Although everything on the Agenda for the CRC Synod is significant, not every item is of equal importance. Going through the 568-page Agenda leaves me with the impression that there is one issue of supreme importance and that it should be kept clearly in focus.

The purpose of these lines is to zero in on that issue. The CRC Synod of ’79 will be, as I see it, another “battle for the Bible.” We are indebted to Harold Lindsell for that designation used by him as the title for his significant book that claimed such wide attention and also occasioned such sharp debate.

A Crucial Issue – The issue unquestionably is crucial. Dead wrong though he could be, Voltaire was right on target in what he is reported to have once said: “If we would destroy the Christian religion, we must first of all destroy man’s belief in the Bible.” The two always stand or fall together.

Does the CRC have a future? Not just for this year or next year but for our children and grandchildren and also for future generations. As a mere organization of men, the CRC may continue even until the end of time—the longevity of even the most apostate church organizations witnesses to that but, as a manifestation of the true church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the CRC will go on only as long as we contend earnestly in our “battle for the Bible” as the inspired, infallible, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God. The true church always depends on the Bible.

Indeed, the issue is crucial. Thatfact is spelled out clearly in the Bible itself, in the beginning, middle, and end. Woe to him who tampers with God‘s own inviolable Word.

Early in Scripture, we are told: “Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it . . .” (Deut. 4:2).

About midway in the Bible, again the warning comes in no uncertain terms: “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Prov. 30:6).

And then, almost like a clap of thunder, as the inspired Scriptures come to a close, the same warning is sounded once more in language so severe and final as to leave every detractor of the Word without excuse: “testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18, 19).

Indeed, this is a crucial matter!

Thomas Howard, professor of English at Gordon College, said it well in his article on “The Touchstone” in the January 5, ’79 issue of Christianity Today:

“Any serious and thoughtful Christian is a dogmatist, not in the sense of being pig–headed or ostrich-like, but in the sense of having a lively awareness that he stands in a defined tradition of received teaching that has been articulated by the holy prophets and apostles, and handed down through the centuries. It is spelled out in the Bible and proclaimed by the Church. . . .”

Let’s make no mistake about it, this matter is crucial to the tenth degree!

A Recurring Issue – A careful examination of the Agenda for the CRC Synod of ‘79 reveals that repeatedly we are being confronted with this issue: another “battle for the Bible.” Attention may be called to the following items:

1. Capital punishment – Society today is being ridden with the plague of a proliferating crime situation that stalks and haunts especially the elderly both by day and by night. Surely, this is not a time for the abolition of capital punishment or any mitigation of the divine ordinance that it be exercised.

In 1976 Classis Orange City overtured Synod “to address our national government as to the need of the reestablishment of capital punishment in a manner that respects the sovereignty of the state but expresses the imperatives of God’s Word which the church confesses; that Synod enlist the classes and consistories (congregations) to cooperate in addressing state governments accordingly.”

The meaning and intent of Classis Orange City were very clear. Capital punishment as a divine ordinance for murder was for them, even as it has been and is for so many others, incontrovertible according to the Bible. “Genesis 9:6,” according to the overture, “has been traditionally acknowledged as the classic passage to teach that capital punishment is required for crimes of murder . . . .”

That’s what Orange City assumed to be the plain teaching of the Bible, even as many of us believe. But the irony in the outcome of Orange City’s overture to Synod is that Synod is now being confronted with a quite different recommendation.

To deal with Orange City’s overture, Synod appointed a study committee consisting of Doctors Henry Stob, Clarence Vos, Hessel Bouma III, Stephen Monsma, and Louis Vos who make a lengthy report (40 pages) recommending something very different from what was requested. The committee recommends that Synod declare:

“a. that the Scriptures lay no mandate [italics added] on modern states to exercise capital punishment;

“b. that the Scriptures do permit [italics added] modern states to inflict capital punishment;

“c. that according to the spirit of Scriptures capital punishment is prudently exercised only under extreme conditions and not as a general rule.”

What we are left with then, as Bible believers, to tell the government is only this: “You have no divine mandate or ordinance to put the murderer to death but you do have the Lord’s permission to do so. And so, it’s up to you.”

Like the prophets of old, the church must speak to the civil authorities only if it has something to say as a clear and unambiguous “Thus saith the Lord!” In addressing the civil authorities the trumpet must give no uncertain sound.

