THE OUTLOOK is indebted to Rev. Edward J. Knott for this prompt report on the decisions of the CRC Synod 1973 in session from June 12-22. Rev. Knott is pastor of the West Leonard Christian Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and served as a delegate to Synod from Classis Grand Rapids North.
“The 1973 Synod might well prove to be Vatican II of the Christian Reformed Church with our decisions on Office and Ordination, Homosexuality, and Neo-Pentecostalism,” Thus the Rev. John Vriend, Vice President of the 1973 Synod, concluded his final remarks at the close of the Synod. And prophetic it might well prove to be with respect to the Christian Reformed Church.
Some synods are predictable, some follow a certain pattern in their decisions, some may indicate a majority of one kind of delegate or another, but it was most difficult to predict the decisions of the 1973 Synod. It seemed to go in its own way, unique in its unpredictability.
Officers chosen -Following the opening devotions, led by the Rev. Jerome Julien, of the Faith Christian Reformed Church, who had also conducted the prayer service on Monday evening, June 11, 1973, in the auditorium of the Fine Arts Center, the delegates elected Dr. Leonard Greenway, pastor of the Riverside Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, and a board member of the Reformed Fellowship, president of the 1973 Synod. Rev. John Vriend, of the First Edmonton Christian Reformed Church, vice-president; Rev. John A. De Kruyter, of the Seymour Church, Grand Rapids, 6rst clerk; and the Rev. Howard Spaan, of the Oak Hills Church, Portland, Oregon, second clerk. The Synod functioned well under the direction of these men, with the Rev. William P. Brink, Stated Clerk, and we were able to finish our work on the second Friday afternoon.
Candidates for the ministry – One of the first duties of every synod is to declare the graduates of the Seminary candidates for the ministry in the Christian Reformed Church. Increasingly this has become more and more impersonal. This year an effort was made with the preparation of a brief biographical summary, including a picture, of each man seeking candidacy to make this more meaningful. The material, however, was made available so late that the delegates hardly had time to look at it before required to vote.
Forty-five men were declared candidates for the ministry by the Synod of 1973. Later in the week, Synod decided, in response to several Overtures (4, 9, 17, 26) to appoint “a study committee to study Overtures 4, 9, 17, and 26, together with such related problems as the relation between examinations for candidacy and for ordination, and the question of declaring candidacy at various times during the year, and to recommend to Synod a comprehensive plan for examinations leading to admission to the ministry.” Several grounds were given for this recommendation, and the recommendation, with its grounds, was adopted by Synod. Perhaps this will lead to some improvement of the procedure by which men become candidates for the ministry in the Christian Reformed Church.
During the first week, Synod met when material was available, and several significant decisions were made.
Rev. William Haverkamp was reappointed editor of De Wachter for a three-year term. Later Synod also voted to continue the 25¢ subsidy to cover the cost of producing the magazine.
Report 44 – Synod rejected the material and Overtures that had been received with respect to Report 44. In dealing with the Overture of Second Toronto, which requested Synod to rescind the decision made in 1972 with respect to Biblical Authority, Synod desired to be extremely pastoral, although it did not accede to the request. The following significant statement was adopted in this connection, in an effort to meet the objections of the Second Toronto consistory: “Report 44 contains guidelines for a better understanding of the Scripture and should not be interpreted as a binding creedal statement.” Evidently Synod desired to say that, although synodical decisions are binding, according to Article 29 of the Church Order, no additional significance should be placed upon Report 44 than that it is a synodical decision. There was no discussion of the substance of Report 44 in the presentation of these matters.
Unified Church School Curriculum – Classis Zeeland requested (Overture 2) Synod to “diverge from the 1970 decision of Synod which made the Unified Church School Curriculum the pattern for religious instruction for all the churches within the denomination, and re-establish or recognize again catechetical instruction as we have known it in the Reformed heritage as an accepted mode for religious instruction.” The Overture also asked for the development and publication of Catechism materials. A long and emotional discussion ensued upon the recommendation of the advisory committee: “That Synod do not accede to the Overture of Classis Zeeland,” and the matter was recommitted to the committee.
Later, the following recommendation was adopted by Synod: “That Synod declare the adoption of the Unified Church School Curriculum in 1970 did not imply that we no longer ‘recognize the catechism class as we have known it in the Reformed heritage.’” Two grounds were given for this recommendation, and they are most important for those who desire to continue with a “two-track” system:
a. This is agreeable to the Department of Education, for they say in their report to Synod, “However no congregation is forced to a one-track system. A congregation may choose to use as many tracks as it desires, and all catechism books produced by the Education Committee in the past remain on the market . . .” (Agenda 1973, page 131.)
b. Article 64 of the Church Order stipulates that there shall be catechetical instruction.
An additional recommendation and two amendments that had been offered earlier, with the intent that the Education Department continue to develop and produce catechetical materials, were not adopted. The Education Department insists that the materials available are suitable for specific catechism instruction.
Form for Baptism – An updated form for baptism was approved for provisional use for three years, although it was made plain that it was not exclusively an “updating,” but also interpretation and reconstruction of the form.
It seems that the Liturgical Committee, which has now by synodical action become a “standing committee,” has no qualms about giving to the church for “provisional use” a form, or forms, that still lack a finished state. I seriously question whether this does not produce a certain loose attitude toward the use of the forms and give rise to the desire of many “to make their own.”
Inter-Church Relations – It was determined that our “sister-church” relationship to the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands would not be altered while a study of the meaning of the concept of “sisterchurch” is made by the Inter-Church Relations Committee.
In connection with the relationship to the Reformed Church in America, it was pointed out that the Synod of 1966 had decided to seek “closer relationships with the Reformed Church,” and that what had been done with respect to, and in cooperation with, the Reformed Church was an implementation of that decision.
Dr. John Kromminga called the Reformed Church, “our own flesh and blood.” Later, as the fraternal delegate of the Reformed Church, Dr. Herman Ridder conveyed a request from the Synod of the Reformed Church for the appointment of a joint commission of ten members (five from each denomination) to study the theology of evangelism, to which the Synod gave approval. Cooperation was also elicited on an overseas mission project, a joint planning commission, and youth work.
Oakhill Fellowship – An item of local interest was the appeal of the Faith and Oakdale Park Churches from the decision of Classis Grand Rapids East allowing the organization of the Oakhill Fellowship, a group of families from various churches in the Grand Rapids area that desired to organize as a congregation so that they might carry out their concepts of what worship must be, including the celebration of the Lord’s Supper every week The appeal, however, was not sustained by Synod. This opens the door to any group of people, united by a certain idea, or ideal, to organize as a separate congregation in the Christian Reformed Church.
There were several large issues at Synod and we will note them under separate headings.
Homosexuality – One of the “big” issues was the report on homosexuality (Agenda Report 42). This report resulted from a request from the Council of the Christian Reformed Churches in Canada to the Synod of 1970 “to study the problem of homosexuality and to delineate the church’s position on this matter.”
The question was raised whether the report could be considered to be legally before Synod inasmuch as it had not arisen from a concrete case, but was the work of a study committee, although the study committee had been appointed by Synod. This was brushed aside, and Synod proceeded to consider the report and its recommendations. Under “Observations” the advisory committee included the definitions of the study committee that are found on pages 477–479 of the Agenda. These were also included in the “Introduction” to the statements of pastoral advice as follows:
“Introduction: For the proper reading and understanding of these statements of pastoral advice, it is imperative to observe and understand the following definitions:
a. ‘A homosexual’ is a person who has erotic attractions for members of the same sex. Such a person mayor may not actually engage in homosexualism. ‘It must be pointed out that there are people who have strong erotic attractions for members of the same sex who nevertheless never engage in homosexual acts for various reasons, such as, for example, their religious convictions. They are homosexuals, that is, they are constitutionally (by either biological or psychological conditions or both) predisposed to homosexuality, but do not engage in homosexualism.’
b. ‘Homosexuality’ is a condition of personal identity in which the person is sexually oriented toward persons of the same sex.
c. ‘Homosexualism’ is explicit (overt) homosexual practice.”
Perhaps the key to the entire report is in the first point of pastoral advice which reads: “Homosexuality (male and female) is a condition of disordered sexuality which reflects the brokenness of our sinful world and for which the homosexual may himself bear only a minimal responsibility.” If this position is accepted, which Synod did accept, the rest follows rather naturally.
