Art. 29 of the Belgic Confession.

So many items of business whiz by at synod that it is only upon later reflection that one sees something which frightens. Without debate “synod approve(d) the work of SIC (Synodical Interim Committee) in response to the synodical decisions on social justice.” Here is the advisory committee’s explanation for all of this:

The Synod of 1978 decided “that synod through the SIC call upon its Christian educational institutions and agencies, its Board of Publications, CRWRC and SCORR to enlist the skills of knowledgeable people to speak and. to write publicly so that the church will be alerted to issues of social justice that challenge a Christian response.” (Acts of Synod 1978, pp. 63ff.)

The advisory committee reports that SIC sent a letter to the institutions and agencies involved. as indicated in this decision. The next sentence, however, expands on this, and injects a note of compulsion.

The agencies were also reminded in the letter that synod requires (italics inserted) each denominational agency specified to· include in its annual report what has been accomplished in alerting the church to the issues of social justice.

All who are committed. to a non-hierarchial principle of church government must get a cold chill when they hear such language!

To hurry through a number of decisions: Synod urges churches “to take special care that the statistics submitted for the Yearbook are up to date, accurate and. fully in accord with the rules of synod.” That there is stress enough in our times needs no demonstration, and its consequences for ministers especially and consistories and congregations as well are often sad. “Synod took note of the progress report of SIC re Healing Ministry,” which means that i sub-committee of SIC is studying this matter. An additional decision bearing on this came from the Ministerial Information Service committee. It recommend.ed. a broadening of “the mandate given to SIC concerning ‘Healing Ministry’ to include (1) a study of our calling system and possible modification.thereof; and(2) a study of appointing a ‘Healing Ministries Committee, with a full-time secretary” (italics inserted).

Business-type efficiency is prized in our country (and in Canada!), which means that a church doing as much business as the CRC is often pressured to make its operations conform in “accepted business practices.” This was evident, we believe, in synod’s decision to “approve the staff structure for the Board. of Publications as depicted in the following chart.” (impossible to reproduce here-it calls for all publications efforts of the CRC to be under a single “executive director”).

It so happens that a brilliant, well-trained (graduate of Calvin Seminary!), articulate, experienced., young man is available for this position. A. James Heynen was appointed, and he now bears the responsibility of executing officially all the directives of synod with respect to all phases of its “publications ministry,” including The Banner and De Wachter (and their editors!). Much as I happen to like Jim Heynen, I’m still not sure that this is the way “the church” ought to go.

OUTLOOK readers are usually interested Banner readers, and so many of you will recognize the importance of this decision:

That synod instruct the Board. of Publications to appoint, in consultation with the editor-in-chief, four associate editors who shall serve on the staff for a limited time without remuneration . . . and shall meet on a regular (quarterly or bi–monthly) basis to assess with the editor–in-chief the editorial challenge of The Banner, to identify areas of need and concern in the life of the church in our times and. to contribute editorials for possible publication. These persons shall assist the editor in producing a magazine which speaks effectively to the diversity of the church (italics inserted) without in any way compromising the editorial responsibility and/or the editorial freedom of the editor-in-chief.

This is to be implemented in 1980 (coinciding with the term of the new editor-in-chief?) for “a three-year trial period.” This is a big change! Note also the recognition of diversity in the church. Diversity may be pleasant in a bouquet of flowers, but it is often a term loaded. with agony and pain for the place where brethren ought to make it their delight to dwell in blest accord!

Christian Reformed Church style has featured for as long as we have been around the “catechism sermon.” I can remember when it was very rare for a CRC preacher not to include such a sermon on the Scriptures “as explained or as confessed in Lord’s Day so-and-so of the Heidelberg Catechism.” It was simply expected of our dominies! Alas (I think!), this is much less the case today. It would be very revealing, if my sources are accurate, to discover how infrequently the Catechism in its sequence is followed in many a CRC pulpit nowadays, and just how lightly the obligation of the Church Order 54b is taken.

Marion and Betty Van Someren are apparently. members of First CRC, Minneapolis. That consistory “announced to the congregation that the just completed treatment of the Heidelberg Catechism in the worship services would. be followed by a study of the Belgic Confession, in its sequence of Article 1 through 37.” The Van Somerens protested this discontinuance of Catechism preaching for a prolonged period., and appealed to Church Order 54b (“At one of the services each Lord’s day, the minister shall ordinarily preach the Word as summarized in the Heidelberg Catechism, following its sequence.”).

Synod accepted the recommendation of its advisory committee not to sustain this appeal because

1. The purpose of Article 54b of the Church Order is the systematic instruction in the Word as summarized in the Reformed confessions.
2. The Synod of 1973 recommended preaching from the Belgic Confessions when it went on record as encouraging “the use of the Belgic Confession and, Canons of Dort, as well as the Heidelberg Catechism, in preaching” (Acts, Art. 67, BA.).

