The congregations of the Christian Reformed denomination are bound together as a family of churches by the three Forms of UNITY, that is, by what the churches together confess to be the teaching of the Bible. It is that and that alone which unites us. To be sure, a common national background once served us well on this score, but that day is largely past. Our unity lies in our confessional standards-the Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dort.

And what gives these Forms of UNITY bonding power among us? It is the Form of Subscription which every officebearer and church-school professor must sign. This important document testifies to the conviction that the church is a fellowship of believers whose most important treasure is the faith they profess, a faith that must be steadfastly guarded against any and every sort of attack or deviation. Under the cultural pressures that affect the church today it is well to emphasize that the church‘s most important treasure is the biblical faith it professes. That greatest treasure is not the individual rights of the members of this fellowship of believers. Currently the “religion” embraced by many people is one of individual rights. This “religion” must not invade the church.

An Overture

On January 23, 1985 Classis Florida adopted an overture to be sent on to synod. The overture, adopted without dissenting vote, is as follows:

TO THE SYNOD OF THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH

Classis Florida overtures the Synod of 1985 to request of the Rev. Andrew Kuyvenhoven, editor of The Banner, according to the terms of the Form of Subscription, a further explanation of his understanding of the Confession of Faith, Articles V and VII, in view of the following writing by our brother in The Banner of January 23, 1984:

There is no doubt in my mind that Paul was prescribing a restricted role to women in the service of worship when he wrote I Corinthians 14:34 and I Timothy 2:12.

However, the reason for the restrictions were local, cultural, and therefore temporal. Paul could appeal to what was in his day a common moral judgment: a woman speaking in church looked “bad,” “shameful” (I Cor. 14:35). But when such an appeal can no longer be made, the special apostolic prescription is also removed.

In other words, the veil, the head covering, long hair, and other prescriptions had a cultural importance they no longer have. But reverence, submission, and the good name of the Christian community are the enduring concerns of these passages.

Note: The same thinking about the Bible and culture was expressed in an editorial in The Banner of May 14, 1984, and in a speech on “Bible and Culture” given by Rev. Kuyvenhoven on October 12, 1984 as reported in the Outlook of January 1985.

Grounds:

1. The exegesis whereby Rev. Kuyvenhoven sets aside the plain overt teaching of the texts involved and limits the teaching of these passages to “reverence, submission and the good name of the Christian community” is plainly not valid.

a. According to Rev. Kuyvenhoven the “reasons for the restrictions” were in the first place “local.” We note that Paul says in I Corinthians 14:33–34, “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches” (italics added). The italicized words plainly assert that Paul is laying down a rule for all the churches and not for just one or two of them. It is highly unlikely that one could so familiarize himself with the “local” circumstances in “all the congregations of the saints” that he could declare that one of the reasons for Paul’s restrictions is “local.” But even more to the point is that the “reason” for Paul‘s restriction is found in God’s Word and not in local circumstances, as the immediate context in both instances clearly shows. b. With the word “local” ruled out, the only remaining reasons for the Pauline restriction in I Corinthians 14:34 and I Timothy 2:12 are “cultural, and therefore temporal.” Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul finds the reason for his teaching in I Corinthians 14:34 in “the Law,” which means the Old Testament or some part of it. And the reason for the teaching in I Timothy 2:12 is found in some of the earliest teaching of Scripture, namely, that “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (I Tim. 2:13). How can such teaching, deeply rooted in the abiding Word of God itself, be spoken of as “cultural, and therefore temporal?”

2. Article V of the Confession states that the books of the Bible are “for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing without any doubt all things contained in them . . .” There can be no doubt that when the Confession was written and when it was adopted by the Reformed churches, the words of Article V covered I Corinthians 14:34 and I Timothy 2:12 in the plain and overt teaching of these passages. Rev. Kuyvenhoven has chosen to disagree with this testimony of the churches by dismissing as irrelevant today the express teaching of the two passages in question, for reasons that are exegetically invalid. Rev. Kuyvenhoven should therefore give further explanation of his understanding of Article V as it relates to I Corinthians 14:34 and I Timothy 2:12. To besure, the plain and overt teaching of these passages must still be specifically interpreted, but that is something other than dismissing such teaching as irrelevant.

