AN ECUMENICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL CREED

Dear Rev. De Jong:

At the risk of sounding defensive, which we are not, we must respond to Myron Rau’s “An Ecumenical Christian School Creed” (November 1981 Outlook).

Christian Schools International (CSI; formerly called National Union of Christian Schools or NUCS) has indeed called together a task force to study the future of Christian education. The task force consists of prominent leaders in Reformed educational institutions. It meets to discuss concepts, exchange ideas, and to try to formulate some specific statements of purpose, e.g., who are we, where have we been, where are we going, and where should/could/ought we be going in the field of Christian education. Any such statements obviously are not all–inclusive; they still are being formulated, discussed, and refined. Any statements are and will be carefully evaluated by those preparing them as well as by those reading, listening to, or even considering implementing them. Thus far, the discussions have focused on the more theoretical aspects, with possible practical applications still in the early discussion stages.

Mr. Rau is wrong when he implies that the task force is a secret, sinister undertaking, or that it is doing something about which the public doesn’t or shouldn’t know. After all, he was readily sent a copy of a discussion paper just for asking, “and not because (he) happened to be a board member.” The purposes of the task force, its membership, and its progress all have been publicized in a number of ways.

Those involved with CSI–member Christian schools know that CSI’s primary contact persons are the administrator and the secretary of the school board in each school. (We’d like to be able to directly con· tact each constituent, or at least each school board member and faculty member, but the logistics of such contacts are well nigh impossible.) Thus, the board secretary and administrator are relied on to disseminate information sent to them; to make any policy recommendations (or other items requiring a decision and/or response) a matter of the board and/or faculty meeting agendas; and to serve as the agent of the school in its contacts or replies to CSI.

As far as the task force is concerned, CSI has been quite open in all phases of its work. In April, 1981, the administrator in each CSI–member school was sent information about the task force along with a questionnaire designed to gather data as well as receive guidance for the Task Force’s consideration. In June, the pastors of all CRC churches received a “progress report” on the task force, including its purposes. In July, administrators received a draft copy of the task force’s work up to that time, and he/she was asked (a) to duplicate it for study by both staff and school board, and (b) to make a careful critique of it in preparation for the planned discussion of the document at the CSI Convention at Dordt College in August. A worthwhile, a lengthy discussion took place at the CSI Convention. Right after the Convention in August, each board secretary was reminded that the paper had been sent to each school, and again reactions to it were solicited. All of that seems to us to be quite open and above board.

We think Mr. Rau is absolutely right on one point when he states that “the schools still belong to the societies!” The typical CSI Christian school is a society–organized, society–run, society-funded institution. The society elects its own board. The board “runs” the school for the society. The professionals are employed by the board (thus society) to serve that society—not the other way around. And CSI has no control over any of that; no school board would allow that kind of intervention.

Perhaps a bit of background is apropos here . CSI used to be called the National Union of Christian Schools, and it was just that: a union of schools. It still is an organization of schools. Schools direct the affairs of CSI via the CSI board members the schools elect, or by way of each school’s direct vote at the CSI annual meeting held at the Convention each August. CSI is not a national board or controlling agency; it serves its member schools much like the milk producers association serves its members, for example.

It should also be noted that CSI has never been, nor has it ever advocated, a teachers’ union, and we question why Mr. Rau claims that “CSI is the teacher’s union and the administrators’ allegiance to it would be unrelenting.” CSI cherishes allegiance by supporters just as the Reformed Fellowship does, but “unrelenting”? We like to deserve it because of what we do, say, or stand for, not simply because “it’s CSI.” That’s really the way we work.

Even if CSI wanted to—which it doesn’t–CSI would not implement any policy in any school–or even for itself unless and until the individual school decides to do so. CSI suggests, recommends, and encourages, perhaps, but it cannot and will not dictate to nor impose upon any individual school.

Mr. Rau also implies some sort of undue influence by the AACS on CSI, but he need not worry. Included in CSI’s membership are a number of affiliated colleges and other educational institutions. While one of our affiliate members is the Institute for Christian Studies, begun by the AACS in Toronto, the Institute has no more influence (nor any less) than does any of our other affiliated members, such as CR World Missions, Calvin College, Dordt College, and a dozen or so others. Affiliate Members are non–voting; Christian elementary and secondary schools are voting, thus controlling, members of CSI.

But this is too long. Let us suggest that Outlook readers call or visit CSI anytime. We’re an open organization, with nothing to hide but pride. We’d be pleased to give any facts or figures we can in order to help increase understanding of and commitment to the programs and purposes of CSI. We encourage Outlook readers to respond!

Sincerely, Kenneth L . Swets, Administrator School and Public Relations

Reply:

The editor has given me the opportunity to respond to Mr. Swets’ comments regarding my article in the November issue. Being certain that it is not necessary to further defend my position, I wish however to make a few observations.

