The 1976 Agenda for Synod (CRC Synod meeting June 8 to 18) is a volume of 541 pages. It may seem presumptuous of me to attempt to say what the basic issue at this Synod will be—but I feel conscience-bound to take that risk and to attempt to do so. The basic issue at this Synod will be the issue of the Bible.
Beyond a doubt, it is becoming increasingly apparent among us that the matter of the inspiration, the infallibility, the inerrancy, and the authority of the Bible remains a piece of unfinished business. Notwithstanding the adoption of Report 44 in 1972, it is or should be obvious that we are not of one mind.
Let no one doubt the seriousness of this.
The well-known Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer has said: “Holding to a strong view of Scripture or not holding to it is the watershed of the evangelical world.”
And in the opening paragraph of the Preface to his brand new book, The Battle for the Bible, Dr. Harold Lindsell (Editor of Christianity Today) writes: “I regard the subject of this book, biblical inerrancy, to be the most important theological topic of this age. A great battle rages about it among people called evangelicals. I did not start the battle and wish it were not essential to discuss it. The only way to avoid it would be to remain silent. And silence on this matter would be a grave sin.”
Both Schaeffer and Lindsell are widely recognized as evangelical scholars of considerable stature. Their definitive statements about the seriousness of the matter that confronts us should now prove to be convincing if we have not become convinced of this before.
But are we really facing this issue now?
Let’s take a careful look.
1. The writings of Dr. Harry R. Boer – The CRC Synod will be called upon to make a decision on what to do about a communication from Dr. Boer asking Synod to inform him what “the express testimony of Scripture” is for reprobation as set forth in the Canons of Dort. It is not my intention to comment now on the propriety or the impropriety of Dr. Boer’s request and how it was dealt with at last year’s Synod.
However, there is another matter that, in my judgment, should certainly be taken into account by Synod before it honors Dr. Boer’s request by any further action concerning it. He is asking for “the express testimony of Scripture” concerning reprobation. But, in the light of what Dr. Boer has been writing in The Reformed Journal about Scripture, Synod would be well-advised first to take a careful look at what his position is on that score.
Attention is called to the following: In an article on “The Rich Young Ruler” in The Reformed Journal of February 1976 Dr. Boer states:
“The last thing inspiration does or intends is to deprive the canonical writings of their natural, normal, human character, subject in all respects to the laws governing the writers‘ psychical, moral, spiritual and rational faculties. What the relationship is between divine inspiration and thoroughly human writing is a matter for careful consideration in future discussion.” And now notice what Dr. Boer goes on to say: “I wish now to emphasize that the books of the Bible as a collection of religious writings are as human as Pilgrim’s Progress, Paradise Lost, or Spurgeon’s Sermons” (p. 18).
Note also what Dr. Boer adds: “The view set forth above would seem to fit well with the principles laid down by the study committee of the Christian Reformed Synod of 1972 in its report on the ‘Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority . . .’
“The committee might or might not agree with the particular interpretation I give to the phenomena in question. The exegetical principle underlying my interpretation, however, would seem to be wholly consonant with the committee’s position . . .” (p. 18).
Attention may be called also to excerpts from a following article by Dr. Boer on “The Infallibility of the Bible and Higher Criticism” in The Reformed Journal of March 1976. (Note: If any reader suspects that any of the excerpts cited are unfairly taken out of context, he or she is urged to read the entire articles before coming to that conclusion). Notice the following:
“The word ‘inerrant,’” Dr. Boer writes, “is also a misleading adjective. It connotes the unqualified absence of inconsistency or disparity of any kind whatever with respect to any data found in the Bible. Unlike reliability or trustworthiness it is an absolute word. But its absoluteness is applied to an aspect of Scripture that is not inerrant. The Bible is infallible: it is not inerrant in the accepted sense of the word” (p. 15 –italics added).
Notice also the following from the same article by Dr. Boer. “Even so, there is a new element in this view of infallibility and it is of great importance. The new element consists in an absence, an excision. It excludes from the understanding of infallibility the conception that the Bible as a human literary product is a book in which literary, historical, geographical, numerical or other disparities do not and cannot exist. In that sense the Bible cannot be said to be infallible or inerrant (p. 21 – italics added).
To be sure, Dr. Boer knows as well as you and I, that the Confession of Faith (Belgic Confession)which he has also endorsed in signing the Form of Subscription—reads as follows in Article V: “We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing without any doubt all things contained in them . . . (italics added). But how can one subscribe to this and at the same time profess and propagate what Dr. Boer professes and propagates about the Bible in his articles in The Reformed Journal?