3. Article VII of the Confession states that the “doctrine” (that is, teaching) of the Word of God “is most perfect and complete in all respects.” How can the teaching of I Corinthians 14:34 and I Timothy 2:12 “be most perfect and complete in all respects” for us when the plain and overt teaching of these passages is declared to be irrelevant for us? 4. Article Vll further states that we may not consider “custom . . . or succession of times and persons . . . of equal value with the truth of God.” Rev. Kuyvenhoven should be called on to explain how that which he has written does not violate this language of Article VII, for he has said that the teaching of I Corinthians 14:34 and I Timothy 2:12 is a matter of the customs and culture of the times in which Paul wrote. Since then the plain and overt teaching of these passages is said to reflect temporal cultural conditions (“succession of times and persons”), it follows that new customs and cultural conditions can set aside teaching of God’s Word of truth that is looked upon as bound up with earlier custom and culture. That makes “custom . . . or succession of times and persons . . . of equal value with the truth of God.”

5. The need to ask Rev. Kuyvenhoven for further explanation of his views of certain articles of the Confession of Faith is reinforced by the fact that he bas written about other articles of the Confession as follows: “The views of the Reformers are no longer ours. And the kind of thinking about the church that is recorded in the Belgic Confession is no longer functional in the Christian Reformed Church,” (Editorial, The Banner, Oct. 26, 1981). The editor of our leading church paper has solemnly signified his persuasion “that all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the Confession . . . do fully agree with the Word of God” (Form of Subscription).

6. The issues raised in this overture are of great significance and should be faced by the church. These issues are disturbing to many in the church and are raising troublesome questions for them with respect to the Holy Scriptures. What is to be understood by the cultural or temporal conditioning of the Bible? What does th.is mean in specific instances, like those raised by Rev. Kuyvenhoven? Does the acknowledgement of cultural and temporal conditioning mean that the Bible is a “timebound” book, as Kuiten and others have alleged? How does Kuyvenhoven’s teaching differ from that of the old liberalism, which said flatly that the Bible is out of date? These and similar questions must be dealt with for the sake of the peace and witness of our beloved church.

CLASSIS FLORIDA

Ralph A. Pontier, Stated Clerk

Done in meeting of Classis Florida January 23, 1985

     

Shall It Be In The Agenda?

At the time of the writing of this article there is some doubt about the appearance of this overture in the printed Agenda of the forthcoming Synod. I have this information from a totally reliable source. Why the uncertainty? Because the overture is patently defective or contrary to fact or irrelevant? Not at all. The doubt stems from the fact that some denominational functionaries question the procedure followed by the overture. Granted that there may be some difference of opinion on the often moot question of procedure. Does that fact give to any group of individuals warrant to decide to keep out of the printed Agenda an overture duly passed by a classis? The question of procedure was raised on the floor of Classis Florida and yet the overture was adopted without dissenting vote.

Proper Procedure

In assessing the procedure followed in the processing of the above overture we look first of all at the Church Order. Article 13a reads as follows, “A minister of the Word is directly accountable to the calling church, and therefore shall be supervised in doctrine, life and duties by that church. When his work is with other than the calling church, he shall be supervised in cooperation with other congregations, institutions or agencies involved.” Please take careful note of the second sentence in that quotation from the Church Order. Does not that language make room for precisely the procedure followed by the overture? The overture asks synod to “require . . . a further explanation” of Rev. Kuyvenhoven because “his work is with other than the calling church,” and thus he is “supervised in cooperation with other congregations, institutions and agencies involved.” Because this brother’s work is done as an appointee of synod and as spokesman for all the congregation, his supervision may therefore be seen as one of cooperation with all the congregations of the church, and that means synod.

And what about Article 28b of the Church Order? It says, “A major assembly shall deal only with those matters which concern its churches in common or which could not be finished in the minor assemblies.” The above overture surely fits in the first of the two categories listed, namely, “those matters which concern its churches in common.” The substantive issue raised in the overture (that of the cultural conditioning of the Bible) is a matter of high concern to all the churches. And would any one care to argue that consideration of the substantive issue raised by the overture could be finished in the minor assemblies?

