As delegates gathered for the 1984 RES meeting in Chicago it was generally recognized that the future of this organization was problematic. Despite faithful efforts by some member churches, it is our view that the future of the RES is still very much in doubt. We say this because the decisions taken in Chicago were not adequate to ensure the future of the RES as a viable Reformed movement. There were three main issues before this Synod. In this article we will discuss these, briefly, in the order in which the RES itself dealt with them. Then, in conclusion, we will offer our own assessment.
1. Constitution Revision
The Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (hereafter we will use the abbreviation GKN) had already made it known to the other RES Churches that they wanted a new constitution for the RES. Judging from the draft constitution circulated by them, prior to the Chicago meeting, they wanted to reduce the RES to little more than a forum for discussion with virtually no disciplinary power. It became obvious to everyone at the Chicago meeting that this issue had to be settled first, since there would be little point in making some of the other decisions if the character of the RES was basically altered. There were some-and we count ourselves in that number—who did not see any need whatever, at this time, for a comprehensive constitutional revision. We argued that the existing constitution has amply provided for any change that is really needed. Nevertheless, after lengthy debate, the RES finally decided to go along with the appointment of an international committee to revise the constitution. If this was all that could be said, one would have to conclude that the GKN, at this point, received quite unwarranted accommodation. But this is not all there is to say, because the RES also decided: 1) that the present basis, purpose, and qualifications for membership (Art. V, section 1) must be preserved in any revision, and 2) that any change from the present constitution will need a 2/3 vote for approval. It is therefore our judgment that this decision did not provide what the GKN was seeking. To the contrary, if the committee faithfully adheres to these decisions, there will be no sacrifice of the disciplinary powers of the RES.
2. Membership of the GKN
The second major issue was the question of the legitimacy of the membership of the GKN in the RES. Some churches (such as the Reformed Churches of New Zealand, of which I was a delegate) had requested some action to effect the exclusion of the GKN from the RES. The request was based on an accumulation of evidence from developments in the GKN, which make it self-evident that they are no longer faithful Reformed Churches. They have joined the WCC. They have admitted women to ruling and teaching offices in the Church, against express Scriptural prohibitions. (As a matter of fact, knowing full well that the RES as a whole has expressed opposition to admitting women to ruling and teaching offices in the Church, the GKN nevertheless sent two women as part of their 1984 RES delegation). The GKN have also failed to faithfully discipline those who teach false doctrine. And of course, most offensive of all, they have given a measure of approval to homosexual sin. Known practicing homosexuals are permitted to take the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and to hold office in the GKN.
Much of the work of the RES is done in what are called pre-advisory committees. Our pre-advisory committee dealt with the issue of GKN membership in the RES. It soon became evident in this committee that we agreed on the factual data , but not on what to do with it. The result was that we ended up with two reports–majority and minority which were identical up to the point where action was recommended. At this point our minority report asked the Synod to do two things. We will put it in our own words, as succinctly as possible. We asked the RES to: 1) request the GKN to withdraw its so-called pastoral advice on homosexual practice, or else 2) withdraw from the RES by December 3 1, 1986 . We regret to say that this recommendation failed by one vote (the vote was 28-28, with one abstention). It is sad to note that this defeat could have been avoided if even one of the smaller Presbyterian churches, which withdrew after the 1980 Synod at Nimes, had remained in the RES until this Synod). So, the end result was a seriously flawed decision. It was to this effect: 1) to request the GKN to “withdraw” its pastoral advice concerning homosexual practice, or 2) if it finds that it is unable to comply with this request, to “seriously consider (the fact) that several churches would find it difficult to stay in the RES with the GKN.”
Some appeared to be of the opinion that this decision weakened as it was-was still strong enough that the GKN might decide to leave the RES anyway. But we very much doubt it. Such an act of honesty is not characteristic of the GKN of the present. If the GKN did withdraw it would offer some hope that the RES might survive as a viable Reformed organization. However, we must face the lamentable fact that the RES did not faithfully exercise the discipline which the situation demanded. For this reason, we see little hope that the RES can continue as a credible movement.
3. Race Relations
The third major issue at this RES meeting was the matter of Race Relations, and centered upon the alleged “moral and theological justification of apartheid” by the White South African Churches. Let it be plainly stated that we do not like the political system ofSouth Africa. We fully agree with the large majority of Churches in the RES that the apartheid system has inflicted great injustice and suffering on the black people of that nation. We furthermore believe the RES has been correct to concern itself with this issue, and to express its strong disapproval. Yet we do not think this is all that needs to be said. It is our view, on the contrary, that it is right here that the RES—in the past—has done some of its finest work. Just because the RES has held in its membership so many of the Reformed denominations in South Africa, it has been able to work-as no other organization-to bring the power of the gospel to bear on this problem. Furthermore, it is our judgment that there has been significant progress. In talking with delegates from black and colored churches-both at the 1980 and 1984 meetings-we were told that there has been progress in the right direction. No one said there has been enough progress. But there has been progress. Yet in spite of these things, the GKN—strongly supported by the American CRC delegation-was determined to get the RES to make a hard-hitting decision. And this is what happened.
To put it in a nutshell: the RES declared the “theological defense of apartheid” to be heretical and a status confessionis” (“a concern about which it is impossible to differ without it effecting the integrity of our communal confession as Reformed Churches”). It is important to note that these terms did not originate in RES circles. The debate brought out the fact that they came out of the World Council of Churches and the World Alliance ofReformed Churches. Thus it was argued—cogently, we believe—that the RES would be wise not to use them. Rather, the plea was made, the RES ought to follow its own time-honored custom of appointing an international study committee. Then, after careful in-depth study, it could reach its own conclusions about the propriety of using such terms as ‘heretical’ and ‘status confessionis.’ If this had been done we are convinced that it still could (and should) have spoken clearly and sharply, in 1984, about the evils of apartheid. It did not need to borrow WCC/WARC terminology to do that. We also believe the White South African churches would have been able to bear this, and would have gone along with a decision to appoint a study committee (in fact they themselves argued for this). But as it is, we are very much in doubt that the White South African Churches will stay in the RES. And for our part we can quite understand their reaction. Surely no self-respecting Church could accept lightly such terms as ‘heretical’—certainly not without a responsible effort to demonstrate that the charge is warranted.
Failure of the RES
What we see, then, is that the RES did not find itself able to exercise discipline where it was clearly demanded. After all, the RES already declared–1980-that all homosexual practice is sin . In the four intervening years the GKN has done nothing to reassure the other Churches. To the contrary, there has been further evidence to confirm the worst fears of other Churches. How sad, then, that in a matter so clearly calling for discipline the RES fell lamentably short. And how sad too, that in a matter much more complex where there had been at least some movement in the right. direction-the RES acted so unwisely, yes, even harshly. If the White South African Churches withdraw from the RES, and the GKN decides to remain in it, there is no way that we can see that it can service as a credible Reformed ecumenical movement.
We conclude with one further comment. The delegation of the Christian Reformed Church of North America was, to us, a great disappointment. How can it be that the abomination of a Church tolerating homosexual practice in its midst can be accommodated? And why the great desire for what we can only call “over-kill” when it comes to the White South African Churches? In our opinion the combination of these two decisions has probably sealed the fate of the RES.
Rev. G.I. Williamson, a delegate to the 1984 Reformed Evangelical Synod from the Reformed Churches of New Zealand is currently pastor of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church at Carson, North Dakota.