Taking its cue from the Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of Calvin College and Seminary, Synod 1968 adopted the following recommendation: “That Synod take note of the fact that our consistories and people are being subjected to illicit and undermining propaganda regarding Calvin College and Seminary, that it deplores this practice and calls attention of the churches to the proper channels of addressing complaints.”
“Proper channels” is the hue and cry in the Christian Reformed Church today. It is used most piously and fervently by the apostles of change. The mainline clerics arc ardently devoted to the “Kerkelijke weg.” A precious few have recognized that while the use of “channels” is indeed proper and desirable, the channels, although open, are not channelling properly.
The position of a complainant has worsened in recent months. The concerned individual today is quickly and easily dismissed as “lacking in love;” “a trouble maker;” “misguided and uninformed;” “too legalistic;” “a detriment to church unity;” or “a John Bircher.”
The channelers cleverly concentrate on the “individual,” his “attitude,” and his “procedure,” rather than on the issue raised. This inevitably permits lengthy delays which will hopefully dull the issue, frustrate the complainant, and allow “dialogue” and “conditioning” to pave the way for innocuous disposition of the complaint should the complainant continue to show signs of life.
Evidence that the channels are not channelling properly continues to mount. We tum to a case in point.
On Sunday morning, January 3, 1965, the Rev. Leonard Sweetman, Instructor in Religion and Theology at Calvin College, was guest Minister at the Fuller Avenue Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He delivered a message based on Matthew 25:31–46. A few excerpts will serve to demonstrate that the christian and reformed sensitivities of anyone in the congregation should have been painfully affronted.
“That is to say, the Son of Man, the Judge whom both the cursed and the blessed are meeting whom they think they are meeting for the first time, is someone they have been meeting every day. T he Son of Man has so identified Himself with men WHERE they are, AS they are, that when we are confronted by our neighbor we meet HIM. When we are confronted by the lonely, and the weak, when we are confronted by the hungry, and the thirsty, when we are confronted by the prisoner, and the pauper, when we are confronted…by the tax collector, the petty politician, and the prostitute, we meet the SON OF MAN. And the response which we make to those who confront us with whom the Son of Man has identified Himself is the response we make to the Son of Man. His identification with men WHERE they are, and the KIND of men they are, is so complete that any and all standards and norms we use in order to fragment men, to divide and separate men, are demonstrably faulty.
“This is a picturesque way of describing precisely what John’s gospel is trying to say when it makes that statement ‘And the Word became flesh’—that is, unredeemed man—UNREDEEMED MAN—who is ALIENATED FROM GOD.
Jesus identifies Himself—Jesus the Word of God—identifies Himself with the man alienated from God. He stands on OUR side of the line. He locates Himself among us. And the good message of the New Testament is the Word of God saying ‘I’m ON YOUR SIDE OF THE FENCE! I’m dirty up to my elbows. And in the person of Jesus I’m failure.’ He dies a failure.
“…We find the attitude of the early church more congenial to our way of thinking than that of Jesus’. We do not deny the power of God to transform a man, to transform sinners into saints, but we cringe at the idea that the pauper, and the prostitute, and the petty politician, the thief, and the tyrant, ARE OUR BROTHERS. They become our brothers through God’s grace. Yes, prostitute and pauper, and petty politician, and tyrant, and thief, they may well be those whom we should pity, but they are not ‘my brother’ with whom I will to identify myself daily. That is to say, we are REPELLED by those in whom the cancer of moral degradation which is present in all of us, becomes visible.
“Jesus, however, embraced them. We may be repelled by Castro, and Khrushchev, by the late Marilyn Monroe, and Sophia Loren, by Billie Sol Estes, and Bobby Baker, by Sukarno, and Nkrumah. The Son of Man, however, says concerning them one and all–to whichever these least my brothers you did it -you did it to me. And to whomever of these least, you did it NOT, you did it not to me.”
It is not the intention here to analyze this excerpt. Such should not even be necessary among reformed people. We are, rather, concerned about “proper channels.” The fact that someone brought objection against this sermon is heartening, but when you consider that approximately 700 persons heard the same sermon and took no action, it is disquieting.
Mr. Nick Bierema, a member of the Fuller Avenue Church, began formal proceedings in this matter in March 1965, after having talked privately with Rev. Sweetman and having urged the consistory to look into the matter.