However, it must also be emphasized that Synod did not adopt a position that condones, or looks with favor, on homosexual practice. “Homosexualism—as explicit homosexual practice—must be condemned as incompatible with obedience to the will of God as revealed in Holy Scripture.”
The “Study Report Re Homosexuality” (part I, pp. 475–497) was submitted to the churches as providing “a background study” (not: “guidelines”) for our understanding of the problem of homosexuality and the formulation of a Christian position.
This decision of Synod was headlined in The Grand Rapids Press in such a way as to suggest that Synod had opened the door (of the church) to homosexuals, i.e., practicing homosexuals. No decision has occasioned as much reaction and dismay, based partially on the local reporting of the matter, as did this decision. From youngsters to mission subjects there was discussion and dismay. We still question whether it was necessary for Synod to make a decision on this matter without a concrete case, and we still question the basic presuppositions in the report. It seemed interesting to observe that even at Synod there was not extensive discussion on the floor about this matter.
Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination – The entire matter of office and ordination is to be understood in the light or framework of the following observations:
1. Although in the New Testament the organization of the church is not as clear as has sometimes been assumed, nevertheless there is insistence that the church shall have organizational structure, and that this organizational structure shall include designated leaders to whom respect and submission are due.
2. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a conflict between authority and service, or between ruling and love. Christian authority involves service in the name of the authoritative Christ, and Christian service involves authority in the name of the serving Christ. Both before and after His ascension as our victorious Lord, Jesus is the authoritative Son of God who serves the Father and those whom the Father has given Him.
3. Christ only is Lord of the church, and no one may presume to rule in His place. Service and authority exercised in the church are in His Name and according to His Word.
4. Because God is a God of order, and because the people of God are subject to many weaknesses and errors and in need of spiritual leadership in the face of a hostile world, Christ grants, by His Holy Spirit, gifts of ruling service and serving authority (service and authority) to particular people whom the church must recognize, in order that their gifts may be officially exercised for the benefit of all.
5. The office bearers, i.e., certain people appointed to particular tasks, are not appointed without the call and approbation of the church. When so appointed, however, they are recognized by the church to be representatives of Christ in the special functions for which they have been appointed. As such they serve both Christ and the church, and are worthy of honor, especially if they serve and rule well.
6. These guidelines are intended to offer helpful direction to the churches as they continue to seek practical solutions to the questions pertaining to the status and functions of “layworkers in evangelism” and related questions. These guidelines do not re-define the basic types of service currently assigned to deacons, elders and ministers; nor do the guidelines now authorize anyone other than ministers to administer the sacraments along with the preaching of the Word. In keeping with our church polity, such changes may be introduced only by way of revision of the Church Order as decided by Synod.
A great deal of time was spent discussing this matter. It appeared to us that the delegates were not at all sure about the ideas suggested in this report, although it was so closely reasoned that it seemed difficult to separate the various propositions. Synod, however, adopted a series of twelve points as “guidelines toward the solution of practical problems in the area of office and ordination.” These are divided into “Comprehensive Ministry: ‘Office of all believers,’” “Particular Ministries,” “The Word and The Sacraments,” and “Appointment to Particular Ministries.” These guidelines will, undoubtedly, have far-reaching effects on the idea and function of the ministry in the Christian Reformed Church, although it was continually argued that these guidelines are based on Scriptural study.
The position adopted, with respect to particular ministries in the church, is that: “The particular ministries are to be distinguished in function, not in essence, from the comprehensive ministry shared by all believers, and distinctions among the particular ministries themselves also are functional. Since all members are commissioned to serve, there is only a difference in the kinds of service of deacons, elders, ministers, and all other members.” It was also decided that: “There is no valid biblical or doctrinal reason why a person whom the church has appointed to bring the Word may not also be appointed to administer the sacraments,” although it is emphasized that no practices that are presently prohibited by the Church Order are to be instituted.
It was also decided: That Synod appoint a new committee to study the implications of the “GUIDELINES FOR UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE AND ORDINATION,” especially as they relate to “lay-workers in evangelism,” and to report to the Synod of 1974.
Grounds:
a. The study report and guidelines raise questions which require further study by Synod.
b. This study report was initiated specifically with a view to resolving questions relating to “layworkers in evangelism.”
Marriage Guidelines – “The Synod. of 1971 appointed a committee on Marriage Guidelines with the following mandate: ‘to evaluate the material of Classis Toronto and to compare it with the 1956 decisions of Synod on divorce and remarriage with a view towards establishing guidelines for pastors and consistories in their care of: (a) couples contemplating marriage, (b) couples involved in marital difficulties, (c) divorced persons, and (d) those who have been divorced and contemplate remarriage; and to report their findings with recommendations to Synod.’” The advisory committee also observed: “But there are some aspects of the report which cause questions and difficulties;” although they felt that: “Much of what has been written is valuable advice and should prove helpful to pastors and consistories in dealing with problems relating to marriage and divorce.”
The advisory committee therefore recommended that Synod not adopt the (study) committee’s recommendation “that Synod accept Part II as in accord with biblical teaching and marriage and offer it to the churches as a guideline in their pastoral task.” This recommendation was at first adopted by Synod; then it was voted to reconsider the matter. Synod seemed uncertain as to what it should do. There was much intense feeling expressed as this matter was being discussed. Finally, it was determined that the officers of Synod should advise on the direction that Synod should take and the following decisions were then made on this matter:
1. To instruct the Appointments Committee to appoint a new study committee whose man date shall be to provide Marriage Guidelines in the light of:
a. previous Synodical decisions;
b. the Study Committee Report (1973);
c. the reactions of the Synodical Advisory Committee (Church Order III, Report 4-B);
d. the original Overture (Overture 18, 1971).
2. To instruct the new study committee to report to the Synod of 1974, if at all possible.
Second Sunday Service – In its report included in the Agenda, the Liturgical Committee stated: “For some years your committee on liturgy has been under pressure to submit a study on the second Sunday service. Churches, particularly city churches, keep on asking questions about the place and possibilities of this service in the whole of the Christian life . . . With regard to the second service it is ·perhaps more honest to say that a study is presented both from the sense of its continuing great importance as well as from an awareness of the problems associated with it. Our report falls naturally into two sections. The first takes a look at the reasons for having a second service, and the second suggests ways in which with God’s help, it can be revitalized.”
The committee suggested that the answer to the question, Why a Second Service?, can be found from a theological approach, a historical approach, and a pastoral approach. After supplying a sample second Sunday service, the committee further suggested the possibility of diversity in the second service with the use of various kinds of services: the instructional service, the ecumenical service, the diaconal service, the special category service, or the evangelistic service.
The advisory committee spoke very carefully: “We recognize the fact that the second Sunday service need not be a simple duplication of the morning worship. We believe that the Church Order does not exclude variation in the second service under the supervision of the consistory. Yet we believe there are parts of this report that allow for types of services which may be in violation of the Church Order. In this light we make the following recommendations:
1. “That Synod refer this report to the churches for their consideration and reflection.
Grounds:
a. The first section of the report is of an informative and illustrative nature, and calls for further reflection.
b. The second section contains suggestions for certain types of services which Synod ought not to adopt with an official endorsement, since in this way the possibility may be opened for types of services which would be in violation of the Church Order (e.g., the ecumenical service), or the intent of one of the questions asked at Church Visitation. (‘When guest ministers or unordained men are invited to preach, does the consistory employ only persons who are of Reformed persuasion and who are properly licensed?’ Question 2b, p. 102 in Christian Reformed Church Government, by H. Spaan.)
2. That Synod remind the churches that whatever practices are followed with respect to the second service, the consistories exercise care to observe Articles 51–55 of the Church Order, particularly Article 54a, which states:‘In the worship services the minister of the Word shall officially explain and apply Holy Scripture.’”
We might wish that Synod would be able, rather than to refer these difficult problems to the churches, to vote some of these down. But we appreciate the reminder of the requirements of the Church Order with respect to the second Sunday service. Perhaps this is the only real solution to the problem.