There are those who argue that the proper procedure in matters like that addressed by the above overture is to follow the instructions given in the articles under THE ADMONITION AND DISCIPLINE OF OFFICE-BEARERS in the Church Order. These articles apply to disciplinary procedures in which charges are brought against an office-bearer. In a case in which “further explanation” is sought according to the terms of the Form of Subscription there are no charges. And the Judicial Code does not apply since it calls for “written charges requiring formal adjudication.”

One Procedure in the Form of Subscription?

A further opinion held by some deserves attention. This opinion contends that the Form of Subscription refers only to a person who reveals his “different sentiments” to “Consistory, Classis, or Synod” and who is ready to submit to the judgment of any of these assemblies. In other words, according to this opinion paragraphs three and four of the Form of Subscription do not set forth two different procedures but rather two phases of one procedure.

Such an interpretation of the Form of Subscription is hard to accept. The procedure given in paragraph three involves revealing “different sentiments” to consistory, classis or synod , and is carried to its conclusion of “being ready always to submit to the judgment” of the assembly dealing with the matter. In other words, the procedure briefly sketched in paragraph three contemplates a complete process, from the declaration of “different sentiments” to the judgment of same.

Paragraph four of the Form briefly sets forth a different procedure which also runs the full course from willing compliance with an assembly’s requisition of “further explanation” to acquiescence in the final judgment of the matter. In view of the flow of the description of the process in each case, it is difficult to see how the two paragraphs can be thought of as describing one procedure or two facets of the same procedure. One must agree with VanDellen and Monsma, who in their Revised Church Order Commentary recognize two procedures in the Form of Subscription. Of the second procedure, that asked for in the above overture, these authors have this to say, “Action of this kind may be taken by a classis or synod as well as by a consistory. The major assemblies need not wait for minor assemblies” (p. 40).

Precedents

There are clear precedents for the procedure followed by the above overture. In 1936 a consistory went directly to synod under the terms of the Form of Subscription regarding the views of Dr. F. H. Wezeman. Synod responded by appointing a committee to work with the classis involved. In 1961 a consistory went directly to synod asking for “further explanation” of the views of Rev. S. J. DeVries, and synod responded by calling upon synodical deputies from three neighboring classes to work with the pastor’s consistory to pursue the matter.

Certain other more recent cases are hardly germane. Take, for example, the manner in which synod dealt with the request of Central Avenue church (Holland) asking the Synod of 1971 to “adjudicate the correctness or error of Dr. DeBoer’s position as expressed” in certain documents. That is something other than calling for “further explanation” of one’s views. And how about synod’s handling of the Verhey case in 1977? In this instance a consistory appealed against the action of Classis Grand Rapids East in approving the examination and the subsequent ordination of one who had made statements in his examination before classis to which the appealing consistory objected. By the time this appeal came to synod the man had already been ordained. So synod directed the appealing consistory, should it desire to pursue the matter, to press their case by following the procedure given in the Church Order under THE ADMONITION AND DISCIPLINE OF OFFICE-BEARERS. It is evident that this again is something other than asking for “further explanation.” (The citing of these two instances does not mean that the writer of these lines fully agrees with the way in which these two cases were handled.)

What Might the Overture Achieve?

The intent of the overture discussed in this article is not to “get Kuyvenhoven.” When I went to visit this brother in his office in September 1984 to discuss his views with him, I told him that any action that I might seek to take would be for the purpose of getting the church to face and deal with the urgent and highly important question of the nature and meaning of the cultural conditioning of the Bible. Is the Bible a time-bound book, as Kuitert and others teach? Does the church member of average intelligence have a Bible today, a Bible that he can read and understand? Or must he wait for the interpretation of some expert who has a sophisticated new tool called “the new hermeneutic?” Does the average church member have an infallible guide for his life in his Bible, or is his Bible selectively infallible, depending on the expert’s interpretation of how time and culture have conditioned the Book? It is this very timely and crucial question that prompted me to submit the overture to my consistory. I am sure it was this overriding consideration that led the consistory to approve it, and also led Classis Florida to endorse it.