But, is it really true that Catechism preaching is merely or even primarily intended to guarantee “systematic instruction in the Word as summarized” in our creeds? Doesn’t such an interpretation weaken the article substantially , allowing virtually any kind of replacement so long as one can claim that it is intended to be a systematic program of instruction compatible with the summarization of the creeds? Did Synod ‘73 really mean to institute “Belgic Confession preaching” and “Canons of Dort preaching” as a literal and viable substitute for Catechism preaching? Or did it mean to remind our ministers to be more specifically confessional in every respect in their preaching and teaching?

It seems to me that here again we need a strong restatement of the purpose, character and regulation of Catechism preaching, or we’ll lose something that is very precious in our heritage.

Friday, June 15

An elaborate report on “Evangelism Principles and Strategy” was presented by the Board of Home Missions. Synod affirmed that this report “constitutes a framework for the churches in their evangelism task,” and urged the churches “to reflect on these guidelines as they engage in the work.” Much could be (and, no doubt, will be) said. about this report, since it dares to define the place and task of the local congregation almost exclusively in terms of evangelism. Among other things, this means that the operation of the local congregations is in a sense the concern of the Home Mission Board. The report tells us, for example, how worship services ought to be conducted, and it isn’t content to stay with generalities! To illustrate:

Each church’s strategy must include the following elements:

G. Meaningful Worship: Worship services play an essential role in evangelism. The atmosphere of the church in worship(?) must be celebrative: Our Lord is risen, our King is coming! Guests should be expected and warmly welcomed. The sermons should. clearly and positively articulate the gospel. Prayers should. be personal and simple and should include specific mention of community persons and. concerns. The sacraments should confirm the covenant in such a way that they direct the congregation’s thoughts and. prayers toward the larger family of the elect who are yet to be brought in. The service should open a window upon the world and. its needs. (The question mark and. all italics except the heading are inserted.)

We urge our readers to study the report (ask your minister or one of the consistory if you may borrow a copy of the synodical Agenda, if you are CRC). I think that you will notice that it is not just another statement on evangelism, but a very real restructuring of all the priorities and. programs of the church. This might be good, but it ought to be done with great care, and it ought not to be done with slogans and expressions borrowed from dubious sources, nor deal in vague references to worship services which do not do justice to the full range of biblical concern.

Another huge item that passed without much comment was the adoption of a revised Home Missions Order. It reflects the kind of concerns as we expressed above, as can be demonstrated. by the fact that the “encouragement and assistance of congregations and classes in their work of evangelism” is a prior responsibility of the Board (in contrast with the carrying on of “mission activity”—why are the terms mission(s) and evangelism used so interchangeably that the new Order uses as its introduction a statement from the Board for World Missions?—in places far removed from local classes or congregations).

At about this point synod was pleased to receive greetings from Missionary Gary Teja, then just back from strife–torn Nicaragua. Synod had been concerned about the safety of the Teja family as well as the John Vander Borghs. The Vander Borghs were contacted.later, found to be safe. If possible, they intend to stay, at least until the situation worsens. Several missionaries from the 17 countries in which we are working as a church were introduced. Dr. Sid Rooy from Buenos Aires and Margaret Dykstra from Lupwe, Nigeria addressed synod. A delightful moment!

Friday afternoon’s session was the one set aside for the public interview of and balloting for the next editor–in–chief of The Banner. Each nominee in alphabetical order was interviewed for 30 minutes. The first interviewee was Rev. William Buursma of Kalamazoo. He was forthright, sincere, articulate. He held before synod as his model Hendrik Algra of a Christian daily in The Netherlands. Stressed his experience as assistant to Lester De Koster for several years, gave impression that he wanted to bring the paper closer to the common people, that he intended to use the office as a means for bridging the gap between various points of view in the CRC.

The second nominee interviewed was Dr. James De Jong, professor of Bible and Reformed Theology at Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa. By far the youngest of the nominees, he was nevertheless competent, poised, clear in his interview. Stressed need for the development of a “Reformed mind” over against the many counter viewpoints now present everywhere. Was obviously at some disadvantage because of his being further removed from the actual scene of CRC activity (officially).

The last interview was with Rev. Andrew Kuyvenhoven, former director of education for the Board of Publications, now pastor of Clarkson CRC, Mississauga, Ont. His manner was somewhat tentative, witty, but withal quite confident. Said that he would try to write so that people could easily understand. “People in my congregation are not following the present editor.” Declared a love for languages and offered that he reads a number of foreign languages every day. Did not exaggerate his advantage in experience as former director of education in the CRC.