Neo–Pentecostalism – “Synod Warm to ‘Charismata,’” was the headline in The Grand Rapids Press on the article which reported the action of Synod on Neo-Pentecostalism. “The Synod of the Christian Reformed Church has extended a warm hand to the Neo-Pentecostals, or charismatics, among its membership. But the hand has some strings attached to it. Following a seven-hour debate, longest of all discussions by Synodical delegates, and before the largest gallery of the two week convention, delegates this week embraced the Neo-Pentecostals in the denomination and officially recognized their ‘spectacular’ gifts.” Grand Rapids Press, Saturday, June 23, 1973.
Perhaps there was some warmth in the decisions on this matter, but I am not sure that it was for the Neo-Pentecostals. The first recommendation that Synod adopted, almost without discussion, was the following:
1. “That Synod address the following to the churches as a preamble to the counsel to the churches and to the Neo-Pentecostals among us:
“In the face of the phenomenon known variously as the charismatic or Neo-Pentecostal movement, Synod declines to assume a detached and non-committal attitude. The Christian Reformed Church cannot ignore the challenge that has come to her from those who identify themselves with this movement. For these persons commonly lay at her doorstep the charge that the church as they know it has failed them. They generally accuse that church of having neglected to preach to them and transmit to them the “baptism with the Holy Spirit”—the overpowering experience of the presence of God as a blessing distinct from, and in addition to, the experience of conversion. They now tend to look not to the church and its corporate life but to a Neo-Pentecostal fellowship for the vitality, the assurance, and the experience they crave. And in their desire to revitalize the church to which they belong, they now devote themselves to the spread of this movement’s ‘superior spirituality.’ Neo- Pentecostalism confronts the church, therefore, with a fundamental challenge.
“It is Synod’s conviction, on the one hand, that the church must examine herself. She must do so particularly with regard to the painful lack of religious assurance exhibited by many of her members, the limited display of joy and power in the service of Jesus Christ, and the widespread lack of appreciation for a full-fledged covenantal life in Christ as the Bible speaks of it. She must re-emphasize, in terms of today’s needs, that the Gospel with its wealth of teaching is intended to produce a salvation that is experienced. For that she will need to accent clearly that in both the proclamation and the reception of salvation the work of the Holy Spirit is indispensable.
“Synod is convinced on the other hand that the church must firmly reject such attitudes, practices and teachings of Neo-Pentecostalism as the following:
a. the teaching that baptism with the Holy Spirit is a second blessing distinct from, and usually received after, conversion;
b. a yearning for and seeking after the extraordinary, spectacular gifts of the Spirit, viewing these as primary evidence of Spirit-baptism;
c. a low regard for the church for not possessing those gifts which the Neo-Pentecostals especially treasure;
d. an atomistic and private way of interpreting Scripture that ignores the literary, historical nature of the Bible as well as its redemption-history focus;
e. a practical separation of the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of individuals from the saving work of Christ in the world;
f. a reduction of the scope of the Gospel to the salvation and empowerment of the individual, and the neglect of the outward-looking Kingdom perspective.
“Insofar as the Neo-Pentecostal movement displays these attitudes, practices, and beliefs and they are shown in varying degrees by most of its adherents—it reveals itself as a movement which runs counter to the Scriptures and the Reformed faith.
“In view of this twofold challenge with which Neo-Pentecostalism confronts the church, and in view of the questions to which the charismatic movement has given rise in the churches, Synod makes the following declarations as counsel to the churches and to the Neo-Pentecostals among us.
The second recommendation involves a series of points with counsel to the churches. Some of these points are as follows:
a. “Synod affirms and testifies that according to the Scriptures a believer receives the baptism in or with the Holy Spirit at the time of his regeneration-conversion, as the apostle Paul declares . . . (various Scriptural references are given). Synod rejects, therefore, the teaching that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is a second blessing, distinct from and usually received after conversion, and declares that this doctrine is not to be taught or propagated in the Christian Reformed Church.
d. Synod calls the churches to recognize that Christ sovereignly distributes His gifts to the body of believers when and where He wills, and that He empowers the members of the church in every age with what gifts He judges necessary for the building up of His body.
e. Synod urges the churches to provide within their communal fellowship for the free exercise of all genuine gifts of the Spirit, so long as all things are done ‘unto edifying’ and in ‘good order.’ ‘God is not a God of confusion but of peace’ (I Cor. 14:33). The churches should also provide full opportunity for kingdom service in ministries appropriate to the gifts received by the members of the congregations.”
A more gentle position with respect to office bearers who claim “charismatic” experiences was rejected by Synod, and the following position was adopted:
Concerning Nco-Pentecostalism and office bearers Synod:
a. declares that any office bearer who holds the teaching that baptism in or with the Holy Spirit is a “second blessing” distinct from and usually received after conversion, should be dealt with according to the stipulations of Art. 88ff. of the Church Order.
Ground:
This doctrine is contrary to the Scriptures and the Reformed Confessions.
b. urgently requests office bearers who, though disavowing the Neo-Pentecostal view of Spirit-baptism, tend to other features of Neo-Pentecostalism, to review their attitudes, practices, and beliefs in order to bring them into harmony with Synod’s decisions and counsels on Neo-Pentecostalism; and instructs the churches to uphold the biblical qualifications for office as well as the stipulations of the Form of Subscription.
c. appointed committee to examine further the practical implications of Synod’s decisions on Neo-Pentecostalism for office bearers, especially for ministers, who claim certain “charismatic” experiences, taking due account of the welfare of the congregations, the office bearers, and the denomination at large, and to serve the Synod of 1974 with specific advice.
Grounds:
1.There are office bearers in the CRC who claim certain extraordinary experiences while disavowing the error of Neo-Pentecostalism.
2. While the measure of involvement in Neo-Pentecostalism among some office bearers varies, Synod’s decisions call for a consistent application in the denomination.
A long series of points dealing with counsel to the churches in admonishing the Neo-Pentecostals in the church was also adopted.
With respect to the problem of church membership and rebaptism, a problem that continues to surface in various places, Synod adopted the following:
1. The churches are urged to preach and to teach faithfully and explicitly the biblical doctrine of infant baptism as this is rooted in the covenant and the unity of the Testaments, and thus to avoid and correct tendencies toward an individualistic understanding of the workings of God’s grace.
2. Members who are attracted to the view of “believer’s baptism” are urged to seek the counsel of the office bearers of the church concerning the biblical teaching on infant baptism. 3. Whenever a consistory is reliably informed that a member has been rebaptized, the consistory shall officially ask such a member whether he still considers himself a member of the Christian Reformed Church and is willing to submit to the teaching and discipline of the Christian Reformed Church.
a. If the reply is in the affirmative, the consistory must faithfully and persistently admonish such an erring member.
b. The consistory should bar such a member from the Lord’s table only if it is necessary for the unity and well-being of the congregation.
c. If such a member actively disturbs the unity and peace of the congregation, the regular steps of discipline should be followed.
4. Since neither the Bible nor the Confessions nor Church Order allow consistories simply to terminate membership in the church when such action is not requested by the member, such members as mentioned above can be excluded from the church only if they are worthy of excommunication, which is the act of public declaration by the church that such a person has no part in Christ or in His church.
5. Under no circumstances should members erring in this respect be allowed to hold office in the church.
Here, again, one would desire that a stronger statement could be made, but, as was suggested by the Rev. J. B. Vos, Reporter for the advisory committee, this is the first official synodical action that is taken with respect to Neo-Pentecostalism. Some things are stated very emphatically, others less so, but a beginning was made and hopefully the problem in succeeding years will be faced again, and from the beginning will come eventually the full expression of the mind of the church on the matter.
Women in Ecclesiastical Office – The advisory committee of Synod in this particular matter, in its first report to Synod, recommended simply that the entire report of the study committee be referred to the churches for study, and that the study committee be retained to receive and evaluate these reactions. Synod was not satisfied with this and sent the committee back to do some more work in order to give Synod some direction in the matter.
When the advisory committee returned with its second report, while reviewing the material produced by the study committee, it asked searching questions and made observations which suggested serious weaknesses in the report as follows:
“While taking grateful note of the valuable materials gleaned from the O.T., your committee wishes to make the following observations. The first one concerns the mandate given to the committee. The mandate ‘to examine the Reformed practice of excluding women from the various ordained offices in the church’ seems to carry with it the hidden assumption that women have been an object of discrimination in the church for as long as this Reformed practice has prevailed. But does not this approach to the problem shift the burden of proof and does it not prematurely place accepted practice under the suspicion of being discriminatory? Should not the study committee have examined its mandate critically? Would it not have been better if the committee had suggested to study the place and role of women in the Christian church?