In my judgment, the CRC and Synod should wait no longer in facing up to the following:
a. Dr. Boer is asking Synod to inform him what “the express testimony of Scripture” is for what we confess in the Canons of Dort concerning reprobation. But what assurance is there that he, with his openly espoused view of Scripture, would recognize and acknowledge such testimony as being authoritative and final if it would be placed before him? Unless Synod and Dr. Boer are on the same basis when they consider Scriptural evidence for reprobation, all of Synod efforts could tum out to be an exercise in futility. Should Synod not begin by giving priority to what Dr. Boer is saying about the Bible?
b. In 1972 Synod adopted Report 44 on the “nature and extent of Biblical Authority.” Should Synod not concern itself at once with Dr. Boer’s appeal to Report 44 in defense of his liberal view of Scripture? Is it true that Report 44 is an umbrella under which both liberals and conservatives can find their shelter in the CRC? If that be true, we should realize that a house divided against itself on this most basic issue cannot possibly stand.
c. Dr. Boer is a missionary for the Christian Reformed Church and serves as a writer of textbooks for Nigerian theological students. CRC mission work in Nigeria has been blessed tremendously. Are we now ready to turn the churches there over to Nigerian pastor’s imbued with the view of Scripture that Dr. Boer is advocating? To be sure, this is a matter about which Dr. Boer‘s calling church, the mission board, and also the Synod are responsible before God to be deeply concerned.
d. The question must be faced whether Dr. Boer, while holding to and advocating his seriously wrong view of Scripture, can remain a CRC minister in good standing. If so, how long will it be before the authority of Scripture will be seriously eroded not only in the Nigerian pulpits but also in our pulpits here at home?
2. Synod will be confronted directly with this basic issue concerning the Bible, also in connection with a matter that occurred at Classis Grand Rapids East (the largest classis in the CRC) on September 18, 1975.
The following excerpts from the Minutes of the January 15, 1976 meeting of Classis G. R. East tell the story:
“Dutton’s Protest is taken up. After consideration of the decision of Classis G. R. East at its September 18, 1975 Session (Art. 18), the Consistory of the Dutton CRC is compelled to protest against the decision to approve the ordination of a candidate to the ministry after he plainly stated in his examination that he did not believe that the serpent spoke to Eve as reported in Genesis 3 and that he believed that the earthquake reported in Matthew 28:2 should also be understood as an eschatological symbol and not necessarily as a fact” (italics added). Five grounds are given for this protest.
The Minutes go on to say: “Cascade’s Protests are taken up also. Said Consistory protests to Classis G. R. East regarding its decision to approve the ordination of Candidate Allen Verhey. We believe he should have been denied ordination because of his interpretation of Genesis 3 regarding the serpent speaking to Eve, and the implications of the interpretation for other parts of Scripture.” Three grounds are given.
“We [Cascade} further protest the actions of the synodical deputies for omitting, in their report to Synod, the part about advising the Neland Ave. Consistory to discuss the matter with Candidate Allan Verhey (Church Order, Art. 48D).”
The Minutes add: “Read is East Paris ‘Credentials’ support of Dutton’s Protest above.”
One would think that the nature of this matter and the protests of the three consistories would call for some very serious consideration and action. But notice what the Classis G. R. East says:
“Classis decides:
“to receive all 3 Protests for information,
“to reject a motion to appoint a committee re them,
“to recognize the 2 Consistories’ right to inform Synod of their Protests.”
That’s all. And then the Minutes go on to report other business. Well, the matter is coming to Synod by way of an Appeal from Dutton’s Consistory. Let me say it again: in my judgment, this is the basic issue Synod will have to face. Sidestepping this issue will be most irresponsible.
3. Synod will be confronted with this issue about the Bible by way of an Overture from the Peoria, Iowa, Consistory also. Overture 10 reads in part as follows:
“The Peoria Consistory overtures Synod to appoint a committee to study whether it is in harmony with the basic essence of the Christian faith, and the Reformed understanding of the same, to deny the actual historical factuality of events recorded in Genesis, Chapters 1–11.”
Four grounds arc given for Peoria‘s Overture from which the following excerpts may be cited:
“It is a well-known and undeniable fact that within the family of Reformed denominations there are brothers who no longer hold that an acceptance of the actual historical factuality of the events recorded in Genesis 1–11 is an instrinsic component of the Christian faith . . .”
“It can be readily demonstrated that we have ordained men within our denomination who hold these views mentioned . . . above. As a denomination we are no longer united on these matters . . . .”