Synod proceeded to vote by ballot. The first ballot was reported to give none of the candidates a majority. The chair suggested voting between the two having the larger number of votes. This meant a run-off between De Jong and Kuyvenhoven. By a substantial margin Kuyvenhoven was elected.

The question is, of course, What does this mean for the future of the CRC? In all fairness it must be said that the new editor has demonstrated a real ability to write particularly in the Unified Church School Curriculum. His sympathies are not–as his acceptance speech indicated (“I belong to the only Reformed fellowship, the church”)—with the conservative (one hardly dares to use the word nowadays!) “wing” of the church. He is on record as having made a very strong plea for admitting women not only to the office of deacon but elder as well during Synod ’78, if I’m correctly informed.

Synod returned to its consideration of a large, involved report on the subject of capital punishment, an issue rekindled by the recent execution of John Spenkelink in Florida. This report originated with the appointment of a study committee by Synod ’76 in response to an overture from Classis Orange City, “which requested that synod address our national governments urging them to continue or reinstate capital punishment.” The report in the Agenda is a 40-page document “which investigates whether the Biblical data requires modern governments to practise capital punishment, whether that data permits modern governments to do so, and whether in the light of that data it is desirable or prudent to have capital punishment.” The key motion adopted is:

that synod refer the report with its recommendations to the churches for study, reflection, and. response to the study committee by October 15, 1980, and that synod.ask the study committee to continue its work, with the assignment of reporting to the Synod of 1981 on the substance of the responses received from the churches, the committee’s reaction to these responses, and with such additions to or changes in the study report as may be warranted in the light of the responses.

Saturday, June 16

Synod met only for the morning. Its first decision was to “develop and expand a Volunteer Resource Bank” listing people “who desire to volunteer their time and skills with churches, agencies and boards of the CRC who need . . . these volunteers.”

Overture 43 from Classis Eastern Canada asked. synod.to declare that communion table fellowship be a strict requirement for “churches in ecclesiastical fellowship.” Its grounds were two: (1) the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America does not allow such fellowship, and (2) the Gereformeerde Kerken in Zuid Afrika allow only white Christians to its communion table. Synod rejected the overture because ground one is inaccurate (table fellowship is granted to members of the CRC), and ground two was beyond the ability of the advisory committee to determine. The matter was referred to the Interchurch Relations Committee for investigation.

There is a relatively small “denomination” in Canada called.the Canadian Reformed.Churches. It is a North American continuation of the “Liberated Churches” which came into existence in the Forties in connection with the deposition of K. Schilder and others. The CRC Interchurch Relations Committee has been seeking to establish contact with these churches, but without success (“success” means mutual recognition, exchange of fraternal delegates at synods, classes, etc.). As might be expected, the Canadian Reformed.Churches keep asking whether the CRC intends to continue fraternal relations with the Gereformeerde Kerken in The Netherlands, since they exist as a protest against the positions and actions of that church. Our IRC recommended to synod, in effect, that serious efforts to establish contact be discontinued since it has no interest in meeting the condition of termination of fellowship with the Gereformeerde Kerken. Classis Chatham in Canada overtured synod to continue dealings with the Canadian Reformed Churches. That overture was not adopted. 

We include this all-too-brief account of this matter because we fear that it reveals a certain philosophy of ecumenicity which, in our judgment, is unprofitable for the church. Why not face the questions asked by the Canadian Reformed Churches head-on? What about the presence of heretical teachings in the Gereformeerde Kerken? Surely everyone is aware of disturbing conditions in the old country, and. our people have a right to know just what the stand of the CRC Interchurch Relations is on such things.

In this same area synod voted to continue to send delegates to the Reformed Ecumenical Synod meeting in Nimes, France in 1980. Another interesting development is a movement in Canada, centered.in Quebec, of course, to develop a French-speaking Reformed Church. An alliance of Reformed evangelicals has already been organized. Synod encouraged “the Board.of Home Missions, the Back to God Hour, the Board. of Trustees of Calvin College and Seminary to cooperate with the Alliance de Reforme Evangelique in consultation with Classis Eastern Canada.”

Ethical matters are always interesting, and the request of Classis British Columbia for the appointment of a study committee on artificial insemination by donor was no exception. The background of this request was the inability of that classis to resolve a difference of opinion on moral justifiability of this practice, some arguing that it was adulterous in nature, others that it was “not to be judged sinful or censurable in itself.” The motion adopted.refused appointment of a study committee as requested. In that connection the advisory committee made one of the most wholesome observations heard at this synod:

Synod and the churches should carefully consider whether within our Reformed perspective on the role of ecclesiastical assemblies synods ought to be cranking out academic studies on every moral problem that may be faced by the membership, or whether Synod should limits studies to those instances where they are required by its own ecclesiastical functions as defined by Church Order Articles 28, 29, 30, and 47.