“At the same time the advisory committee is again compelled to raise some critical questions which it believes should be given further attention. Has the report done sufficient justice to Paul’s clear-cut reference to what ‘the law says’ (I Cor. 14:33–36)? Is this not a reference to an injunction not subject to cultural environment, as is also the opinion of Grosheide in commenting on this passage? And when Paul in I Timothy 2:12, 13, exhorts women not to teach or to have authority over men, basing his exhortation on the fact that Adam was first created and then Eve, as well as on the fact that in the temptation Adam was not deceived but the woman, is it then legitimate to explain such an appeal to Genesis as an instance of rabbinistic exegesis? Paul received his revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11, 12). To what extent does this fact allow or disallow for time-related arguments in the apostle’s exhortation at this point? Has the Reformed and biblical view of inspiration been duly observed in the explanation of this passage? In I Corinthians 11:5 Paul allows women to prophesy, but in I Corinthians 14:33 he forbids women to speak. Also this apparent contradiction deserves further clarification.
“Attention should be called further to the fact that when the N.T. mentions the qualifications for eldership it seems to think of men only, for it specifics that they should be the husband of one wife. Again the question arises whether such injunctions must be merely seen against Paul’s background. But since Paul elsewhere fully recognizes woman’s place within the life of the church and of its manifold functions, is it not less than likely that the apostle should be so influenced? Still another problem in the report concerns the explanation of ‘headship.’ Does the report do justice to this concept? In marriage, for example, is the democratic model the biblical norm (pp. 435f.)? Does headship exclude any degree of leading or ruling? We wonder whether masculinity and femininity have been adequately explained. Are these not unique qualities? (cf. Gen. 1:27, I Peter 3:1–6).”
Finally, the following recommendations were adopted by Synod: 1) That Synod refer the entire report to the churches for study and reactions. (Various grounds are adduced for this recommendation.) 2) That a new study committee be appointed with the following mandate:
a. To study the report of the study committee, and the report of the advisory committee.
b. To receive and evaluate reactions of the churches to the study report, and structure the discussion as it deems best, with a view to presenting a report to Synod 1975. Reactions should be forwarded to this committee no later than July, 1974.
c. To study the place and role of women in the Christian church in view of the materials presented.
Synod decided not to make a separate printing of this material. But for those that are concerned there is plenty of homework to do, and to let opinions and voices be heard.
<
A New Form of Subscription – The overture by Dr. Harry Boer (Overture 18, pp. 595–597, Agenda) pleaded for a new form of subscription. Classis Chicago South, to which the Overture came, did not share Dr. Boer’s opinion that a whole new form is needed, but it did recognize a deficiency in the present form. This deficiency is, according to Chicago South’s Overture, that the form limits the process of creedal revision exclusively to the ecclesiastical assemblies. Classis Chicago South asked to correct this limitation by introducing an additional sentence, spelling out the right and responsibility of the whole body of believers to reflect upon proposed changes in our doctrinal standards.
The advisory committee advised Synod that it considered various approaches, but finally decided to go the way suggested by Classis Chicago South: incorporate a sentence into the Form of Subscription, explaining the validity of recognizing the whole body of believers in a gravamen procedure. The committee recommended that the following sentence be incorporated into the Form of Subscription: “After revealing such sentiments to the Consistory, Classis or Synod for examination, we shall have the freedom to discuss and defend these sentiments publicly, except in our preaching or official teaching, always with a spirit of meekness and love, and we understand that the church as the body of believers may openly reflect upon them until the matter has been conclusively adjudicated by Consistory, Classis or Synod.”
Two grounds were given:
a. This addition, in accordance with the biblical and Reformed teaching of the nature of the church, more clearly recognizes the right and responsibility of the whole body of believers. to whom the Holy Spirit is given, to reflect upon and prayerfully seek the will of the Spirit concerning any proposed changes or amendments of our doctrinal standards.
b. This addition does not infringe upon the exclusive right which the assemblies of the church have in adjudicating any proposed creedal change.
This is to be incorporated in the Form of Subscription after the word “examined” (in the 19th line) and before “being ready.” It was also recommended that Synod delay the final ratification of these changes in the Form of Subscription until Synod of 1974.
This recommendation was adopted by Synod without any discussion. After the vote was taken, one delegate endeavored to raise a question, but was ruled out of order because it had already been decided. Dr. John Kromminga spoke in favor of the year’s delay in ratification, pointing out that the Form of Subscription has been used for hundreds of years and we had now proceeded to change it in about fifteen seconds. Perhaps the only explanation for this lack of discussion is that the matter did not come up until Friday afternoon, the delegates were weary and eager to get started home, and many large issues had been discussed and voted on at this Synod. But regardless of what factors were involved, in as significant a change as this is, it should be considered carefully.
Guests at Lord’s Supper – Synod considered an appeal by Mr. Roy Van Kooten with respect to the practice of the Calvary Christian Reformed Church (Pella, Iowa) in admitting guests to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Calvary Church had been sustained in its procedure by Classis Pena. Mr. Van Kooten appealed to Synod. By a close vote this appeal was upheld. However, it became evident in the process of the discussion of this matter that many churches were following the same practice as that of Calvary Church, and that closed communion is no longer generally accepted. Synod also decided to appoint a committee “to study the problems faced by consistories with respect to the supervision of admission of visitors to the Lord’s Supper in the light of Scriptures and the Reformed Creeds.”
Declaration on War – The following recommendation was adopted:
“That Synod appoint a study committee whose mandate shall be to provide the church’s membership with guidelines for making ethical decisions about war. The committee shall, among other matters: (a) take account of previous synodical decisions, especially The Report on the Problem of War (Acts of Synod 1964, pp. 312–316), and the actions of other denominations of Reformed persuasion, (b) provide pastoral counsel for those who are conscientiously opposed to all war, (c) study the responsibilities of the councils, classes, and synod of the church in helping its members to determine whether a specific war is just or unjust.”
Amnesty – One of the most emotional decisions made by Synod was the one made on amnesty in response to a request from Classis Lake Erie. The following was decided:
1. To urge pastors, consistories, and the church membership to fulfill their duty to extend Christian love and concern to all who have been directly or indirectly punished for resisting the Vietnam Conflict because of conscience which has been informed by Scripture.
2. To extend Christian love and concern by again sending our 1939 and 1969 decisions regarding the Christian attitude toward war and peace to the President and each member of Congress with the following statement: In 1969, we sent to you our TESTIMONY REGARDING THE CHRISTIAN’S ATTITUDE TOWARD WAR AND PEACE, a document adopted by our denomination in 1939 and reaffirmed in 1969. With that document we also sent to you decisions that were made by our denomination in 1969. Those documents still represent the position of our denomination.
Based on this position and in respect for individual conscience, in the interest of national reconciliation and in the name of Christian love and justice, we urge the President of the United States and Congress to grant, at the earliest opportunity, amnesty for those who by reason of their Christian conscientious objection to the Vietnam Conflict are in exile, at large, incarcerated,or deprived of the full rights of citizenship. The request for amnesty for such men does not make a judgment on the justness or unjustness of the war; it does support the man who in good conscience could not bear arms in the Vietnam Conflict. This request does not dishonor, but respects the consciences of those who fought and died.
I am sorry that Synod felt that it had to make this decision. The Reformed Church in America refused to adopt such a position. It goes contrary to the announced position of the present administration in Washington, it is impossible of realization, and antagonizes many who have suffered in the war, or because of it.
Budget – The Finance Committee of the Synodical Interim Committee, and the advisory committee of Synod, made a determined effort to keep the quotas down. From a 1973 quota of $158.35, a 2.6% increase was made, raising the quota for 1974 to $162.60.
Comment – I was asked to give a factual review of the actions of Synod. This I have endeavored to do. It is difficult, however, to keep one’s attitudes and feelings from showing in matters that are as important and consequential as the decisions of Synod, and particularly the Synod of 1973. We pray that God will use the decisions to His glory and the building of His church, even though we cannot see, at this point, how some of them can serve to that end. But God overrules, and His church shall be victorious in the day of His coming.
