It’s more than time to return to a consideration of this subject that was introduced in an editorial in the October issue with a promise to continue the matter the following month. The reason for the delay is that other matters were allowed to have the right of way. If a bit of Bobbie Burns’ Scottish verse is permitted: “The best laid schemes 0′ mice and men gang aft a-gley.” The indulgence and patience of our readers in this is gratefully acknowledged.
Understandably, not everyone was equally indulgent and patient. “This morning,” one correspondent writes, “I received the November OUTLOOK in the mail, only to find that you had nothing to say about secession or polarization [the two options on which I had promised to write]. How come? Why be silent on the subject?” Accepting this reproof for the delay but not conceding any intention to be “silent on the subject,” I am at the same time gratified by this subscriber’s expression of interest.
To be sure, if there is reason to believe that the Christian Reformed Church is undergoing a change, and if the conservative is confronted with a dilemma because of this, then the matter is one to which we should address ourselves deliberately but also with the proper dispatch. However, let no one for a moment underestimate the difficulties involved in speaking or writing definitively on a matter as far-reaching and as delicate as this. But write we must, and may the Lord be gracious to grant the proper sense of direction and also well-chosen words to call attention to it.
A Contrast in Opinions – Permit me once again to delay the consideration of secession and polarization a bit further by quoting from two communications germane to our subject. The question is whether the CRC is actually a changing church and whether the conservative is therefore truly facing a dilemma or not.
1. One correspondent is convinced that the CRC has changed so much that it has passed the point of no return. He writes:
“I had hoped you would say emphatically: Let us secede from a Church which fools around with the infallibility of Scripture. A Church which adopts reports such as the ones on homosexuality and Pentecostalism has drifted far away from Biblical teaching. You know, Rev. Vander Ploeg, just as well as I do that the Christian Reformed Church is beyond retrieve. She is a sinking ship and you and all the conservatives ought to get off. It’s high time! STAND UP AND BE COUNTED.
So, that’s one opinion. This brother, who minces no words in flogging those of us who remain in the CRC, has himself acted according to his judgment in the matter and has seceded from the denomination. We respect him for following what must have been his conscientious conviction in doing what he did. However, we would appreciate it if he would accord the same respect to those of us who, to date, do not feel conscience-bound to take the same position.
2. Now another opinion. Repeatedly THE OUTLOOK has carried articles about disturbing developments in the CRC and has warned against them. In my October editorial I assumed therefore that readers of our publication would be at least somewhat familiar with this background on which I wrote. Perhaps I took too much for granted in assuming this, which is suggested when another correspondent writes the following:
“I sincerely feel that before this editorial [on The Conservative’s Dilemma] is completed, an editorial should be written setting forth in clear language which changes the conservative should be concerned about. This clarity I fail to find in the article and feel that it could lead those who oppose any change, whether in time of service, the form of worship, and so forth, to brand those who advocate such changes as ‘liberals.’”
Of course, the “and so forth” in the communication just quoted could cover a multitude of changes, but I take it to mean that the writer is referring to non-essential changes, those that are not a matter of principle. His letter states also: “The very vague statements concerning change in the church could lead to schism within the church by those who are disturbed by any change.”
Let it be said emphatically then, lest there be any misunderstanding, that some changes may be for the better, and that the old is not necessarily good because it is old and that the new is not necessarily bad because it is flew. With respect to the so-called adiapohra (matters left to our Christian liberty) we should be flexible enough to respect each other’s opinion and not label each other as liberals, conservatives, or anything else. Let’s be on our guard lest we make principles out of our personal opinions and preferences and try to legislate for others with respect to them.
The Worship and the Winds of Change – Correspondent number two asks for a specific mention of changes we have in mind. This is a reasonable request even though I had assumed that regular readers of THE OUTLOOK would have no problem.
That the CRC also is in the throes of serious and disturbing change should not be considered strange when one bears in mind how widespread the mania for change and even the worship of it have gotten to be in our day. In his recent work, To Tum from Idols (Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), Kenneth Hamilton of the University of Winnipeg has a chapter on “The Great God of Change” in which he writes:
“The god from whom the spirit of this age issues, the god who sends contemporary man into the world so that the spirit of the age may testify of the things that belong to him, the god who gives the Perennial New to those who show forth the fruits of relevance, the god who guarantees inevitable progress—the name of this god is Change . . .” (p. 93).
Writing on “The Pella Synod of 1966” in The Reformed Journal of July-August 1966, Dr. James Daane wrote: “I think I agree with those who saw in the 1966 Pella Synod a weather vane indicating that the winds of change are and have been blowing through the Christian Reformed Churches. They are blowing hard and fast and it is simply a matter of honesty to admit that we feel them in our faces and in our souls. The ’mind of fear” will be much afraid, and we can understand the fear even if we do not share the form it often takes. For we know what we were, but caught in the process of change we do not know what we shall be . . . . The old leadership is now dead or largely muted in retirement . . . . Whether we like it or not, we are caught in, and are a part of, the movement of our time. We have changed much; we are changing much; and we shall change much . . .” (pp. 5, 6).
