The published Agenda for the June synod is again being sent to all Christian Reformed Churches so that all of their officers may become acquainted with the matters to be taken up at the churches’ largest assembly. As usual, the OUTLOOK reviews the book for its readers. This year’s issue is shorter than many have been (421 pages) and contains few long reports. The reports of boards, standing committees, denominationally related agencies and study committees and the overtures and printed appeals give many interesting glimpses of denominational life, although they necessarily focus attention on matters that require decision.

Radio and TV

One of the most encouraging of the reports is, as usual, that of the Back–to-God Hour. Through our electronic means of communication we continue to bring God’s unchanging gospel in a changing and troubled world. The English language broadcasts of the regular Back-to-God programs go out over about 200 stations and several other programs go out on a more limited basis. The TV FAITH/20 program is primarily Bible teaching.

Programs in the Arabic language were our denomination‘s first foreign-language venture, and are one of the most effective ways of reaching into the Muslim world which is largely closed to other forms of missionary contact.

140 stations carry our Spanish radio broadcasts in South America, 4 local stations carry them in Spain and 8 carry them in the U.S.

11 stations in Brazil and the Trans World Radio in Bonaire carry the gospel message in Portuguese. French broadcasts go out in Europe and Africa as well as Canada. About 65 stations in Indonesia carry our broadcasts in the Indonesian language.

About 75% of China’s enormous population can hear our broadcasts in Chinese. Japan is covered by Japanese broadcasts and a beginning has been made in Russian broadcasting.

An important part of this radio and TV outreach has been its follow-up with correspondence and literature.

Calvin College and Seminary

Calvin‘s board of trustees’ 8-page report devotes 2 pages to the views of the seminary faculty which have raised questions in the churches (expressed in several overtures to the coming synod). In the June 1981 OUTLOOK Rev. N. Hegeman reported that in 1980 he had “protested the view of an Old Testament professor who did not believe Adam was a historical person” and that the board, in response to his protest, had appointed a committee to deal with the issue. The board now states (p. 42), on one hand, “that Professor Stek, along with other members of the faculty, affirmed his agreement with the creeds” and, on the other hand, that a faculty committee continue discussion with him, and progress be reported “toward a resolution of this question.” The board proceeded to make a public statement reassuring the churches that the “Seminary faculty without exception believe Adam and Eve were created by God and are our first parents . . . accept the reality of an historical fall as recorded in the Scriptures” and that it is “assured that our faculty is in full agreement with the confessions of our church.” (If there is no question about this matter, why must a committee work “toward resolution of the question”?)

The Board also approved of proposals of the seminary faculty to take special measures to recruit and train “minority students{ including the use of 20–25% of the time of two of the staff and securing “the services of a minority-race teacher” (p. 44). While all students should be encouraged to prepare for fulfilling their calling to the gospel ministry, are not such special racially-conditioned and directed programs indulging in the racism we ought to be eliminating?

World Missions

Our world missions have regular missionaries in 18 countries.

Central America continues to be a troubled area because of volatile political conditions. The Board, at the instigation of Classis Toronto, wants the synod to issue a “Testimony on Justice and Oppression.” What that “testimony” is we are not told, but the discussion about it indicates that it involves our missionaries getting and relaying information so that the churches here may pressure their governments regarding their policies and the dealings of their businesses in those parts of the world (pp. 52–54, 80). Thus “the board calls upon synod to identify itself and our congregations with the poor and oppressed in those lands where injustice rules.” One wonders at this point whether we are dealing with the report of a mission or of a political party. While we have political responsibilities, for the churches’ mission board to call for partisan political manifestos is Biblically indefensible and is certain to provoke trouble for missionary work. Where does the Bible ever tell us that Christians must “identify” only with the poor? We must seek to help neighbors whether rich or poor. Socialistic pronouncements that seek to pit one class against another and that agitate against governments which are fighting for their lives against communist guerillas, however common they are in today’s liberal churches, are not serving the cause of Christ.

