Conservatives in the CRC

To the editor of The Outlook:

I would like to take up the challenge of Dr. Theodore Plantinga, and respond to “Conservatives in the CRC.” However I don’t know if I want to identify with the conservatives as Dr. Plantinga sees them. Maybe I am not a conservative. I consider myself a Reformed person (Gereformeerd), but even that is not saying much anymore.

If conservative means that I have to take the creation days to be periods of 24 hours,—no. If it means to believe in an historical Adam,–yes. If it means that the Bible is the Word of God, yes. If it means that Genesis 9:6 orders us to tell modern states to institute capital punishment, no. If it means that we must take our confessions seriously, yes.

Dr. Plantinga and his kind claim that we are not well informed, not with it, holding back. As if now the Reformed theology has found the way. However what is really new in the modern theology? I agree that we have received new hermeneutical insights from recent discoveries, and we are thankful for it; it has helped us to better understand many places in Scripture. However it has not changed our basic theology, though some might have found an excuse in it to change the theology.

Probably I am not very well able to judge the American scene, the American “conservative.” I immigrated to Canada in 1960. In 1940 I started my studies at the Free University of Amsterdam. Under the professors: Aalders, Van Gelderen, Grosheide, Berkouwer, Nauta, Waterink, Vollenhove. I don’t have the impression that the scholarly achievements of these teachers was anywhere below the achievements of faculties I am somewhat familiar with on this continent. Neither can we say that they were not informed about modern day discoveries and theories. Dr. Berkouwer taught us a course on Neo-Orthodoxy. Already then these professors refuted theories which now in some form or other try to get a hold of our institutions. Now who is behind? Forty years ago these theories were rejected by our teachers; now they receive some new incentives and a new coat or a new name, and they make some people all elated . The brochure of Dr. A. Kuyper “Fata Morgana” was old already then—Fata Morgana,—a mirage. We are getting the old liberalism introduced in some new forms. Because some of our people “behind the wheel” don’t realize what we are heading for, they are so excited, they cannot stop.

When we left the Netherlands in 1960 the situation seemed pretty sound, and arriving on this continent, our impression was that the CRC was somewhat less Reformed than the body we came from, less Calvinistic, though they had a “Calvin” college. We considered the CRC people, especially the ones from South of the border, somewhat moralistic, not to say pietistic. We felt that our Reformed teaching told us to get more involved in evangelism, in politics, in social issues, in labour , in higher education. And many of us succeeded.

We also know about the disastrous consequences visible in churches that pay lip service to the confessions, to the form of subscription, to the church order, and above all to the “infallible” word of God, while they at the same time tolerate teachings that are destroying the unity of the church. Dr. Plantinga is asking for “dialogue.” What kind of dialogue can we expect, when nobody is listening? Dialogue when already beforehand we are put in the corner of the backward people. Thank you editor for Jetting me say this.

Rev. Jacob Binnema, Telkwa, B.C.

Reformed Creeds in Our Schools

Dear Peter, Would you be so kind as to publish the following retraction soon in The Outlook ?

I would like to apologize to CSI and to the readers of The Outlook for my ill-considered remarks on the “secrecy” with which the new creedal proposal is being handled in the CSI (cf. my article, “Are the Reformed Creeds Worth Keeping in the Schools,” Outlook Jan. 1982). I had drawn some inferences from comments by other people without really checking things out for myself. Today, however, I received a very gracious letter, with some other documents from Michael T . Ruiter, Executive Director of CSI, which persuaded me that I was wrong. Apparently the problems which Myron Rau (November Outlook) and others have had in getting information were not the fault of CSI, and CSI did promote some discussion and solicit some response on the matter during 1981.

I am still rather concerned, however, about the “low key” treatment of this issue in the publications and among the broader constituency of CSI. I would reiterate my point that creedal revision in CSI is just as important for CSI as creedal revision in the CRC would be for the CRC. Everybody needs to become informed on this issue. I trust that my article made some contribution toward that goal.

Sincerely, In Christ, John M. Frame Escondido, Calfornia

Mid-America Reformed Seminary

With interest I read the article in the December 1981 OUTLOOK regarding the above, written by N. D. Kloosterman. I am very happy that the “truly Reformed” stream in the Christian Reformed Churches took the step of establishing this seminary. However, remembering the past, I worry about the future.

In 1944 there was a schism in the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands. About 100AI went outand established Gereformeerde Kerken (Article 31). In the 900AI left in the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands there was a strongsegment of conservative members, later called “de Verontrusten” (“the Worriers”), but even that movement caved in under liberal pressure. Today in the GKN ordained female ministers, elders and deacons are now normal; let us not even go into the teachings of Kuitert, etc.

In the Gereformeerde Kerken (Article 31) in the year 1968 problems arose, with the result that 10% left and are now called Nederlandse Gereformeerde Kerk. Basically, these left because they felt (a) a lack of love among the membership, (b) the concept of “the only true church” and (c) legalism was creeping in.

Today , in the Canadian Reformed Churches (offshoot of the Gereformeerde Kerken (Article 31) the same three problems are on the upswing. These problems create isolation, with, as a result, sectarianism and cold legalism. As a member of this church I worry about this development. Although we have ministers and members opposing this trend, I fear that they are losing their influence.

In the Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk, the original State Church, there are also two main streams, the “Vryzinnigen” (Freethinkers) and the Gereformeerde Bonders, the latter being the orthodox wing.

We see a comparable division developing in the Christian Reformed churches in the U.S. and Canada. Now the new seminary will supply ministers to the orthodox CRC churches. The local churches are independent, but with two streams of thought in them, and whichever stream has the majority in the consistory will call the minister it feels it needs. Eventually we will see CRC and Orthodox CRC; thus polarization will take place. This will create enormous problems in classes and synods resulting in a schism.

The Worriers in the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands have lost the battle against liberalism; the objectors in the Canadian Reformed Church seem to be losing their battle against sectarianism and legalism. However the future looks bright—this new seminary could be the focal point of hope for the truly Reformed in the CRC and the objectors in the Canadian Reformed Churches. This development does not remove the problems that the churches have faced since the Reformation. Why do the Reformed churches either water down their principal doctrine or create a stifling legalism? Since the Reformation these problems have not been created by the common members, but by the professors and teachers. Are the professors at fault? No, not they, but the people that appoint them to our seminaries and colleges are responsible.

I still dream of a United Reformed Church in which we can receive all who believe in the Bible as God’s infallible Word and its doctrine as confessed in our Reformed Forms of Unity or Confessions.

Yours in Christ.

R. Winkel 6 Wolf Willow Pnt. Edmonton, Canada T5T 1E3