Presently I am 92 years old; I was born, baptized and made profession of faith in the Chr. Ref. Church, the church I love dearly. During these years I have been exposed to events and impressions which have been denied the majority of CRC people. I have seen first-hand happenings, a repetition of which I hope will be spared my beloved church.
For respectable reasons I was for a short time a member of the Presbyterian Church and it was during those years that I lived thru the trauma that accompanied the Presbyterian USA-Orthodox Presbyterian Church “split” and there are those in our midst who fear that our church is now facing a similar danger.
To clarify and support the above statement I shall quote some excerpts from an address delivered at our 19m Synod by the O.P. Church delegate. Because he was personally involved in his church’s split from the Presbyterian Church USA, I consider him to be competent and informed to comment on the serious doctrinal errors he believes are invading our church.
After expressing appreciation for the help received from our church he said: “. . . some of the trumpets from the ranks of the Chr. Ref. Church have uttered an uncertain note. . what we hear is strikingly similar to what we heard 40 years ago in the old Presbyterian Church. We think we may see history repeating itself . . . allowing fuzzy thinking here, being too concessive there, failing to insist on full adherence to subscriptions vows.” “. . . the continuing expression in public periodicals of views that deny the infallibility and inerrancy of Holy Scripture. These expressions have come from influential teachers in church-controlled and society-controlled institutions of learning.”
Thousands of people in our church agreed with this analysis, became confused, disturbed, unhappy. Inevitably our Seminary became the focus of some of this suspicion so much so, that the faculty placed a full page article in the Banner of Dec. 4, 1970, stating that there were rumors circulating in the church questioning their commitment to the Scriptures and loyalty to the confessional standards of the church. They said they deplored the suspicion and distrust these rumors created, denied there was any basis in fact concerning them, and pleaded for confidence, support and prayer and said they welcomed brotherly instruction and admonition.
I was not satisfied by this “Open Letter” and because they said they welcomed brotherly advice, I wrote them a letter saying so and stating that a radical like Kuitert could, and probably would, sign such a letter.
I then suggested they place a second “Open Letter” in the Banner stating that they: “UNEQUIVOCALLY ACCEPT THE ACCOUNT OF THE MAKING OF EVE OF ADAM’S RIB, AS RELATED BY THE INSPIRED WRITER IN GENESIS 2:21, TO BE FACTUAL HISTORY AND NOT A MYTH OR SYMBOL.” I said that if this was done much of the suspicion would be removed and an atmosphere of mutual trust established.
Dr. John Kromminga replied speaking for the faculty, “If these questions are in fact asked because doubt exists about the orthodoxy of faculty members, then the public press is neither the place to raise them nor to answer them.”
Although THE OUTLOOK editor had no knowledge of my correspondence with the faculty he seems to have shared my convictions, for in an issue of THE OUTLOOK he wrote: “To further cultivate the confidence that the Calvin Seminary Faculty ‘covets’ and ‘excepts,’ it would be good to be informed publicly that every member of the Faculty endorses the . . . historicity of Adam and Eve and the fall” . . . , “. . . with all the signatures of the Faculty members affixed, another ‘Open Letter to the Christian Reformed Church’ in the Banner dealing forthrightly with this issue . . . could be a real boon in recapturing the confidence the Faculty apparently believes it may have lost.”
I know there are many who will say that this question is naive and simplistic, but that’s not so. It establishes the organic unity of the human race and concerns the basics of Reformed doctrines. Dr. John Kromminga asked me why I should insist on a personal answer to this question. In reply I wrote him: “Why shouldn’t I ask this question and why are so many people so reluctant to answer this question? Why do they invent every possible reason they can think of to get around answering?”
My personal respect goes to the person who steps forth manfully and answers with an unqualified “Yes” or “No.” If he refuses to answer in this manner I start to wonder. If you, my readers, doubt this I suggest you try it on your fellow member or your pastor. You may be surprised and dismayed by the answer you will receive. I tried it and I certainly was.