One need not be like-minded with Dr. Daane about our “changing Church” to recognize that he is a discerning observer as to what has been taking place. One would have to be deliberately blind or hiding his head in the sand not to realize that “the winds of change are blowing,” indeed.
Let’s be specific – All right, it’s high time that we become specific as to a number of changes we have in mind. Obviously, it is impossible within the confines of this editorial to do more than merely mention items or issues we have in mind with possibly one or two exceptions. Specific matters are:
1. Inroads being made by the so-called ‘New Hermeneutics’ in the CRC, involving the question of the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis. Hermeneutics is the term used in theology for the study of the interpretation of Scripture.
2. Theistic evolution.
3. Objections to signing the Form of Subscription.
4. Dialog and other activities usurping the place of the preaching of the Word which is the first mark of the true Church.
5. Concern about a strong conviction as to the infallibility and the inerrancy of Scripture. As evidence for this concern and of a critical attitude toward the expression of such concern by some consistories, witness the following written by Rev. Ralph Heynen in The Banner of September 28, 1973:
“I am sure we have had a good deal of this same frustration [on the part of ministers] also in the CRC. It is hard to tell whether this is due to the pastor’s inability to ‘lead’ his people, or whether it is due to the rigid patterns imposed by people who want no change to take place. 1n most cases it is probably both. In the last few years I have seen a number of the questionnaires sent by vacant churches to be filled in by candidates for a call. The pastor is expected to declare in writing, his views on various issues that have caused controversy in the church in recent years. Questions on the report on biblical authority, the stand of the church on infallibility, Evangelism Thrust. Neo-Pentecostalism, and many others are included . . . . I do not know who prepares these questionnaires, for I am sure that few elders have ever digested the Acts of Synod, nor do I know whether they reflect the attitudes of the congregation. They may mirror the attitude of an advisor or of one or two dominant persons in the congregation. To say the least, this cheapens the whole matter of calling a minister” (Italics are added).
Rather than administer a rebuke of this kind to consistories who, in this way. express their concern about issues and controversies in the CRC, I would heartily commend them for doing so. It is better to find out in advance how a minister stands on such matters than to wait until it is too late to do anything about it. That the elders are as lacking in knowledge concerning issues and controversies in the CRC as Rev. Heynen judges them to be, I am not yet ready to believe. Personally I would have no objections whatsoever to being asked very pointedly about my convictions concerning the infallibility of the Bible. Just why should a candidate for a pulpit not he willing and even eager to make it very clear where he stands on a matter like this?
6. Neo-Pentecostalism, tongue speaking, faith healing.
7. The initial unwillingness of the CRC to support an avowedly Reformed school for the training of ministers in Nigeria while the denomination was willing to support TCNN with its CRC–Baptist–Lutheran faculty. To this day the CRC officially gives only limited support to RTCN (Reformed Theological College of Nigeria) and it is no secret that its principal, Rev. Timothy Monsma, is not allowed to make a plea for funds for its support.
8. Agitation in the CRC for open versus close Communion. 1f my informants are correct, open Communion is also being practised.
9. Continued agitation to accept lodge members into the CRC.
10. The readiness of the CRC to officially approve of closer fellowship with the RCA (Reformed Church in America ) without first trying to resolve the very real differences that exist between us.
11. Homosexuality decision of the 1973 Synod.
This list is not exhaustive but I trust that it is at least adequate to somewhat clarify what we have in mind in writing about the CRC as a changing church.
Where do we go from here? – The very real and agonizing question that now confronts the conservative is: Where do we go from here? The October editorial advocated that to take refuge in detachment, adaptation, capitulation, or surrender would be definitely unworthy of the informed and alert conservative. Where does this leave us new?
Some are advocating secession and others have already followed this course. The 1973 Yearbook of the Christian Reformed Church reports that in the previous year 3,874 persons left for other denominations. well over twice as many as were received from other denominations, and that was 434 more than left us during the previous year. It would be wrong to infer that these persons left because of the changes occurring in the CRC, but it would be safe to assume that at least a number of them went for that reason.
However, secession is serious business and we would urge those who contemplate seceding that, at least, they first stop to count the cost. Those who have felt conscience-bound to secede are entitled to our Christian understanding and respect. However, it is another question whether they and we have now exhausted every possibility to reverse wrong and alarming trends within our mother church, to whom we owe so much, and whether we are now justified in severing our relations with her. It is my conviction that right now polarization without any apology is the course to follow in a humble, consecrated, and an all-out effort to be a blessing to the CRC and to be able to report to our Lord that we went the second mile and even beyond that to do what we could.