Overture 40 from Classis Minnesota North asked synod to make “an independent (italics inserted) study of the evangelistic impact of the domestic English language broadcasts.” Synod “answered” classis by requesting “the Back to God Hour Committee to include in its 1980 Report to Synod an analysis of the domestic English broadcast which will include a statement of the philosophy and goals as well as statistical information on audience response.” The Back to God Hour is certainly one of our finest efforts as a church, and the caliber of its work (and workers) is high. I hope, nevertheless, that the Committee will take this request very seriously so that the churches may be even more aware of the impact of its radio ministry.

Synod completed its work for the week by approving the work of the synodical deputies. A listing of this work includes: approval of the examinations of 30 candidates for the ministry, approval of seven instances of “ministers in extraordinary service” (chaplains, etc.), notification of three resignations and demissions from the CRC ministry (A. James Miedema, Virgil Patterson, John Monsma); notification that 15 ministers had been granted honorable emeritation.

Monday, June 18

Considerable time was spent on the matter of church order revisions made necessary by the Synod ’78 decision that there is a fourth office in the church, the office of evangelist. The issue at stake in the discussion turned on this question, May this office be exercised only in an emerging but yet unorganized. congregation, or may it be exercised in established congregations as well? The advisory committee differed from the study committee by agreeing with ’78, limiting the office to emerging congregations in which the evangelist “is appointed to labor only until the congregation is organized.” Synod agreed, and adopted the advisory committee’s recommended Church Order changes. These are too lengthy to be quoted here.

There are many problems here, as anyone can see. Just one of them is, I think, the virtual elimination of the distinction between the “official preaching of the Word by an ordained minister” and “a word of edification” spoken by someone authorized to do so by the church. It seems that the current mood is one of real impatience with such distinctions.

Synod returned to Educational Matters. A board recommendation of approved rules for periodic (every four years) evaluation of the president of Calvin Seminary was adopted. An important change was made in appointment procedure for seminary professors. Now such appointments are made by the board (rule 7) and approved by synod after interview (rule 9). Perhaps the most controversial item in this area had. to do with a board recommendation that “synod recognize the need of the presence of a member of a minority race on the faculty of Calvin Seminary and that synod instruct the board of trustees to submit recommendations for filling this need as soon as possible.” President Kromminga was frank to say that “minority” here meant “black,” and that the idea was to encourage students from that racial background to attend and complete training in Calvin Seminary for the ministry in the CRC. A minority of the committee proposed the following motion, which was adopted:

that synod requests the Board of Trustees in consultation with the Faculty of Calvin Seminary to meet minority needs by development of a program, adjustment of curriculum and/or reevaluation of staff.

Some of us were unable to get very excited about this whole business. If the standards for seminary appointment are maintained, and we were assured they would be, we could care less about the physical color of the professor.

The CRC is really in the business of rewriting its liturgical forms, and. this includes the form of marriage. There is a new, alternative form now, but it still needs an intercessory prayer. Synod didn’t like the one submitted, and so the Liturgical Committee was ordered to compose one “that has simplicity and clarity and is easily understood” (redundant?). A minority of Elder W. Wagenaar, Reverends P. Huisman and C. Tuininga, objected to this form for marriage. Their observations were, I think, cogent:

1. The new form fails to spell out sufficiently the vital relationship between marriage and the church of Jesus Christ. Marriage is much more than “a man and a woman covenanting to live together.”
2. The new form fails adequately to emphasize the Scriptural teaching that children are heritage of the Lord, and that one of the purposes of marriage is the propagation of the human race.
3. The vows tend to erase the God-given distinctions between man as head and woman as helper. A woman should vow to be subject to the husband as to the Lord, and a man should vow to love his wife as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:23–33).

The “lodge issue” reappeared at this synod. The Richfield, N.J. consistory overtured synod to say that “with respect to members of fraternal organizations each congregation, through its own consistory, be entrusted with the essential responsibility of determining whether such persons become members of that congregation.”

Rev. Henry Bouma of Classis Columbia and Rev. Henry De Moor, Jr. of Classis Alberta North pleaded for the adoption of this overture, arguing that some members of these organizations don’t understand or intend to say the things we ascribe to such affiliation, or are caught up in a certain difficult social situation, etc. Synod, however, voted not to accede to the overture, arguing that it presented no new considerations other than those which synod had previously and repeatedly decided were unconvincing.

Of considerable interest to most OUTLOOK readers (it was often evident at synod that OUTLOOK is not only read by friends!) would be the discussion and decision on a “contemporary testimony.” Some of us have written a Testimony recently–which is getting from many ill-concealed contempt and from more a stone–walling silence!