Everyone knows that the CRC is constantly being agitated and plagued by one issue after another such as: homosexuality, women in church offices, open or close communion, and whether or not to accept lodge members as church members.
What everyone does not seem to realize is that the basic issue, out of which such problems will continue to arise, is whether or not we really accept the whole Bible as the inspired, infallible, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God or not. Unless we get that settled first, in language free from ambiguity and ambivalence, we will continue to be a house divided against itself and harassed by problems incapable! of final solution. Our hope and fervent prayer is that the CRC and now particularly the Synod may see clearly that this is the basic issue. May wisdom and courage be given to know and also to do the will of our Lord.
IT’S OUR BATTLE TOO
If I were asked what one book should be in the hands of every delegate to Synod, every CRC minister, everyone studying for the ministry, and every Bible teacher right now, I would not hesitate for a moment in answering: Harold Lindsell‘s book, The Battle for the Bible, just published by Zondervan.
Dr. W. A. Crisswell, pastor of the First Baptist Church, Dallas, does not overstate the case when he writes: “Dr. Harold Lindsell has provided us with a remarkable diagnostic evaluation of the blow-by-blow encounter between those who accept the Bible as infallible and inerrant and those for whom subjective experience is the criterion by which the Bible itself is judged . . . Specificity and courage mark every page of this plea on behalf of the Holy Book.”
Dr. Lindsell writes in a clear and interesting manner as he tells the story about the battle for the Bible as it has been or is now going on in one denomination after another. Over and over again, one finds this issue to be at stake: Is the Bible inerrant throughout or only in part? Wholly committed to the complete inerrancy of Scripture, Dr. Lindsell tells how the advocates of limited inerrancy have gained the ascendancy, first in one denomination and then in another.
Harold Lindsell, Ph.D., D.O., the editor of the well-known journal Christianity Today, is by no means a Johnny-corne-lately on the theological scene. In the past he has served as vice-president and professor at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena and also as professor at Columbia Bible College in Columbia, South Carolina, and at Northern Baptist Seminary in Chicago. Notwithstanding the background of such scholarship, Lindsell never deviates from a style so simple that even those with little education can know exactly what he means.
In a most interesting and informative chapter, Lindsell tells “The Strange Case of Fuller Theological Seminary” and how that school came to abandon its original commitment to the complete inerrancy of the Bible. He tells also about the same battle in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Southern Baptist Convention, and also in other denominations and church groups.
With good reason t have given this review the title, It‘s Our Battle Too. In an editorial above it has been pointed out that, in my judgment, this same battle is the basic issue now confronting our 1976 CRC Synod.
That Lindsell is aware also of our CRC situation is evident from the following:
Dr. James Daane, a minister in good standing in the CRC serves as professor of pastoral theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. One finds that Lindsell makes this significant observation about him in his book:
“One of the persons joining Fuller was James Daane, with whom t was personally acquainted and with whom I had many theological discussions. He was an amillennialist and did not hold to an inerrant Scripture [italics added]. When he was interviewed for a professorship, he did not hide any of these things from the institution. He was invited to join the faculty and signed the statement of faith with the consent of the institution with respect to his reservations about Scripture [italics added] and the institution‘s commitment to premillennialism” (p. 112).
Lindsell has now made Daane’s view of the Bible a matter of public record. If Dr. Daane is able to refute this, and at all minded to do so in the pages of THE OUTLOOK, we would be very happy to afford his space for this purpose.
The CRC is also mentioned by Lindsell. He writes about Dr. Kuitert of the Free University and adds:
“And incidentally it was Kuitert who was a major speaker at a minister’s colloquium of the Christian Reformed Church just a few years ago. I happened to follow him the year after he had been there, and it was plain from the reaction that my own adherence to infallibility was accorded a mixed reception: those who held it were delighted; those who were opposed to it were unhappy [italics added]. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I was not aware that Kuitert had been there the year before me; but it was apparent that within its leadership the Christian Reformed Church is also struggling with the inerrancy issue” (p. 136 – italics added).
If we did not know it before, it should be evident by this time to anyone who is willing to look at the facts that “the battle for the Bible” is our battle too.
The fight is on. Those among liS who profess to believe the complete inerrancy of Scripture but are meanwhile content to be mere spectators and unwilling to become participants would do well to remember that the God of the Bible refuses to be mocked. There is just no place for draft dodgers in the militant church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
(The Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell. 218 pages. Zondervan Publishing House. $6.95).