The Board report devotes about 7 pages to the very troublesome problems which arise because our denomination in many places has two separate agencies working among the same people with differing concerns and very little consultation and cooperation between the two. The missions seek to bring the gospel and the world relief committee people seek to give material help. This “word” and “deed ministry” instead of working together, according to the report, are increasingly becoming separated. The results are confusion and possible abuse. “A single field administration is an absolute necessity if tactical mistakes and frustrations are to be avoided.” An elaborate plan for “coordinated ministry” is proposed to get greater cooperation between the two organizations, but it is admitted that “the plan does not resolve the problem of a divided administration. The CRC ministry continues to have more than one face.” (p. 62). Should the synod not unify the churches’ outreach into these fields? In the history of missions, material and social help, begun with sincere intentions, have often displaced the gospel as the focus of attention and, by becoming a “social gospel,” become no gospel at all. Our divided activities with the help programs operating independently, appear to offer an unusually favorable opportunity for such a liberal perversion of our Christian mission.

In a more encouraging vein, our missionary agency calls to our attention that in contrast with the often gloomy secular news out of Africa, mission reports from that continent are an amazing success story. “Christians now make up nearly 40 percent of Black Africa’s population.” The report tells us that some 350,000 people now att end church services in our Africa field, 250,000 of them among the Tiv. (Compare that with our denomination’s total membership of less than 300,000 to appreciate how remarkably God has blessed these missionary labors. The growing Tiv seminary which now has an enrollment of about 50, this year received a $64,000 building grant from our mission board.

Home Missions

The Board of Home Missions devotes about 4 pages of its report to appreciative and critical comment on the “church growth movement.” Both the appreciation and the criticism merit attention. While the movement has stressed the churches’ missionary responsibility, its strong emphasis on producing growth, setting and achieving goals, etc. seems to do less than justice to missions as the Lord’s work. This stress on achieving results reminds one of Charles Finney’s efforts to turn evangelism into a calculated mechanical process, whose disastrous results eventually led Finney to admit that many of his “converts” turned out to be a disgrace to the name “Christian”—a “salt that had lost its savor” (Luke 14:25–35). Although the board criticizes the weaknesses of the “church growth” movement, its efforts to “program” the growth of its missions suggest that our missionary labors may not have altogether escaped from the failings of every human effort to impose a uniform schedule on the work of God’s Word and Spirit.

Publications

Our publication board, speaking of its “united church school curriculum,” notes that whereas “ten years ago, some of these courses were suspect; now they are widely trusted and used, both within and beyond the” CRC, being used by “more than nineteen out of twenty” of the CR congregations. This may be an indication of improvement of material. Another possibility (one which is suggested by J. Tuininga’s critical comments in another article) is that after ten years of having. officially abandoned the Heidelberg Catechism as the basis of our education program, many of our churches no longer attempt to discriminate regarding what is being taught, simply leaving that to the denomination’s official board to determine.

Traditionally in many churches’ catechism classes studies were structured either around Bible History (for younger classes) or Bible doctrines as organized in the Catechism (for older classes). This system was abandoned to be replaced by materials planned and structured by our board and its appointees. What now determines what will be taught? Is it the Bible, or is it the opinions of a committee that selects themes and illustrations from the Bible which it thinks will be “interesting” or “relevant” to people’s present problems and tastes? It is quite possible, with a little careful selection and ingenuity, to produce interesting Biblical materials to illustrate and promote ideas which were never derived from the Bible at all or might even be contrary to it. Is the Bible determining our educational agenda or are we determining what we still wish to use, (and what we choose to ignore) in the Bible? The complaints and requests for material which we receive from time to time suggest that some of our church’s official productions, despite their efforts to be “interesting,” are by no means satisfactorily replacing the old, if less colorful, “catechisms.”

We also have to object to our publication board’s publishing materials such as the recently issued Men and Women; Partners in Service which promotes a viewpoint on the controversial matter of women in office that is contrary to Scripture and the church’s creeds. (See the review article in the March OUTLOOK.)

It is proposed that our official Dutch church paper, De Wachter cease publication on or before Jan. 1, 1986.

The Board proposes to create a new position of “Music Editor.”

The Board also suggests that the synod consider whether in future planning some of the denomination’s agencies ought not to move their activities outside of Grand Rapids. Should we try to decentralize these activities (pp. 118, 119)?

World Relief

The world relief program, which began as a Christian effort to help disaster victims, has come to concentrate more heavily on giving aid in various parts of the world. Questions arise about the way in which that aid is channeled. Should we be supporting CEDEN (The Evangelical Committee for Development and National Emergency) in Central America or the liberal Church World Service (in Italy)? And what must one say of the work of our 5 people in Bangladesh when the report admits “the complete lack of an evangelistic program. Humanly speaking, it is doubtful that the Muslim government will approve of an evangelism strategy in this area” (p. 127)?

