This was a deliberative Synod, as Synods are meant to be. It featured the complete airing of issues with all candor and in a good spirit; very little of parliamentary maneuvering was attempted, and when votes on the issues of real substance were taken, the decisions were taken by wide margins.

Without doubt, it became apparent that the lines are being more clearly drawn than in the past: the rhetoric of many is now more openly borrowed from the secular women’s liberation movement, for example; also, thinly-veiled threats were heard at times. In a communication to Synod, Eastern Avenue CRC of Grand Rapids said that it “respectfully informs synod that continued indecision or delay may place us in a position where, in obedience to a conscience informed by the Word of God, we will be forced to proceed without synodical approval to nominate persons for the office of deacon regardless of gender.” Another speaker with all solemnity said: “So I warn anyone who refuses to go that way, (the reference was to having women in ALL offices) that you are not going to be in the living center of the church for very long. You’re going to find yourself on the lonely fringe.”

WOMEN IN ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE. The above commentary and quotations deal with the matter of women in ecclesiastical office. Synod, after due deliberation, voted 101-56 to “Defer for one more year the decision regarding the ratification and implementation of Article 3 of the Church Order . . . .” It went on to “declare that churches which have taken actions in conflict with Article 3 of the Church Order and the decisions of 1979, 1980 and 1981 . . . should be treated with loving concern rather than judgmental pronouncement.” The Stated Clerk was instructed to notify all consistories of Synod’s decision in the matter via correspondence at the earliest possible date. The request of the Committee Regarding Headship in The Bible was granted, giving it until the next Synod to complete and present its report.

It was interesting to see that the Appeal of the Hope CRC of Oak Forest , Illinois against its Classis was not sustained. For several years women have been doing all the work of both elders and deacons in this congregation, with the exception of voting. Classis repeatedly told the Hope church they were in violation of the letter and spirit of the Church Order and decision of Synod. Titles were changed, various explanations given, but no real change occurred until Classis instructed the church there to either appeal their case to Synod or face classical discipline of some kind. This brought the appeal to this year’s Synod where the appeal was not sustained and the Classis’ position was thereby upheld.

EDUCATIONAL MATTERS: Professor Stek-Licensure for Students from Mid-America Reformed Seminary; both matters drew more attention than many of the other matters assigned to the Advisory Committee on Educational Matters. With regard to Professor John Stek, Synod went along with the Board of Trustees’ judgment that “this is not a disciplinary matter but is an appropriate matter for scientific research (so that) the Board hereby terminates its direct involvement in the matter.” This cleared the way for the actual wording of the decision as follows: “That, even though the views of Professor Stek have never been regarded by the Board of Trustees as a disciplinary matter, and have never been or are now formally on the synodical agenda by way of overture, protest, or recommendation, synod, out of pastoral concern for the church, declare its satisfaction with the report on the matter from the Board of Trustees.”*

Classis Orange City had granted licensure to students from MARS, so these students could conduct worship services within the bounds of Classis as they pursued their studies. Being uncertain of the implications of their action, however, they asked Synod for advice by way of Overture 29. In the ensuing discussion, it was pointed out that for students who study elsewhere, such as at one of the campuses of Westminster, or at Reformed Theological Seminary in. Jackson, Mississippi, the thing to do is to pre-enroll in the Special Program for Ministerial Candidacy in the CRC, so their summer field work can be supervised by the Field Office of Seminary and credit needed be given to the student. It seems upon reflection, that students from MARS are being told to proceed just as students do who study at other seminaries. Those of our acquaintance on both Westminster campuses have been licensed by the classes in their areas in order to gain experience in conducting worship during the school year. The licensure granted by the Board of Trustees so that they can fulfill summer field work requirements is a licensure for that summer period of each year only.

Synod was happy to declare 23 men as Candidates for the Ministry. May the King of the Church use each of them mightily!

