Christian unity, as those who live by the gospels and the Reformed confessions know, is also church unity. Christians are duty bound to “join themselves to the true church” as the Belgic Confession states. John Calvin, though fighting the church of Rome with its claim to being the “mother church,” nevertheless kept speaking of the church as our “mother.” Calvin also stated in a letter to archbishop Thomas Cranmer of Canterbury that he would gladly cross “ten seas” if such could further the cause of unity between Reformed believers which Cranmer desired. Though, therefore, I am speaking of church union matters, and more particularly about the relations between the Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church, I nevertheless retain the words “Christian unity” in my title. This serves at least a twofold purpose. It helps us to remember that no church union is of any significance if Christian unity is not thereby furthered. There are, I would like to suggest, church unions which do not further this cause. These are unions arising from doctrinal indifference, or from the worldly desire to be numerically strong.

A second reason why I prefer to speak of Christian Unity rather than church union only is the fact that theological trends today, geared as they are to the tenets of comparative religion, are beginning to view the ecumenical question increasingly in terms of a union that should rightly also include the Jews, and possibly even other “monotheists.” A Jewish rabbi in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in an article recently published, quoted the Roman Catholic theologian Hans Kung to the effect that no ecumenical gathering today would be complete without the Jews also being present. This is not an isolated voice. There is a kind of ecumenicity that knows no bounds. It will not rest until all people of good will sing in the mighty chorus of the brotherhood of love, never mind the unique claims of Christ to be the way, the truth, and the life.

As an occasional adviser to Christian Reformed Synods I have had the opportunity and the duty to acquaint myself at times with the decisions of past synods regarding the relations with the Reformed Church in America. At the risk of having a lot of harsh criticism coming my way I venture to say that the story as it has developed over the last two decades or so is anything but edifying. I can give chapter and verse of the Acts of Synod to illustrate my allegation point by point. But this would make this first article too tediously long. So I shall just use one or two illustrations of what I consider to be a very unchurchly way of dealing with the churchly matter of church fellowship and church union.

It all began in 1964. An overture from a Christian Reformed classis suggested that steps be taken so that the Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church might “officially be drawn into closer fellowship.” This overture was referred to the denominational committee in Interchurch Relations. There was no endorsement, no instruction as to what to do. Remember also that the Reformed Church in America was not in any official relation with the Christian Reformed Church. It had steadfastly refused to become a “corresponding church,” holding the rules regulating such relationship to be too strict and too sweeping.

The next step was taken by the synod of 1966. This synod not only empowered its Committee on Liturgy to explore common concerns with a similar committee of the Reformed Church, it also encouraged “closer fellowship” between the two churches and it “commended” such fellowship to the congregations, “urging” classes to exchange what were called “fraternal delegates” at their meetings.

Not a word was said a bout the absence of any form of church correspondence, a church correspondence which on the part of the Christian Reformed Church has always contained a clause concerning the necessity of looking after each other’s doctrinal purity and confessional faithfulness. The Synod of 1966 apparently deemed such questions to be non-essential as we together started traveling the road toward Christian unity. This disregard for ecclesiastical procedure proved too much for one classis. It told the Synod of 1967 that it would not follow the “urging” of the previous Synod. “What about the refusal of the Reformed Church to enter into correspondence with us?” the classis asked.

The Synod of 1967 did not know how to answer. It referred the overture to the Interchurch Relations Committee. At this point a development occurs which has played a part in the matter of interchurch relations at more than one point. Synods act upon advice of the standing committee, but the committee appeals to synodical action to justify its position. For look what happened with the overture just mentioned. The classis had asked whether the Reformed Church had acceded to the rules for correspondence, and if not, why the step toward exchange of fraternal delegates was “urged” by the Synod of 1966. The answer to the first question should have been: “No, there has been no such acceptance.” And the answer to the second question would therefore have to be: “We have been too anxious to get started doing at least something.’”

Neither of these two things happened, however. Instead the Interchurch Relations Committee of 1968 answered as follows. It first sought to interpret the decision of 1966 by means of a quotation which purportedly is what the Synod of 1966 said but which is not to be found in the Acts of that synod. Secondly, it referred to the action of the Synod of 1964 which, as we saw earlier, referred an overture to the Interchurch Relations Committee without comment or instruction. Yet, that simple referral has by the year 1968 become a synodical “decision” partly justifying what the Interchurch Relations Committee advised the Synod of 1966. The third of the committee’s responses in 1968 was that if any classis did not want to follow the “urging” of the Synod of 1966 it should feel free to decline.

I hasten to add that prior to the 1966 decision there had been a mutual consultation between representatives of the two denominations. Yet, none of the questions which had so far kept us apart had been solved. No acknowledgment on the synodical level was made of what needed to be done. “Fraternal delegates” were being exchanged without any official relationship between the churches. Closer fellowship was “recommended,” yet it was left to the individual classis to determine whether to engage in such fellowship or not. Is this the royal road toward the unity of all true believers, which we must seek, be the efforts ever so laborious?

And what about the allegations of a less than homogeneous adherence to the Reformed faith on the part of the Reformed Church which have sometimes been made by Christian Reformed bodies? These have been printed in the church’s official publications. When will the time come that the Reformed Church has the opportunity to say: “Brothers and sisters, we stand with you in a common adherence to the creeds of the Reformation”? Or, if this cannot be said, “We strive earnestly to purge out everything that contradicts the true gospel as confessed in the Reformation creeds”?

It is not my desire to be unpleasant. Neither is there any reason to be self-righteous as a Christian Reformed Chlirch. Its confessional integrity is in turn impugned by others. But we are dealing with the church of Christ. The road to Christian unity is the church road. It is my contention that in this case we have not traveled this road in the past and I sincerely doubt whether we do so at the present.

Those who constantly ask for the discussion of “issues” may well be badly behind the times. I too belong to those who would like to discuss them. But I see no opportunity to do so, as far as ecclesiastical channels are concerned. The decision of 1972 to be churches “in ecclesiastical fellowship” was taken, not on the basis of the other church being Reformed in character a clause that is used in other cases but omitted in this case, it was taken on the basis of our having done so many things together already that there was now no reason to say “no” to “ecclesiastical fellowship.” All signs point to this same procedure to be followed until at some time in the future there will be a proposal on the synod’s table to merge. It will be argued the same way as the one of 1972—and not a single issue will be solved. Of course, I sincerely pray that I am mistaken in my prognosis. And since I believe in the adage “work and pray,” I have written this article.

Note: Marten H . Woudstra is Professor of Old Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary at Grand Rapids, Michigan.