The Synod of 1980 is now history. Though the agenda for this year was not as “hefty” as in some previous years, there was a considerable amount of material with which the delegates were asked to deal. It makes you wonder, after it’s all over, if all matters were as carefully considered as they should be in a so relatively short period of time. The following is an attempt to give a brief review of the major decisions of the Synod of 1980.

The Brookside Christian Reformed Church was in charge of the Prayer Service held on June 9th. The Rev. Dale Vander Veen, pastor of Brookside Church, conducted the service, and charged the delegates to seek “wisdom” for the forthcoming days of deliberation. He also conducted the opening session of synod on Tuesday morning, during which time the following officers of synod were elected: President, Rev. Jacob Eppinga; Vice-President, Rev. Calvin Bolt· First Clerk, Rev. Martin Geleynse; and Second Clerk, Rev. Edward Knott. Synod t hen adjourned in favor of the meeting of its advisory committees.

Wednesday, June 11

While a good part of Wednesday was also spent in committee work, there were a few matters which came to the floor of synod for discussion and decision. The Committee on Educational Matters presented a rather lengthy list of those appointed and reappointed to staff positions at Calvin College. To this delegate, it seemed as if such important matter s were treated rather routinely, but neither do I have a suggested way of making such appointments more meaningful.

The Committee on Synodical Services also presented a report with several recommendations. One recommendation of interest was that pertaining to the appointment of study committees by synod. In 1979, the rule was adopted that all study committees shall be appointed by synod from a nomination made by the advisory committee which drafted the mandate, with the advice of the officers of synod. Since in that same synod, there was some confusion in implementing this decision, now this sentence was added: “The reporter of the advisory committee shall present the nominations on the floor of synod.” It is hoped that this will prevent the last minute “juggling” of study committee members.

Another recommendation adopted makes it possible for ministers to retire at the age of sixty–two, with the approval of the classis involved, at a reduced rate of pension adopted by the Synod of 1978.

A new statement of membership for use in transferring members within the denomination and to churches in ecclesiastical fellows hip was also adopted. This same form “may” be used when a member chooses to affiliate with a church not in ecclesiastical fellowship. There is little uniformity in practice among our churches in this matter of “transferring” members, particularly in regard to those who affiliate with churches not in ecclesiastical fellowship, and this decision will not do much to help this situation.

From this committee also came a recommendation to appoint a committee to plan an appropriate observance of the 125th anniversary of our denomination. As the President of synod commented, it doesn‘t seem that long ago that we celebrated our 100th anniversary.

During the Wednesday evening session, a considerable amount of time was spent debating the recommendation of the Board of Publications that the board be “authorized to create an advisory position on the Education Committee to be filled by a qualified person from the Reformed Church in America in 1980.” This “expanded ministry,” as mentioned in the supporting grounds, was compared by one delegate to a balloon which gets bigger and bigger while the substance gets thinner and thinner. Howbeit, the recommendation passed, and it was followed by the adoption of a recommendation “to create a similar advisory position . . . to be filled by a Presbyterian person of one of the NAPARC churches in 1981.” Do we really want our Board of Publications to produce good, usable material for use in our churches, or are we going into mass production for other denominations? It seems we have taken another step in the direction of joint publication of these materials to accommodate other denominations.

Thursday, June 12

The opening session on Thursday was declared executive session in order for synod to deal with a matter presented by the Judicial Code Committee. Though previously there were those who were skeptical of the implementation of such a Judicial Code, it appeared to this delegate as if the committee used and applied the code very effectively and with great diligence in this case.

Twenty-seven young men were declared candidates for the ministry, with eight others also so declared upon completion of certain academic requirements. This is always a real highlight of synod, as it was again this year, especially later on in the day when the candidates with their wives were called to the platform, and given a brief charge by Rev. Thomas Vanden Heuvel. Some time was spent debating the matter of one candidate who was committed to receiving a call to a church other than Christian Reformed—a church with which we are in ecclesiastical fellowship. The arguments favoring this procedure appeared to be rather weak, but the recommendation passed. Does candidacy mean one is available for call by one of our churches, or does it mean satisfactory completion of the course of study at Calvin Seminary?

Rev. John Van Ryn was reappointed for four years to the position of Executive Secretary of the Board of Home Missions. Rev. Dirk Hart was given a two-year appointment as Minister of Evangelism, replacing Rev. Wesley Smedes who retires from that position. Note was taken that the Board of Home Missions is now beginning its second hundred years of ministry on behalf of the Christian Reformed Church.