One year after the sermon was delivered, the Fuller Avenue Consistory, in response to Mr. Bierema’s protest, gave the following reply:
“Having heard the tape of Rev. Sweetman’s sermon run off in your presence and having considered your several objections to statements in the sermon and Rev. Sweetman’s answers to your objections and explanation of these statements, it is our contention that if Rev. Sweetman is understood, we see no reason that he be censurable.”
In other words, take a Dutchman for what he means, not for what he says. At any rate, a non-censurable sermon can surely bear the publicity given it here.
Mr. Bierema was obviously not satisfied to sweep the matter under the rug with such a simple and ambiguous “decision.” He therefore appealed to Classis Grand Rapids East in May 1966. Classis appointed a committee to study the matter and report its findings to the September 1966 session.
In September 1966, the Classis decided to refer the matter back to the Consistory on the ground that “the consistory did not have sufficient time to address itself to the problems raised in the protest addressed to the Classis…” This despite the fact that Consistory had already received a copy of the protest on May 3, 1966. Thus Consistory had a full four months to give answer!
The matter was brought before Classis again in January 1967. At that time Classis appointed yet another committee to study the matter and report to the May 1967 session or Classis.
In May 1967, Classis defeated the recommendation of its study committee “that Mr. Bierema’s protest against the formal aspects of the Consistory’s action be sustained.”
Later in the day Classis passed the following: “Classis advises Mr. Bierema that the subject of the sermon was not salvation by faith or works. The part of the sermon in question was an examination of the basis for the final judgment as this is revealed in Matthew 25:31-46. According to that passage of Scripture the basis of criteria for final judgment is works.”
“Classis advises Mr. Bierema that in its judgment the doctrine of the incarnation is not at all developed in the sermon, and much of what is said in this connection in the sermon is ambiguous.”
Now nearly two and one-half years after the sermon was preached, Mr. Bierema decided to appeal to Synod 1968, stating as his reasons:
“1. That C1assis, judging by its decision has failed to enter into the entire matter and has not attempted to answer my objections to the sermon preached by the Rev. Sweetman.
“2. That in as far as Classis has considered the matter, its decision is evasive and cannot possibly remove my conscientious objections to the sermon.”
Synodical rules prohibit the printing of individual appeals in the Agenda, but do not prohibit the individual from providing copies of his appeal to duly elected delegates to Synod. Mr. Bierema therefore sent his materials, including a transcript of the sermon, to the delegates.
Predictably, Synod’s advisory committee did not sustain Mr. Bierema’s appeal. However, the committee report as presented on the floor of Synod contained two very interesting and telling observations:
“1. Your advisory committee carefully read and analyzed the sermon and came to the conclusion that the appellant did indeed have a real basis for his criticism.
“2. In the judgment of your committee, the sermon contains ambiguities, very unfortunate expressions, questionable exegesis, and is an incomplete presentation of the gospel.”
It is indeed gratifying that this committee was able to discern these things in the relatively short time allotted them for study and drawing up a report. Especially so when one considers that Consistory and Classis had spent two and one-half years and apparently failed to offer a similar concession.
The question immediately arises however, why in the light of their observations did the Advisory Committee, and subsequently Synod, fail to sustain Mr. Bierema? Did they not want to embarrass the Consistory and Classis by ruling against them? Did the clergy conspire to protect one another? Was the matter of such small consequence? Did Synod fear another “Dekker type dialogue” on the floor of Synod? Or have we just plain made up our ecclesiastical minds to move over and make room for every “wind of doctrine,” and dismiss all error as “ambiguities?”
Intolerable as the decision is in the light of the observations, it remains a niggling sidelight when compared with the action which took place on the last day of Synod. What follows should convince us once and for all that the ACTS OF SYNOD contain the decisions of Synod, and that if you want to know the “acts” you must be present at its sessions.
On Saturday morning, June 22, 1968, after many delegates had already left for home, a motion was introduced by one of the ministerial delegates at Synod, and adopted by Synod, by which the above-mentioned observations of the Advisory Committee were expunged (deleted) from the record (ACTS OF SYNOD). WHY? We have already noted that Synod’s decision was a conundrum in the light of the observations. Was Synod ashamed of its decision? Was Synod attempting to protect Brother Sweetman in his position at Calvin? Was there a fear of embarrassing questions being raised by the folks back home? Did they fear that our people would have grounds for skepticism regarding use of channels? Was the intent to make Mr. Bierema appear as wrong—all the way up to Synod? Or perhaps just to demonstrate to the constituency the futility of protesting?