“The 1973 Synod might well prove to be Vatican II of the Christian Reformed Church with our decisions on Office and Ordination, Homosexuality, and Neo-Pentecostalism,” Thus the Rev. John Vriend, Vice President of the 1973 Synod, concluded his final remarks at the close of the Synod. And prophetic it might well prove to be with respect to the Christian Reformed Church.
Some synods are predictable, some follow a certain pattern in their decisions, some may indicate a majority of one kind of delegate or another, but it was most difficult to predict the decisions of the 1973 Synod. It seemed to go in its own way, unique in its unpredictability.
Officers chosen -Following the opening devotions, led by the Rev. Jerome Julien, of the Faith Christian Reformed Church, who had also conducted the prayer service on Monday evening, June 11, 1973, in the auditorium of the Fine Arts Center, the delegates elected Dr. Leonard Greenway, pastor of the Riverside Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, and a board member of the Reformed Fellowship, president of the 1973 Synod. Rev. John Vriend, of the First Edmonton Christian Reformed Church, vice-president; Rev. John A. De Kruyter, of the Seymour Church, Grand Rapids, 6rst clerk; and the Rev. Howard Spaan, of the Oak Hills Church, Portland, Oregon, second clerk. The Synod functioned well under the direction of these men, with the Rev. William P. Brink, Stated Clerk, and we were able to finish our work on the second Friday afternoon.
Candidates for the ministry – One of the first duties of every synod is to declare the graduates of the Seminary candidates for the ministry in the Christian Reformed Church. Increasingly this has become more and more impersonal. This year an effort was made with the preparation of a brief biographical summary, including a picture, of each man seeking candidacy to make this more meaningful. The material, however, was made available so late that the delegates hardly had time to look at it before required to vote.
Forty-five men were declared candidates for the ministry by the Synod of 1973. Later in the week, Synod decided, in response to several Overtures (4, 9, 17, 26) to appoint “a study committee to study Overtures 4, 9, 17, and 26, together with such related problems as the relation between examinations for candidacy and for ordination, and the question of declaring candidacy at various times during the year, and to recommend to Synod a comprehensive plan for examinations leading to admission to the ministry.” Several grounds were given for this recommendation, and the recommendation, with its grounds, was adopted by Synod. Perhaps this will lead to some improvement of the procedure by which men become candidates for the ministry in the Christian Reformed Church.
During the first week, Synod met when material was available, and several significant decisions were made.
Rev. William Haverkamp was reappointed editor of De Wachter for a three-year term. Later Synod also voted to continue the 25¢ subsidy to cover the cost of producing the magazine.
Report 44 – Synod rejected the material and Overtures that had been received with respect to Report 44. In dealing with the Overture of Second Toronto, which requested Synod to rescind the decision made in 1972 with respect to Biblical Authority, Synod desired to be extremely pastoral, although it did not accede to the request. The following significant statement was adopted in this connection, in an effort to meet the objections of the Second Toronto consistory: “Report 44 contains guidelines for a better understanding of the Scripture and should not be interpreted as a binding creedal statement.” Evidently Synod desired to say that, although synodical decisions are binding, according to Article 29 of the Church Order, no additional significance should be placed upon Report 44 than that it is a synodical decision. There was no discussion of the substance of Report 44 in the presentation of these matters.
Unified Church School Curriculum – Classis Zeeland requested (Overture 2) Synod to “diverge from the 1970 decision of Synod which made the Unified Church School Curriculum the pattern for religious instruction for all the churches within the denomination, and re-establish or recognize again catechetical instruction as we have known it in the Reformed heritage as an accepted mode for religious instruction.” The Overture also asked for the development and publication of Catechism materials. A long and emotional discussion ensued upon the recommendation of the advisory committee: “That Synod do not accede to the Overture of Classis Zeeland,” and the matter was recommitted to the committee.
Later, the following recommendation was adopted by Synod: “That Synod declare the adoption of the Unified Church School Curriculum in 1970 did not imply that we no longer ‘recognize the catechism class as we have known it in the Reformed heritage.’” Two grounds were given for this recommendation, and they are most important for those who desire to continue with a “two-track” system:
a. This is agreeable to the Department of Education, for they say in their report to Synod, “However no congregation is forced to a one-track system. A congregation may choose to use as many tracks as it desires, and all catechism books produced by the Education Committee in the past remain on the market . . .” (Agenda 1973, page 131.)
b. Article 64 of the Church Order stipulates that there shall be catechetical instruction.
An additional recommendation and two amendments that had been offered earlier, with the intent that the Education Department continue to develop and produce catechetical materials, were not adopted. The Education Department insists that the materials available are suitable for specific catechism instruction.
Form for Baptism – An updated form for baptism was approved for provisional use for three years, although it was made plain that it was not exclusively an “updating,” but also interpretation and reconstruction of the form.
It seems that the Liturgical Committee, which has now by synodical action become a “standing committee,” has no qualms about giving to the church for “provisional use” a form, or forms, that still lack a finished state. I seriously question whether this does not produce a certain loose attitude toward the use of the forms and give rise to the desire of many “to make their own.”
Inter-Church Relations – It was determined that our “sister-church” relationship to the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands would not be altered while a study of the meaning of the concept of “sisterchurch” is made by the Inter-Church Relations Committee.
In connection with the relationship to the Reformed Church in America, it was pointed out that the Synod of 1966 had decided to seek “closer relationships with the Reformed Church,” and that what had been done with respect to, and in cooperation with, the Reformed Church was an implementation of that decision.
Dr. John Kromminga called the Reformed Church, “our own flesh and blood.” Later, as the fraternal delegate of the Reformed Church, Dr. Herman Ridder conveyed a request from the Synod of the Reformed Church for the appointment of a joint commission of ten members (five from each denomination) to study the theology of evangelism, to which the Synod gave approval. Cooperation was also elicited on an overseas mission project, a joint planning commission, and youth work.
Oakhill Fellowship – An item of local interest was the appeal of the Faith and Oakdale Park Churches from the decision of Classis Grand Rapids East allowing the organization of the Oakhill Fellowship, a group of families from various churches in the Grand Rapids area that desired to organize as a congregation so that they might carry out their concepts of what worship must be, including the celebration of the Lord’s Supper every week The appeal, however, was not sustained by Synod. This opens the door to any group of people, united by a certain idea, or ideal, to organize as a separate congregation in the Christian Reformed Church.
There were several large issues at Synod and we will note them under separate headings.
Homosexuality – One of the “big” issues was the report on homosexuality (Agenda Report 42). This report resulted from a request from the Council of the Christian Reformed Churches in Canada to the Synod of 1970 “to study the problem of homosexuality and to delineate the church’s position on this matter.”
The question was raised whether the report could be considered to be legally before Synod inasmuch as it had not arisen from a concrete case, but was the work of a study committee, although the study committee had been appointed by Synod. This was brushed aside, and Synod proceeded to consider the report and its recommendations. Under “Observations” the advisory committee included the definitions of the study committee that are found on pages 477–479 of the Agenda. These were also included in the “Introduction” to the statements of pastoral advice as follows:
“Introduction: For the proper reading and understanding of these statements of pastoral advice, it is imperative to observe and understand the following definitions:
a. ‘A homosexual’ is a person who has erotic attractions for members of the same sex. Such a person mayor may not actually engage in homosexualism. ‘It must be pointed out that there are people who have strong erotic attractions for members of the same sex who nevertheless never engage in homosexual acts for various reasons, such as, for example, their religious convictions. They are homosexuals, that is, they are constitutionally (by either biological or psychological conditions or both) predisposed to homosexuality, but do not engage in homosexualism.’
b. ‘Homosexuality’ is a condition of personal identity in which the person is sexually oriented toward persons of the same sex.
c. ‘Homosexualism’ is explicit (overt) homosexual practice.”
Perhaps the key to the entire report is in the first point of pastoral advice which reads: “Homosexuality (male and female) is a condition of disordered sexuality which reflects the brokenness of our sinful world and for which the homosexual may himself bear only a minimal responsibility.” If this position is accepted, which Synod did accept, the rest follows rather naturally.