A rather significant decision was made when synod decided to adopt the concept of establishing a Classis of Indian Churches. Full details of the plan are still to be worked out in terms of modifying the Church Order to fit the unique character of this classis, such plan to be submitted to the Synod of 1981. Some delegates were not convinced that this is the best way to integrate our Indian brothers and sisters into the full life and fellowship of the denomination, but our prayer is that the plan presented for adoption next year will be for the well–being of the Indian churches and the entire denomination.

A couple of other appointments were made on Thursday afternoon: Dr. Harvey Smit to the position of Director of Education and Theological Editor for the Board of Publications for two years; and Rev. William Haverkamp as editor of De Wachter for three years, a position in which he has rendered valuable service for many years.

The entire evening session on Thursday was spent in discussion of the report on Marriage Guidelines. The report contains three major divisions, Part I – Biblical Teaching Regarding Marriage; Part II – Biblical Teaching Regarding Divorce and Remarriage; and Part III – Guidelines for the Ministry of the Church. The first recommendation before the house regarding this report was that “synod accept sections I and II of this report as being basically in accord with the biblical teachings on marriage, divorce and remarriage.” By request of one of the delegates, the question was divided, so that sections I and II could be voted on separately, but that did not change the outcome of the vote. Both recommendations carried. It was stated that the word “accept” is less binding than the word “adopt” and it was interpreted by one of the members of the study committee to mean “an acceptable framework within which to work out the guidelines.”

It is my understanding that no consistory is “bound” to the exegesis of the passages discussed in these first two sections, but that this is the framework from which the guidelines have been developed. It is my judgment that though there may be weaknesses in this report, it is better than the one presented in 1977 in that there is no suggestion that there be a broad interpretation of adultery or infidelity, on the basis of which a divorce may be called “biblical.”

Section III, containing the guidelines for pastors, consistories and churches re: matters of marriage, divorce and remarriage, was also adopted. In this instance, the word “adopt” was used rather than “accept,” which supposedly makes these guidelines more “binding” than the two previous sections of the report. Yet, they are still called “guidelines.” And it is obvious that not every answer to every question of every consistory for every case is to be found in these guidelines, nor could any report of any length ever give us that.

Friday, June 13

The Liturgical Committee presented synod with a collection of prayers which are now referred to the churches for study and provisional use for three years. There was considerable discussion on this matter, and it was stated from the floor by one delegate that some of these prayers are tinted with weak sentimentality. Those who pleaded the strongest for their adoption argued that these are not mandatory for any church to use. True enough. But when and if these prayers appear in the Psalter Hymnal or the proposed service book, the membership of the church views them as quite official. Consistories ought to take a careful look at ‘these prayers, and forward reactions to the Liturgical Committee.

A form for readmission into the church was also recommended for trial use for two years, and two variations of the new communion liturgy for use during Advent and Christmas were approved for trial use. It won’t be long and the “Formulary” section of our Psalter Hymnal will be longer than the section of Psalms and Hymns.

Just prior to our noon lunch break, and again during the course of the afternoon, synod was favored with the introduction of foreign missionaries who were home on leave, with a number of chaplains who serve in special ministries, and with the recently declared candidates for the ministry. This is a delightful time at synod, and we received words of information, inspiration and challenge from a few of their representatives who addressed us. For the work that God is doing through them, and will continue to do, we truly give thanks. And for their dedication and service, so often unrecognized, we express our gratitude.

Further decisions of Friday’s session included an expression of deep concern to be conveyed to the Gereformeerde Kerken of the Netherlands concerning their synod’s recent position about homosexUals. Our Interchurch Relations Committee was charged to seek to clarify the GKN’s position, and make recommendations to our syriod next year as to how this may affect our relationship with that church.

Also approval was given for the division of Classis Grand Rapids East, as per their request for division by means of an overture.

Saturday, June 14

Saturday morning a considerable amount of time was spent in seeking to clarify the decision of the Synod of 1979 to “instruct consistories to defer implementation of the 1978 decision” pertaining to women in the office of deacon. Some churches proceeded immediately to ordain women to the office of deacon after the decision of 1978, without waiting for the following Synod of 1979 to ratify the decision and make the necessary changes in the Church Order. Not only did the Synod of 1979 choose not to ratify the decision of 1978, but appointed another study committee, and then asked the churches “to defer implementation of the 1978 decision” (italics ours). The Synod of 1980, therefore, was confronted with two overtures, one appeal and two communications, all basically asking synod to interpret that decision.

After much discussion about what seemed to many of us as a rather clear matter, it was decided to interpret the decision of 1979 “to mean that those women already ordained as deacons prior to the decision of the Synod of 1979 be allowed to serve out their term, but that no further election of women for ordination as deacons be permissible in any of the churches, including those churches where such ordination has already taken place” (italics ours). So in summary, no church is to elect or ordain women as deacons until further decision by synod. I sincerely doubt that the decision of 1979 was that difficult to interpret, but . . . .