After some discussion synod decided to “implement further the decision of the Synod of 1977 to move in the direction of formulating a contemporary testimony in view of the secularization of modern life and culture by appointing a committee with the mandate to draft such a contemporary testimony, taking into account the suggestions and guidelines as outlined in the (agenda) report.” This committee is to work for four years to reach a first draft, this is to be sent to the congregations for study, given to those churches with which we have ecclesiastical fellowship for their reactions, and presented to the Synod ’86 (!) for final approval.

Classis Minnesota North asked synod to express in the Church Order a statement to this effect: any person who demonstrates singular endowments for the ministry may be ordained. In other words, the fact that the person has the gifts is evidence that the Holy Spirit wishes him to fill some certain ministerial position. Synod rejected this overture on good grounds:

1. “The regular door to the ministry is a thorough academic training (Acts of Synod, 1947, p. 94)
2. The presence of exceptional gifts does not require the church to ordain the person who possesses them.
3. The synodical and church order regulations have always kept a balance in the application of Article 7 between gifts and needs.”

A very emotional discussion took place on the matter of Christian care for retarded persons. The occasion for this was the presentation to Synod ’78 of a request by Classis Rocky Mountain for consideration of the fact that with the closing of Children’s Retreat at Pine Rest Christian Hospital some parents were finding it well–nigh impossible to get Christian care for their severely and profoundly retarded children. The debate did not center about the desirability of such care, but on the matter of the church’s responsibility and ability to meet this need. The key motions adopted were:“

“that synod declare that the severely and profoundly retarded covenant members . . . are entitled to quality Christian care especially when quality public alternatives are unavailable.”

“that synod declare that the churches have the responsibility to support families as they seek quality Christian care for a severely and/or profoundly retarded child or adult.”

Tuesday, June 19

Synod reappointed John De Haan as executive director of CRWRC for four years. A dramatic decision about which we will be hearing more was the selection of Sierra Leone as a target country for setting up a model project for hunger alleviation. Agriculture, health care, evangelism, literacy, church growth, and outreach were mentioned as parts of the “program.”

One of the “hot issues” in the CRC since Synod ’78 is the matter of ratifying very important synodical decisions, especially those which involve or call for changes in the Church Order. Several overtures asked for some kind of ratification by the individual congregations or classes before such changes could be finalized. A minority of the advisory committee recommended that synod decide that Article 47 of the Church Order implies that “whenever changes in the creeds and/or substantial changes in the Church Order are made by synod, the churches shall be given adequate opportunity to consider the advisability of the changes before they are ratified by the following synod.” A majority asked for ratification by consistories, i.e., synod. would declare a certain change in effect if a majority of the consistories responding indicated their approval.

The latter position was fiercely attacked (especially by several Canadian delegates). Rev. L. Mulder argues that synod would only be a tallying agency. Rev. L. Tamminga said that this would produce disunity. Rev. A. De Jager “shuddered . . . (by this) terrible move toward. independentism.” Rev. J. Piersma pleaded that synod take the overtures in line with the majority very seriously. Rev. J . Engbers asked that synod similarly be sensitive to the overtures asking for a different ratification process. Rev. H. De Moor, Jr. said that the proposed change (majority) was a case of “over-kill.” Synod must deliberate and communicate to the churches the results of its wrestlings. Rev. L. Van Drunen plead.ed that the majority was not restricting but emphasizing the deliberative character of synodical action. Elder W. Huyck reminded synod that we are “under authority,” we are merely representatives of local consistories and classes. Rev. C. Tuininga thought it a good idea if consistories had something to say directly with respect to such important matters.

The out come? Synod adopt ed the recommendations of the minority. This means that changes such as the admission of women-to-office cannot be accomplished at a given synod but only after the churches are properly notified and after ratification by the following synod. T his procedure has been assumed up till now. This decision “spells it out.”

Wednesday, June 20

Most of Wednesday was spent on “the Verhey case.” It was a discouraging day for people who had hoped. to see a ringing denunciation of anything else than a simple commitment to the infallible Word.

How to adequately summarize the events which mad.e up the presentation and discussion of this case is beyond this writer. As was said by Dr. Alexander C. DeJong (who made a valiant, respectable, strong effort to defend the high view of Scripture traditional for many of us), this whole business represents “an incredibly complex problem.”

The debate went on for hours, and it would be very revealing to be able to read a transcript of it (since we are now televising anyway, why wouldn’t it be a good idea to actually transcribe for anyone to study at least all major synodical discussions?). Perhaps we are at least minimally well-served here if we cover three things: (1) The nature of the advisory committee reports, majority and minority; (2) the principle point at issue in the discussion; and (3) the parliamentary procedures followed. These will not necessarily follow simply in that order.

