The following material is based on a lecture given by Dr. Monsma in Zeeland, Michigan, on April 29, 1982. The board of Mid-America felt that his lecture should have a wider audience, and that is why it now comes to you in the form of an article, which is to appear in two issues of the OUTLOOK. Dr. Monsma, former missionary in Nigeria, where he headed the Tiv Reformed seminary, has been teaching at the Reformed Bible College and has accepted an appointment to teach in the Mid-America Reformed Seminary at Orange City, Iowa.

Mid–America Reformed Seminary is now a reality. A board and faculty are in place. Students are enrolled. And classes are scheduled to begin on September 1.

Is It Needed?

But there are those of all theological opinions in the Christian Reformed Church who are still a sking, “Is this school really necessary or desirable?” The best way to demonstrate that this seminary is needed is to tell what it hopes to do, and to indicate how it may differ from existing institutions and agencies. That is the aim of this article.

It is not the aim of this article to answer all the charges that have been made against Mid-America in regard to procedures. These charges have been made by the Editor of THE BANNER and several others.

There are two ways to carry on an argument. The one way is called, in the Latin language, argumentum ad hominem, that is, arguments about the character of your opponent. The second way is called argumentum ad rem, that is, arguments about the issue itself.

Rev. Kuyve nhoven‘s edit orial of April 19, 1982, was an argumentum ad hominem. So long as he deals with people and what they did, he does not have to deal with the issues. This gives him a tactical advantage, for the argument can easily degenerate into a mud slinging contest, and people will quickly forget what the real issues are.

To the friends and supporters of Mid-America, I would say, Don’t fall into this trap. We need argumentum ad rem, not argumentum ad hominem. I know there are plenty of legitimate grievances that conservatives could raise. They might thereby be able to win one or two battles, but I am afraid they would lose the war. We ought at this time to have sufficient confidence and poise so that we can follow the example of our Lord about whom Peter wrote in I Peter 2:23: “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.”

Rather than mulling over procedures of the past, this article wants to look at the road ahead. What are the goals and ideals of this seminary? Will she be a positive blessing to the churches, or simply a drain on their finances? The road ahead will be viewed with the help of two very important questions. The first is: HOW WILL MID-AMERICA REFORMED SEMINARY BE DIFFERENT FROM EXISTING INSTITUTIONS IN THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH? The second question is: WHAT WILL BE THE POSITIVE EMPHASIS AT THE MID-AMERICA SEMINARY? You will notice that I am purposely avoiding a direct comparison of Mid–America and Calvin Seminary. I want to talk about MARS; I do not wish to talk about Calvin Seminary. And I will ask that any questions which readers may have concentrate on what we hope to do in Iowa.

   

How Will It Differ?

I want, in answering my first question, to compare Mid–America Reformed Seminary to other agencies and institutions in the Christian Reformed Church, both those sponsored directly by the church and those sponsored by para–church agencies that have church endorsement. If Calvin Seminary is among them that is something I cannot help. The only reason why I mention other agencies at all is in order to outline more clearly by way of contrast what I think MARS will be doing.

It is my belief that Mid–America has something unique to offer the Christian Reformed Church. And that is the reason why I accepted the appointment to be one of its first professors even though I was not involved in the founding of this school.

As I perceive it, the uniqueness of MARS does not consist simply in the fact that it wants to be more conservative than Calvin Seminary. Many observers have thought that this is the whole issue, for some of the early supporters of MARS have expressed dissatisfaction with Calvin. And these observers are wondering why the Northwest Iowa people didn’t try to correct Calvin before they founded another seminary.

I would like to point out, however, that IT IS ONE THING TO SAY THAT YOU ARE DISSATISFIED. IT IS ANOTHER THING TO CHARGE A SCHOOL WITH TEACHING HERESY AS MEASURED BY THE CREEDS. To make such a charge one would have to have irrefutable proof; and inasmuch as church leaders are not detectives, such proof might be very hard to gather.

The Chrysler Corporation does not try to sell cars by saying that the cars of General Motors and Ford don’t run, Chrysler merely tries to convince the public that their cars run better.

I have not heard the supporters of MARS say that Calvin doesn’t train pastors. I have only heard them say that they hope to do a better job than what Calvin is already doing.