An overture from Classis Hudson asking synod to designate the Sunday prior to January 22nd (the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision re: abortion on demand) as Sanctity of Life Sunday to be observed annually by all our congregations, also requires a considerable amount of synod’s time. The advisory committee’s recommendation not to accede to this overture finally passed. Abortion is indeed a serious evil in our society, and we ought to be very concerned about opposing it with all our ability. But several years ago already, synod warned against the proliferation of “specially designated Lord’s Days” which focus on one specific cause or institution. Indeed, let the Christian’s voice be heard in pro-life groups, etc., but let not synod be declaring a special Sunday when all churches are required to focus on that issue.

Monday, June 16

The issue which provided the most significant debate Monday morning was that pertaining to movie reviews in The Banner. Two overtures were before synod to discontinue these reviews. Though the issue before t he house was whether or not these reviews should appear in The Banner at all, the debate focused largely on the kind of reviews that.have appeared, or perhaps more correctly stated, the distinctively Christian nature of these reviews. There was a strong voice expressed that the reviewers of these movies should remember that the people who are reading these reviews are thinking of them, not from the point of view of the educational value of the movie, but from the point of view of entertainment. Though the voice vote was by no means unanimous, the advisory committee’s recommendation not to accede to these overtures passed.

Classis Muskegon sent an overture pertaining to the delegation of deacons to major assemblies, suggesting a specific plan in which a division of labor could be effected in both classis and synod. You could sense a strong sentiment in favor of such a decision, but the advisory committee recommended that synod withhold action in view of the present study committee appointed by the Synod of 1979 to “study and define the office of deacon in the light of Scripture, the Confessions, its historical development, especially within the Reformed–Presbyterian tradition, and the ‘1973 Guidelines for Understanding the Nature of Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination’” (Acts of Synod 1979, p. 122). Several attempts to amend the motion were either defeated or ruled out of order, and finally the matter was recommitted to the advisory committee.

Synod also voted to designate the New International Version of the Bible (NIVJ as one of the versions acceptable for use in worship services. This recent translation, which also involved the efforts of several members of the Christian Reformed Church, has been warmly received by many Christians in recent years as a very understandable and readable version. Already last year, three classes overtured synod to adopt the NIV as one of the acceptable versions for use in our pulpits. But that synod withheld action in view of the fact that the Bible Translation Committee was preparing to report its review of the NIV. That led to the recommendation before us this year, and we trust that the long years of efforts put into the production of this Bible translation will be richly blessed by God and of great benefit to all God’s people.

The evening session on Monday was devoted to the hearing of fraternal delegates from eight different denominations. It is good to hear what is happening in various parts of the nation and the world from those who are in ecclesiastical fellowship with us. The ecumenical task is an important, howbeit, difficult one; we need to be much in prayer for guidance and direction as we continue to talk with and discuss our similarities and differences with those who profess to stand with us on the Word of God.

Tuesday, June 17

The entire morning session on Tuesday was devoted to a consideration of the Confessional–Revision Gravamen of Dr. Harry Boer relative to the subject of reprobation. The advisory committee requested that Dr. Boer be given an opportunity to address the synod, and that privilege was granted by voice vote. Dr. Boer indicated that his strong plea before us would be directed to urging us to put off a decision on this issue for at least one year to give the churches an opportunity to study the report of synod’s committee. He ardently declared that synod would be radically changing the basis for the teaching of reprobation by adopting the recommendations of the study committee, and would be, in fact, acting in a hierarchical way.

There was considerable discussion of this issue, as expected, and there were a few speeches pleading for a delay of decision as Dr. Boer had requested. But we were also reminded, and rightly so, that we were being asked to adjudicate a gravamen, not adopting a study report. As the hour approached noontime, the vote was taken on recommendation number one, and it was passed with less than a dozen negative votes. The recommendation basically stated that “synod do not accede to the request made in Dr. Harry Boer’s Confessional–Revision Gravamen.”

A second recommendation, that “synod refer report 30 to the churches for elucidation of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation” was also passed, with the point being made that this report was not intended to be for further study or debate, but for “elucidation.” Throughout the discussion, there was a good spirit, and we can be grateful that our confession and its teaching re: election and reprobation was so significantly upheld by the synod.

As some of our home missionaries were introduced during the afternoon session, we were reminded that Home Missions has entered its second century of service. In 1879, the first missionary was sent out with a budget of $500. Presently Home Missions operates with a five million dollar budget.

We also heard from Dr. Joel Nederhood on the work and challenge of the ministry of the Back-to-God Hour, an important ministry of our denomination which surely has been blessed by our Lord.