The case goes back to 1975 when the Dutton, Mich. CRC consistory as part of Classis Grand Rapids East was involved in the examination of Dr. Allen Verhey as a candidate for the ministry. He had been called. by the Neland Avenue consistory of Grand Rapids to serve as professor in religion at Hope College, Holland, Mich., to this day his position of service. Dutton was not satisfied. with the decision by classis to admit him to the ministry because it understood. him to say “that he did not believe that the serpent spoke to Eve as reported in Genesis 3 and that he believed. that the earthquake reported in Matthew 28:2 should be understood. as an eschatological symbol and. not necessarily a fact” (italics inserted). Dutton appealed to Synod ’76, which did not sustain this appeal on formal grounds, arguing that Dutton may not protest the examination since Rev. Verhey is a minister in good and regular standing. That synod reminded “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” (Arts. 89, 90, 91, 93).

Dutton lodged a protest against Dr. Verhey in March of 1977 with the Neland Avenue consistory, which holds his ministerial credentials. Neland Avenue appointed a committee of its own to deal with this protest, giving it a three-fold mandate:

• to determine the validity of Dr. Verhey’s method of interpretation;

• to persuade him, should his views be outside of our confession, to conform to what the consistory considers to be an acceptable view;

• to attempt to reconcile the parties in a pastoral way.

Synod ’77 decided that the Neland A venue action was “an adequate way of dealing with the matter,” and, in effect, thus committed the study of the matter to Verhey’s own consistory . It decided furthermore “to communicate the concerns about Dr. Verhey’s views raised in the appeals and overtures (there were two overtures from classes and several personal appeals) to Neland Avenue CRC’s committee for discussion with Dr. Verhey, namely:

• the nature of his hermeneutics, whether the event-character of the Scriptures is excluded or called into question
• his understanding of the serpent in Genesis 3

his understanding of the earthquake in Matthew 28.

Synod ’77 specifically asked Neland Avenue to report to Synod ’78 (Acts, p. 109, F. 3). This was not done (in the Agenda, p . 506, the stated clerk, Rev. Wm. P. Brink, explains “a report . . . was received in May 1978 but was not presented to the Synod of 1978 because the matter was still in process of adjudication in Classis Grand. Rapids East.” The advisory committee explains, “Neland’s report, now Report 37, was ready at the time of last year‘s synod but not in time to be considered.”).

Neland Avenue exonerated Verhey, saying that he was committed to the divine authorship and authority of Scripture, that his method of interpretation was agreeable to “Reformed practice in the interpretation of Scripture,” and that his interpretations of Gen. 3, Matt. 19 (Did Jesus actually say the words, “except for fornication,” vs. 9?) and Matt. 28 do not demonstrate disagreement with the creeds or the well-known “Report 44” in the nature of biblical authority.

Dutton protested this to Classis Grand Rapids East, and was not sustained. Dutton, following the prescribed route, appealed this to Synod ’79.

The debate on this issue was, as we said, very lengthy. The discussion turned most specifically about Verhey’s answer, as reported by the advisory committee, to such questions as, “Does Dr. Verhey believe that when Gen. 3 says that a serpent spoke to Eve, that a real serpent actually so spoke to her?” and “Does Dr. Verhey believe that when the Bible says that there was ‘a great earthquake’ when Christ arose from the dead, that there was a real, seismologically registerable earthquake?” The answer given by the reporter, Rev. Jacob Vos of Toronto, was the same as found in the advisory committee’s analysis: not necessarily.

Just before synod recessed for lunch a vote was taken on Recommendation 1 of the advisory committee (majority):

that synod 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.

To the utter consternation of the advisory committee (and to many others), this motion was defeated by a vote of 78 to 74!

When synod reconvened its delegates found before them a new sheet from the advisory committee on the Verhey matter. It contained a new recommendation reading

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 similarity between this motion and the one that had been defeated is perfectly obvious, of course. This procedure-the presentation of a revised recommendation by an advisory committee after a certain action has been taken-is completely new in my synodical experience. The argument by the reporter that this was “a substitute motion” is patently inaccurate since one cannot move a substitute for a motion which has been defeated.

In our judgment the chair faltered, and the rest of synod’s activities were seriously damaged as a result. The recommendation of Banner editor De Koster that synods are desperately in need of accepting and using such a system of parliamentary procedure as Robert’s Rules of Order gained obvious pertinence at this point! Since we who criticize “from the right” are often objects of suspicion motivationally, please let me say that I am not judging intentions or motives. I’d rather believe that the chair, having very little to guide him in a very difficult situation, was perhaps a victim of a tradition among us which leaves too much up to individual judgment, and. that in moments of great stress.

Finally, after another long period of debate, this “new substitute motion” was passed. Synod had now spoken about Verhey’s “confession” and “intention,” and this became the cornerstone of its reply to the Dutton consistory.