The MARS men have made a tactical decision. They have decided that heresy trials alone will not preserve the integrity and vitality of a church. They have observed and also participated in various attempts during the past decade to preserve and strengthen the church by way of eliminating questionable teachings.

They have tried, unsuccessfully, to strengthen Report 44, a report that deals with the nature and extent of biblical authority. (Acts ‘73, pp. 33, 34) They have supported the unsuccessful attempt of the Central A venue Christian Reformed Church in Holland, Michigan, to correct a Calvin College professor. They have supported the Dutton Christian Reformed Church in her protests over the ordination of a candidate whose views on Genesis were very shaky, but they have seen this protest rejected. They have been frustrated and even angered by parliamentary tricks that dodged the real issues. They have reluctantly come to the conclusion that on many issues they no longer have the votes, and that additional protests offer little promise of success.

Calvin College Professor Theodore Plantinga stated the situation accurately in an article that he wrote for the November, 1981 issue of the OUTLOOK entitled, “Conservatives in the CRC: the View from the Back Seat.” Plantinga wrote:

The conservatives, it seems to me, can best be compared to back-seat drivers. Although they still have some influence in the denomination, they are clearly not behind the wheel. Because they are in the back seat, they are being taken where they do not want to go.

In the same article Plantinga also says:

The conservatives in the CRC seem to be almost without influence in the critical area of higher education. People of their way of thinking are not often appointed to teach in our educational institutions (p. 2).

The arrival of an alternative seminary is not necessarily an indication that Calvin Seminary professors have violated the creeds; it is more an indication that conservatives are being taken where they don’t want to go. They now plan to do something about it. Their seminary will have a unique emphasis within the Reformed community, and I intend to describe that emphasis as I understand it.

Before I do that, I would like to point out that within the Reformed community there have always been various streams of thought. And Reformed Christians have generally been able to recognize these various streams as genuine expressions of the Reformed faith within the circle of creedal fidelity.

For example, although both the Presbyterians on the British Isles and the Reformed on the continent of Europe are followers of John Calvin and they respect the creeds that each group has drawn up, they differ on less important issues. The Separation from the state church of theNetherlands in 1834 had a different spirit from the separation that took place later in that same century under the leadership of Abraham Kuyper. But both groups held to the same forms of unity. In a perceptive article written for THE BANNER of January 3, 1975, Calvin College Professor Nicholas Wolterstorff points out that there have been three patterns of life and thought in the Christian Reformed Church for many years. He calls them pietism, doctrinalism, and Kuyperianism. One’s choice of which stream to emphasize does not involve creedal loyalty; at least no one that I know of has made that assertion. It is rather a matter of personal choice within the circle of the creeds.

This element of choice has been present in the founding of other alternative schools. When the Reformed Bible Institute (now the Reformed Bible College) was initiated in 1940, people accepted the fact that this school was to have a different emphasis from Calvin College. I know of no one who suggested that R.B.I. would first have to exhaust all means of protest against the courses offered at Calvin College before a new school could be established.

More recently, when the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship came into existence with headquarters in Toronto, this too might have been viewed as an organization directly competing with Calvin College. People might have advised the association to protest against what was being taught at Calvin if they didn’t like it. But they didn’t. Mid-America does not endorse the philosophy of this Toronto–based association. In fact we differ from them on certain important issues. But we recognize their right to exist and propagate their views, and so apparently does everyone else.

Why then do we now hear that Mid-America Seminary has no right to exist? Perhaps we have been too slow in pointing out that the issues are much wider than bare creedal loyalty. This article attempts to remedy at least part of that communication gap.

Now for a direct answer to that first question: HOW WILL MID-AMERICA REFORMED SEMINARY BE DIFFERENT FROM EXISTING INSTITUTIONS IN THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH?

We will be different in the way we understand the Christian’s relationship to the world around him. To explain that statement, I would like to borrow three terms that missions professors have used to describe the relation of Christians to the various societies or cultures of the world. Although these three terms have been used primarily to describe the relationship of Christianity to cultures overseas, they can equally be used to describe how Christians relate to Western culture right here in the United States and Canada.

