The True or False Distinction

A striking feature of our Belgic Confession’s doctrine of the church (Article XXIX) is its sharp distinction between the true church and the false church. Especially in our time of church confusion we need such clear explanation of differences in principle between the true and the false. At the same time that clear, black versus white, distinction is difficult to apply in our complex society including many denominations which show varying degrees (or mixtures) of doctrinal orthodoxy and apostasy. The Presbyterian’s Westminster Confession of Faith deals explicitly with that problem. It says (Chapter XXV Of the Church)

IV. The Catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth to worship God according to his will.

It is significant that John Calvin in his teaching and Practice showed both emphases. He showed an ecumenical sympathy and concern as he tried to cooperate with and unite various Reformation churches at the same time as he insisted on the need to separate from the Roman church which despite the fact that it still harbored many genuine Christians, was rejecting the Word of God.

Presbyterian Developments

Itis saddening and instructive to observe how the largest traditionally Calvinistic denomination in the U.S., the 2.7 million member United Presbyterian Church, continues to decline from its original commitment to the Bible and its creeds. Recent news reports show how far that decline has gone. Rev. Mansfield Kaseman was recently installed as a minister by Capital-Union Presbytery after he had openly denied that Jesus is God. An appeal against the decision has been rejected.

While the denomination tolerates such radical denials of fundamental Christian doctrines its General Assembly now requires that churches ordain women and give “fair representation” on church boards of persons of “all ages and of all ethnic minorities.” When the Denver South Presbyterian Church refused to obey that decision the presbytery seized the local church’s property and posted armed guards around the building without any civil action or having any legal claim to the property.

A New Movement Toward Secession

Such developments as these are triggering a new movement looking toward secession. According to a Presbyterian Journal report (Oct. 24) a group of ministers and elders who on Scriptural grounds oppose the ordination of women have organized as “Concerned United Presbyterians” hinting that they may be compelled to withdraw from the denomination. Upon invitations sent to the nearly 1400 churches that do not have women on their sessions the number attending the meeting in Philadelphia reached 350 and the number voting to take action was much smaller. Among the speakers at the Philadelphia meeting was Rev. Dale D. Schlafer, pastor of the Denver Church whose buidling had been illegally seized. The executive committee which was formed included the well–known Rev. James M. Boice of Philadelphia and Rev. John H. Gerstner of Pittsburgh. According to an RES News Exchange report, Dr. Gerstner, professor of Church History at Pittsburgh Seminary, had commented that while he considered women’s ordination objectionable, he had to consider permitti ng the denial of the deity of Christ, apostasy. If the latter is not reversed on an appeal early in 1980, it may drive a block of conservatives to leave the denomination.

Scripture is the Issue

A remarkably frank appraisal of the controversy was given by Rev. Howard L. Rice, moderator of the Presbyterian General Assembly. According to a Nov. 21 Presbyterian Journal report he said that the real issue was not women’s ordination, but the authority of the Bible. Presbyterians had never resolved their “fundamentalist-modernist” differences regarding that. He stated that both sides cite Scripture to establish their positions in an age when so few Presbyterians read the Bible t hat they cannot sort out rival claims. While, according to Dr. Rice, foes of women’s ordination tend to hold a “literalistic view of Scripture,” its promoters explain Biblical admonitions against women‘s leadership as representing first-century realities but never meant to bind churches in more open societies. Clergymen have made matters worse by convincing ordinary Presbyterians that they can no longer read and understand the Bible themselves. Without this knowledge and confidence, the debate over Biblical authority is “irrelevant” to them. And when Scripture becomes irrelevant to Presbyterians, “another reformation is overdue,” he concluded. He saw the new rule as violating the Presbyterian form of church government. He mentioned beside this t he denomination’s other troubles indicated by membership losses and lack of growth. He saw Presbyterians trying to accomplish every kind of task through their church except helping people to maintain their relationship with God, observing, “It amazes me how much time the Church spends not doing that.”

Our Need

Our Christian Reformed Churches have not yet reached this condition, but there are many indications that we are moving in the same direction. The women’s liberation organization, the “committee for Women in the Christian Reformed Church” continues to agitate for opening church offices to women. One of its leading champions, Mrs. Rienstra, denied ordination in our denomination, has found a congenial niche in the pastorate of a United Presbyterian Church, but she continues to promote her crusade in the CRC and, according to the 1979 Acts of Synod (p. 137), continues to be an alternate member of one of the Synod’s study committees. Women’s ordination continues to be promoted by a number of professors in our churches’ Calvin College and Seminar y who defend and practice the Liberal critical approach to the Bible. Although our churches haven’t yet “caught up” with the United Presbyterians (or the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands) in these matters, unless the Lord grants us the Biblical reformation, which even the United Presbyterian moderator says his churches need, ours will soon share their predicament.