Bible Translation

The Bible Translation Committee after a study of the New American Standard Bible would recommend this version for use in Bible study because of its literalism (but not for reading in churches, because it does not read easily). It also asks that the Synod dismiss the committee as no longer needed.

Interchurch Relations

The Interchurch Relations report devotes 24 pages to the account given by Dr. John Kromminga and Rev. Clarence Boomsma of their month-long visit in South Africa. Their visit had to deal especially with a request that we recognize the large Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa as a “church in ecclesiastical fellowship” with us. In 1974 we discarded the more restrictive category of “sister church” and began receiving a variety of churches in this looser, larger relationship, including, for example, the Reformed Church in America. Usually since 1974 there has been little question about establishing such loose church relations. Why should there be any question in this case? The large South African church is the church to which many of the leaders in the South African government belong. In view of the widespread criticisms of the South African “apartheid” policy, questions have been raised here about whether that South African church body was repudiating and was opposing that “apartheid” policy in a way that satisfied some of the leaders in sincere Christianity of the DRC, and their missionary labors and successes among and helpfulness to non–whites, it recommends that our Synod answer neither “Yes” nor “No” to the request for recognition by that church. It sees such a temporizing policy as a way of bringing pressure to bear upon that South African church to condemn “apartheid.” While the committee admits that it cannot judge the situation in that country, it makes many judgments. While we do not endorse South African government policies, the recommended refusal of fellowship to these orthodox Reformed churches because they do not share our political views while we cheerfully continue fellowship with churches which tolerate and promote liberalism such as the RCA in this country and the GKN in the Netherlands seems to reveal only too plainly where the real sympathies and priorities of our Interchurch Relations leaders lie.

Four of the other church bodies who together with us form the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Church Council (NAP ARC) are to hold their general assemblies at the same time as our churches’ synod, all meeting at Calvin College this year.

The Interchurch Relations report makes only a passing mention of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, stating that our 1973 report on Homosexuality, which has been criticized by the liberal Dutch churches, has been defended by a committee consisting of Rev. C. Boomsma, Dr. Henry Stob and Dr. Melvin D. Hugen (all of whom were compilers of that somewhat ambiguous report). (Note the article on this subject in the May OUTLOOK.)

Liturgy

The Liturgical Committee presents forms for ordination of elders, deacons and evangelists and for excommunication and readmission, for final approval, and a form for ordination and inauguration of ministers, for provisional approval. Although it comments that its work of revision is substantially completed, it continues to envision a job for the committee. Has the time not come to lay this committee to rest?

Reviewing the forms raised a few questions of proper usage. The expression “office-bearers,” despite its prevalence among us, seems to be a Dutchism, which evidently has no recognized place in the English language. In English the word should be “officers” or “office–holders.” The loose and rather faddish use of the word “share” in “share with all the good news of salvation” (p. 197) is, no doubt, intended to mean to “communicate” or “bring” to all the good news of salvation. It may also be taken, however, to imply a loose universalism. The word “witness” (pp. 197, 200) in Biblical terms means in almost every case an “eye-witness.” Its loose use to refer to any kind of Christian speaking of the gospel to others, although common, is really misleading. The Biblical expression is “confess”—to “say the same thing” as God says. More deliberate than these questionable usages is the fact that in each of the forms where the old questions read “Do you believe . . . the Old and New Testament to be the only Word of God?” the “only” is dropped out. (And the old form is no longer included in the newer hymn books as an option.) In the charge to the elders Acts 20:28 is misquoted in what is presented as a quotation. In the form for the minister’s ordination we read that “he should show that the church exists for the world” a liberal cliche that is unBiblical and false! The forms for discipline and readmission, when compared with the older ones, seem brief and flat. Some valuable material of which the church ought to be reminded is left out. There is, for example, no longer any reference to satan. Such a reference may not be popular in our time, but it seems the more appropriate when satan has the freer rein in the church because even the church functionaries never think of his part in their church problems.

Ministers’ Pensions

The Agenda contains 74 pages on ministers’ pension matters. They deal mainly with the separation of Canadian and U.S. pensions and a proposed change in the manner of establishing the amount of the pensions.