“Proper channels” is the hue and cry in the Christian Reformed Church today. It is used most piously and fervently by the apostles of change. The mainline clerics arc ardently devoted to the “Kerkelijke weg.” A precious few have recognized that while the use of “channels” is indeed proper and desirable, the channels, although open, are not channelling properly.
The position of a complainant has worsened in recent months. The concerned individual today is quickly and easily dismissed as “lacking in love;” “a trouble maker;” “misguided and uninformed;” “too legalistic;” “a detriment to church unity;” or “a John Bircher.”
The channelers cleverly concentrate on the “individual,” his “attitude,” and his “procedure,” rather than on the issue raised. This inevitably permits lengthy delays which will hopefully dull the issue, frustrate the complainant, and allow “dialogue” and “conditioning” to pave the way for innocuous disposition of the complaint should the complainant continue to show signs of life.
Evidence that the channels are not channelling properly continues to mount. We tum to a case in point.
On Sunday morning, January 3, 1965, the Rev. Leonard Sweetman, Instructor in Religion and Theology at Calvin College, was guest Minister at the Fuller Avenue Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He delivered a message based on Matthew 25:31–46. A few excerpts will serve to demonstrate that the christian and reformed sensitivities of anyone in the congregation should have been painfully affronted.
“That is to say, the Son of Man, the Judge whom both the cursed and the blessed are meeting whom they think they are meeting for the first time, is someone they have been meeting every day. T he Son of Man has so identified Himself with men WHERE they are, AS they are, that when we are confronted by our neighbor we meet HIM. When we are confronted by the lonely, and the weak, when we are confronted by the hungry, and the thirsty, when we are confronted by the prisoner, and the pauper, when we are confronted…by the tax collector, the petty politician, and the prostitute, we meet the SON OF MAN. And the response which we make to those who confront us with whom the Son of Man has identified Himself is the response we make to the Son of Man. His identification with men WHERE they are, and the KIND of men they are, is so complete that any and all standards and norms we use in order to fragment men, to divide and separate men, are demonstrably faulty.
“This is a picturesque way of describing precisely what John’s gospel is trying to say when it makes that statement ‘And the Word became flesh’—that is, unredeemed man—UNREDEEMED MAN—who is ALIENATED FROM GOD.
Jesus identifies Himself—Jesus the Word of God—identifies Himself with the man alienated from God. He stands on OUR side of the line. He locates Himself among us. And the good message of the New Testament is the Word of God saying ‘I’m ON YOUR SIDE OF THE FENCE! I’m dirty up to my elbows. And in the person of Jesus I’m failure.’ He dies a failure.
“…We find the attitude of the early church more congenial to our way of thinking than that of Jesus’. We do not deny the power of God to transform a man, to transform sinners into saints, but we cringe at the idea that the pauper, and the prostitute, and the petty politician, the thief, and the tyrant, ARE OUR BROTHERS. They become our brothers through God’s grace. Yes, prostitute and pauper, and petty politician, and tyrant, and thief, they may well be those whom we should pity, but they are not ‘my brother’ with whom I will to identify myself daily. That is to say, we are REPELLED by those in whom the cancer of moral degradation which is present in all of us, becomes visible.
“Jesus, however, embraced them. We may be repelled by Castro, and Khrushchev, by the late Marilyn Monroe, and Sophia Loren, by Billie Sol Estes, and Bobby Baker, by Sukarno, and Nkrumah. The Son of Man, however, says concerning them one and all–to whichever these least my brothers you did it -you did it to me. And to whomever of these least, you did it NOT, you did it not to me.”
It is not the intention here to analyze this excerpt. Such should not even be necessary among reformed people. We are, rather, concerned about “proper channels.” The fact that someone brought objection against this sermon is heartening, but when you consider that approximately 700 persons heard the same sermon and took no action, it is disquieting.
Mr. Nick Bierema, a member of the Fuller Avenue Church, began formal proceedings in this matter in March 1965, after having talked privately with Rev. Sweetman and having urged the consistory to look into the matter.