The committee writes page after page after page in an attempt to convince us that capital punishment is optional. However, despite their labored reasoning, Genesis 9:5, 6 still sounds loud, clear and convincing:

“And from each man too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. ‘Whosoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man . . .’”(NIV).

It is good to know that the committee does not share the position adopted in 1965 by the Synod of the Reformed Church in America when it decided the following: “The taking of a person’s life, even within the context of the law, is a denial of the command to love your neighbor as yourself.” However, let’s not be too sure that we will not arrive at the same conclusion if we once declare that Scripture does not lay down a divine ordinance or mandate “on modern states to exercise capital punishment.” Let’s be realistic and recognize what we will encounter when once we are a little farther down the road.

2. Women deacons – Prominent in the minds of anyone somewhat familiar with the Agenda for this year’s Synod is the question whether last year’s decision to have women in the office of deacon will be upheld or not. Because of the Scriptural considerations at stake, this too may well develop into another “battle for the Bible.”

Overtures and appeals, some fifty of them, about last year’s decision, will claim the attention of Synod as it meets this month. It is gratifying that they have all been allowed to be placed in the printed Agenda. The great majority of t hese are negative or thumbs down on having women in the office of deacon. Obviously arising from the grass roots of the denomination, from the east and from the west and also from in–between, from both north and south of the border, there is a voice of dissent that is not to be disregarded.

Although it may not be a torrent, this discontent will be misjudged if it is thought to be just a mere trickle, or nothing else than the mumbling and sputtering of a few die-hard conservatives that can safely be ignored. There are limits to the tension that a denomination can bear without coming to the breaking point. Important and precious as they may be, if peace and unity can be maintained only at the cost of compromising the authority of Scripture as our only rule for faith and practice, their price is then just too high.

With good reason, people in the CRC know that next will be the effort also to have women in the offices of the Elder and the Minister. Fact is that right now Synod. is also being overtured to “consider the feasibility of permitting those churches that are ready to do so to ordain women as elders.” The Consistory of the Hope CRC of Oak Forest, Illinois, gives the following as one of the grounds for its request:

“The possibility of using these churches now ready for female elders as ‘pilot projects’ for a designated period of time and so enable Synod and the denomination to study and assess the effects of such a change, as it works out in practice rather than just theoretically, deserves serious study by a study committee” (1979 Agenda, p. 527).

Whether or not women are to be deacons, elders, and ministers is too important to be decided by experimentation. Let the delegates thoroughly familiarize themselves with the pronouncements of Scripture on this important matter. And then, if they come to the conclusion that the Bible allows no warrant for women in these offices, let them vote according to their consciences and refuse to be swayed by pragmatic considerations, by which way the wind happens to be blowing, or by forceful oratory, to the contrary. Armed with the Word as the sword of the Spirit, let them stand up to be counted and contend earnestly as once again there is to be a “battle for the Bible.”

   

3. Admit Lodge Members – A recurring issue at the meetings of the CRC Synod has been the exclusion of lodge members from membership in the church as long as such persons refuse to terminate their membership in such a fraternal organization. Now this old bone of contention is again on Synod’s agenda. To this writer, as a long–time attendant at the meetings of Synod, it would seem to be more than high time to decide that this issue is not to take up any more of Synod’s valuable time unless something definitely new can be presented. Threshing over the old straw endlessly should not be expected of the church that has repeatedly made its position clear on this matter.

Coming from the Richfield CRC of Clifton, New Jersey, Overture 41 in the Agenda asks Synod to adopt the following: “That the Synod of the CRC declare that with respect to members of fraternal organizations each congregation, through its own consistory [italics added] be entrusted with the essential responsibility of determining whether such persons become members of that congregation. Consistories are urged to exercise this essential responsibility of their calling by heeding carefully guidelines and conclusions of the synodically approved report on church membership and lodge membership.”

As recently as 1977, Synod reiterated the historic position of the CRC “that any member of the lodge, by virtue of the oath he has taken, has at least tacitly identified himself with the false religion of the lodge and that therefore he cannot become a member of the CRC unless he repudiates t he religion of the lodge and repents of having taken the oath” (1977 Acts of Synod, p. 104).

The above position allows for no exceptions. How then can Richfield think that a consistory can do anything but exclude lodge members from church membership while “heeding carefully guidelines and conclusions of the synodically approved report on church membership and lodge membership”? By this time it should be abundantly clear that the CRC’s historic position is squarely based on the bedrock of Scripture and is not to be adjusted according to any existential considerations. All attempts to make such unwarranted adjustments rightly call for another “battle for the Bible.”