The term ACCOMMODATION is recommended by the well–known Catholic missiologist, Louis J. Luzbetak. In his book The Church and Cultures Luzbetak says,

Accommodation is mutual: it is not a one-sided condescension, for the Church goes as far as possible while expecting the new Christian community to come the rest of the way. The Church accommodates to the local culture; the new Christian community accommodates to the Church, and that at a great price. (p. 345)

Compromise

When one hears this explanation, one thinks in terms of compromise. And this is exactly the relationship that many in the Christian Reformed Church have tried to establish with the world around us. I do not question the good intentions of those who wish to compromise with the culture that surrounds us. They intend to be a salt and a light in the midst of that culture. I do, however, question their wisdom, for they are defending the fort by leaving it, and that is never wise. The evidence for this spirit of compromise is found in many places. Let me quickly cite four examples:

(1) The Christian Reformed Church in North America has told the Gereformeerde Kerken of the Netherlands that they are on the wrong path. Yet we continue following them about twenty years behind, and we continue sending young men to be educated at the Free University, where we know that the pure Reformed faith is no longer taught.

(2) The Christian Reformed Church bas repeatedly refused to join the World Council of Churches. Yet many of our leaders want to get as close to the WCC as they possibly can and “benefit” from whatever the wee and her leaders have to offer.

(3) At the very time the Women’s Liberation movement in North America is very strong, some of our leaders suddenly “discover” that the Bible is for the ordination of women at every level. Individual churches have ignored synodical rulings and proceeded with ordination, or that which amounts to ordination. DE WACHTER has objected, but THE BANNER remains silent.

(4) Many churches are filled with luke–warm Christians who are busy laying up for themselves treasure upon earth, who are concerned to eat, drink, and be merry, but who show little concern for the coming of the Kingdom of God.

In all these areas, and others, the spirit of accommodation is alive and well in the Christian Reformed Church today. The result is that people are leaving the Christian Reformed Church in large numbers. Rev. Kuyvenhoven has recognized the problem in an editorial written for The Banner of March 15, 1982. He wrote: “There must be a big leak somewhere. The exodus to other churches is the main problem.” Some are going to more conservative or charismatic churches where they feel that the pure gospel is still being preached. Others are saying that there is little difference between the Christian Reformed Church and the more liberal churches that surround us; so why not join one of them. Most tragic of all, there are many dropping out of the church entirely. The problem of “black sheep” has always been a problem, but in my observation, the leak is getting larger.

What Shall We Do?

“That’s too bad,” you say, “but what do you fellows in Iowa propose to do about it?” Without God’s blessing there is nothing we can do, but we are going to try. And with God’s blessing we will at least make a dent in the spirit of accommodation that presently exists in the Christian Reformed Church. In this connection I should say that the founders of Mid-America have a deep commitment to this school. Last January I was interviewed by the board of this school. It’s a board of six ministers and twelve laymen, including two lawyers, a medical doctor, a college professor, a farmer, and several businessmen. When I reminded the board that I already had work to do, and one is entitled to some assurance that the ship is going to float before he gets on board, they told me that when they made the decision to go ahead, they felt like the signers of the American Declaration of Independence who said at the end of that document: “We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” I am told that at the meeting held at O’Hare Field in Chicago, laymen outnumbered ministers five to one. Some are wondering where all the money is coming from in order to launch this seminary. It’s not coming from the ministers, because they don’t have much to give. But there are many laymen deeply convinced of the necessity of this school, and they are willing to give generously.

How then do we at Mid-America propose to relate to the culture that surrounds us? The Dutch missiologist J. H. Bavinck bas given us the right term. And the American missiologist, Charles Kraft, has given us a useful term too. I want to look with you at both their terms, beginning with the one suggested by Bavinck.

Possession

Bavinck suggested that we use the Latin word possessio, from which we get our English word possession. According to Bavinck, Christians ought to relate to the culture that surrounds them by taking into possession whatever can be salvaged and put to the Master’s use. In his book AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SCIENCE OF MISSIONS, he put it this way:

Christ takes the life of a people in his hands, he renews and re-establishes the distorted and deteriorated; he fills each thing, each word, and each practice with a new meaning and gives it a new direction. Such is neither “adaptation,” nor accommodation; it is in essence the legitimate taking possession of something by him to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth (p. 179).