One year after the sermon was delivered, the Fuller Avenue Consistory, in response to Mr. Bierema’s protest, gave the following reply:
“Having heard the tape of Rev. Sweetman’s sermon run off in your presence and having considered your several objections to statements in the sermon and Rev. Sweetman’s answers to your objections and explanation of these statements, it is our contention that if Rev. Sweetman is understood, we see no reason that he be censurable.”
In other words, take a Dutchman for what he means, not for what he says. At any rate, a non-censurable sermon can surely bear the publicity given it here.
Mr. Bierema was obviously not satisfied to sweep the matter under the rug with such a simple and ambiguous “decision.” He therefore appealed to Classis Grand Rapids East in May 1966. Classis appointed a committee to study the matter and report its findings to the September 1966 session.
In September 1966, the Classis decided to refer the matter back to the Consistory on the ground that “the consistory did not have sufficient time to address itself to the problems raised in the protest addressed to the Classis…” This despite the fact that Consistory had already received a copy of the protest on May 3, 1966. Thus Consistory had a full four months to give answer!
The matter was brought before Classis again in January 1967. At that time Classis appointed yet another committee to study the matter and report to the May 1967 session or Classis.
In May 1967, Classis defeated the recommendation of its study committee “that Mr. Bierema’s protest against the formal aspects of the Consistory’s action be sustained.”
Later in the day Classis passed the following: “Classis advises Mr. Bierema that the subject of the sermon was not salvation by faith or works. The part of the sermon in question was an examination of the basis for the final judgment as this is revealed in Matthew 25:31-46. According to that passage of Scripture the basis of criteria for final judgment is works.”
“Classis advises Mr. Bierema that in its judgment the doctrine of the incarnation is not at all developed in the sermon, and much of what is said in this connection in the sermon is ambiguous.”
Now nearly two and one-half years after the sermon was preached, Mr. Bierema decided to appeal to Synod 1968, stating as his reasons:
“1. That C1assis, judging by its decision has failed to enter into the entire matter and has not attempted to answer my objections to the sermon preached by the Rev. Sweetman.
“2. That in as far as Classis has considered the matter, its decision is evasive and cannot possibly remove my conscientious objections to the sermon.”
Synodical rules prohibit the printing of individual appeals in the Agenda, but do not prohibit the individual from providing copies of his appeal to duly elected delegates to Synod. Mr. Bierema therefore sent his materials, including a transcript of the sermon, to the delegates.
Predictably, Synod’s advisory committee did not sustain Mr. Bierema’s appeal. However, the committee report as presented on the floor of Synod contained two very interesting and telling observations:
“1. Your advisory committee carefully read and analyzed the sermon and came to the conclusion that the appellant did indeed have a real basis for his criticism.
“2. In the judgment of your committee, the sermon contains ambiguities, very unfortunate expressions, questionable exegesis, and is an incomplete presentation of the gospel.”
It is indeed gratifying that this committee was able to discern these things in the relatively short time allotted them for study and drawing up a report. Especially so when one considers that Consistory and Classis had spent two and one-half years and apparently failed to offer a similar concession.
The question immediately arises however, why in the light of their observations did the Advisory Committee, and subsequently Synod, fail to sustain Mr. Bierema? Did they not want to embarrass the Consistory and Classis by ruling against them? Did the clergy conspire to protect one another? Was the matter of such small consequence? Did Synod fear another “Dekker type dialogue” on the floor of Synod? Or have we just plain made up our ecclesiastical minds to move over and make room for every “wind of doctrine,” and dismiss all error as “ambiguities?”
Intolerable as the decision is in the light of the observations, it remains a niggling sidelight when compared with the action which took place on the last day of Synod. What follows should convince us once and for all that the ACTS OF SYNOD contain the decisions of Synod, and that if you want to know the “acts” you must be present at its sessions.
On Saturday morning, June 22, 1968, after many delegates had already left for home, a motion was introduced by one of the ministerial delegates at Synod, and adopted by Synod, by which the above-mentioned observations of the Advisory Committee were expunged (deleted) from the record (ACTS OF SYNOD). WHY? We have already noted that Synod’s decision was a conundrum in the light of the observations. Was Synod ashamed of its decision? Was Synod attempting to protect Brother Sweetman in his position at Calvin? Was there a fear of embarrassing questions being raised by the folks back home? Did they fear that our people would have grounds for skepticism regarding use of channels? Was the intent to make Mr. Bierema appear as wrong—all the way up to Synod? Or perhaps just to demonstrate to the constituency the futility of protesting?