Synod defeated an overture asking Stated Clerks of Classes to send in calls which ministers accept to The Banner. And Mr. Harry Vander Meer was given a four–year appointment as Denominational Financial Coordinator, since Mr. Anthony Vroon is retiring.

The balance of the afternoon was spent discussing the report on the committee studying the dance. There seemed to be a marked frustration on the part of many of the delegates to know just how to handle  this one. Some parts of the report were very acceptable, but in other areas, it seemed to go too far or say too much. Since the advisory committee’s recommendation was to refer this report to the churches for study and evaluation, an early attempt to delete  D. 1. (re: the liturgical dance) from the report was not allowed. There were also some strong appeals made to decide the issue now on the basis of principles rather than sending it out to the churches. But the advisory committee’s recommendation carried by a fair majority, and the report will now be referred to the churches for study and evaluation for a period of two years, responses to be sent to the study committee by September 1, 1981. I would hope that consistories and/or individuals would respond to this report. There was evidence on the floor of synod an attitude that preferred not to enter further into the whole area of the dance with its lyrics of music, symbolism, ideologies and moral value. Perhaps we have been walking where angels fear to tread with this issue, and have begun to realize that it is rather impossible to legislate in this area which touches on Christian liberty. If, in the future, synod sees fit to adopt this report of the study committee, or one similar to it, we ought to be aware that the “okay” will have been put on the dance, and that, in fact, we will have a calling to “redeem” the dance. This delegate has yet to be convinced as to how we go about doing that with regard to the type of dance which initiated this study in the first place.

Wednesday, June 18

The entire session on Wednesday morning was devoted to matters pertaining to finances . One matter that aroused considerable discussion was the Minister’s Pension Fund. Classis Alberta South had sent an overture requesting that there be a reappraisal of the present Minister‘s Pension Fund. The question really involves whether we should stay with the present concept of “advanced funding,” or return to a type of “pay as you go plan.” After recommitting the matter to the advisory committee, the essence of the overture was adopted, and a study committee was appointed to “perform an independent evaluation of the Minister’s Pension Fund and report back the results to the Synod of 1981.” Finishing financial matters, including the adoption of 1981 quotas, occupied our time until coffee break. Though there were some strong appeals to hold increases in check because of the economy of our day, the quotas adopted a mounted to a 12.7% increase. Indeed, we all feel the economic squeeze of our day, but so do the agencies of the church. This increase basically permits our denominational agencies to carry on present programs with little or no expansion.

The overture from Classis Muskegon was again taken up, referred to earlier in this report, re: delegating deacons to major assemblies. The entire advisory committee agreed that this overture should be referred to the study committee presently reviewing the office of deacon appointed by the Synod of 1979, and expected to report next year. That recommendation carried. A minority of the advisory committee, however, wanted to go a step farther as Classis Muskegon had requested, and permit any classis desiring to do so, to delegate deacons to classis on a trial basis, using the plan suggested in Muskegon‘s overture. But when this motion was presented on the floor of synod, the chairman ruled it out of order on the grounds that it was in violation of the Church Order, Art. 40a. The chairman was challenged, but he was quite overwhelmingly sustained by a voice vote of the synod. Several delegates then asked for their negative votes to be recorded, because as one delegate put it, “I feel cheated,” since there was no real opportunity to discuss the minority committee’s recommendations. To this delegate, however, the chairman acted properly and according to the rules for synodical procedure. One more attempt to get the matter back on the floor for debate was made by a motion to reconsider the recommendation of the majority report, but that motion was also defeated. To change the Church Order is one thing, but this delegate received the distinct impression that this synod was not of a mind to permit the churches to circumvent it, nor to establish a pattern for granting exceptions to the Church Order for experimentation.

Observations

The Synod of 1980 completed its work by Wednesday afternoon at 6 o’clock, which may be a record, at least in recent years. There was something unique about this synod, a prevalent spirit which sometimes appeared lacking in previous synods. Our chairman, Rev. Eppinga, characterized that as a loving spirit. It is perhaps true that there were no major emotional issues before this synod, yet there were some significant matters. But a sharp division on matters characterized by heated debate was absent for the most part. There were differences of opinion to be sure, but only once did there appear on the floor of synod a majority and minority report from an advisory committee. This synod was also unique in that only one delegate present had ever served as an officer of synod before, and at least half of the delegates were present as “first time” delegates. What bearing that had, I do not know. But it was a pleasure to be at the Synod of 1980. It is my prayer that God will add His blessing to those decisions which please Him, and will bring to nought whatever was done against His will. Soli Deo Gloria!

Harlan Vanden Einde is pastor of the Riverside Christian Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan.