The “lodge question,” as it is usually referred to among us, is by no means something new. It has been with us as long as the Christian Reformed Church has existed. It was, in fact, one of the factors involved in the decision to separate from the Reformed Church in America in l857 and to organize a new denomination which was eventually called the Christian Reformed Church.
It was not easy for that small group of struggling churches to take that stand but they felt conscience-hound to do so. The Christian Reformed Church has since that time reaffirmed its position with respect to the lodge. It did so in 1881 and again in 1900. In 1958 an English translation of the Holland statement of 1900 was received. This statement expresses the official position of our church with respect to the lodge today. The stand of our church on the lodge question obviously has been quite consistent throughout the years of its existence. This indicates, I believe, that the membership of our church recognizes the correctness of this position. The Synod of 1972, I am happy to report, clearly indicated its support of this historic position of the church.
Two reports at Synod – Those of our readers who had knowledge of the Agenda for Synod 1972 will recall that the Synod was confronted with a majority and a minority report on the question of lodge and church membership. These two reports represented the fruits of a study committee appointed by the Synod of 1970. That there were two reports instead of one was due to the fact that the members of the committee could not agree on the meaning of the mandate of Synod. The committee was divided four to three with the result that Synod was presented with a majority and a minority report. To understand the conflict within the committee we should look at the mandate and the two interpretations of it.
The committee’s mandate may be found in the Acts of Synod 1970, p. 104. and reads as follows: “That synod appoint a committee for the purpose of formulating a current statement of the position of the Christian Reformed Church in respect to lodge membership, covering both the reasons for this position and the method of its application in the life of the church, and giving special emphasis to the exclusive claims of Christ upon the total life of a believer. Such a statement shall take into consideration:
a) corporate responsibility
b) contemporary conditions
c) the need of a clear public witness concerning lodge membership and
d) the problems incurred in pastoral relationships,
Grounds:
a. The statement adopted in 1900 is historically conditioned and not entirely adequate to serve our needs today,
b. An effective, contemporary statement which points out the teachings and practices of the lodge in the light of the Christian faith and which shows the implications of membership in the lodge would be a valuable asset in our evangelism effort.”
The majority committee interpreted this mandate “to be an instruction to validate the historic position of the Christian Reformed Church and to examine the reasons for its policy of not permitting those affiliated with lodges to full membership in the church.” Agenda 1972, p. 415.
The minority committee saw the mandate in another light, “We are called upon to restate the conflict between Christian faith and lodge religion, and to propose guidelines for the way in which the church should deal with the practical situations in which the conflict comes to expression,” Agenda 1972, p.423.
In all fairness it should be said that the question before Synod was not one of condoning lodge membership on the part of the members of the Christian Reformed Church. Classis Lake Erie. who originally presented the matter to the Synod of 1969, did not plead for an open policy with respect to lodge membership. In its overture to Synod it was concerned about establishing a more lenient attitude toward new converts who were members of a lodge and who for various reasons find it difficult to make a clean break with it. It pleaded therefore for the possibility of simultaneous church and lodge membership and it sought to have this matter left to the discretion of the local consistories. It felt that in the area of home missions such a policy would permit the church to work more effectively with lodge members. It is in this light that the minority report must be seen.
Question before Synod – The question that the Synod of 1972 had to decide therefore was, whose interpretation of the mandate of 1970 was correct, the majority or the minority report? The question revolved particularly about the meaning of “current statement” in the mandate.
Did this mean, as the majority interpreted it, a current statement of the historic position of the church, or a current statement in the sense of a new or somewhat modified position, as the minority interpreted it? Synod in no uncertain terms, as the vote indicated, agreed with the interpretation of the majority report. The fact that Synod voted to place the matter in the hands of new study committee also indicates this. It is too bad that the majority committee did not fulfill the mandate as it saw it. One cannot say this about the minority committee report.
Synod’s rejection of the minority report does not imply a rejection of all that the report contains. There is some good stuff in the minority report. It especially makes a good case to show that the religion of the lodge and the Christian faith are two religions in conflict. The new committee can profitably avail itself of much of the material of this report.
Synod’s decision – However, it was the judgment of the advisory committee, and I believe of Synod, as appears from the action taken, “that the committee did not fulfill the mandate in either the majority or the minority report. The majority failed in not producing the statement requested by Synod to be a public witness and something to be used in our evangelism efforts. In our judgment the minority report goes beyond the mandate by offering recommendations that would alter our position.” Synod therefore decided:
“1. That Synod advice the committee that the Synod of 1970 in effect reaffirmed the position of the church regarding the incompatibility of simultaneous membership in secret societies and the Christian Reformed Church.
“2. That Synod appoint a new committee to fulfill the requirements of the mandate as envisioned by the Synod of 1970 and report to Synod of 1973.”
I believe that synod’s decision to reaffirm the historic position was a good one. It is the only position that is consistent with our faith both from the point of view of principle as well as practice. I am convinced that to permit a lodge member to become a member of the church without breaking completely with the lodge would he a compromise of the principle of total commitment to Christ which the Scriptures demands.