Race

The Race committee (SCORR) devotes much of its attention to its newer programs of trying to recruit, train and promote the leadership of members of minority races in the churches. While help to all kinds of poor and to all kinds of students who feel called to and are being prepared for leadership is to be encouraged, the main problem of the SCORR programs is that they are designed to give help and advantages on a selective basis only to members of certain races. That kind of racial discrimination is exactly the “sin” which this committee is supposed to be working to eradicate. SCORR’s budget for 1982 amounts to $268,000 (a fact not reported in the Agenda but which can be learned from the 1981 Financial and Business Supplement to the Agenda, Section I, p. 12g – This document, unlike the regular Agenda, is not given to the ordinary consistory member). The committee is asking for a quota increase from $2.70 to $2.92 per family. How can we expect the South Africans to be impressed with our admonitions to stop their racial discrimination when we officially practice and promote this discrimination on the basis of race within our churches?

Synodical Interim Committee

The Synodical Interim Committee calls attention to the fact that nearly 33 percent of our active ministers are not serving congregations, but are engaged in other types of service and that in many cases questions ought to be raised about whether they should retain their ministerial status because of the nature of their work. It cites the prolonged leaves of absence, carelessness about placement of credentials and similar abuses, and proposes that the synod take some action to correct these irregularities.

Dancing

A study committee makes a report on “Dance and the Christian Life.” This 19-page document surveys the churches’ views and practices with respect to dancing, and their earlier studies and decisions, and canvasses the material in the Bible on the subject. Although it makes many fine observations which will, undoubtedly, invite general agreement, its inconclusive conclusions may not give much help in the problems that surfaced in connection with the toleration of dancing at Calvin College. Although the report warns against the evils of much of today’s dancing, it also suggests trying to find a place for dancing in church worship, as well as trying to figure out ways to “redeem” social dancing.

Contemporary Testimony

This committee, seeking to formulate a statement of our faith in contemporary language in view of contemporary problems, presents a “sample of the summary of its work.” this “sample” in a somewhat poetic form is as imprecise and vague as its title. What does this mean, for example? “As children of our times, this struggle of the spirits is also ours,” “this” in the context referring to unbelievers’ common problems? Its hopeful ending also contains no hint of an accompanying judgment. As I see it, the problem of such a “contemporary testimony” is precisely in its “contemporaneity.” In trying single-mindedly to say what people of our time want to hear it is likely to say only what they already know, and likely to ignore what to them is irrelevant or distasteful, but what God has said that we must tell them. A “gospel” that does not offend our contemporaries is no real gospel at all.

Healing Ministries

For some 4 years the synodical interim committee has had a subcommittee working on the problem raised by the increasing number of ministers who are having trouble in their churches, who resign, or in other ways are leaving the ministry. As a remedy, this committee now proposes the establishment of a new Pastor-Church Relations Committee, a denominational Minister of Pastor-Church Relations at a central office, Regional Pastors under him, and “Mentors” to be appointed for each new minister, or minister who gets into trouble or who desires help. This introduces a whole new level of bureaucracy paralleling the organizational structures which we already have, and largely ignoring the role of the classes—their “church visitors” are dismissed with the remark that “in some instances” they “are not qualified” (p. 382). While there are real problems in churches, it would seem that introducing a new set of “bishops,” beside being imcompatible with the church order’s principle of the equality of officers (Art. 95, “no office–bearer shall lord it over another office-bearer”), is inviting more trouble and abuse than it could remedy. Dealing with these problems should be by way of improving the activities of the classis, not by imposing a new order of sovereign bishops. Important contributors to the low morale of our ministers are their training and the problems of serving in an increasingly confused and double-minded church. The “healing ministry” proposals address the symptoms, not the disease.

A proposed change of Church Order Article 17 (pp. 382, 383) to provide for release of a minister before conditions become “intolerable” seems highly desirable.

The report also suggests introducing “calls” for a limited time, calling attention to the fact that some of our agencies have such an arrangement. Notice how the whole notion of a divine call for life is being lost from sight in this suggestion. When a minister holds office only as long as he can remain popular he is tempted to become a vote-seeking politician instead of a preacher of righteousness.

The committee also asks the synod to recommend a document on “How to Call a Pastor” without showing us what that document is.

Quotas

The last part of the agenda includes overtures and appeals. Classis Alberta North asks the synod to establish a new area for the computation of Calvin Quotas to include the churches of western Canada because the present arrangement is inequitable. Classis Grand Rapids East asks the synod to change the whole quota system from a flat rate per family to one graduated on the basis of each family’s and each church’s income. Implicit in this suggestion is the assumption, long characteristic of this classis as well as other areas of our denomination, or insisting on treating quotas as a “tax” which if unpaid makes the individual or church a “delinquent.” Despite the fact that the synod repudiated that idea decades ago when it threw out the notion of “assessments,” characterizing “quotas” as a recommended average, the classis now wants to establish an “income tax.” An income tax is undoubtedly more equitable than a flat–rate, but the churches’ giving in the service of Christ be perverted much further than to turn it into a system of extraction patterned after that of the IRS?

