The following have been submitted and we place them, without endorsement, for the interest of our readers.

Dear Editor:

On February 18, 1980, the Orthodox Christian Reformed Church of Burlington, Washington, was organized as a Church of Jesus Christ. On that date former mem· hers of the Christian Reformed Church of Mount Vernon, Washington, chose from their members, by free ballot, two elders and one deacon. These men, Pete Wolters and Allan Oudman as elders, and Dick Vander Kooy as deacon, were installed as officebearers on February 24, 1980 by Rev. Harry VanDyken. At present this church has seven families, consisting of fifteen confessing members and thirty–one members by baptism.

The basis of organ ization is on God’s infallible Word as expressed in the Three Forms of Unity, namely: The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt. We have adopted the Church Order of Dordt prior to the revisions of the 1960‘s.

This action was taken to reaffirm our commitment to the Authoritative, Infallible Word of God.

This commitment to that Word of God in the Christian Reformed Denomination was drastically weakened when Synod adopted Report “44,” regarding the Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority. Much has been written about Report “44,” but after careful studying it seems that the reader decides what applies, where it applies, when it applies, and what the Word of God really means to us in these “modern, changing” times. Therefore, we should not be surprised that a Dr. Verhey and a Dr. Harry Boer are now questioning and or actually denying parts of the Word of God! That is just a logical conclusion on their part when this Report was adopted.

It can be stated in this way: Today’s doubt is tomorrow’s fact. Sow doubt today about what the Bible really says about a particular matter and tomorrow the churches may well be ready to accept the “new revelation” or “the historically or culturally conditioned changed revelation” as fact! We are reminded here of Paul’s pressing instruction to t he Ephesians: “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness. whereby they lie in wait to deceive.” Ephesians 4:14.

The organization of this congregation was done in obedience to our Covenant God and in love as it is our Christian duty to admonish each other. May the love of God shine in the hearts of us all to the furtherance of His Kingdom and for the wellbeing of His Church here on earth.

We sincerely hope and pray that the Christian Reformed Denomination may once more return to the Faith of our Fathers and claim that rich Reformed heritage which is so rapidly slipping away in today’s churches.

We are presently seeking a permanent place of worship.

May we in all humbleness of hea r t bow before God that we may be found faithful in doing what He has commanded.

Allan Oudman

   

Fight or Switch?

A public meeting for all concerned Christians of Reformed faith with a special invitation to the young people, was held on March 28, 1980, in Allendale Christian School. The purpose of the meeting being: “to recall and an invitation to reaffirm the biblical christianity of our confessions.” Speakers for this meeting were Rev. Harry VanDyken and Rev. John J. Byker, former ministers of the Christian Reformed Church who recently have resigned their ministerial status as well as their memberships in their local congregations.

The material distributed at this meeting announced plans concerning worship services for the following Sundays as well as the well known ACRL statement of 1974 concerning deviations from the historic Christian faith with some addenda to update this material.

In his opening statement the chairman for the evening observed that the meeting was not called out of malice, but largely because he and a number of other people were frustrated concerning the situations in both the Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church. In his opinion one of two things could take place, either a miracle wit hin the denominations or else to find a refuge somewhere else.

He concluded that there can be no more tim e spent in debate within the RCA or CRC since it has become absolutely useless to overture the various Synods. Neither did he consider this to be necessary, since after all “this is a matter of faith, and faith is not debatable.” So, rather than talking about the issues, the time has come to deal with them.

In coming to grips with these things, he wanted to stress the fact that this new group is not schismatic in taking this action. Rather, the blame was placed with the denominations who allowed such things as participation in the National Council of Churches, the World Council of Churches, women in ecclesiastical office, communion participation by bapti zed members, homosexuality, theistic evolution, liberation theology, economic socialism, Report 44, lack of discipline, improper administration of the sacraments, unsound preaching and the new hermaneutic. In general, the toler· ation of evil within the churches.

Why Separate:

Following these opening statements, Rev. VanDyken spoke on, “Why this meeting is necessary.” Basically, not because he wanted to set the battle lines again, but rather, because he felt troubled. Troubled because the rich heritage of the CRC is being lost, and he felt that the Lord required of him to preserve this heritage. He observed that there are those who are determined to change that heritage, and the result is that some feel pushed out of the church. Due to a new form of Arminianism, Neo-Orthodoxy and liberation theology that is being forced upon the churches, it has become an institution that pleases men rather than God. The whole outlook is pragmatic and in the process the communion of the saints is lost, as well as the truth of God‘s Word.

His decision to separate himself from the denomination was based on what he called “the need to conserve.” It was a personal decision because he feels he has to answer for himself, not for the denomination. He didn’t consider this as schismatic, since he defines schism as the breaking of the church, not the organization. Schism takes place when the truth is broken, and this has been done. Unity within the church is not an institutional unity but the unity of the truth.