True, the church may not demand complete sanctification as a condition for membership. Nevertheless it has not only the right but also the duty to require that one’s confession not be contradicted by an obviously sinful practice or affiliation. Anything less than that goes contrary to Scripture. The Bible speaks to this matter in no uncertain terms, and many texts could be adduced to prove this. We will not burden the reader with many quotations but see, for example, such passages as, Matthew 6:24; 16:24; 19:16–22, Luke 14:26,33, II Corinthians 6:14–18, etc. But perhaps the problem is not seen as lying in this particular area, since even Classis Lake Erie in its overture to the Synod of 1970 states: “There can be no question that the religion upheld by the lodge is antithetical to the Christian faith” (Acts of Synod 1970, p. 531).
No open policy or compromise – The question in the light of its history is probably more of a practical one. It can be stated in this way: Is it ever permissible to accept into the membership of the church one who has not broken completely with the lodge? Isn’t it possible that there are circumstances that would require or favor a suspension of the rule with a view to a more effective mission program in this particular area?
In its reaffirmation of our historic position the Synod of 1972 said, “No”. What else could it say? If we believe that principles are meant to guide us in our practice and if we believe that there is a Scriptural principle laid down for us here, then there can be no other answer, all human considerations to the contrary. If we believe that Scriptural principles evince a higher wisdom than man of himself possesses, then any practical manipulation of these principles, even with the best of intentions, can only have a disastrous result.
The temptation to take a shortcut or to modify or suspend the rule is not difficult to understand. Quite often it even appears to be the “right thing” to do for the benefit of the kingdom of heaven. But the cause of truth can never be served by practices that go contrary to the principles which the truth clearly reveals. With respect to the lodge question it means that one cannot very well preach and demand total commitment to Christ and then compromise that very principle by accepting a profession of faith in Christ from one who is not prepared to make that commitment.
It would seem that anyone who is not prepared to give up his lodge membership by that very token gives evidence of the fact that he does not understand the implications of his confession or doesn’t mean it. To accept an individual like that in the hope that he wil11earn to see his inconsistency is not only wishful thinking but is also dangerous for the whole church. What, for example, is to be done with the man who never comes to see and admit this? He cannot be disciplined because he was accepted as a lodge member. The only alternative is to accept the status quo. And when the church does that, it has accepted willy-nilly an open policy to lodge membership in the church. We may he grateful to God for giving to this Synod of 1972 the grace and wisdom to maintain a firm stand in this matter.
Hubert De Wolf is pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Byron Center, Michigan.
It was not easy for that small group of struggling churches to take that stand but they felt conscience-hound to do so. The Christian Reformed Church has since that time reaffirmed its position with respect to the lodge. It did so in 1881 and again in 1900. In 1958 an English translation of the Holland statement of 1900 was received. This statement expresses the official position of our church with respect to the lodge today. The stand of our church on the lodge question obviously has been quite consistent throughout the years of its existence. This indicates, I believe, that the membership of our church recognizes the correctness of this position. The Synod of 1972, I am happy to report, clearly indicated its support of this historic position of the church.
Two reports at Synod – Those of our readers who had knowledge of the Agenda for Synod 1972 will recall that the Synod was confronted with a majority and a minority report on the question of lodge and church membership. These two reports represented the fruits of a study committee appointed by the Synod of 1970. That there were two reports instead of one was due to the fact that the members of the committee could not agree on the meaning of the mandate of Synod. The committee was divided four to three with the result that Synod was presented with a majority and a minority report. To understand the conflict within the committee we should look at the mandate and the two interpretations of it.
The committee’s mandate may be found in the Acts of Synod 1970, p. 104. and reads as follows: “That synod appoint a committee for the purpose of formulating a current statement of the position of the Christian Reformed Church in respect to lodge membership, covering both the reasons for this position and the method of its application in the life of the church, and giving special emphasis to the exclusive claims of Christ upon the total life of a believer. Such a statement shall take into consideration:
a) corporate responsibility
b) contemporary conditions
c) the need of a clear public witness concerning lodge membership and
d) the problems incurred in pastoral relationships,
Grounds:
a. The statement adopted in 1900 is historically conditioned and not entirely adequate to serve our needs today,
b. An effective, contemporary statement which points out the teachings and practices of the lodge in the light of the Christian faith and which shows the implications of membership in the lodge would be a valuable asset in our evangelism effort.”
The majority committee interpreted this mandate “to be an instruction to validate the historic position of the Christian Reformed Church and to examine the reasons for its policy of not permitting those affiliated with lodges to full membership in the church.” Agenda 1972, p. 415.
The minority committee saw the mandate in another light, “We are called upon to restate the conflict between Christian faith and lodge religion, and to propose guidelines for the way in which the church should deal with the practical situations in which the conflict comes to expression,” Agenda 1972, p.423.