However, it must also be emphasized that Synod did not adopt a position that condones, or looks with favor, on homosexual practice. “Homosexualism—as explicit homosexual practice—must be condemned as incompatible with obedience to the will of God as revealed in Holy Scripture.”
The “Study Report Re Homosexuality” (part I, pp. 475–497) was submitted to the churches as providing “a background study” (not: “guidelines”) for our understanding of the problem of homosexuality and the formulation of a Christian position.
This decision of Synod was headlined in The Grand Rapids Press in such a way as to suggest that Synod had opened the door (of the church) to homosexuals, i.e., practicing homosexuals. No decision has occasioned as much reaction and dismay, based partially on the local reporting of the matter, as did this decision. From youngsters to mission subjects there was discussion and dismay. We still question whether it was necessary for Synod to make a decision on this matter without a concrete case, and we still question the basic presuppositions in the report. It seemed interesting to observe that even at Synod there was not extensive discussion on the floor about this matter.
Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination – The entire matter of office and ordination is to be understood in the light or framework of the following observations:
1. Although in the New Testament the organization of the church is not as clear as has sometimes been assumed, nevertheless there is insistence that the church shall have organizational structure, and that this organizational structure shall include designated leaders to whom respect and submission are due.
2. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a conflict between authority and service, or between ruling and love. Christian authority involves service in the name of the authoritative Christ, and Christian service involves authority in the name of the serving Christ. Both before and after His ascension as our victorious Lord, Jesus is the authoritative Son of God who serves the Father and those whom the Father has given Him.
3. Christ only is Lord of the church, and no one may presume to rule in His place. Service and authority exercised in the church are in His Name and according to His Word.
4. Because God is a God of order, and because the people of God are subject to many weaknesses and errors and in need of spiritual leadership in the face of a hostile world, Christ grants, by His Holy Spirit, gifts of ruling service and serving authority (service and authority) to particular people whom the church must recognize, in order that their gifts may be officially exercised for the benefit of all.
5. The office bearers, i.e., certain people appointed to particular tasks, are not appointed without the call and approbation of the church. When so appointed, however, they are recognized by the church to be representatives of Christ in the special functions for which they have been appointed. As such they serve both Christ and the church, and are worthy of honor, especially if they serve and rule well.
6. These guidelines are intended to offer helpful direction to the churches as they continue to seek practical solutions to the questions pertaining to the status and functions of “layworkers in evangelism” and related questions. These guidelines do not re-define the basic types of service currently assigned to deacons, elders and ministers; nor do the guidelines now authorize anyone other than ministers to administer the sacraments along with the preaching of the Word. In keeping with our church polity, such changes may be introduced only by way of revision of the Church Order as decided by Synod.
A great deal of time was spent discussing this matter. It appeared to us that the delegates were not at all sure about the ideas suggested in this report, although it was so closely reasoned that it seemed difficult to separate the various propositions. Synod, however, adopted a series of twelve points as “guidelines toward the solution of practical problems in the area of office and ordination.” These are divided into “Comprehensive Ministry: ‘Office of all believers,’” “Particular Ministries,” “The Word and The Sacraments,” and “Appointment to Particular Ministries.” These guidelines will, undoubtedly, have far-reaching effects on the idea and function of the ministry in the Christian Reformed Church, although it was continually argued that these guidelines are based on Scriptural study.
The position adopted, with respect to particular ministries in the church, is that: “The particular ministries are to be distinguished in function, not in essence, from the comprehensive ministry shared by all believers, and distinctions among the particular ministries themselves also are functional. Since all members are commissioned to serve, there is only a difference in the kinds of service of deacons, elders, ministers, and all other members.” It was also decided that: “There is no valid biblical or doctrinal reason why a person whom the church has appointed to bring the Word may not also be appointed to administer the sacraments,” although it is emphasized that no practices that are presently prohibited by the Church Order are to be instituted.
It was also decided: That Synod appoint a new committee to study the implications of the “GUIDELINES FOR UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE AND ORDINATION,” especially as they relate to “lay-workers in evangelism,” and to report to the Synod of 1974.
Grounds:
a. The study report and guidelines raise questions which require further study by Synod.
b. This study report was initiated specifically with a view to resolving questions relating to “layworkers in evangelism.”
Marriage Guidelines – “The Synod. of 1971 appointed a committee on Marriage Guidelines with the following mandate: ‘to evaluate the material of Classis Toronto and to compare it with the 1956 decisions of Synod on divorce and remarriage with a view towards establishing guidelines for pastors and consistories in their care of: (a) couples contemplating marriage, (b) couples involved in marital difficulties, (c) divorced persons, and (d) those who have been divorced and contemplate remarriage; and to report their findings with recommendations to Synod.’” The advisory committee also observed: “But there are some aspects of the report which cause questions and difficulties;” although they felt that: “Much of what has been written is valuable advice and should prove helpful to pastors and consistories in dealing with problems relating to marriage and divorce.”
The advisory committee therefore recommended that Synod not adopt the (study) committee’s recommendation “that Synod accept Part II as in accord with biblical teaching and marriage and offer it to the churches as a guideline in their pastoral task.” This recommendation was at first adopted by Synod; then it was voted to reconsider the matter. Synod seemed uncertain as to what it should do. There was much intense feeling expressed as this matter was being discussed. Finally, it was determined that the officers of Synod should advise on the direction that Synod should take and the following decisions were then made on this matter:
1. To instruct the Appointments Committee to appoint a new study committee whose man date shall be to provide Marriage Guidelines in the light of:
a. previous Synodical decisions;
b. the Study Committee Report (1973);
c. the reactions of the Synodical Advisory Committee (Church Order III, Report 4-B);
d. the original Overture (Overture 18, 1971).
2. To instruct the new study committee to report to the Synod of 1974, if at all possible.
Second Sunday Service – In its report included in the Agenda, the Liturgical Committee stated: “For some years your committee on liturgy has been under pressure to submit a study on the second Sunday service. Churches, particularly city churches, keep on asking questions about the place and possibilities of this service in the whole of the Christian life . . . With regard to the second service it is ·perhaps more honest to say that a study is presented both from the sense of its continuing great importance as well as from an awareness of the problems associated with it. Our report falls naturally into two sections. The first takes a look at the reasons for having a second service, and the second suggests ways in which with God’s help, it can be revitalized.”
The committee suggested that the answer to the question, Why a Second Service?, can be found from a theological approach, a historical approach, and a pastoral approach. After supplying a sample second Sunday service, the committee further suggested the possibility of diversity in the second service with the use of various kinds of services: the instructional service, the ecumenical service, the diaconal service, the special category service, or the evangelistic service.
The advisory committee spoke very carefully: “We recognize the fact that the second Sunday service need not be a simple duplication of the morning worship. We believe that the Church Order does not exclude variation in the second service under the supervision of the consistory. Yet we believe there are parts of this report that allow for types of services which may be in violation of the Church Order. In this light we make the following recommendations:
1. “That Synod refer this report to the churches for their consideration and reflection.
Grounds:
a. The first section of the report is of an informative and illustrative nature, and calls for further reflection.
b. The second section contains suggestions for certain types of services which Synod ought not to adopt with an official endorsement, since in this way the possibility may be opened for types of services which would be in violation of the Church Order (e.g., the ecumenical service), or the intent of one of the questions asked at Church Visitation. (‘When guest ministers or unordained men are invited to preach, does the consistory employ only persons who are of Reformed persuasion and who are properly licensed?’ Question 2b, p. 102 in Christian Reformed Church Government, by H. Spaan.)
2. That Synod remind the churches that whatever practices are followed with respect to the second service, the consistories exercise care to observe Articles 51–55 of the Church Order, particularly Article 54a, which states:‘In the worship services the minister of the Word shall officially explain and apply Holy Scripture.’”
We might wish that Synod would be able, rather than to refer these difficult problems to the churches, to vote some of these down. But we appreciate the reminder of the requirements of the Church Order with respect to the second Sunday service. Perhaps this is the only real solution to the problem.