What Responsibility?

Rev. Byker spoke on: “What is our Responsibility?” He reminded us that the Reformed faith calls for a responsible life. Covenantal theology includes blessings but also responsibilities. The corporate responsibility has been lost in the CRC. In the speakers opinion, the only things that keep the denomination together is the quota system and the fact that each minister within the CRC must have spent at least one year at Calvin Seminary.

He stated that many people are ignorant of the issues involved because they have left the responsibility up to Synod, Classis and individual ministers. Most ministers, he pointed out, are not willing to speak on the issues, they don’t even want to pr each about sin, and want nothing to do with corporate responsibility.

Furthermore, materialism is rampant in the church , and the members in general don’t know the issues. Consequently, there is a blind following of the blind. Institutional idolatry accepts everything that comes down from Synod or the denominational pentagon without question.

Concerned ministers were advised that conservative caucuses should not be utilized because these are politically motivated. Individual congregations that are conservative and are served by a conservative minister should nevertheless take action. Inaction in effect is silent approval of the liberalism within the denomination.

So much for the factual reporting. I realize that everything has not been said at the meeting. Nevertheless, the reader will have some feeling about what took place.

Evaluation

My personal evaluation of this meeting is that now in turn I am troubled. Troubled because of what might happen to the CRC if all “concerned” or “conservative” ministers and members within the CRC immediately leave it.

I am personally convinced that there are a great number of ministers who hold the truth of the Word of God near and dear to their hearts, who proclaim that Word in all its truth as the two-edged sword. There are many churches throughout the denomination that are shining lights amid the dark clouds that surround us. There are great numbers of people who hold to the historic Christian faith.

I am personally convinced that the work of the CRC for the cause of the kingdom of God is not lost as yet, but it will be if those who are concerned keep running away. Is our church so far gone that reformation is impossible? I think not! Is our historic faith as confirmed in our Reformed confessions worth fighting for , or is it not? I think it is! Is it our corporate responsibility to hold fast to the truth? Yes. it is! If we become frustrated, should we run away? I think not! What we must do is to stand up for the truth. We must let that truth be known. And if it should come to the point that reformation is impossible, I personally would rather be deposed from the ministry, than leave right now.

What Must We Do?

In a recent article in the January issue of the OUTLOOK, Rev. John Piersma raised some valid points. Such as adopting a set of rules to guide our deliberative bodies. That we insist on the proper definition of terms that are used by “liberals” and “conservatives” alike but with a wide variety of meaning. That we see to it that the in· formed people are delegated to Classis and Synod and that these people make known what their theological position is.

That is a good beginning. Now we better do our homework. And with that I mean t hat the members within the churches become more aware of what is taking place within the denomination. I know what the frustration of protest is all about, too, but that doesn’t mean we just ought to give up trying.

The individual members had better bring their concerns before their consistories. Speak to the elders and deacons. Show them you are concerned and why. If they heed you, great. If they don‘t listen, speak to others in the congregation and start the cycle all over again.

But that will never take place when people would rather go drink a cup of coffee than study the Bible. It will not take place when people say: “Well, things are not so bad in our church,” and therefore they do nothing. It will not happen if people are not willing to give of their time and efforts, to dig into God‘s Word or go over the lengthy reports of committees. It will not take place if people take for truth everything that comes out of study committees without realizing that much of the thinking is influenced by the liberalism of the day. And it will not happen if we grant the learned doctors of theology free reign, with the understanding that their learning or critical method overrides the simple faith of the average church member.

No reformation will take place in the church if we have office bearers who are so involved wit h other things that they can· not properly shepherd the church of Jesus Christ. But reformation will take place if our office bearers are men of action, who know what the Bible says and who are willing to put their faith in action. And it is the duty of every member of the church to see to it that those kind of men are elected and delegated.

Today more than any other time, we must have member s who will challenge the Pastor to be the true spiritual leader. One who interprets Scripture with Scripture. One who is true to all God has revealed in His Word. Men who realize that what God said centuries ago to His people is still what He says to His people today.

We need members who demand the sound preaching of the Word. If that is not forthcoming that they then are willing to exercise discipline among the members, but also the office bearers within the church.

We need members who are committed to follow the Lord regardless of what men may say or do. People who can look through the satan-inspired question: “Hath God really said?” People who are willing to declare ‘“Thus saith the Lord.”

Today there is an abundance of religious illiteracy and the cause is religious indifference. The only cure for that is religious instruction. Instruction that is based squarely upon God‘s Holy Word. Instruction that is true to the historic Reformed confessions. Only then will there be Christian, religious commitment.

No, I am not questioning the motives of some people who want to begin a new “United Reformed Church,” but I am questioning the methods. I will agree that the time may come that a separation must take place, although I pray to God that He will spare us from that. And presently I do not feel that all available means have been used to call the CRC back to the truth of the Word of God, to repent of her sin, to set forth once again that clear line of distinction between the world and the kingdom of God, the antithesis!

I’m afraid that all too often we have considered (leaving) because we have not really been ready to suifer and to sacrifice for the sake of Christ’s Church. Yes, we have prayed for a change in direction within our denomination, but we have not always been willing to be the instruments within God’s hand through whom He will still work His miracle of grace.

And so for the present, I would rather fight than switch. I would rather be on my knees before Almighty God and agonize in prayer for the CRC, than to run and let her die.

Rev. Fred Gunnink

 

Dear Mr. Editor:

In the February 1980 issue of the Outlook, a letter to the editor appeared from

P. Vander Lei of the newly formed church, the Orthodox Christian Reformed Church. While I can sympathize with this group because of trends in the Christian Reformed Church, I also am concerned with this type of letter in The Outlook. While it is true that all contributions represent the personal views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Reformed Fellowship, Inc., it is also true that readers tend to feel that what appears in The Outlook reflect the feeling of the publishers.

I am concerned because this letter to the editor has the appearance of schism, and I think it would be a big mistake if others begin to break in small groups from the CRC.

P. Vander Lei states that “actions have been taken in the Christian Reformed denomination which, in their conviction, will eventuate in a loss of the leading of the Word of God.” I believe this is true, but is it a reason to leave the CRC? P. Vander Lei also states “The choice arises out of a conviction that the Christian Reformed denomination presently is no longer true to its history and name.” What does he mean by that, and is that reason to leave?

In R. B. Kuiper’s book, “The Glorious Body of Christ,” he states “Organizational Succession without doctrinal succession is worthless. A church that possesses the former but has lost the latter is no longer a church of Jesus Christ. Our Reformed fathers were right when they said that “succession of doctrine” rather than “succession of persons and places” is a mark of the true church.” (pg. 71)

Has the Christian Reformed denomination gotten to the point that we should have a secession because of doctrine? The official stand of the Christian Reformed Church is that we believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God and we officially hold to the three forms of unity, and as such, we are a true church.

It is very true that many among us are promoting things contrary to the word of God, but no synod has officially adopted such. Synod came close to that on having women deacons, bu t this has not become official in the church order and due to conservative actions, the matter is under study. Also report #44 on the authority of the Bible has a “hole in the dike” which gives some the loop hole to promote ideals foreign to our stand on the authority of the Bible. This needs to be changed, but as such, I don’t believe we can have a secession on that matter at this time. Neither can we have a secession because of personal beliefs of such people as Dr. Harry Boer and others. Their beliefs contrary to the Bible and the confessions as they may be, have not as yet been officially adopted.

At this point in time secession would be schism. What we need now is for conservatives to unite and follow the example of Peter DeJong in the Verhey case. We may not win a popularity contest, but we better be obedient to our Lord. Our Lord wants us to stand up for the truth and fight against untruth. God forbid that the CRC becomes a false church, but in the event that the Christian Reformed denomination officially adopts positions contrary to the Word and the Confessions and makes it so that we can no longer live in harmony, than let us prayerfully seek God’s leading and leave as a large group of conservatives. To begin leaving in little splinters as the above mentioned group is an easy way out, but not necessarily the right way.

Obedience to the Lord demands that we get to work in the CRC. We have not done all we could to turn our denomination around, and until we do, we better not have a secession because it would be schism. Schism is sin!!!!

Richard Van Essendelft

Did Synod Speak Clearly?

Although I am not a member of C.R.C., yet I find it very instructive to follow in part some of tensions the Church is feeling in these present days. Trends are usually the same. What happens in one Denomination has a tendency to pass onto another. We in Brazil are not isolated from the outside world and it’s influences. For this reason, I am interested and concerned with the struggles of the C.R.C.

May I be permitted to make an observation? In the October Issue, Jelle Tuininga, in his Letter to the Editor, comments: “But Synod’s action was disappointing, for it did not speak clearly on the matter.” I would like to suggest that the Synod did speak clearly, for it expressed the disposition of the majority of the representatives. True, the thought of the majority is disappointing, but let‘s face reality, the Church is in doctrinal trouble, but it is the situation the majority are desiring. I regret that I cannot give a satisfying answer to the problem. To a large extent, it is the Minister that builds the Church in its doctrinal position, and in a similar manner, it is the Seminary that molds the doctrinal and ecclesiastical disposition of the Minister. Perhaps the work of the Seminaries should be more closely watched.

Thank you for your interest and the work of the Outlook, may you be encouraged to continue.

Ivan G. G. Ross