In all fairness it should be said that the question before Synod was not one of condoning lodge membership on the part of the members of the Christian Reformed Church. Classis Lake Erie. who originally presented the matter to the Synod of 1969, did not plead for an open policy with respect to lodge membership. In its overture to Synod it was concerned about establishing a more lenient attitude toward new converts who were members of a lodge and who for various reasons find it difficult to make a clean break with it. It pleaded therefore for the possibility of simultaneous church and lodge membership and it sought to have this matter left to the discretion of the local consistories. It felt that in the area of home missions such a policy would permit the church to work more effectively with lodge members. It is in this light that the minority report must be seen.
Question before Synod – The question that the Synod of 1972 had to decide therefore was, whose interpretation of the mandate of 1970 was correct, the majority or the minority report? The question revolved particularly about the meaning of “current statement” in the mandate.
Did this mean, as the majority interpreted it, a current statement of the historic position of the church, or a current statement in the sense of a new or somewhat modified position, as the minority interpreted it? Synod in no uncertain terms, as the vote indicated, agreed with the interpretation of the majority report. The fact that Synod voted to place the matter in the hands of new study committee also indicates this. It is too bad that the majority committee did not fulfill the mandate as it saw it. One cannot say this about the minority committee report.
Synod’s rejection of the minority report does not imply a rejection of all that the report contains. There is some good stuff in the minority report. It especially makes a good case to show that the religion of the lodge and the Christian faith are two religions in conflict. The new committee can profitably avail itself of much of the material of this report.
Synod’s decision – However, it was the judgment of the advisory committee, and I believe of Synod, as appears from the action taken, “that the committee did not fulfill the mandate in either the majority or the minority report. The majority failed in not producing the statement requested by Synod to be a public witness and something to be used in our evangelism efforts. In our judgment the minority report goes beyond the mandate by offering recommendations that would alter our position.” Synod therefore decided:
“1. That Synod advice the committee that the Synod of 1970 in effect reaffirmed the position of the church regarding the incompatibility of simultaneous membership in secret societies and the Christian Reformed Church.
“2. That Synod appoint a new committee to fulfill the requirements of the mandate as envisioned by the Synod of 1970 and report to Synod of 1973.”
I believe that synod’s decision to reaffirm the historic position was a good one. It is the only position that is consistent with our faith both from the point of view of principle as well as practice. I am convinced that to permit a lodge member to become a member of the church without breaking completely with the lodge would he a compromise of the principle of total commitment to Christ which the Scriptures demands.
True, the church may not demand complete sanctification as a condition for membership. Nevertheless it has not only the right but also the duty to require that one’s confession not be contradicted by an obviously sinful practice or affiliation. Anything less than that goes contrary to Scripture. The Bible speaks to this matter in no uncertain terms, and many texts could be adduced to prove this. We will not burden the reader with many quotations but see, for example, such passages as, Matthew 6:24; 16:24; 19:16–22, Luke 14:26,33, II Corinthians 6:14–18, etc. But perhaps the problem is not seen as lying in this particular area, since even Classis Lake Erie in its overture to the Synod of 1970 states: “There can be no question that the religion upheld by the lodge is antithetical to the Christian faith” (Acts of Synod 1970, p. 531).
No open policy or compromise – The question in the light of its history is probably more of a practical one. It can be stated in this way: Is it ever permissible to accept into the membership of the church one who has not broken completely with the lodge? Isn’t it possible that there are circumstances that would require or favor a suspension of the rule with a view to a more effective mission program in this particular area?
In its reaffirmation of our historic position the Synod of 1972 said, “No”. What else could it say? If we believe that principles are meant to guide us in our practice and if we believe that there is a Scriptural principle laid down for us here, then there can be no other answer, all human considerations to the contrary. If we believe that Scriptural principles evince a higher wisdom than man of himself possesses, then any practical manipulation of these principles, even with the best of intentions, can only have a disastrous result.
The temptation to take a shortcut or to modify or suspend the rule is not difficult to understand. Quite often it even appears to be the “right thing” to do for the benefit of the kingdom of heaven. But the cause of truth can never be served by practices that go contrary to the principles which the truth clearly reveals. With respect to the lodge question it means that one cannot very well preach and demand total commitment to Christ and then compromise that very principle by accepting a profession of faith in Christ from one who is not prepared to make that commitment.
It would seem that anyone who is not prepared to give up his lodge membership by that very token gives evidence of the fact that he does not understand the implications of his confession or doesn’t mean it. To accept an individual like that in the hope that he wil11earn to see his inconsistency is not only wishful thinking but is also dangerous for the whole church. What, for example, is to be done with the man who never comes to see and admit this? He cannot be disciplined because he was accepted as a lodge member. The only alternative is to accept the status quo. And when the church does that, it has accepted willy-nilly an open policy to lodge membership in the church. We may he grateful to God for giving to this Synod of 1972 the grace and wisdom to maintain a firm stand in this matter.
Hubert De Wolf is pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Byron Center, Michigan.