Neo–Pentecostalism – “Synod Warm to ‘Charismata,’” was the headline in The Grand Rapids Press on the article which reported the action of Synod on Neo-Pentecostalism. “The Synod of the Christian Reformed Church has extended a warm hand to the Neo-Pentecostals, or charismatics, among its membership. But the hand has some strings attached to it. Following a seven-hour debate, longest of all discussions by Synodical delegates, and before the largest gallery of the two week convention, delegates this week embraced the Neo-Pentecostals in the denomination and officially recognized their ‘spectacular’ gifts.” Grand Rapids Press, Saturday, June 23, 1973.
Perhaps there was some warmth in the decisions on this matter, but I am not sure that it was for the Neo-Pentecostals. The first recommendation that Synod adopted, almost without discussion, was the following:
1. “That Synod address the following to the churches as a preamble to the counsel to the churches and to the Neo-Pentecostals among us:
“In the face of the phenomenon known variously as the charismatic or Neo-Pentecostal movement, Synod declines to assume a detached and non-committal attitude. The Christian Reformed Church cannot ignore the challenge that has come to her from those who identify themselves with this movement. For these persons commonly lay at her doorstep the charge that the church as they know it has failed them. They generally accuse that church of having neglected to preach to them and transmit to them the “baptism with the Holy Spirit”—the overpowering experience of the presence of God as a blessing distinct from, and in addition to, the experience of conversion. They now tend to look not to the church and its corporate life but to a Neo-Pentecostal fellowship for the vitality, the assurance, and the experience they crave. And in their desire to revitalize the church to which they belong, they now devote themselves to the spread of this movement’s ‘superior spirituality.’ Neo- Pentecostalism confronts the church, therefore, with a fundamental challenge.
“It is Synod’s conviction, on the one hand, that the church must examine herself. She must do so particularly with regard to the painful lack of religious assurance exhibited by many of her members, the limited display of joy and power in the service of Jesus Christ, and the widespread lack of appreciation for a full-fledged covenantal life in Christ as the Bible speaks of it. She must re-emphasize, in terms of today’s needs, that the Gospel with its wealth of teaching is intended to produce a salvation that is experienced. For that she will need to accent clearly that in both the proclamation and the reception of salvation the work of the Holy Spirit is indispensable.
“Synod is convinced on the other hand that the church must firmly reject such attitudes, practices and teachings of Neo-Pentecostalism as the following:
a. the teaching that baptism with the Holy Spirit is a second blessing distinct from, and usually received after, conversion;
b. a yearning for and seeking after the extraordinary, spectacular gifts of the Spirit, viewing these as primary evidence of Spirit-baptism;
c. a low regard for the church for not possessing those gifts which the Neo-Pentecostals especially treasure;
d. an atomistic and private way of interpreting Scripture that ignores the literary, historical nature of the Bible as well as its redemption-history focus;
e. a practical separation of the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of individuals from the saving work of Christ in the world;
f. a reduction of the scope of the Gospel to the salvation and empowerment of the individual, and the neglect of the outward-looking Kingdom perspective.
“Insofar as the Neo-Pentecostal movement displays these attitudes, practices, and beliefs and they are shown in varying degrees by most of its adherents—it reveals itself as a movement which runs counter to the Scriptures and the Reformed faith.
“In view of this twofold challenge with which Neo-Pentecostalism confronts the church, and in view of the questions to which the charismatic movement has given rise in the churches, Synod makes the following declarations as counsel to the churches and to the Neo-Pentecostals among us.
The second recommendation involves a series of points with counsel to the churches. Some of these points are as follows:
a. “Synod affirms and testifies that according to the Scriptures a believer receives the baptism in or with the Holy Spirit at the time of his regeneration-conversion, as the apostle Paul declares . . . (various Scriptural references are given). Synod rejects, therefore, the teaching that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is a second blessing, distinct from and usually received after conversion, and declares that this doctrine is not to be taught or propagated in the Christian Reformed Church.
d. Synod calls the churches to recognize that Christ sovereignly distributes His gifts to the body of believers when and where He wills, and that He empowers the members of the church in every age with what gifts He judges necessary for the building up of His body.
e. Synod urges the churches to provide within their communal fellowship for the free exercise of all genuine gifts of the Spirit, so long as all things are done ‘unto edifying’ and in ‘good order.’ ‘God is not a God of confusion but of peace’ (I Cor. 14:33). The churches should also provide full opportunity for kingdom service in ministries appropriate to the gifts received by the members of the congregations.”
A more gentle position with respect to office bearers who claim “charismatic” experiences was rejected by Synod, and the following position was adopted:
Concerning Nco-Pentecostalism and office bearers Synod:
a. declares that any office bearer who holds the teaching that baptism in or with the Holy Spirit is a “second blessing” distinct from and usually received after conversion, should be dealt with according to the stipulations of Art. 88ff. of the Church Order.
Ground:
This doctrine is contrary to the Scriptures and the Reformed Confessions.
b. urgently requests office bearers who, though disavowing the Neo-Pentecostal view of Spirit-baptism, tend to other features of Neo-Pentecostalism, to review their attitudes, practices, and beliefs in order to bring them into harmony with Synod’s decisions and counsels on Neo-Pentecostalism; and instructs the churches to uphold the biblical qualifications for office as well as the stipulations of the Form of Subscription.
c. appointed committee to examine further the practical implications of Synod’s decisions on Neo-Pentecostalism for office bearers, especially for ministers, who claim certain “charismatic” experiences, taking due account of the welfare of the congregations, the office bearers, and the denomination at large, and to serve the Synod of 1974 with specific advice.
Grounds:
1.There are office bearers in the CRC who claim certain extraordinary experiences while disavowing the error of Neo-Pentecostalism.
2. While the measure of involvement in Neo-Pentecostalism among some office bearers varies, Synod’s decisions call for a consistent application in the denomination.
A long series of points dealing with counsel to the churches in admonishing the Neo-Pentecostals in the church was also adopted.
With respect to the problem of church membership and rebaptism, a problem that continues to surface in various places, Synod adopted the following:
1. The churches are urged to preach and to teach faithfully and explicitly the biblical doctrine of infant baptism as this is rooted in the covenant and the unity of the Testaments, and thus to avoid and correct tendencies toward an individualistic understanding of the workings of God’s grace.
2. Members who are attracted to the view of “believer’s baptism” are urged to seek the counsel of the office bearers of the church concerning the biblical teaching on infant baptism. 3. Whenever a consistory is reliably informed that a member has been rebaptized, the consistory shall officially ask such a member whether he still considers himself a member of the Christian Reformed Church and is willing to submit to the teaching and discipline of the Christian Reformed Church.
a. If the reply is in the affirmative, the consistory must faithfully and persistently admonish such an erring member.
b. The consistory should bar such a member from the Lord’s table only if it is necessary for the unity and well-being of the congregation.
c. If such a member actively disturbs the unity and peace of the congregation, the regular steps of discipline should be followed.
4. Since neither the Bible nor the Confessions nor Church Order allow consistories simply to terminate membership in the church when such action is not requested by the member, such members as mentioned above can be excluded from the church only if they are worthy of excommunication, which is the act of public declaration by the church that such a person has no part in Christ or in His church.
5. Under no circumstances should members erring in this respect be allowed to hold office in the church.
Here, again, one would desire that a stronger statement could be made, but, as was suggested by the Rev. J. B. Vos, Reporter for the advisory committee, this is the first official synodical action that is taken with respect to Neo-Pentecostalism. Some things are stated very emphatically, others less so, but a beginning was made and hopefully the problem in succeeding years will be faced again, and from the beginning will come eventually the full expression of the mind of the church on the matter.
Women in Ecclesiastical Office – The advisory committee of Synod in this particular matter, in its first report to Synod, recommended simply that the entire report of the study committee be referred to the churches for study, and that the study committee be retained to receive and evaluate these reactions. Synod was not satisfied with this and sent the committee back to do some more work in order to give Synod some direction in the matter.
When the advisory committee returned with its second report, while reviewing the material produced by the study committee, it asked searching questions and made observations which suggested serious weaknesses in the report as follows:
“While taking grateful note of the valuable materials gleaned from the O.T., your committee wishes to make the following observations. The first one concerns the mandate given to the committee. The mandate ‘to examine the Reformed practice of excluding women from the various ordained offices in the church’ seems to carry with it the hidden assumption that women have been an object of discrimination in the church for as long as this Reformed practice has prevailed. But does not this approach to the problem shift the burden of proof and does it not prematurely place accepted practice under the suspicion of being discriminatory? Should not the study committee have examined its mandate critically? Would it not have been better if the committee had suggested to study the place and role of women in the Christian church?