Retirements were achieved, noted by Synod, and also were part of the festive evening in which Synod congratulated those who have served the college for 25 years, as well as paying tribute to the retirees: Drs. Walter Lagerwey and Richard R. Tiemersma from the college, and Dr. John H. Kromminga from the Seminary. It was a fine evening, where the spirit of gratitude to God was displayed by all, most movingly in my opinion, by those retiring, who thanked God for the opportunities he gave them to be a part of the Christian Reformed community.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER CHURCHES. Dr. Runia, fraternal delegate from the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (GKN) addressed Synod before the matters of our relationships with the churches he represents were discussed. He characterized our answers to questions of the day as being more cautious, while those of his fellowship tend to be radical. He made the statement that the decisions to which our church objects must not be viewed as the final word, but part of the search for solutions, some of which he said were impossible to achieve in final form. He characterized the GKN situation as being different from ours in this respect, that “maybe in Western Europe we are more aware of new problems . . . .” He was apologetic about his church giving the impression of too much self-confidence. He said this was not really the case, but that this impression was definitely given. Saying that reports accepted such as “God Met Ons” were not the final word, but a part of the search for answers, he suggested, “Have your theologians evaluate ‘God Met Ons’ and give us the benefit of your advice.” In the silence that ensued, many were heard reminding one another that “this is how we got Report 44.”

Dr. Botha, from the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Sending Kerk (South Africa), known to us as NGSK, gave an emotional address to Synod, outlining the existence and history of the Reformed family of churches in South Africa, relating how the denomination he represents had declared apartheid to be a heresy, and asking for support, including financial help. After relating that the NGSK is now truly an indigenous church, he read its Confession to the Synod.

The decisions with regard to both the GKN and the GKSA were both disappointing to the fraternal delegates, since Synod’s decision regarding the GKN was “to redefine the terms of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the GKN by declaring that the elements referring to pulpit and table fellowship no longer apply, except at the discretion of the local consistories, based on the Holy Scriptures, the confessions and decisions of Synod (such as those of 1973 concerning the issue of homosexuality).” With regard to Die Gereformeerde Kerk in Suid Afrika (GKSA) Synod declared that “Synod is deeply grieved and disturbed over the unbiblical ideology and persistent practice of apartheid/separate development in the society of South Africa and within the white reformed churches and the consequences these have, such as is evidenced by the fact that there are separate churches for believers of different races so that even at the table of the Lord racial separation is maintained. Nevertheless Synod judges it premature to sever the ties of ecclesiastical fellowship with the GKSA at this time as requested by Overture 22 of 1982 and Overture 41b.” In addition regrets were expressed for the “minimum of effort” which Synod has assumed as a church in ecclesiastical fellowship. It was felt our responsibilities had not been carried out as they could and should have been in previous years.

WORLD MISSIONS AND CHRISTIAN REFORMED WORLD RELIEF COMMITTEE. The frictions, differences and struggles between our mission and relief agencies have been well-publicized over the years. Synod’s decisions were far-reaching. What had become known as ‘Option Three’ was taken by Synod in these decisions: 1. “That, Synod appoint a five member ad hoc Commission called the World Missions and Relief Commission with a tenure of two years, under extraordinary conditions subject to extension by the Synod of 1985 for one more year . . . .” 2. “That Synod invest the World Missions and Relief Commission with authority and power to take the following actions: “(These actions are here summarized by myself as follows: a. to take appropriate action on points of detrimental discord; b. take similar action regarding anything which should potentially create difficulties for the church or any of its other agencies; c. veto any action of either agency if it is judged to be detrimental to the effective operation of the other agency; d. study the structural systems to improve them and make them compatible by means of a comprehensive plan of reorganization, to be recommended to synod; e. Suspend the provisions of the CRWM Mission Order or the CRWRC Constitution temporarily where necessary, in order to introduce aspects of the comprehensive plan of reorganization for field testing . . . and to promote harmonious actions on the field as soon as possible.) 3. The World Missions and Relief Commission is to also “address and define the theological, missiological and ecclesiastical issues involved and speak to the following questions: . . . .” (here follow a long list of questions, crucial among them being ‘unity of Word and deed in relationship to the Word, how the centrality of the proclamation of the gospel is to be implemented in the total mission of the church to the world, the obligation (if any) of the church to supply relief in situations of world hunger and world poverty, and the responsibility of the church when it confronts the problem and issue of human rights and social justice.’ The same five-member Ad Hoc Committee now becomes the Ad Hoc Commission: Harold Dekker , Norman DeGraaf, Gerard Berghoef, John H . Kromminga and William Spoelhof. They are to report annually to Synod. Surely our prayers for the church and her work in the world do not stop after Synod has met; the needs of this Commission simply highlight the need for such daily and fervent prayers to the King of the Church!