GENEROUS GIFTS – INCREASED CIRCULATION – AND ADDED RESPONSIBILITYAs those who sponsor the publication of THE OUTLOOK, we have abundant reason to give humble and hearty thanks.
Why? Because of generous contributions, a greatly increased circulation, and also because of an added responsibility that goes hand in hand with all this.
The Lord has been good to us.
By His grace, THE OUTLOOK has been able to get rid of a bygone debt and to operate in the black. Without having to raise the subscription price even during recent years of inflation, the Lord has made it possible for us to carryon. To Him be all the praise, and a hearty word of thanks also to all those kind supporters who continue to send their freewill offerings, both large and small.
I think of the M. D. from a distant state who recently sent word to let him know if more money is needed. And also of the successful businessman who called day before yesterday (at the time of this writing) to tell me the same thing and also to say that he intends to reprint, for wide distribution, 900 copies of Rev. Peter De Jong’s article in last month’s issue on Women in Church Office – What Does the Bible Say? And, of course, our thoughts are also with all those who regularly send their Reformed Fellowship dues to undergird the work.
Apart from the indispensable blessing of our Lord, the good will and faithful support of so many who truly love the Reformed faith is all the stock in trade we have in contending for the faith.
At this time we give special thanks also for a greatly increased circulation. Here’s how this happened. In view of growing financial support, it was decided to offer a one-year free subscription to THE OUTLOOK to all consistory members. We wondered with some misgivings what the response would be. Imagine how gratifying and encouraging it is to find that, to date, about 3500 consistory members have requested these free subscriptions made possible by generous and regular financial contributions. This outcome far exceeded our expectations and proved also to be somewhat overwhelming. Of course, it is our hope and prayer that these recipients will see fit to renew their subscriptions when the year is over—and also that our supporters may continue their generous financial support to make it possible to maintain and even to increase our growing circulation in this and possibly also in other ways.
And now, we have become acutely aware of an added responsibility that rests upon us. For at least a year, those who write in THE OUTLOOK will have the attention of a large number of consistory members throughout the CRC. We believe that we do indeed have a cause, that there are issues serious enough to threaten the denomination‘s future, and that there I are tensions that need to be resolved in keeping with our historic Reformed faith if we are to survive. We are also aware that, under God, the future of the CRC rests so largely with the office holders and that this added opportunity to address them is granted to us at a particularly crucial time.
May our Lord be gracious to qualify us to measure up to the added responsibility that comes with this increased circulation. And may He also lead our CRC ministers, elders, and deacons to be true to their high calling to exercise the leadership so sorely needed. Unless they do so, especially at such a time as this, the church entrusted to their care might actually be lost by default –a tragedy too dire for contemplation!
RCA GROUP GETS SET FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE BREAK
(The article below ‘is being reprinted at this time from The Presbyterian Journal (April 28, 1976) in view of a proposal to the CRC Synod from the CRe Interchurch Relations Committee that “Synod recognize the Reformed Church in ecclesiastical fellowship with the CRC. The development this article reports may well be taken into account as Synod is asked to consider the recommendation concerning CRC-RCA relations.” The RCA Laymen‘s convocation was held in South Holland, Illinois. Ed.)
Preliminary steps looking towards the formation of a Continuing Reformed Church out of the Reformed Church in America were taken here during a convocation sponsored by the League of Christian Laymen.
Unanimously adopted by those attending the convocation, a resolution called for the establishment of “an organization that will recruit, train and equip and send forth missionaries . . . to the U. S. and the whole world.”
The resolution provided for the election of a steering committee from among those signing, “to move ahead with this program with all possible haste.”
While the proposed organization will function within the RCA “to do positively what Christ commissioned us to do” in the area of missions, it will be known as a committee for a continuing Reformed Church, according to Calvin W. Heyenga of Stout, Iowa, executive vice-president of the League.
The steering committee was empowered to employ legal help, to frame a suitable constitution and to work on the steps necessary to bring the organization into being, Mr. Heyenga said.
“This does not mean withdrawal from the RCA,” Jay Van Sweden, treasurer of the League, said in an address which led to the resolution. “But it could lead to that.”
William R. Bonnema of Oak Lawn, Ill., president of the League, told the Journal that the action taken here is a way of saying, “We have taken a stand that there must be an improvement in the theological directions taken by the RCA or we will have to move eventually towards a division.”
“We can no longer tolerate the efforts to force a non-Biblical theology upon us,” Me. Bonnema added.
Ministers are not members of the League, but each chapter includes one or more “pastoral advisors.” It will be up to the steering committee to decide whether to co-opt ministers, Mr. Heyenga said.