Merely a Question of Ethics?

Dear Rev. De Jong, If all goes according to plans, the twin children of a lesbian couple will have been baptized on August 22, 1982 in the Reformed Church of Rotterdam-Delfshaven (one of the churches of the ‘GKN’). That this was not an impulsive decision is evidenced by the fact that it was preceded by two years of extensive discussions on the levels of consistory and classis. The final conclusion which was reached is that on the basis of the biblical concept of the covenant, all children born and raised within the community of faith have the right to be baptized. This argument is also meant to meet the objection that the lesbian mother of these children became pregnant by means of artificial insemination.

Although this course of events may be surprising to some, it should be seen as a very logical conclusion to the statements of the GKN Synod a few years ago regarding homosexuality. The churches were urged not to judge but to fully accept members who are engaged in a homosexual relationship (including homosexual practices).

Such a position and also the refusal to condemn non–marital man-woman relationships explains to some extent how it was possible that in April, this year, the Synod approved of a new Form for the Solemnization of Marriage, in which marriage is now called “a possibility given by God” instead of “an institution of God,”—an amendment which was rejected by the majority. Various members of Synod expressed enthusiasm about this decision, since the exclusivity of marriage as compared with other relationships was thereby eliminated from the Form.

These incidents may shock but not baffle those that realize the fact that there is a clear connection between ethics and the view one has of Scripture. Such events vividly illustrate a way of thinking which has crystallized in the report on the nature of the authority of Scripture, a report which was unanimously adopted by the Synod of the GKN almost two years ago. As pointed out by Dr. L. Praamsma in an article in The Outlook, November 1981, “It is frankly stated and shown throughout this report that these churches are now unanimously adopting the higher criticism of the Bible which they long opposed as heresy.”

These sad developmentS have a history. The decision of the CRC Synod in 1974 to change the sister-church relationship into one designated “Churches in Ecclesiastical Fellowship” reflects an attempt to deal with the deteriorating situation in the GKN.

One of the fundamental arguments for abandoning the traditional sister-church relationship in favour of one called “ecclesiastical fellowship” was that “this relationship provides a realistic way of facing the complexities of contemporary interchurch relations.” In other words, the new approach was a “polite” way of acknowledging that the original bonds had been substantially undermined. Historically, the CRC and the GKN recognized each other as confessing the same faith by means of the Three Forms of Unity: the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort. But deliberate departure from that common confession on the GKN had created a situation which could no longer be ignored. This was one of the reasons which led the CRC Synod to create a “broader” basis in order to maintain fellowship with such churches.

However, the decision of the Synod of 1974 not only says something about churches with which the CRC now has ecclesiastical fellowship. It clearly reveals the fact that the relation of the CRC to her own confession has become a problem. After all, if a common confession no longer has a normative character in the relationship with the GKN, what value can an appeal to it have within the CRC?

The bonds of fellowship are being maintained in spite of words, decisions and actions which persistently undermine or contradict that which the Lord teaches us in His Word. The alarming implication is that this policy of “toleration” and “dialogue” with respect to the GKN is also a barometer of a potential tolerance level within the CRC! Is that desirable, considering the fact that the church is supposed to be “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15)?

There is yet another lesson to be learned from the situation in the Netherlands. The lamentable plight of the “conservatives” in the G’KN should make it clear to those alarmed about similar tendencies and developments within the CRC that more is needed than the publication of Open Letters, Protests, Statements of Principle, Appeals and Testimonies, even though these can be valuable. Whole-hearted willingness to be obedient to God should characterize not only our lives but also the churches in which we have fellowship. This should be our goal and Scripture should be our norm. For if disobedience occurs and is not followed by repentance, we will be unavoidably confronted with the bitter reality referred to by James: “and sin when it is full–grown brings forth death” (James 1:15).

Sincerely, Andrew J. Pol Zwolle, The Netherlands

CHARIOTS OF FIRE (May issue) and NO MAN IS AN ISLAND (July issue}

Dear Rev. Peter DeJong, It is precisely because “no man is an island” that we should not flee from the theater and films, but should subject them to Christ, the Lord.

There is nothing inherently evil with the theater or films, whether shown in public auditoriums or in a private dwelling a year later. The real question is, “Do they glorify God?” The Middle Age church successfully used theater as a means of communicating God’s word through the morality plays. Today the Lamb’s players of San Diego do the same. The film can also be successful as a testimony: Observe Francis Schaeffer’s Whatever Happened to the Human Race film series or even our own Back to God Hour television broadcasts.

Chariots of Fire was one film which portrayed a true Christian (a Calvinist, no less} in action, both as a preacher explaining God’s word, and as a runner (God’s sovereignty over all that we do).

Let us not declare that all films are evil and therefore should be avoided. Just because Playboy is a magazine does not mean that all magazines are evil and therefore there should be no magazines—otherwise we would lose The Outlook!

In Christ, Glenn Palmer Oostende, Belgie.