We mentioned a minority opinion, which was submitted by one of synod.‘s five attorney delegates (delegated as elders, not attorneys!), Jon Feikens of Classis Lake Erie. He recommended that synod say that Dutton’s protest was merely against a method of interpretation, and since the Dutton representative(s) before the committee has said that there was no formal complaint against it, the appeal was unfounded. This did not receive much attention from synod

We ought to list the rest of the motions adopted in this very significant matter:

1. That synod declare that it is not persuaded that some aspects of Dr. Verhey’s method have been shaped by and integrated into his, and the church’s confession about the Bible.

Grounds:

a. His designation of the earthquake in Matthew 28:2 appears to question the event character of an occurrence which accompanied the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and the message he derives from that passage is then based on an event which may not have happened.

b. It is unclear that a method which suggests that Jesus may not have uttered the “except for fornication” clause in Matthew 19:9 does not call into question the historical reliability of the Biblical record.

2. That synod urge Dr. Verhey to reexamine his method of interpretation under the guidance of the Neland A venue CRC Consistory and in consultation with Reformed theologians in this field. to insure that his method in its detail is shaped. by and integrated into the Reformed confession about the Bible.

Grounds:

a. The Neland. A venue consistory has found that “there continue to be issues worthy of discussion with respect to the interpretation of these passages,” and cautions Dr. Verhey “against so emphasizing the revelational significance that it detracts from the event-basis of Christian faith” and Classis Grand Rapids East decided that “there should be continuing discussion because Dr. Verhey’s interpretations … appear to call into question the historical reliability of the Biblical record.”

b. Communal reflection on a confessional basis can help greatly in developing a truly biblical method. of interpretation.

3. That synod advise Dr. Verhey that in suggesting interpretations which diverge from those widely held in the church he should speak cautiously, and demonstrate their harmony with our creedal statements about the Bible.

There are reams of things one might like to say about this debate and its outcome. A very striking moment came when Prof. B. Van Elderen rather plainly indicated that he agreed with Verhey (with certain qualifications, of course) so far as the legitimacy of his method of interpretation and its use was concerned. In other words, that there is a different way of reading the Bible present in the CRC camp might well be faced frankly and realistically by all of us. No doubt the end of this discussion is not yet in sight!

Synod now turned to “the hottest item” on the docket, the matter of “Women in Ecclesiastical Office.” The advisory committee was divided. The majority, composed of those not minded to reverse the ’78 decision, was composed of Rev. A. De Jager of Classis Quinte in Canada, Rev. A. Mulder of Gallup, N.M., Rev. W. Buursma of Kalamazoo, Elder D. Groelsma of Florida, Rev. Edson Lewis of Columbus, Elder W. Suk of Georgetown, Ontario, Rev. H. Van Niejenhuis of Lethbridge, Alberta, Rev. Fred Walhof of Ames, Iowa. The minority report, in favor of simple rejection of the ’78 decision, was signed by Elder D. De Lange of Classis British Columbia, Elder W. Huyck of Classis Hudson, Elder H. Groenendyke of Classis PeJa, Elder L. Haas of Classis Grand Rapids :\orto and Rev. H. Eshuis of Classis Chatham.

As is customary, the majority report was moved first (although the minority was read). Opening debate was not lengthy, dealt with certain details (such as the date for completion of a study of the office of deacon in terms of the problems raised by the decision of ’78 allowing the ordination of women to the office of deacon.

The Wednesday evening phase of the debate came to a sudden halt when Rev. J. Pruim of Classis Wisconsin moved that the majority report be tabled and the minority report be placed before the house. As I recall, the chair ruled that this was defeated (his interpretation of a voice vote). Challenged, the delegations were polled. The result showed 86 in favor, 60 opposed—meaning that the minority motion was now on the floor and that it obviously enjoyed considerable support!

Thursday, June 21

Virtually all of Thursday morning and afternoon was set aside for consideration of financial matters, most particularly the adoption of quotas and other dollar items for fiscal year 1980. This is very interesting and very gratifying—CRC people continue to raise enormous amounts of money for church and kingdom! Budgets and projections just for our boards and denominational agencies are estimated to total $39,751,906 for 1980! If you add to this local church expense, support of other related causes, plus Christian education costs, etc . . . !

The “big debate” on women in ecclesiastical office took place on Thursday evening. It took place before a huge crowd of spectators –many of them women with a very keen interest in the subject (some of whom were not averse to a bit of lobbying or pamphleteering).

In my judgment this debate was adversely affected by the procedures allowed or implemented by the chair. You will recall that synod voted to consider the minority recommendation (“sustain the appeals/overtures against the decision of Synod 1978 ‘that consistories be allowed to ordain qualified women to the office of deacon, provided that their work is distinguished from that of elders,’ and not ratify the wording of the Church Order Article 3 and its Supplement”) just before adjournment the previous evening.