Harry M. Veenstra, Bellflower, California.
For respectable reasons I was for a short time a member of the Presbyterian Church and it was during those years that I lived thru the trauma that accompanied the Presbyterian USA-Orthodox Presbyterian Church “split” and there are those in our midst who fear that our church is now facing a similar danger.
To clarify and support the above statement I shall quote some excerpts from an address delivered at our 19m Synod by the O.P. Church delegate. Because he was personally involved in his church’s split from the Presbyterian Church USA, I consider him to be competent and informed to comment on the serious doctrinal errors he believes are invading our church.
After expressing appreciation for the help received from our church he said: “. . . some of the trumpets from the ranks of the Chr. Ref. Church have uttered an uncertain note. . what we hear is strikingly similar to what we heard 40 years ago in the old Presbyterian Church. We think we may see history repeating itself . . . allowing fuzzy thinking here, being too concessive there, failing to insist on full adherence to subscriptions vows.” “. . . the continuing expression in public periodicals of views that deny the infallibility and inerrancy of Holy Scripture. These expressions have come from influential teachers in church-controlled and society-controlled institutions of learning.”
Thousands of people in our church agreed with this analysis, became confused, disturbed, unhappy. Inevitably our Seminary became the focus of some of this suspicion so much so, that the faculty placed a full page article in the Banner of Dec. 4, 1970, stating that there were rumors circulating in the church questioning their commitment to the Scriptures and loyalty to the confessional standards of the church. They said they deplored the suspicion and distrust these rumors created, denied there was any basis in fact concerning them, and pleaded for confidence, support and prayer and said they welcomed brotherly instruction and admonition.
I was not satisfied by this “Open Letter” and because they said they welcomed brotherly advice, I wrote them a letter saying so and stating that a radical like Kuitert could, and probably would, sign such a letter.
I then suggested they place a second “Open Letter” in the Banner stating that they: “UNEQUIVOCALLY ACCEPT THE ACCOUNT OF THE MAKING OF EVE OF ADAM’S RIB, AS RELATED BY THE INSPIRED WRITER IN GENESIS 2:21, TO BE FACTUAL HISTORY AND NOT A MYTH OR SYMBOL.” I said that if this was done much of the suspicion would be removed and an atmosphere of mutual trust established.
Dr. John Kromminga replied speaking for the faculty, “If these questions are in fact asked because doubt exists about the orthodoxy of faculty members, then the public press is neither the place to raise them nor to answer them.”
Although THE OUTLOOK editor had no knowledge of my correspondence with the faculty he seems to have shared my convictions, for in an issue of THE OUTLOOK he wrote: “To further cultivate the confidence that the Calvin Seminary Faculty ‘covets’ and ‘excepts,’ it would be good to be informed publicly that every member of the Faculty endorses the . . . historicity of Adam and Eve and the fall” . . . , “. . . with all the signatures of the Faculty members affixed, another ‘Open Letter to the Christian Reformed Church’ in the Banner dealing forthrightly with this issue . . . could be a real boon in recapturing the confidence the Faculty apparently believes it may have lost.”
I know there are many who will say that this question is naive and simplistic, but that’s not so. It establishes the organic unity of the human race and concerns the basics of Reformed doctrines. Dr. John Kromminga asked me why I should insist on a personal answer to this question. In reply I wrote him: “Why shouldn’t I ask this question and why are so many people so reluctant to answer this question? Why do they invent every possible reason they can think of to get around answering?”
My personal respect goes to the person who steps forth manfully and answers with an unqualified “Yes” or “No.” If he refuses to answer in this manner I start to wonder. If you, my readers, doubt this I suggest you try it on your fellow member or your pastor. You may be surprised and dismayed by the answer you will receive. I tried it and I certainly was.
Harry M. Veenstra, Bellflower, California.