What can synod do in this case? It could do a number of things. It could appoint a study committee, though I do not especially relish the thought, because sometimes the productions of study committees have tended to add to the church’s problems rather than contribute to resolution of them. A study committee whose mandate is limited to a study of the Confession of Faith (Articles I–VII) in relation to the issue raised in the overture might be helpful. Synod could deal with the overture in much the same way that it dealt with similar instances in 1936 and 1961. Or synod might tell brother Kuyvenhoven that he owes the church a gravamen, thus admonishing him and the church as a whole to abide faithfully by the teachings of Scripture as set forth in the church’s doctrinal standards. After all, every office-bearer has avowed that the teachings of the Forms of Unity “do fully agree with the Word of God.”

By all means the church must deal with this overture. The issue is urgent. Our church is in turmoil today and at the center of the ferment is the question raised in this overture. Let the troubled church know no later than the time of the publication of the Agenda for Synod that this issue will be a matter ofgenuine concern at the assembly this coming June.

RATIONALE FOR OVERTURE GIVEN TO DELEGATES AT CLASSIS

This request is being sent to synod first rather than to Rev. Kuyvenhoven’s supervising consistory for the following reasons:

a. This overture is not an attempt to bring discipline against an officebearer according to Articles 88ff of the Church Order. This is a request for further explanation of one’s views according to the terms of the Form of Subscription. Therefore, according to the terms of the Form of Subscription, it can be dealt with at the synodical level as the overture requests.

b. Synod has twice before invoked its right to request of a signer of the Form ofSubscription a further explanation of his views. It did so once on the basis of sufficient grounds of suspicion supplied to synod in an overture from Fourth Roseland C R C concerning the views of Dr. F . H. Wezeman, and again at the request of the Bluffton C R C regarding the views of Dr. Simon J. DeVries. (Acts of Synod 1936, p . 146ff, and 1961 p. 100f.)

c. The person concerned is an appointee of synod, responsible to synod for his work. The explanation asked for concerns his work, therefore synod should be the body to handle the matter.

d. Because the editor publishes his views weekly throughout the denomination in the only official denominational magazine this matter is not a local concern but is of denominational significance and for the sake of the unity and peace of the church should be dealt with at the denominational level. According to Article 28 of the Church Order this is a matter which concerns all the churches in common and is therefore a legitimate concern of synod which does not have to be processed through the minor assemblies.

e. It is inconceivable that a matter of this importance and magnitude could be “finished” in a minor assembly. To initiate the matter in a minor assembly would only delay its resolution by synod. If the matter were initiated at the local or classical level, the process would take two or three years at least before synod would deal with it finally, thus imposing great personal hardship on all parties involved.

f. To require that matters ofdenominational significance and concern to all the churches be dealt with first at the local level where consistories would need to have all parties present for several consecutive monthly meetings, makes pursuing such matters impossible when great distance separates the parties involved. In this case the parties are over 1,200 miles apart. The framers of our Church Order never intended that distance should be an obstacle to good order in the church, therefore the Church Order should never be applied in such a way that makes distance an obstacle to good order.

g . The principal author of this overture has, prior to writing the overture, spoken personally to Rev. Kuyvenhoven but received no clarification of the editor’s views. Other parties have written to Rev. Kuyvenhoven asking for a further explanation of his views. His reply, printed in The Banner, May 14, 1984, “An Open Letter,” has only raised more questions. The January 1985 Outlook contains a report of a recent address given by Rev. Kuyvenhoven in the Burnaby, B.C., C R C which also gives grounds for asking the editor for a further explanation of his views. The report states, “According to K, the restricted role of women in the church, as taught in Scripture, is no longer applicable in our modern culture. There are two reasons why the church should change its position on this matter. First, because the Spirit of God can express itself also through our society. Although K did not specify how we can identify these divine utterings, he did feel that in this case there could be little doubt. Secondly, . . . our traditional stance on the role of women hinders members of our modern society from coming to church.” This quote, although not a direct quote from Rev. Kuyvenhoven, shows the urgent need for a clarification of his views. Does Rev. Kuyvenhoven believe in a new revelation which gives the Church the right to lay aside and contradict the Bible? Does he believe that the Church should compromise God’s truth in order to accommodate worldly, popular opinion? These are questions which concern our creeds, and these are questions the Church has a right to ask when, as in this case, there is more than sufficient cause for concern.

Edward Heerema is a retired Christian Reformed minister living at Cape Coral, Florida.