In this article, Rev. Ring Star comments on the action of the 1976 CRC Synod pertaining to the appeal of the Dutton CRC consistory concerning the approval by Classis Grand Rapids East of Dr. Allen Verhey’s candidacy for the ministry; also, he comments specifically on the editorial writing in The Banner about this matter. Rev. Star is a CRC minister (retired) living in Jenison, Michigan.

With much interest I have read Editor DeKoster’s reflection in The Banner of September 10, 1976, upon Synod’s disposition of the Dutton Appeal protesting Classis Grand Rapids East’s approval of the ordination of Dr. Allen Verhey.

There are reassuring elements in the Editor’s reasoning. Some quotations will bear this out. In “Just Between Us” one may read the following: “I do not subscribe to the views ascribed to Dr. Verhey. If they adequately represent his attitude toward the Scriptures this attitude ought in due season to come properly before the Church for judgment.”

Again, in the editorial itself one reads: “In fact, from my observation of the debate, Synod would have very much preferred to express its rejection of the method of exegesis charged against the Candidate—but reluctantly decided, after lengthy discussion, that it could not do so.”

And, to quote Editor DeKoster once more (and then you must reread the Editor’s reference to two Synodical study committees advocating similar views to those with which Verhey is charged) he says: “So that there may be no mistake about it, I probably should recall that I argued here that both of those study committees were mistaken, and I think that the views attributed to the Candidate are likewise in error.”

I repeat that these comments are reassuring to say the least, and that for more than one reason. They emphasize the position that the factual passages of Scripture in their unmistakable literality are not to be called in question. They come from the pen of editor of The Banner who by his position gives these comments a denomination-wide circulation and beyond that. And there is a strong suggestion in them that the delegation of the 1976 Synod stood for the views the Editor sets forth in the above quotations.

• But there are other considerations.

One. Is it an open question whether Dr. Verhey really gave expression to the views with which he is charged in the Dutton Protest? Editor DeKoster seems to express himseU that way. But need there be a question about it? Only after lengthy and thorough examination did Classis Grand Rapids East approve of the ordination of Candidate Verhey. Some of the length of the examination covered debate over Verhey’s questionable views of Scripture. So the entire delegation of the Classis examining Verhey can testify to the truth of the charges. The Rev. Leonard Greenway, one of the Synodical deputies, stated in THE OUTLOOK of September, 1976 that Verhey’s views with respect to the two Scriptural passages in question are “less than literal.”

How about Classis Grand Rapids East in receipt of Dutton’s protest? If the charges against Verhey were not true how easy after due consideration it would have been for Classis to have denied them. And the same may be said of Synod’s treatment of the protest at which Dr. Verhey was present to be interviewed.

Therefore from the above considerations it becomes clear that in all the deliberations of Classis or Synod where the alleged charges against Verhey were to a great extent the focal point, there is not a hint of their being false, but on the contrary everything points to the fact that they are true.

   

• There is more.

A protest, so the Editor claims and perhaps rightly so, does not in its formal aspect contain an expression for a desired course of action. At least that was the case with the Dutton protest. The consistory did not specifically state what kind of reaction to their protest they desired. And that is why Synod did not express itself on the truth or falsity of the charges against Verhey.

As a matter of fact, according to the Editor, Synod would gladly have taken a stand against the questionable views of Verhey but could not because of a technical omission within the protest. This omission also in part induced Classis Grand Rapids East merely to accept the Dutton protest for information thus not acting on its material contents.

And the Editor would again reason that Classis could not do otherwise because it was bound by the above-named technical omission.

But does this reasoning hold? As a reminder I restate one of the Editor‘s quotations: “I do not subscribe to the views ascribed to Dr. Verhey. If they adequately represent his attitude toward the Scriptures this attitude ought in due season to come properly before the Church for judgment.”

Just a word about the gravity of such views as are attributed to Dr. Verhey. In a critical time of His ministry Jesus once said to His disciples: “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” The teachings of these parties were a dangerous threat to the spiritual well-being of the Church the Lord came to establish, and the danger of the threat lay in its leavening power. Now it is plain, and the Editor must be fully agreed, that “exegesis” as Verhey is charged with is every bit as much of a threat to the Church in its subject matter and leavening power as the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. This being the gravity of the situation, the Church should rise in judgment against it. I am sure the Editor will agree with mv paraphrasing his thought this way; and I am in full accord with them thus far.

• But now comes the wording “in due season.”

In this statement there is a period of waiting involved. The clear implication is that the Church must wait for judgment until an opportune time presents itself.

That could run into so much time, in fact years, until the leavening power of the views in question have so permeated the thinking of the Church that no return from them is possible. And that kind of delay is of course entirely out of the question when Jesus warns His disciples against the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees. There the Lord requires immediate action. So what else can be required of the Church under a similar situation?

And, as the Editor expresses himself, the Church has not yet been so confronted with Dr. Verhey‘s unscriptural views as to be in a position to pass judgment on them. But the facts contradict this. Dr. Verhey’s questionable views came properly before the Church for judgment when the Candidate sustained his ordination examination.

