The Christian Reformed Church is a creedal denomination and hopefully will remain so. As summaries of, and guides to, Biblical teaching, creeds are immensely important to the preservation of the true church. Without them, we are apt to ride the current theological hobby–horses. We are tempted to focus attention only on those teachings of scripture that tickle our contemporary fantasies. With creedal direction we are more apt to respond to the comprehensive and divinely authored Word of God.

Minimizing the Creeds

In spite of our rich creedal tradition, there are a number of indications that the importance of the creeds is being steadily minimized among us. Let me cite just two significant examples. In 1979 Synod passed two rules of procedure for all subsequent sy nods to follow. The first specified “that whenever a recommendation is presented to synod which would require a change in the Creeds (italics added) and/or in the Church Order, the proposal ought to specify the changes.” The second stipulated “that Church Order Article 47 implies that whenever changes. in the Creed and/or substantial changes in the Church Order are made by synod, the churches shall be given adequate opportunity to consider the advisability of the changes before they are ratified by a following Synod” (Acts, 1979, Art. 77 C, p. 90). These rules were passed in response to what was judged to be the hasty and unwarranted decisions of the 1978 Synod concerning women in ecclesiastical office.

Those who follow the discussions going on within the church will immediately recognize that, since 1979, a good deal of debate has arisen about the change in Article 3 of the Church Order. That article has historically stated that “confessing male members . . . are eligible for office.” After five years of almost incessant wrangling, the Synod of 1984 finally succeeded in eliminating the word “male” from that article, but then only in relationship to the office of deacon. Five years of hotly contested debate over one word relative to one office!

But what about the creeds? In the rules of 1979, the first concern is the creeds. Who has been discussing the more numerous and more substantial changes that would be required in the Belgic Confession in order to permit the change in church practice? The sad answer is, “almost no one!” Judging as a historian, one would have to conclude that somehow, so me way, the Church Order has become much more important to the church than have the creeds. Some may rejoice at this diminution of creedal influence, but those who do are guilty of radically departing from the historic faith delivered to us by our ancestors ever since the Protestant Reformation.

The second illustration of diminished creedal influence is even more alarming. I refer specifically to a matter which is coming for final vote to the Synod in June, 1985. At those sessions the delegates will be asked to approve a new “translation” of the Belgic Confession and to discard the one that has been in existence and continuous use by the Reformed churches since 1618.

How the New Version Began

Although very few people have been taking note of it, this proposal for a new “translation” did not just happen, but has been bumping and grinding its way through ecclesiastical channels ever since 1973, when such an effort was first requested by the New Confession Committee. In response to some vague complaints about supposedly “archaic language” and “cumbersome style,” Synod in 1977 appointed a Belgic Confession Translation Committee and mandated it to present a new “translation,” for consideration by a later synod.

Although I was a delegate to both the Synods of 1979 and 1983, at which the preliminary reports were discussed, I must confess that very little serious attention was paid to these reports. The reports were, after all, rather lengthy (1979-70 pp .; 1983-140 pp.) and increasingly technical. To digest them fully would require a reading knowledge of French and Dutch, as well as an historian’s knack for tracing voluminous dates. Besides, there were other more pressing, more important issues on which to focus attention! I was guilty of making such an erroneous judgment, even though Rev. Leonard Verduin made an impassioned and well-argued plea against the committee report in 1983 and submitted a ten–page minority report (see Acts, 1983, pp. 396–405) which everyone ought to read.

Verduin’s Deserved Criticisms

It is high time that we take seriously the concerns of Rev. Verduin, who refused to sign the Translation Committee‘s report, and carefully consider his insightful criticisms in his minority report. As I read through those pages, it becomes apparent that the “translation” which the CRC is being asked to adopt is a wholly illegitimate and un-Reformed version of the Creed, which should not even be up for consideration. As Verduin points out, the version which the majority is recommending has never had the blessing of the church councils and teaches subtle variations of doctrine which Verduin found “impossible, in conscience, to live with.” Up to this point, he has been a lone wolf crying in the wilderness, but I pray that it will not long be so. Every office holder and concerned member owes it to the church to join Rev. Verduin in his concern for the possible adoption of a significantly altered and illegitimate text of the Confession of Faith.

Surreptitious Feminist Perve rsion of a Creed!

There is another concern, however, in addition to those cited by Rev. Verduin. Although it did not come to the attention of the synodical delegates in 1979 or 1983, and has not been cited by the committee when calling attention to the “revisions,” the male language used in reference to the ecclesiastical officers has all been removed and replaced with non-sexist language. ” Men” becomes “persons” and the male pronouns become “everyone” or “all.” If this is allowed to pass next June, those who treat the creeds lightly will have effectively altered the Confession in such a way that there will no longer be any legal barriers to women elders and ministers, which appears to be the desire of those who are preaching the gospel of democracy, as well as that o f the Committee for Women in the CRC.

Synod Ordered Copies –None Produced!

In conjunction with this rather unknown debate about a new version of the Belgic Confession, Synod in 1983 wisely instructed the Board of Publications to make the new “translation” available to the churches in booklet form “as soon as feasible” and encouraged the churches “to submit reactions and suggested improvements—no later than May 15, 1984” (Acts, 1983, p. 648). The Board of Publications has not yet complied with Synodical instructions by providing consistories with the booklets for study!

Conclusion

The delegates to Synod should reject any proposal to revise the Belgic Confession. Those of us who use the present translation for study and teaching purposes are not at all convinced that any new translation is necessary. My high school catechumens and college students have never complained about the supposedly “archaic language” and “cumbersome style.” In the absence of some overwhelming evidence that the Belgic Confession is truly antiquated, we ought to thank the Translation Committee for all of its work and discontinue the effort. It would be far more profitable for all of us if we seriously studied what we have and give it the prominence that it deserves.

A Crisis of Conscience

If Synod next summer should insist on adopting the new version recommended by the Translation Committee, a very interesting and not insignificant dilemma will confront all those delegates who oppose its adoption. Delegation to Synod, as well as membership in the Christian Reformed Church, requires expressed agreement with the creeds on which the denomination is founded. When delegates to Synod cannot express agreement with one of the three creeds, will they be forced, as a matter of conscience, to withdraw from Synod? Will consistory members be asked to resign from office? Will congregation members be asked to transfer elsewhere? Or will all of the above be asked to blunt their consciences and to “go along for the sake of peace?” Whichever way the offended parties choose to get out of their dilemma, the forms of unity which have held us together for so long will have become the instrument of disunity.

Why didn’t we, way back in 1973, require the New Confession Committee to document and substantiate their charges of “archaic language” and “cumbersome style”? The solution to our problem would have been so much simpler. Now, because we had itching ears and a desire for something fresh, we have created for ourselves a theological mess. The Belgic Confession wasn’t broken-down, but we decided to fix it anyway. We are all to blame, but it isn’t too late to repair the damage.

Dr. Norman DeJong is a professor at Trinity Christian College at Palos Heights, Illinois. Editor‘s note: We are informed that this new, illegitimate version of the creed, which was not made available to consistories for critical study as the synod had ordered, is already included in service booklet #6. is listed in the Publication Committee’s catalog and can be purchased for use in church services.