A biblical example of possessio is found in Ezekiel 16 where God takes t he formerly pagan city of Jerusalem and makes the city His. “I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign, Lord, and you became mine” (Ezek. 16:8).

If we are to take both the behavior patterns and the material products of our Western culture and dedicate them to God’s service, we must know who we are and where we are going. We must have a firm knowledge of our roots. And when I say that, I don’t mean that we ought to get out wooden shoes or place windmills on our front yards. I mean we must know our spiritual roots.

The dry season in Nigeria, where I worked for twelve years, usually lasts from November to April -about the same time as winter here in Michigan. During the dry season all the vegetation turns brown. There is a good supply of gravelly subsoil in Nigeria that is used on the unpaved roads. As the cars and trucks go down these roads a great deal of red dust arises and covers the leaves on the trees so that they take on an ugly rusty hue. But during the month of March, after several months of drought, something unusual happens. T he old leaves drop off and beautiful new green leaves appear on the trees.

How could these new green leaves appear before it even starts to rain? They have roots that go down deep to where there is moisture throughout the dry season.

If we are to be God’s instrument for possessing the culture around us, we must have spiritual roots. Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, and Louis Berkhof allow us to put the problems of our generation into good perspective; and the instruction that these men gave to their generation will be heard at Mid–America Seminary in order that we may know how to think and act in our generation.

I think in this connection of what the Rev. Peter Eldersveld and more recently Dr. Joel Nederhood and others have been doing on the Back–to–God Hour. These men have been able to speak in a relevant way to our generation because they have roots going back to a previous generation. They are assisting to possess our culture for Christ.

Francis Schaeffer is also goading us in this direction. There are some statements in his most recent book, A CHRISTIAN MANIFESTO, with which I cannot agree. But on page 56 he makes a telling criticism of the Christian Church in America. Schaeffer writes:

Most fundamentally, our culture, society, government, and law are in the condition they are in, not because of a conspiracy, but because the church has forsaken its duty to be the salt of the culture.

Schaeffer gives a good example of what possessio might mean in practice. Christians in this country have been largely quiet while the forces of humanism have propounded the falsehood that the separation of church and state mentioned in the first amendment to the constitution meant separation of religious conviction from government. Now we are faced with an emphasis in government that goes directly contrary to the will of God in such practices as abortion, euthanasia, pornography, and homosexuality. Our failure to possess our culture through the legitimate means open to us in a republic has meant that our culture possesses us.

Although we reject the accommodation approach, no one ought to interpret this as obscurantism, isolationism, asceticism, or a form of Protestant monasticism. Possessio does not mean withdrawal, but a testing of the spirits of the age and witness to that age.

Transformation

And this leads me to the term proposed by Charles Kraft: transformation. In his book CHRISTIANITY IN CULTURE Kraft defines transformation as follows:

My preference is for a term like “transformation,” which focuses on the fact that Christians, like yeast (Mt. 13:33), are to work with God from within culture. We are to use the forms (i.e. the dough) already there in such a way that they are gradually transformed (though occasionally replaced) into more adequate vehicles of the meanings that God seeks to convey through them. (p. 346)

Although there are important areas where I disagree with Kraft, his term transformation is a good one if it is viewed as the goal that we have in view as we interact with our culture. That is to say, as more and more items are taken into possession for the Lord, the entire culture is gradually transformed. In the foreseeable future here in the West we will have to think in terms of a subculture that is permeated by Christian perspectives, while in some smaller societies of the world there is the possibility of a more thorough transformation of an entire culture. Paul wrote to the Romans: “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.” (Rom. 12:2) This transformation must occur not only in individuals; it must extend to our interaction with society.

This is a big task. It won‘t be easy. The other professors and I who will be involved in this task covet your prayers that God may equip us to accomplish the goals set before us.

That, in my opinion, is how Mid-America Reformed Seminary will have a different emphasis from other institutions in the Christian Reformed Church, including schools, institutions of mercy, and agencies for evangelism. If others feel that they are already doing in some other area what we hope to do on the level of theological training, or if others wish to join us in these ideals, we welcome their cooperation.