“At the same time the advisory committee is again compelled to raise some critical questions which it believes should be given further attention. Has the report done sufficient justice to Paul’s clear-cut reference to what ‘the law says’ (I Cor. 14:33–36)? Is this not a reference to an injunction not subject to cultural environment, as is also the opinion of Grosheide in commenting on this passage? And when Paul in I Timothy 2:12, 13, exhorts women not to teach or to have authority over men, basing his exhortation on the fact that Adam was first created and then Eve, as well as on the fact that in the temptation Adam was not deceived but the woman, is it then legitimate to explain such an appeal to Genesis as an instance of rabbinistic exegesis? Paul received his revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11, 12). To what extent does this fact allow or disallow for time-related arguments in the apostle’s exhortation at this point? Has the Reformed and biblical view of inspiration been duly observed in the explanation of this passage? In I Corinthians 11:5 Paul allows women to prophesy, but in I Corinthians 14:33 he forbids women to speak. Also this apparent contradiction deserves further clarification.
“Attention should be called further to the fact that when the N.T. mentions the qualifications for eldership it seems to think of men only, for it specifics that they should be the husband of one wife. Again the question arises whether such injunctions must be merely seen against Paul’s background. But since Paul elsewhere fully recognizes woman’s place within the life of the church and of its manifold functions, is it not less than likely that the apostle should be so influenced? Still another problem in the report concerns the explanation of ‘headship.’ Does the report do justice to this concept? In marriage, for example, is the democratic model the biblical norm (pp. 435f.)? Does headship exclude any degree of leading or ruling? We wonder whether masculinity and femininity have been adequately explained. Are these not unique qualities? (cf. Gen. 1:27, I Peter 3:1–6).”
Finally, the following recommendations were adopted by Synod: 1) That Synod refer the entire report to the churches for study and reactions. (Various grounds are adduced for this recommendation.) 2) That a new study committee be appointed with the following mandate:
a. To study the report of the study committee, and the report of the advisory committee.
b. To receive and evaluate reactions of the churches to the study report, and structure the discussion as it deems best, with a view to presenting a report to Synod 1975. Reactions should be forwarded to this committee no later than July, 1974.
c. To study the place and role of women in the Christian church in view of the materials presented.
Synod decided not to make a separate printing of this material. But for those that are concerned there is plenty of homework to do, and to let opinions and voices be heard.
<
A New Form of Subscription – The overture by Dr. Harry Boer (Overture 18, pp. 595–597, Agenda) pleaded for a new form of subscription. Classis Chicago South, to which the Overture came, did not share Dr. Boer’s opinion that a whole new form is needed, but it did recognize a deficiency in the present form. This deficiency is, according to Chicago South’s Overture, that the form limits the process of creedal revision exclusively to the ecclesiastical assemblies. Classis Chicago South asked to correct this limitation by introducing an additional sentence, spelling out the right and responsibility of the whole body of believers to reflect upon proposed changes in our doctrinal standards.
The advisory committee advised Synod that it considered various approaches, but finally decided to go the way suggested by Classis Chicago South: incorporate a sentence into the Form of Subscription, explaining the validity of recognizing the whole body of believers in a gravamen procedure. The committee recommended that the following sentence be incorporated into the Form of Subscription: “After revealing such sentiments to the Consistory, Classis or Synod for examination, we shall have the freedom to discuss and defend these sentiments publicly, except in our preaching or official teaching, always with a spirit of meekness and love, and we understand that the church as the body of believers may openly reflect upon them until the matter has been conclusively adjudicated by Consistory, Classis or Synod.”
Two grounds were given:
a. This addition, in accordance with the biblical and Reformed teaching of the nature of the church, more clearly recognizes the right and responsibility of the whole body of believers. to whom the Holy Spirit is given, to reflect upon and prayerfully seek the will of the Spirit concerning any proposed changes or amendments of our doctrinal standards.
b. This addition does not infringe upon the exclusive right which the assemblies of the church have in adjudicating any proposed creedal change.
This is to be incorporated in the Form of Subscription after the word “examined” (in the 19th line) and before “being ready.” It was also recommended that Synod delay the final ratification of these changes in the Form of Subscription until Synod of 1974.
This recommendation was adopted by Synod without any discussion. After the vote was taken, one delegate endeavored to raise a question, but was ruled out of order because it had already been decided. Dr. John Kromminga spoke in favor of the year’s delay in ratification, pointing out that the Form of Subscription has been used for hundreds of years and we had now proceeded to change it in about fifteen seconds. Perhaps the only explanation for this lack of discussion is that the matter did not come up until Friday afternoon, the delegates were weary and eager to get started home, and many large issues had been discussed and voted on at this Synod. But regardless of what factors were involved, in as significant a change as this is, it should be considered carefully.
Guests at Lord’s Supper – Synod considered an appeal by Mr. Roy Van Kooten with respect to the practice of the Calvary Christian Reformed Church (Pella, Iowa) in admitting guests to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Calvary Church had been sustained in its procedure by Classis Pena. Mr. Van Kooten appealed to Synod. By a close vote this appeal was upheld. However, it became evident in the process of the discussion of this matter that many churches were following the same practice as that of Calvary Church, and that closed communion is no longer generally accepted. Synod also decided to appoint a committee “to study the problems faced by consistories with respect to the supervision of admission of visitors to the Lord’s Supper in the light of Scriptures and the Reformed Creeds.”
Declaration on War – The following recommendation was adopted:
“That Synod appoint a study committee whose mandate shall be to provide the church’s membership with guidelines for making ethical decisions about war. The committee shall, among other matters: (a) take account of previous synodical decisions, especially The Report on the Problem of War (Acts of Synod 1964, pp. 312–316), and the actions of other denominations of Reformed persuasion, (b) provide pastoral counsel for those who are conscientiously opposed to all war, (c) study the responsibilities of the councils, classes, and synod of the church in helping its members to determine whether a specific war is just or unjust.”
Amnesty – One of the most emotional decisions made by Synod was the one made on amnesty in response to a request from Classis Lake Erie. The following was decided:
1. To urge pastors, consistories, and the church membership to fulfill their duty to extend Christian love and concern to all who have been directly or indirectly punished for resisting the Vietnam Conflict because of conscience which has been informed by Scripture.
2. To extend Christian love and concern by again sending our 1939 and 1969 decisions regarding the Christian attitude toward war and peace to the President and each member of Congress with the following statement: In 1969, we sent to you our TESTIMONY REGARDING THE CHRISTIAN’S ATTITUDE TOWARD WAR AND PEACE, a document adopted by our denomination in 1939 and reaffirmed in 1969. With that document we also sent to you decisions that were made by our denomination in 1969. Those documents still represent the position of our denomination.
Based on this position and in respect for individual conscience, in the interest of national reconciliation and in the name of Christian love and justice, we urge the President of the United States and Congress to grant, at the earliest opportunity, amnesty for those who by reason of their Christian conscientious objection to the Vietnam Conflict are in exile, at large, incarcerated,or deprived of the full rights of citizenship. The request for amnesty for such men does not make a judgment on the justness or unjustness of the war; it does support the man who in good conscience could not bear arms in the Vietnam Conflict. This request does not dishonor, but respects the consciences of those who fought and died.
I am sorry that Synod felt that it had to make this decision. The Reformed Church in America refused to adopt such a position. It goes contrary to the announced position of the present administration in Washington, it is impossible of realization, and antagonizes many who have suffered in the war, or because of it.
Budget – The Finance Committee of the Synodical Interim Committee, and the advisory committee of Synod, made a determined effort to keep the quotas down. From a 1973 quota of $158.35, a 2.6% increase was made, raising the quota for 1974 to $162.60.
Comment – I was asked to give a factual review of the actions of Synod. This I have endeavored to do. It is difficult, however, to keep one’s attitudes and feelings from showing in matters that are as important and consequential as the decisions of Synod, and particularly the Synod of 1973. We pray that God will use the decisions to His glory and the building of His church, even though we cannot see, at this point, how some of them can serve to that end. But God overrules, and His church shall be victorious in the day of His coming.