Both Classis Grand Rapids East and Synod stress the point that on the matter at issue here Verhey was thoroughly examined. This was in every respect a proper procedure. Again Dr. Verhey’s unscriptural views came properly before the Church through the consistory of Dutton when they protested to Grand Rapids East their approval of Verhey’s ordination in spite of his unscriptural views. And this procedure of Dutton was entirely in keeping with Church Order.

Finally the unscriptural views of Dr. Verhey came before the Church for judgment when the consistory. not satisfi ed with the treatment Classis gave their protest, sent it on to Synod. This also was good procedure. So let not the Editor say that the views of Verhey which he so clearly condemns in his editorial have nol been properly before the Church for judgment. But the Church failed in its responsibility to take advantage of their opportune time.

Consequently we have one more minister in the Christian Reformed Church (for there are others as the Editor points out) who entertains views that are a dangerous threat to the spiritual well–being of our Church.

• Another consideration.

The Editor will reply (and you must read his editorial again) that the Church, though very much preferring to do so, could not pass judgment on Verhey’s objectionable views because these did not come before its body properly. He has of course the Dutton protest in mind. A line must be interspersed here before continuing with the protest. If there ever was a time when objectional Scriptural views came before the Church for judgment that time was there when Dr. Verhey was examined for his ordination. So it is rather out of place for the Editor to say that “in due season” Verhey’s questionable views should come before the Church for judgment when they have already properly been there. And, as the Editor knows, that was the occasion for the Dutton Protest.

• Now on with the Protest.

The Editor reasons that a protest because of its very nature does not contain a desired course of action. Thus the Church was blocked in a sincere desire to pursue a proper course of action but could not do so because of a technical omission.

However, in all earnestness, my dear readers, when can a technicality be allowed to stand in the way of defending the truth of God’s Word? A situation may be so pressing that all technicalities may have to be set aside. And that is the kind of situation we are confronted with in the matter before us.

But is it true that in the above the Editor gives us the correct definition of a protest? Is it true that a protest (and then use the Dutton Protest for an example) does not contain an appeal for a course of action? I would say that such an appeal is so clearly on the surface that it would be an insult to Christian intelligence to spell it out. Perhaps Scripture can help us out here.

Time and again God through His prophets expresses intense displeasure with the wrongdoings of His people, and in many instances this expressed dissatisfaction is spoken of as a protest. It is possible that because of this Scriptural norm the Church Order in the practice of Church Polity found place for a protest. Now it must be considered that as a rule these Divine protests are accompanied by the course of action required: that is, repent. That stipulation was undoubtedly needed because the conscience of God’s people by persistent indulgence in sin had become so insensitive to the wrong that was being committed that it had to be aroused into action.

But there is at least one instance of a Divine protest unsurpassed in clarity and directness that does not contain a formal requirement for a course of action. That is when God sends Nathan to David to remind him of his sin. And although David had held on to his sin for many months, and during that time perhaps rationalized that he had been very clever about it all, his conscience had not been seared into inactivity. And so David doesn’t have to be told what to do. Before Nathan has a chance to put a period to his protest David pursues the course required. And without having to be told, his conscience directs him to write Psalm 51.

And so it is with a protest as we understand it today. It could be accompanied by a request for a certain course of action depending on circumstance, but does not necessarily have to be; and definitely not as far as the Dutton Protest is concerned. What the consistory of Dutton was asking for was for Classis Grand Rapids to admit that the approval of the ordination of Candidate Verhey was an error. Their protest emphatically stated this. And it was only right for Classis to admit this without being specifically asked.

The result of such an action would by implication have been that no candidate, after this, seeking entrance into the Gospel ministry would pass his examination in Classis Grand Rapids East if he entertained views similar to those mentioned in the protest of Dutton. This would have fully satisfied the protestants; would have been a forceful example to the entire denomination; and, as the Editor sees the situation, would have highly pleased Synod.

• Finally. Matters just didn’t go that way and Dr. Verhey slipped through the fingers of both Classis and Synod and became an ordained minister with his highly objectionable Scriptural views. How about that?

Perhaps Scripture can point the way again. I am going to use a reference which I do not consider an analogous case, yet it should be helpful. When Esau stands before Isaac after the old patriarch had blessed Jacob, and he pleads with his father in a most stirring way with a loud and bitter cry, Isaac finally had to let his firstborn know that even though everything had not gone according to good order, the blessing which he had given to Jacob would have to stand. And so it is with Dr. Verhey. His ordination will have to stand with all the respect a Gospel minister is entitled too.

But that is not the whole story. Dr. Verhey will have to maintain a strict silence with regard to the unbiblical views with which he has been charged. And if he propagates them he will be exposing himself to disciplinary action first and foremost by the consistory under whose judicial care and vigilance he has chosen to reside. And that must apply to all holding views similar to the objectionable ones of Verhey.

And if this is not the way there is only one other alternative. The leavening power of Verhey’s unbiblical views with like views of others will be permitted to go on unhindered undermining right views of Scripture until resultant unbibilical attitudes reach a point beyond which there is no return.

One last remark. If the rules of procedure pertaining to Church government as I have tried to weave them through this article will be diligently observed there will be no need for a judicial code.