4. The Verhey Case – Last, but by no means least, among the issues that should occasion another “battle for the Bible” is the so-called Verhey case. It is precisely here that the lines ought to be most clearly drawn and that the basic issue should come most sharply into focus.

Dr. Allen Verhey is a minister in the CRC who, since his ordination in 1975, serves as Assistant Professor in Religion at Hope College in Holland, Michigan. On pages 561–566 we find an Appeal from the Consistory of the Dutton CRC against the decisions of Neland Avenue CRC and Classis Grand Rapids East concerning the Dr. Verhey matter, from which we quote the following excerpts:

“The Consistory of Dutton objected to the decision to ordain Dr. Allen D. Verhey after he had stated in his examination 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 eschatalogical symbol and not necessarily as a fact . . . .

“We are convinced that the position of Dr. Verhey does bring him into conflict with the confessions, and following the instructions of the Synod, have confronted him personally with our objections to his views. Discussion of the matter with him instead of removing our objections confirmed them. Therefore following ‘the procedures outlined in the Form of Subscription and the Church Order we brought our objections to the Neland Avenue Consistory which holds his ministerial credentials.

“The Neland Avenue Consistory, after a year had elapsed, informed us that it judged that the views to which we objected were permissible ways of interpreting the Bible. We were convinced that its reply, based mainly on Dr. Verhey’s formal claims of respect for the Bible as God’s Word, answered none of our objections to his method of ‘interpreting’ or using it. We therefore brought our objections to Classis Grand Rapids East. The Classis on January 8, 1979 adopted the recommendations of the majority of its study committee which endorsed and sustained the Neland Avenue Consistory’s support and defense of the views of Dr. Verhey. Still convinced that these views are in conflict with the Bible and the Reformed Confessions, we therefore, following the direction of the Form of Subscription, Church Order, and the synod (Acts of Synod 1976, p. 95), bring these objections to the Synod of 1979 . . .

“Since these views (Dr. Verhey’s) are in conflict with Scripture, our Confessions and Form of Subscription, and the decision of our synod, and their dissemination must be destructive of our Christian faith and life, we must appeal to you as the responsible church body to declare that this method of interpreting and using the Bible is not to be tolerated in the Christian Reformed Churches and to take whatever measures may be needed to prevent its being preached and taught by Dr. Verhey as a minister in our churches.”

There is a cogency in Dutton’s reasoning t hat should make it impossible to disregard. On the other hand, there are considerations in the case Neland Avenue seeks to make in their request that the charges against Dr. Verhey be dropped that make their caseless convincing. Consider the following:

a. Although the Neland Avenue Consistory wants the charges against Dr. Verhey dropped, they want the following to be clearly understood: “As noted above, our judgment on these points do not mean that we agree with the specific interpretations Dr. Verhey has advanced . . .”

b. And, although Neland wants Dutton’s charges dropped, they also say: “We believe that the discussion in the dissertation [Dr. Verhey’s dissertation] is not pertinent to t he original question of exegetical method in relation to the authority of Scripture. Therefore your committee did not pursue [italics added] this aspect of the Dutton protest further.”

c. Moreover, although Neland wants the charges dropped, they do acknowledge “that Dr. Verhey’s interpretations of these passages differ from that traditionally held in the CRC” and “that there continue to be issues worthy of discussion with respect to the interpretation of these passages.”

d. And besides, although they want the charges dropped, Neland does feel called upon to include the following in their “pastoral advice” to Dr. Verhey:

(1) “that in suggesting interpretations which diverge from those widely held in the church he should speak cautiously [italics added], especially when his views might seem to threaten the factcharacter and the event–character of the fall, the resurrection, and the specific contents of the word and deed ministry of our Lord.”

(2) “. . . we would caution Dr. Verhey [italics added] against so emphasizing the revelational significance that it detracts (rom the ‘event–basis’ of the Christian faith. We do well to be reminded that we must avoid making an unwarranted division between an historical event and its revelational meaning (cf. Report 44. Acts of Synod 1972).”

Serving Dr. Verhey with this pastoral advice to exercise caution suggests that even in their own minds the Neland A venue Consistory may have some misgivings about their attempt to refute Dutton’s charges as being a black-and-white case. Such pastoral advice may leave others more convinced than ever that Dutton’s charges should be sustained. May it be obvious to the delegates that in this case they are being summoned to rise up and acquit themselves like men in yet another “battle for the Bible”!