“Some years ago a young man presented himself to a presbytery for ordination. As he was known to believe that the boards and agencies of that church were infiltrated with modernism, he was asked whether he would support the boards and agencies. He replied that he would support them insofar as they were true to the Bible. The answer did not please presbytery, and he was asked if he would support the boards regardless of what they did. When the young man declined to make any such blind promise, the presbytery refused to ordain him” (Gordon Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe, p. 191).

The struggle to define exactly what it is that unites a denomination is not new. Is it a common mission, a shared ethnic heritage, geographical proximity, the Apostle’s Creed? It has been the distinctive of that portion of the Master’s field called (truly) Reformed that the TRUTH of God as revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the alone adequate foundation for unity. To serve that end, the creeds and confessions, which summarize in systematic and succinct form the teachings of Holy Writ, were drawn up and handed down to succeeding generations. We reformed have been sanctified, set apart, by God’s TRUTH, His Word that IS truth.

   

Having taken that for our starting point, the Christian Reformed Church has been greatly blessed by our Sovereign. We have grown from 900 members to that many churches in 130 years. We have been pioneers on several mission fronts, have led the way in Christian education, built colleges and a seminary, produced radio and television programs that bring the gospel around the world daily, published magazines, journals, books and curricula. But we have begun to succumb to the temptation to find our unity in these endeavors, rather than in the truth upon which they were founded.

This is evident when one observes which “trespasses” are forgivable and which create an uproar in our denomination. When evolution is taught at Calvin College (though in a “baptized” form), that’s academic freedom. When a minister tampers with the doctrine of election, that’s accepted accepted. When a local church notifies its classis that it will be ordaining women into office contrary to church order, that is the leading of the spirit (–Aye. An unclean spirit. SMS). But when a pastor from Brooklyn addresses the annual meeting of the Reformed Fellowship in Grand Rapids and suggests that agencies which refuse to be accountable to local consistories in matters of TRUTH and practice, have their quota withheld, THAT IS A CAUSE FOR SERIOUS CONCERN!

In a letter to me from Regional Home Missionary Ronald Peterson , it was indicated that the summary of my talk (For Such A Time As This), which appeared in the December, 1986 Outlook , merited an investigation into my views. “My views of what?” you may ask. Of Scripture? No. Of Articles in our Confession, or questions and answers in our catechism, or heads of doctrine from the Canons of Dordt? In other words, for suspected deviation from our Forms of Unity? No, no, no, no. “The reason for the concern of our staff and Executive Committee, which I share, has to do with comments presumably made that at least sound adversarial, inflammatory, and divisive toward the denomination and denominational agencies.”

In keeping with this concern, raised by the delegate to Home Missions from Classis Lake Erie, an inquiry was to be made regarding “Home Missions’ support of and sponsorship of Messiah’s Congregation. The Classis has also addressed a letter to the Board, which will be considered at our Board meeting in the context of your church’s new funding request.”

Hmmmm. “Considered in the context of your funding request.” I wonder what that means? That I was upset by this blatant attempt at bureaucratic bullying is (perhaps too) evident from my letter of reply, reprinted here: Ronald L. Peterson 123 Buena Vista Hawthorne, NJ 07506

Dear Ronald,

I am in receipt of your letter of concern dated February 5th. What’s all the fuss about? Am I being challenged as to my orthodoxy, my alignment with our doctrinal standards? Have I deviated from the church order? Please tell me, exactly what standard is it feared that I have violated?

I am enclosing a (poor, I’m afraid) cassette copy of the address I gave at the annual meeting of the Reformed Fellowship in October of 1986. That should serve to provide you with more context for the statements which the Reverend De Jong summarized in the December Outlook . . . .

My views have been aired publicly and privately, in the pulpit and in print, on the floor of Classis and Synod . . . . My views were known to Classis Hudson as far back as my examination for licensure in 1984! I stand firmly (I trust) on the Word of God and the traditional understanding of that Word as summarized in our forms of unity. I think that people who espouse positions which deviate significantly from these standards ought to a) repent, or b) find another denominational home. That is exactly what is called for, it seems to me, in the form of subscription which we all signed, and in the church order.

Now let me ask you for more information. In a lively discussion which we had a month or two ago, you used the following phrase: “It all depends on what you mean by ‘inspiration’.” Will you please tell me, in writing what you mean by it?