The Lord willing, more about this next time.
Understandably, not everyone was equally indulgent and patient. “This morning,” one correspondent writes, “I received the November OUTLOOK in the mail, only to find that you had nothing to say about secession or polarization [the two options on which I had promised to write]. How come? Why be silent on the subject?” Accepting this reproof for the delay but not conceding any intention to be “silent on the subject,” I am at the same time gratified by this subscriber’s expression of interest.
To be sure, if there is reason to believe that the Christian Reformed Church is undergoing a change, and if the conservative is confronted with a dilemma because of this, then the matter is one to which we should address ourselves deliberately but also with the proper dispatch. However, let no one for a moment underestimate the difficulties involved in speaking or writing definitively on a matter as far-reaching and as delicate as this. But write we must, and may the Lord be gracious to grant the proper sense of direction and also well-chosen words to call attention to it.
A Contrast in Opinions – Permit me once again to delay the consideration of secession and polarization a bit further by quoting from two communications germane to our subject. The question is whether the CRC is actually a changing church and whether the conservative is therefore truly facing a dilemma or not.
1. One correspondent is convinced that the CRC has changed so much that it has passed the point of no return. He writes:
“I had hoped you would say emphatically: Let us secede from a Church which fools around with the infallibility of Scripture. A Church which adopts reports such as the ones on homosexuality and Pentecostalism has drifted far away from Biblical teaching. You know, Rev. Vander Ploeg, just as well as I do that the Christian Reformed Church is beyond retrieve. She is a sinking ship and you and all the conservatives ought to get off. It’s high time! STAND UP AND BE COUNTED.
So, that’s one opinion. This brother, who minces no words in flogging those of us who remain in the CRC, has himself acted according to his judgment in the matter and has seceded from the denomination. We respect him for following what must have been his conscientious conviction in doing what he did. However, we would appreciate it if he would accord the same respect to those of us who, to date, do not feel conscience-bound to take the same position.
2. Now another opinion. Repeatedly THE OUTLOOK has carried articles about disturbing developments in the CRC and has warned against them. In my October editorial I assumed therefore that readers of our publication would be at least somewhat familiar with this background on which I wrote. Perhaps I took too much for granted in assuming this, which is suggested when another correspondent writes the following:
“I sincerely feel that before this editorial [on The Conservative’s Dilemma] is completed, an editorial should be written setting forth in clear language which changes the conservative should be concerned about. This clarity I fail to find in the article and feel that it could lead those who oppose any change, whether in time of service, the form of worship, and so forth, to brand those who advocate such changes as ‘liberals.’”
Of course, the “and so forth” in the communication just quoted could cover a multitude of changes, but I take it to mean that the writer is referring to non-essential changes, those that are not a matter of principle. His letter states also: “The very vague statements concerning change in the church could lead to schism within the church by those who are disturbed by any change.”
Let it be said emphatically then, lest there be any misunderstanding, that some changes may be for the better, and that the old is not necessarily good because it is old and that the new is not necessarily bad because it is flew. With respect to the so-called adiapohra (matters left to our Christian liberty) we should be flexible enough to respect each other’s opinion and not label each other as liberals, conservatives, or anything else. Let’s be on our guard lest we make principles out of our personal opinions and preferences and try to legislate for others with respect to them.
The Worship and the Winds of Change – Correspondent number two asks for a specific mention of changes we have in mind. This is a reasonable request even though I had assumed that regular readers of THE OUTLOOK would have no problem.
That the CRC also is in the throes of serious and disturbing change should not be considered strange when one bears in mind how widespread the mania for change and even the worship of it have gotten to be in our day. In his recent work, To Tum from Idols (Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), Kenneth Hamilton of the University of Winnipeg has a chapter on “The Great God of Change” in which he writes:
“The god from whom the spirit of this age issues, the god who sends contemporary man into the world so that the spirit of the age may testify of the things that belong to him, the god who gives the Perennial New to those who show forth the fruits of relevance, the god who guarantees inevitable progress—the name of this god is Change . . .” (p. 93).
Writing on “The Pella Synod of 1966” in The Reformed Journal of July-August 1966, Dr. James Daane wrote: “I think I agree with those who saw in the 1966 Pella Synod a weather vane indicating that the winds of change are and have been blowing through the Christian Reformed Churches. They are blowing hard and fast and it is simply a matter of honesty to admit that we feel them in our faces and in our souls. The ’mind of fear” will be much afraid, and we can understand the fear even if we do not share the form it often takes. For we know what we were, but caught in the process of change we do not know what we shall be . . . . The old leadership is now dead or largely muted in retirement . . . . Whether we like it or not, we are caught in, and are a part of, the movement of our time. We have changed much; we are changing much; and we shall change much . . .” (pp. 5, 6).
