I would like to give a few personal impressions of the synod of 1982. Remember, these are personal impressions, and not a complete report or analysis.

I must begin by saying that I was once again encouraged by the many good things in the CRC. There are a lot of things for which we can be thankful: I think of the Back to God Hour, World Missions, the Chaplaincy, etc. We have a lot of dedicated and competent personnel in many of our ministries, both in the field and in the office in Grand Rapids. It was a pleasure to meet some of them at synod, and to be mutually encouraged. In our criticism of certain trends in the CRC, let us never overlook the great things that are being done in and by our churches.

I was struck too, by the large number of competent elders at synod, several of whom let their voices be heard. This is encouraging. I think it is fair to say that, generally speaking, the elders are more “conservative” (should I say “biblical?”) in their viewpoints than the ministers. For this reason too, I welcome more “lay” participation in the boards and agencies of our churches. We have enough of clergy domination among us.

I have the impression that the last two or three synods were more representative of the churches as a whole than some previous ones had been. Perhaps that is due to the large number of first-time delegates at synod. In 1980 about 80% were first–time delegates, if I am not mistaken, and I believe the figure was about 65% this year. I think that’s good. The affairs of the church must be governed by the church as a whole, not by a few leading men.

Seminary Presidency

Listening to the interviews of the two candidates for the seminary presidency, I couldn’t help being reminded of some politicians in Canada. I felt that there was a measure of “playing to the gallery,” trying too hard to please all sides in the church, and as a result, not completely pleasing anybody. I thought to myself: Clear speech inspires confidence. Would that there were a bit more of that. Not that there wasn’t any of that, but on some issues, notably women in ecclesiastical office, there was no clear sound. What both really said in the final analysis was: I’m against it as long as the church is against it, but if the church changes its mind, then I will too. De Jong started out by saying that he had difficulty squaring the teaching of Scripture with having women in the ruling and teaching offices of the church. But his final comments were: I don’t believe the church is ready for this yet. It just isn’t in the docket yet. I thought to myself: Brother, say it straight! If you’re for it, say it, and if your against it, say it, and let the chips fall where they may. But this see–saw business annoys me.

Adam and Eve

With respect to the Adam and Eve question, synod reaffirmed the teachings of our creeds on this matter, and wants future candidates to be clear in their commitment regarding this matter. What struck me (not pleasantly) was the number of Canadian ministers who spoke against the adoption of this reaffirmation. Is that the influence of Holland and possibly also of the AACS? What is forgotten too, is that the retraction of Assen was not due to better exegesis, or to a desire for freedom of exegesis, but stemmed from a completely different view of Scripture. It was basically a question of biblical inspiration. Not only did Schelhaas make this abundantly clear at the time (in his De Val Van Assen), but subsequent events have proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

President Kromminga of the Seminary seemed to think that we didn’t need any more safeguards, since the Libolt case showed that “the system works.” What he should have said is that Libolt was stopped in spite of the system. If one faculty member had not alerted the Board and synod about the matter, there is a good chance that the “system” would have failed completely. We would all do well, too, to take to heart these words of Francis Schaeffer:

When we face apparent problems between present scientific theories (including theories from archeology or cultural anthropology, J.T.) and the teaching of the Bible, the first rule is not to panic, as though scientific theory is always right. The history of science, including science in our own day, has often seen great dogmatism about theories which later have been discarded. Thus there is no inherent reason why a current scientific theory should immediately be accepted. And there is no inherent reason why a Christian should be put in a panic because the current scientific theory is opposite to what is taught in the Bible. (No Final Conflict, p. 24)

The Dance

On the dance question: Since the Bible does not condemn the human urge and capacity to dance (which is something else than saying that “the dance” as we know it today stems from creation and can be redeemed) and since all kinds of wrong dancing is taking place already in our circles, perhaps some attempt at regulating the matter is welcome. But since young and old dance and go to movies solely for entertainment, and not for the purpose of cultural critique or education, I wonder how much these “regulating statements” will actually accomplish. The nice–sounding (and in many respects good) principles of the Film-Arts in 1966 were largely ignored, and in practice they became a free ticket to attend movies. I fear the same could happen with the dance question. I wish synod would have (also) issued a strong warning against increasing worldliness among our people; a call to genuine repentance from being conformed to this world. I believe such a warning is needed today.

What amazed me in the discussion about this issue was the declaration by a member of the study committee that the item on the so-called “liturgical dance” (which was referred to the Standing Liturgical Comm. for study) was “the heart” of their Report! Notwithstanding the fact that this matter was not even a part of its original mandate! I was also shocked by the superficial exegesis and interpretation of Scripture which brought the committee to its conclusions. The committee completely overlooked the difference between Old Testament temple worship and New Testament worship done “in Spirit and truth.” Editor Haverkamp of De Wachter rightly asked: Where does one read a word about the dance in the book of Acts? Or in any of the Pauline epistles, for that matter. Strange what some of these committees can come up with. Cf. Q. & A. 98 of the H. Catechism in this connection.

I want to say too that when I see some of my Canadian colleagues encouraging, and participating in, dances which do not fit the guidelines of synod, then I become even more skeptical of the value of such guidelines. Then a call to repentance is more in place.

Conclusions

A few random comments in conclusion:

1. Synods are not always consistent. This synod reversed the decision of last year with respect to Dr. G. Van Groningen. Personally I don‘t see how we can square the task of a College president with the calling of a minister of the Word and sacraments as that is spelled out in the Church Order and the Form for Ordination. I fear the delegates voted too much on the basis of personality and sentiment rather than on that of principle.

2. With the increasing number of fraternal (or maternal?) delegates attending synod, it is imperative that a strict time limit be set on their speeches, particularly if they are from the North American continent. Some of these delegates tend to misuse their privilege. We don’t need these long speeches at synod.

3. Confusion reigned at synod about what it was actually doing in approving (or disapproving) the work of synodical deputies. Some clarification is needed on that matter.