When this matter was taken up the chair announced that the discussion would not be limited to the motion now before synod, but would be allowed to go on “in general” for a while, and then some decisions would be made as to how things would go from there. Immediately some 51 delegates indicated that they wanted to speak on the issue! Aft er some 16 had spoken (11 against the motion of the minority) the chair ruled arbitrarily that after three more speeches the debate would cease.

Meanwhile this should be stated: During Thursday’s discussion of financial matters the majority of the advisory committee placed before the delegates a “revised majority report.” So far as I know, it was never so much as read or recognized formally. It was, however, somewhat modified. One of the members of the majority told me that this was done because of the strong show of strength on the vote to table the majority report and to take up the minority. For a second time in a brief period, therefore, synod found itself faced with revisions which were never requested.

The outcome was determined by “a feeling” attributed to the “leading of the Spirit” that the two sides “were not so far apart,” and that perhaps some satisfactory compromise could be worked out. The majority and minority were excused for fifteen minutes by the chair, and returned pretty much on time with the recommendations adopted.

In my opinion synod. was not well-served by this procedure. The enormous volume of overtures and appeals merited synod.‘s facing simply and. squarely the motion put by the minority. I could not help but feel that various elements were doing all in their power to prevent such confrontation of the issue, and were in effect striving to achieve a postponement. This leaves the church right in the very predicament which provoked all this debate.

The decisions taken are:

1. That synod appoint a study committee with the following mandate:

a. To review without prejudice the 1978 report on “Hermeneutical Principles Concerning Women in Ecclesiastical Office” and.the decisions of the Synod of 1978 regarding the ordination of women as deacons;

b. To study and define the office of deacon in the light of Scripture, the Confessions, its historical development, especially within the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition, and the 1973 GUIDELINES FOR UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE AND ORDINATION (Acts 1973, pp. 62–64);

c. To study the implications of the ordination of women to the office of deacon in the light of Church Order Article 35, giving specific attention to the concept of male headship and the nature of that authority.

d. And to report its recommendations to Synod by 1981.

Grounds:

a. The need for additional study and clarification is evident from the large number of materials ad.dressed to synod regarding this matter.

b. The Synod of 1978 did. not resolve some import ant questions, such as those relating to the Belgic Confession Article 30 and the Church Order Article 35.

c. The Synod of 1978 did. not clarify the statement, “The work of women as deacons is to be distinguished from that of elders” (see Acts 1978, Art. 80, E, 4, p. 105).

2. That synod defer decision with respect to ratification of the proposed wording of Church Order Article 3 and its Supplement, and instruct consistories to defer implementation of the 1978 decision, until the study committee has rendered its report to synod, and the churches have had opportunity to consider its  recommendations.

Grounds:

a. Many churches have asked for more time to consider the advisability of the proposed change. Such requests are consistent with the intent of Article 47 of the Church Order.

b. This will give synod and the churches opportunity to study the matter, without hardship to those consistories who have implemented the decision.

3. That synod declare this to be its answer to all materials addressed to this synod regarding the ordination of women to the office of deacon. 4. That synod not accede to Overture 34 which requests that synod study the feasibility of permitting women to serve as elders.

Grounds:

In view of the unresolved issues pertaining to the ordination of women as deacons, the study proposed in Overture 34 would be inappropriate at this time.

The decisions really rest on the phrase found in recommendation 1, without prejudice. This led to what was perhaps as bitter a moment as I have experienced in ecclesiastical courts. Running ahead, on the next day the committee to study these matters as presented was obviously not without prejudice. This was so evident that a strong supporter of the ’78 decision (Rev. W. Buursma) remarked that “the minority is being short–changed.” In fact , synod’s own rule for the appointment of such committees was obviously set aside by the fact that the name of Rev. Jacob Vos was put on this important body when his name had not so much as been considered by the advisory committee! The credibility of certain people at this point became very suspect! It is sad when the church does such things.

Friday, June 22

Delegates were leaving steadily early Friday morning, leading me to wonder if synodical business does not require more careful scheduling. This is no reflection on the people in charge, but I think that it is hardly realistic to expect people from all corners of the continent to stay much longer than through Thursday of t he second week.

Concluding business was done in great haste, of course. The matter of the debt owed the CRC by the Chula Vista, Cal. Community Church provoked a discussion about the propriety of using legal methods to collect. Synod approved new forms for excommunication, for the ordination of elders and deacons and evangelists. A committee on Belgic Confession translation was continued. The important Classis Illiana and Chicago South overtures requesting affirmation of Scriptural inerrancy reiterates positions taken before. It seemed to me that synod betrayed so much weariness that it could hardly function well—especially with so many people already on their way home.

It was an important synod! Much time, effort, prayer ought to be devoted by all to the issues it faced. They are not yet ready to simply go away!