One need not be like-minded with Dr. Daane about our “changing Church” to recognize that he is a discerning observer as to what has been taking place. One would have to be deliberately blind or hiding his head in the sand not to realize that “the winds of change are blowing,” indeed.
Let’s be specific – All right, it’s high time that we become specific as to a number of changes we have in mind. Obviously, it is impossible within the confines of this editorial to do more than merely mention items or issues we have in mind with possibly one or two exceptions. Specific matters are:
1. Inroads being made by the so-called ‘New Hermeneutics’ in the CRC, involving the question of the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis. Hermeneutics is the term used in theology for the study of the interpretation of Scripture.
2. Theistic evolution.
3. Objections to signing the Form of Subscription.
4. Dialog and other activities usurping the place of the preaching of the Word which is the first mark of the true Church.
5. Concern about a strong conviction as to the infallibility and the inerrancy of Scripture. As evidence for this concern and of a critical attitude toward the expression of such concern by some consistories, witness the following written by Rev. Ralph Heynen in The Banner of September 28, 1973:
“I am sure we have had a good deal of this same frustration [on the part of ministers] also in the CRC. It is hard to tell whether this is due to the pastor’s inability to ‘lead’ his people, or whether it is due to the rigid patterns imposed by people who want no change to take place. 1n most cases it is probably both. In the last few years I have seen a number of the questionnaires sent by vacant churches to be filled in by candidates for a call. The pastor is expected to declare in writing, his views on various issues that have caused controversy in the church in recent years. Questions on the report on biblical authority, the stand of the church on infallibility, Evangelism Thrust. Neo-Pentecostalism, and many others are included . . . . I do not know who prepares these questionnaires, for I am sure that few elders have ever digested the Acts of Synod, nor do I know whether they reflect the attitudes of the congregation. They may mirror the attitude of an advisor or of one or two dominant persons in the congregation. To say the least, this cheapens the whole matter of calling a minister” (Italics are added).
Rather than administer a rebuke of this kind to consistories who, in this way. express their concern about issues and controversies in the CRC, I would heartily commend them for doing so. It is better to find out in advance how a minister stands on such matters than to wait until it is too late to do anything about it. That the elders are as lacking in knowledge concerning issues and controversies in the CRC as Rev. Heynen judges them to be, I am not yet ready to believe. Personally I would have no objections whatsoever to being asked very pointedly about my convictions concerning the infallibility of the Bible. Just why should a candidate for a pulpit not he willing and even eager to make it very clear where he stands on a matter like this?
6. Neo-Pentecostalism, tongue speaking, faith healing.
7. The initial unwillingness of the CRC to support an avowedly Reformed school for the training of ministers in Nigeria while the denomination was willing to support TCNN with its CRC–Baptist–Lutheran faculty. To this day the CRC officially gives only limited support to RTCN (Reformed Theological College of Nigeria) and it is no secret that its principal, Rev. Timothy Monsma, is not allowed to make a plea for funds for its support.
8. Agitation in the CRC for open versus close Communion. 1f my informants are correct, open Communion is also being practised.
9. Continued agitation to accept lodge members into the CRC.
10. The readiness of the CRC to officially approve of closer fellowship with the RCA (Reformed Church in America ) without first trying to resolve the very real differences that exist between us.
11. Homosexuality decision of the 1973 Synod.
This list is not exhaustive but I trust that it is at least adequate to somewhat clarify what we have in mind in writing about the CRC as a changing church.
Where do we go from here? – The very real and agonizing question that now confronts the conservative is: Where do we go from here? The October editorial advocated that to take refuge in detachment, adaptation, capitulation, or surrender would be definitely unworthy of the informed and alert conservative. Where does this leave us new?
Some are advocating secession and others have already followed this course. The 1973 Yearbook of the Christian Reformed Church reports that in the previous year 3,874 persons left for other denominations. well over twice as many as were received from other denominations, and that was 434 more than left us during the previous year. It would be wrong to infer that these persons left because of the changes occurring in the CRC, but it would be safe to assume that at least a number of them went for that reason.
However, secession is serious business and we would urge those who contemplate seceding that, at least, they first stop to count the cost. Those who have felt conscience-bound to secede are entitled to our Christian understanding and respect. However, it is another question whether they and we have now exhausted every possibility to reverse wrong and alarming trends within our mother church, to whom we owe so much, and whether we are now justified in severing our relations with her. It is my conviction that right now polarization without any apology is the course to follow in a humble, consecrated, and an all-out effort to be a blessing to the CRC and to be able to report to our Lord that we went the second mile and even beyond that to do what we could.
The Lord willing, more about this next time.