FINANCIAL MATTERS: Synod was sensitive to the voices heard from the churches in this regard: while the minimum salary for those in churches receiving assistance from the Fund For Needy Churches was raised from $17,000 to 18,200 in a move to continue to try to achieve some greater equity between the salaries paid by the Board of Home Missions and those receiving assistance from the FNC, at the same time no adjustment was made to the salary ranges in the current Uniform Salary Policy for the coming year; a consultant is to be retained to advise concerning salary policy guidelines and salary ranges for the management positions of the denominational agencies, the salary ranges to be set in “as narrow a scope as possible,” this information also to be included in the agencies’ reports as published in the Agenda and Acts of Synod; there will be greater compliance with the decision of 1978 regarding disclosure of salaries because the following decision as proposed was adopted: “That the actual salary and employee benefit payments of denomination agencies be reported annually to synod in the agencies’ financial reports. This report to list separate line entries corresponding to each level of management position description as shown in the schedule of salary ranges. Such report shall also include any other fringe benefit for each category;” finally, the denominational quotas: t he total increase was kept to 3.3%, which amounts to $11.60 per year, or 22 cents per week. It was a reasonable and responsible Synod in this regard as well. A word concerning “Coordinated Air Transportation Service” might be in order here, since misconceptions so easily arise; the denomination has accepted the donation of an airplane; costs of maintaining and operation have also been assured! Great savings are being realized—for one example, the plane was used to airlift 8 delegates to Synod from Northwest Iowa in a simple two hour flight, and they ret urned almost immediately after Synod the same way. The saving in cost alone was great, in addition to the time of all those involved. Such an example of the generosity of those who have been blessed not only materially but also with the desire and joy of giving is heartwarming.

Synod upheld the appeal of Trinity CRC in Iowa City concerning the use of deacons along with elders in family visiting, which is judged allowable in small churches; it also voted to change Church Order Article 40c so that capable elders may be chosen to preside at Synod; formerly, the Article had specified that ministers were to preside. This change must be ratified by next year’s Synod before it is effective. In summary, Synod was balanced, deliberate, and more conservative than many had expected. So now we must live with the decisions made, whether they suited us or not. We pray that such as are not happy with the decisions may seek their changes in the right way, and not succumb to the spirit of each one going his own way.

If would be neither right nor fair to fail to speak a word of tribute to the officers who served Synod so well; a special salute to the Reverend Jacob D. Eppinga, chosen on the first ballot as President of Synod. Outwardly always calm, he was gracious and courteous, but left no doubt of being in charge when necessary. Only once was a challenge to the chair sustained, and that not in a weighty matter. He injected humor at fitting times, often relieving situations in which tensions might have robbed persons of better judgments; his allusions to “that great theologian Casey Stengel” provided a nice balance when we tended to take ourselves too seriously. A warm touch of his humble demeanor came through when he felt the need for advice, as he would turn to the other officers or the Stated Clerk and ask: “Help me out with this.” Most of all I recall, as many others will, his stirring call to all of us as Synod was adjourning. Telling a story in his own delightful way, he concluded with a call to all of us to remember “That’s what it is all about!” The allusion was to a missionary who had shown a film of the life of Christ, ending with the triumph of the resurrection. His application for all the delegates was to keep before ourselves at all times that

this was what it is still all about—to proclaim the crucified and resurrected Savior, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings. Amen!

Jay A. Wessefing is the pastor of the Third Christian Reformed Church of Zeeland, Michigan, and a member of the board of the Reformed Fellowship.

*Our attention has been called to the fact that this Board report and decision appear to be at least understatements in the light of the fact that the Calvin Board reported to the Synod of 1981 that its “committee concluded that Professor Stek’s present theory brings him into conflict with the church’s standing confessional view . . . . “Accordingly the Board decided to ‘instruct Professor Stek, in his teaching office to correlate the findings of his research and the event character of Genesis 1–11, with a view to doing full justice to the church’s confessional view of these chapters . . .” (Acts 1981, pp. 147, 148). Has this “conflict with the church’s standing confessional view” “never been regarded by the Board of Trustees as a disciplinary matter?” When a Board committee has had to work with the professor for some three years and the Board had to report as recently as in the Agenda for this 1983 synod (p.37) “Neither the board nor the faculty had indicated a suitable time for termination of the discussion,” what has changed to justify simply dropping the matter?