More than a month before submitting the article to The Outlook, I sent a letter to Dr. Michael Ruiter, executive director of CSI. Accompanying that letter was an outline of my critique of the proposed ecumenical creed, as presented to the board of our local Christian school. That outline is basically also that of my article. It is understandable that CSI would make a response, yet a bit puzzling that they chose not to respond to me personally, but rather by means of this public reaction. Even more revealing though is the fact that their reactions are devoted entirely to implications concerning CSI, but completely ignore defense of the proposed creed. For it is the creed, which is indeed the center of concern as I posed it.

Concerning publicity given to the work of the Task Force. The point which I was trying to stress was precisely that; because administrators and board secretaries are CSI contact persons, the secretaries should also have been sent the questionnaire. Information coming to the societies after the proposed document was formulated is a bit like setting a house on fire and calling the fire department after the fire has become well involved.

Mr. Swets encourages readers to respond. Let us consider further discussion on this matter elsewhere in this issue. The challenge then is ours to alert those who do not read these pages, especially our individual boards. Then together work for a solution, not as opposing enemies but as brothers in the Lord, if in fact a solution is needed. It is not our intent to discredit CSI. But rather, to exhort one another “to hold fast the form of sound word,” also in the light of our rich Calvinistic heritage and Scripturally grounded traditions.

Myron D. Rau Martin, Michigan

AN ELDER’S VIEW OF SYNOD

Dear Mr. Editor:

In the December issue of The Outlook in the article entitled “An Elder’s View of Synod” Mr. John Vander Ploeg Jr. makes several unwarranted and erroneous statements and thereby misrepresents my role at synod as chairman of the Interchurch Relations Committee in the issue of our CRC relationship with the GKN.

1. Mr. Vander Ploeg alleges that I “arranged for the two delegates from the GKN to speak on the floor of Synod on Saturday morning.” The truth is that I came to synod on Friday after being notified that the matter of the GKN was to be dealt with, only to learn when I arrived that it had been postponed until Saturday morning in order to give the GKN delegates an opportunity to speak first. I had nothing to do with the scheduling of their addresses to synod.

2. Mr. Vander Ploeg suggests there was something “political” about my “claiming precedence over our advisory committee.” The fact is that the rules of synod call for precisely such procedure. And to further insinuate that my move “from the traditional side of the auditorium” to the “special podium reserved for committee repartees” (reporters?), was somehow a political tactic, only shows Mr. Vander Ploeg was unacquainted with synodical procedures. It is normal for a reporter to use the podium when the recommendations of his committee are on the floor of synod. I did follow the normal procedure Monday morning because I had been told that Saturday morning when I spoke from the side of the assembly it was difficult for the delegates to hear what I was saying. 3. Mr. Vander Ploeg asserts it was “a brilliant move on the part of Rev. Boomsma and his supporters” to immediately call for the question after I finished speaking, and that thereby “the hours of work done by a fine committee” was blunted. The truth is that I had nothing to do with the move for the question from the floor of synod. In fact I regretted the action too, because I thought the issue deserved further discussion. I was prepared to continue my defense of our committee’s position, hoping that maybe even Mr. Vander Ploeg might be convinced of its validity. 4. I am sorry Mr. Vander Ploeg, in our brief repartee afterwards, took my statement about preferring to be considered a statesman rather than a politician more seriously than a little jocular exchange . I seek to take the truth, in both its defense and in reporting it, seriously, but try not to take myself too seriously. I regret that I misread Mr. Vander Ploeg’s mood at the time.

Clarence Boomsma

CONSERVATIVES IN THE CRC

A Reply to Dr. T. Plantinga

If it seems to Dr. T. Plantinga that conservatives in the Christian Reformed church are back–seat drivers and that they are being taken where they don’t want to go, is it any wonder that they issue warnings? If the left-wingers are behind the wheel the conservatives are indeed concerned that the church will lose its course and suffer damage.

But we repudiate that comparison. We are not in the back seat. We are steering our course according to the platform of the CRC since its organization namely: the Bible is God’s Word and the creeds are a formulation of what the Bible teaches. As for men like Hendrikus Berkhof, Marx, and Hegel, we are interested to know what they think, but we want to guard our church from their teachings. We are interested in higher education that will prepare men for the ministry who can preach sermons that are exegetical and who dare to say, “Thus saith the Lord.” We want to train men for the ministry who will in faith sign the three forms of unity and who will boldly teach and preach the truths contained therein. We are confident we are on the right road. We don’t mind being called back-seat riders (not drivers), and we want the Lord Jesus Christ at the wheel, not the left-wingers.

As for dialogue, what should we dialogue about? About whether the Bible is inspired and inerrant? God forbid! Our confessions say it beautifully for us: “We confess that this Word of God was not sent nor delivered by the will of man, but that men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit, as the apostle Peter says; and that afterwards God, from a special care which He has for us and our salvation, commanded His servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit His revealed word to writing.” Should we dialogue about methods in missions to people of other cultures? The Bible is our only guide. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the Light of the world. He is the great liberator and in Him all peoples of every race have liberty. All liberation other than that is not only worrisome but destructive to the church.

Thank God, the church is not called to face issues of the whole world. The church must keep herself pure and Jesus Christ will reward her for faithfulness in this respect. Read Revelation 1–3.

Nelis Vander Pol George Dykman

CONSERVATIVES IN THE CRC

Dear Sir:

My first reaction after reading the arti· cle by Dr. Plantinga in the November, 1981 issue of The Outlook was one of dismay, which quickly changed to anger and frustration. But after some sober reflection, I came to realize the article may well prove to be a stimulus to some profitable thought, discussion, and hopefully, some action.

The dismay arose from the hasty thought: what if all he said were true? But a second and more careful reading revealed some flaws in his presentation that actually show up some of our strengths. I think, for example, of a strength the conservatives have that needs to be exercised more frequently, the strength of majority. That strength came to the fore in this last Synod when the conservatives voted against (and rightly so) the ordination of a certain can· didate to the ministry. True, people of our “way” are too seldom appointed to teach in our educational institutions. These institutions are in actuality, very remote from us, the people, with respect to communication between the denomination‘s membership on the one hand, and the trustees and professors on the other. In the past we have too blindly, I fear, trusted those to whom we sent our children for advanced education. Acts of Synod of the past several years, and articles that have appeared in print, have driven us to a deep suspicion that our trust in them has been betrayed; and their silence or circuitous verbosity has done nothing to allay that suspicion. Now that we have been alerted to the situation, we must seek ways and means to remedy it. What ways? I am not familiar enough with the procedure by which such appointments are made but I am convinced there are those in our number who do know. Let them make work to effect some change in the present procedure to·insure appointments of those who think as we do.

His “secondly,” I believe, betrays the crux of the conflict between conservatives and the “left wing” by saying, “. . . does not take current cultural and intellectual realities into proper account,” though he does not define, except briefly by way of illustration, what he means by that. That crux, I believe, lies in the evaluation of the worthiness of such “realities” with respect to theological principles. I am convinced there are numerous conservatives who have studied and evaluated these “realities” and found them wanting. These conservatives have tested the spirits whether they be of God and found they are not. They have also given attention to the “other Berkhof” and, having applied Scriptural standards to his works, have found him to fall far short of our Louis Berkhof.

His “thirdly” needs a reply also. My reading and experience lead me to believe he will have to re–evaluate his opinion of the younger generation. I am constantly being startled by reports, even in this out of the way place, that more and more of our young people are becoming disillusioned with the emptiness and the unsatisfying promises of Liberal theology that so often provides bread for the belly but only weak sop for the soul. It is from these young people that there is arising a resurgence of interest in the fundamentals of Scripture, teachings that stand the test of time and which withstand the onslaughts of Liberal experimentations with methods of interpreting Scripture, whose end results are only attempts to make void the Word of God.

But our hope does not rest on the coming of age of these young people. It rests first of all, and finally, upon God Who watches over His church. And, in His providence, we have it yet in our power as conservatives to wrest the initiative from the others. As I pointed out earlier, the conservatives have demonstrated they do have the majority when they consolidate and act. That, then is the clue to getting “behind the wheel” again. Let our voices be heard in our local churches among fellow members and members of the consistory; with letters encouraging the editor of The Outlook; and flood the office of The Banner editor with letters in such numbers that he will think carefully before relegating them to the waste basket. And more importantly, pray. Pray for the welfare of Zion, His church.

Respectfully,

B. E. Brune 919 E. Grover Street Lynden, WA 98264

(Mr. Brune, after retiring as an officer with two decades of service in the U.S. Coast Guard, served another twenty years as Christian school teacher and principal and is currently still a university student.)

DISCOVERING A CALVINISTIC VOICE

Gentlemen:

I have been visiting a nearby Christian Reformed church for the past nineteen months. While it had been clear to me from the outset that the doctrinal standards of the CRC articulated my beliefs very well, I was hard–pressed to see the evidence of these beliefs exhibited within the assembly . It seemed to me that the congregation didn‘t even know what it had been reformed from! (The authority of the Church over the Bible.)

Until I could ascertain whether the direction of the CRC embraced the Scripture, or was in clear contradiction to it, I was determined not to make any hasty decision to join it. In actuality I have nowhere else to turn for Reformed, Bible-believing, born again, amillennial, Calvinist fellowship. Hoping to get a better insight into the denomination I happily subscribed to its Magazine, The Banner.

After receiving The Banner for a year I was thoroughly disappointed with the CRC and had determined to look elsewhere for fellowship. I would have left the CRC thinking that I was clearly out of touch with its ecclesiastic bent. Yet, providentially, one dear saint gave me the April and June issues of The Outlook. I was thrilled to discover a carefully guarded secret: there is, alive and well, a strong voice within the CRC which embraces and articulates adherence to Calvinistic creeds. Praise the Lord!

Even though it has taken me nineteen months to find you out, finding you has renewed my vigor and determination to find a place within the CRC to support those issues which are Biblical and to speak out against heresy. Of course, if the CRC has already elevated women to authority over men it’s already too late for me.

Godspeed!

J . Warren Jacobson Blairstown, N.J .