SYNOD REPORT UNFAIR? August 28, 1978 THE OUTLOOK Rev. Peter De Jong, Editor Dutton, MI 49511 Box 34

Dear Rev. De Jong:

In the August, 1978 issue of THE OUTLOOK, page Seven, it is reported that at the Synod of 1978 I spoke of my fervent desire that the church would very soon open the office of the ministry of the Word to women. Then the author of this report on synod offers the following observation: “It is amazing that two men from our seminary should come out so openly and forthrightly for a position which is so dearly opposed by Scripture on the ground of (sic) that woman is not to have authority over a man, and that she is to be in submission to him.”

Taken in the context in which they were uttered, my remarks do not warrant the judgment quoted above. The context was an advisory committee recommendation (which I helped to formulate), as follows:

“That synod do not accede to the request of the Church of the Servant to take the necessary steps toward declaration of candidacy for Marchiene Rienstra.

Grounds:

a. ‘The church’s present understanding of Scripture as reflected in the Church Order does not allow Synod to declare any woman a candidate.

b. Any departure from the church’s present position should come about by way of Scriptural study (such as is presently underway), and not by way of appeal to the gift; of an individual apart from the church’s understanding of Scripture.” (cf. Acts of Synod, 1978, p. 109.)

I was speaking in response to a vigorous criticism of ground “b” above, and the burden of my remarks was that the church should not proceed in the direction requested unless it was convinced of the biblical warrant for doing so. The article in THE OUTLOOK fails to recognize that I opposed the appeal and that this opposition was grounded on the insistence that the church must follow the Scriptures. Thus it leaves a false impression of my position, which I hope you will correct by the publication of these comments.

Sincerely,

J. H. KROMMINGA President

Editorial Note: As recorded, this is what Dr. Kromminga actually said,

“Mr. Chairman, in addressing myself to these grounds I suppose one has to argue for the grounds in order to argue against the motion to delete them. There must be a reason for taking this action and the grounds intend to give that reason. Before I address myself directly to the grounds I want to reflect the personal dilemma that I myself have been in. Marchienoe Rienstra is a very persuasive individual who has a way of convincing people just by being herself that she qualifies for the kind of special treatment that is proposed for her. In my position as administrator in the seminary this has caused me some very uneasy moments. And I would like to say that I should perfectly wish that the door were open for her to be a minister of the Word and Sacraments. And that I hope that that door will be open in the future –in the near future. The grounds however indicates a situation in which I find myself and which 1 think Synod find it;elf. We have the Church Order which has an article in it which the church has believed to be a reflection of Scripture. It’s not given to us arbitrarily. We thought that’s what Scripture said. We may be wrong about that. But the way to find out is to search the Scriptures and to make a decision whether that article in the Church Order does indeed reflect the Scripture or not and until that time we had better abide by it. And certainly in the present situation in which the fear on this issue has risen as high as it has. Whatever normal reason there is for abiding by the Church Order (and I think there is great reason for abiding by it a great deal better than we do) this is accentuated in the present situation. If the church is going to come to this kind of decision it ought to do so on the basis of some kind or argument or evidence which will lead us to say before the eyes of the Lord, ‘We’ve been wrong all these years. Now we’ve got to change and we‘ve got to change regardless of the consequences.’ But until we have come to that kind of decision, we mustn’t face those consequences and we mustn’t make that kind of a change. And that’s the argumentation that these grounds seek to present. If they are faulty in that respect, then amend them.”

The readers may judge for themselves whether the report on the Synod of this speech made a fair judgment.

   

MORE ABOUT QUOTAS

September 13, 1978 THE OUTLOOK Letters to the Editor 6940 Hanna Lake Rd. Dutton, MI 49511

Dear Editor:

I read with appreciation the article “Of Quotas, Qualms and Church Unity,” by John R. Sittema (OUTLOOK, September 1978). One must applaud the thrust of the article; quotas are not assessments or taxations and conscientious stewardship is the responsibility of the membership in relation to it; local consistory. ‘I1lis emphasis should be stoutly maintained in the decaying ecclesiastical situation and your past article on this subject should be republished (Torch and Trumpet, Nov, 1970).

There is, however, all erroneous impression created that II Toronto’s decision to withold some quotas was somehow connected to the “unique history” of the Toronto II Church. For Mr. Sittema to say, “Nothing in Classis Orange City’s grounds seriously considered the unique history of the Toronto II case . . .” and again, “It should be clear to many that the Toronto II case is far more involved than just withholding quotas” is to distort the episode.

The implications of these statements are contrary to fact. The decision of the Toronto church to withhold some quotas was not connected in any substantive way with the “unique history” of doctrinal aberrations II Toronto was forced to live through and deal with. The “unique history” did nothing more than create a keener–and earlier awareness of the growing apostasy in the Christian Reformed Church. Because of circumstances forced upon it, the consistory in Toronto was perhaps more diligent than appears to have been the case with other consistories. It is for this reason that the decision in Toronto antedates the parallel decision of a church in Classis Orange City by three years.

Further, Toronto‘s consistory was aware, at the time of its decision, that other churches were essentially withholding certain quotas. They were, however, using more qucstionable methods, such as not paying certain quotas or placing them in the budget, but giving opportunity to the membership to contribute by taking free-will offerings for the rejected causes. These consistories acted only as a transmitting agency but assumed no responsibility for the quota. Other consistories excused objecting members from paying certain quotas they considered offensive. II Toronto could also have used these or other methods to escape paying certain quotas; however, the consistory considered these means objectionable. It was for that reason that its grievances were publicly stated to Synod and the Synodical scolding was subsequently issued.

The conclusion of Sittema’s article is correct: “But even more significantly the underlying premise of the adopted  recommendation is clearly an unbiblical one. It is that the unity of the Church as it comes to expression in fellowship or membership in this denomination is at heart a financial one.” This is the tragedy of Synod’s scolding and Classis Orange City’s endorsement of it. The church has lost the ability to respect the local autonomy of the churches and the ability to hear the conscientious protests of her children.

The unwarranted impression of the article should be corrected, Mr. Editor, becausc many godfearing members of II Toronto have often been abused and misrepresented, both intentionally and I am sure, unintentionally by erroneous information. I do not presume to know how the Lord used or intends to tlse the unique history of II Toronto. The decision, however, to withhold some quotas was not an outgrowth of that history but a conscientious protest against the denomination’s growing apostasy.

Cordially,

JOHN J. BYKER