It is apparent to me and all of us in Messiah’s Congregation that there is substantial interest in our ministry around the denomination. This interest is not “in spite of” our concern about trends in the denomination, but often especially because of it. We get letters from around the country, many including loving gestures of support. We can accept the money we’ve applied for, should the board decide to grant it, with a crystal-clear conscience because we truly and with utter sincerity believe that we are doing our very best to represent and further the cause of the historic, Christian Reformed Church.

Surely those who “raise these concerns” are not trying to use Home Missions’ funding as a weapon to silence discussion of contemporary issues in the church?! If Messiah’s application is denied, we’re certain it would be because of financial constraints, and not a punishment for “bad boys” who speak their minds. Right? I know the many people who follow the progress of our ministry will be interested in the board’s decision.

Yours and His,

Steven M. Schlissel

P.S. If you require any further information, please indicate what you’d like to know when you respond to my request for your definition of the inspiration of Scripture.

Well, friends, as it turns out, at the Home Mission Board meeting in February our request for a decreasing, three year Grant-In–Aid for 20, 16, and 12,000 dollars was disapproved, and we were given a one time grant of $6,000 with the emphatic specification that no money is committed to us for the future. Hmmm.

Of course, not being privy to the motives of the heart, one may only cautiously speculate as to whether there is a connection between the “concerns” of the Board and their decision. Be that as it may, WE ought to be concerned that what does seem to get action, and quick action, is the kind of things that were mentioned in the speech at the Reformed Fellowship. Was this a “We’ll show you who’ll cut off whose funds” machination? I don’t know. I do know that God Almighty will supply the needs of this little ministry according to the counsel of His good and glorious will. I also know that it is high time for us to recall exactly what it is that binds us together, for when boards and agencies stand in conflict with what we confess to be the truth, something’s GOT to give. When push comes to shove, one is likely to be sacrificed on the altar of the other. Shall Truth govern the activities of our agencies, or shall our agencies take it upon themselves to redefine the Truth.

(Incidentally, I have yet to receive an explication of our RHM’s understanding of inspiration, though he told me in a phone conversation that he’d be happy to provide it. I’m anxious to know how one reconciles the advocacy of ordaining women as ministers with our confession which states that “it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were on angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to odd unto or take-away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects . . . Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule” (Belgic Confession, Article VII). This “infallible rule” tells the church in I Timothy 2:12, 13 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” Christian Reformed ministers solemnly swear that they believe “without any doubt all things contained in” the Holy Scriptures. “All things” may not become simply “many.” This same infallible rule tells us, “Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If anyone cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house” (See Confession, VII). That there are many in “our house” that do not bring this teaching (in an undiluted form, that is) is painfully apparent. Yet these men had sworn “diligently to teach and faithfully to defend the aforesaid doctrine, without either directly or indirectly contradicting the same” (Form of Subscription). I think our agency officials should assure us that the agenda they are promoting is the infallible and inspired one of the Scriptures as understood in our Confession, and not another.)

Another, more flambouyant minister, felt compelled to tell me of his response to my speech after listening to the cassette tape. He was “greatly offended,” he said in a letter dated March 30th. He called me a vicious, outright liar and “the sterling example of a terrorist who incites others to wave their financial guns in the face of our denominational agencies.” I am not greatly offended. By Brooklyn standards, those are not cutting words. I am deeply concerned. What ought a consistory do when it finds certain agencies and boards impervious to the pleadings of those they represent? What should the good folk of the Christian Reformed Church do when they discover they are financing private relativistic agendas, and not the sound, confessional programming they thought they were supporting. Has the primary authority of the Church of Jesus Christ now been moved to boards and agencies, or does it still reside under God in the consistories?

No. I must reiterate and reaffirm those statements singled out by Mr. Peterson in his letter as “of special concern” to the Home Missions Board:

“The speaker called for much more vigorous protest against what is happening to the denomination.”

“He urged the need of . . . ,if official blasphemy makes it necessary, picketing the denominational building.”

“No answers, no bucks.”

Brothers and sisters, this is no more divisive to our denomination than an aspirin is divisive to a headache. Removing disease makes one MORE, not less, whole. It is only being suggested that consistories learn a lesson from our bureaucrats: we must consider what our boards and agencies say and do “in the context of” THEIR “funding request.” It’s that simple. It is NOT too late to save our denomination. All we need is some good old Reformed-styled accountability, WITH TEETH. Let’s all make that our “special concern.”

Steve M. Schlissel is the pastor of Messiah’s Congregation, 2666 East 22nd St. Brooklyn , NY 11235.