Classis GR East also wants the synod to decree that the ministers and laymen must be equally represented in the delegations to church boards.

Baptism of Adopted Children

Classis Grand Rapids South asks that the synod change the policy of leaving some room for individual consciences regarding whether or not adopted children be baptized, and insist that they be baptized just as those born into a family. The classis believes that it is unBiblical to wait with their baptism until the adoption is legally finalized, for example. I believe that the classis is mistaken in this argument. Romans 3:2 states that the “chief” benefit of God’s covenant is that to its members “are committed the oracles of God.” If the chief benefit is the assurance of Christian training, we must consider that that training cannot be promised until the adoption is legalized. If legal procedures in making adoptions final may vary in various states and provinces, insisting on a uniform practice of immediate baptism seems to be improper.

Overture 5 asks the synod to establish standards for specialized ministries in the churches. Has the need for such a synod decision been shown? Classis Huron (#6) asks that training be provided for shorttime volunteer mission service.

Salary Schedules

Classis Kalamazoo asks that the salary schedule of the fund for needy churches be brought in line with that of the home missionaries, observing that in a given case the salary of a home missionary might be as much as $4000 higher than that paid by a subsidized church. The overture exposes a real inequity which ought to be corrected. (It might have gone on to point out that when a church is no longer subsidized by the denomination the pastor’s salary may get a further cut.) A reason for the discrepancy is that while the FNC salaries must still be approved by the synod (p. 159), the higher salaries of home missionaries are determined by their board and merely reported to the synod (p. 106), (and the still higher salaries of “executives” are determined by executives and are not even reported in this agenda, while what may be the lowest are determined by consistories and congregations). Many of our members and delegates may ask why they should by paying denominationally employed ministers and executives increasingly higher salaries than their own ministers, while they themselves may even have to be taking pay cuts. (See article in March OUTLOOK).

Candidacy and Seminary Training

Classis Lake Erie, because last year’s synod denied Mr. Libolt candidacy to the ministry when he refused to affirm the historicity of events in Genesis, asks the synod to change examination procedures so as to make such a summary rejection impossible (Overture 9). It offers no evidence that the synod erred in its judgment, but merely asserts that it was unfair because of the student’s long study, because he had been approved by others, because Dr. Verhey had been admitted, etc. These certainly are no grounds for denying the synod’s right to refuse anyone candidacy because of heretical views.

Five other overtures (11, 12, 15, 19, 21) arise from Mr. Libolt’s approval by the seminary faculty and board before he was decisively rejected by the synod. They request investigation of the views held and taught in our seminary and the assurance that our seminary professors believe that Adam and Eve really existed, pointing out that our adhering to the Bible and maintaining faithfulness to our confessions is in question in this matter.

Political Activism

Classis Lake Erie (#10) also wants the synod to insist that the South African churches take a stand against the Broederbond, a powerful political organization in that country and the Halifax church (#22) wants the synod to break off our long-standing relations with the Gereformeerde Kerk in Suid Afrika (not the same as the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa) because of their failure to condemn the Broederbond. The Interchurch relations committee report shows the inappropriateness of such proposed actions (p. 182).

Classis Chicago South proposes that the Synod revise and adopt the 1964 “Statement on Warfare.” The ambiguities and qualifications of this document shed little light on the subject, and adopting it would likely only lend support to current attempts especially by religious leaders to weaken any serious resistance to the militant aggressions of communism in our time. Why should the churches address double–talk to governments regarding matters in which they have neither a Biblical mandate nor competence?

Discipline

The Southern Heights church of Kalamazoo (#14) wants to abandon “excommunication” as too offensive for our times, and Classis Muskegon (#13) wants to modify the way of dealing with sins especially against the 7th commandment.

Appeals

Classis Chicago South appeals the decision of last year not to allow a minister to serve as president of Trinity College and retain his ministerial status.

Classis Hackensack wants to reopen the lodge question, alleging that admission of lodge members is the right of a loeal church.

Classis Sioux Center asks for a review of the Goderich case of 1980.