Classis Florida sent to Synod 1985 an overture requesting under the terms of the Form of Subscription that the Synod ask the editor of The Banner to give “further explanation” of some of his published views. The overture received rough treatment, and many questions remain regarding that treatment. In the interest of opening up this matter for those who are concerned about the way the church does its business and for future reference, I wish to explore some aspects of the handling of this very timely overture.

The Story In Brief

At its meeting in January of 1985 Classis Florida of the Christian Reformed Church passed the overture without dissenting vote. (For text of the overture see The Outlook of April 1985, pp. 10–11). The duly passed overture was promptly sent to the Stated Clerk of the denomination. The Stated Clerk had serious doubts about the propriety of the overture and drew it to the attention of the Church Polity and Program Committee, sub-committee of the denominational Synodical Interim Committee. This committee decided that the overture should not be included in the printed Agenda of Synod. This decision meant that in the judgment of the committee the overture was not a proper one and should not be dealt with by synod. Prior to the session of the Synod the full Synodical Interim Committee met and decided to leave the question of the propriety of the overture to the officers of Synod. The officers of the Synod decided that the overture met the technical requirements for an overture and therefore should be on Synod’s agenda. The overture was assigned to a synodical advisory committee. This committee recommended that Synod not accede to the request of the overture, mainly on the ground that the request should be directed to the editor’s calling church. Synod adopted this recommendation. The text of the overture does not appear in the Acts of Synod 1985 even though the overture was actually placed on the agenda and was acted on by Synod.

Overture as Document and as Petition

That is in many ways a strange story , one which any serious–minded office-bearer in the church should not pass over lightly. When an overture adopted by a classis after full deliberation (also on the matter of procedure) and properly passed on to Synod is accorded the kind of treatment the Florida overture received, the church should take notice. If the overture was rendered in abusive language or was patently irrelevant or contrary to fact, then such treatment would be understandable. But the overture could be faulted for none of these reasons.

It seems to the writer of this article that a good number of those who hand–led this overture failed to make a simple but important distinction. They failed to distinguish between the overture as document and the overture as petition. The officers of Synod 1985 saw this distinction and acted accordingly. Synod’s Advisory Committee said, “The officers of Synod 1985 have declared that this overture is legally before Synod , in the formal sense that it had been duly adopted by Classis Florida and processed on time for Synod.” This does not necessarily mean that the officers of Synod approved of the petition of the overture, but it does mean significantly that the overture as document was properly before Synod, and therefore an Advisory Committee processed it and Synod acted on it.

What all of this means is simply this: the Church Polity and Program Committee was in error in not placing this overture in the printed Agenda of Synod. This does not mean to suggest that those sitting on this committee acted out of malice or any other improper motive. They made what they felt was a correct judgment. But the handling of the overture by the officers of Synod and by the Synod itself clearly shows that the judgment of the Stated Clerk and of the Church Polity and Program Committee was wrong. These gentlemen said that the overture was not properly part of the agenda. Synod said that it was properly part of the agenda. In the light of these facts it is little short of astonishing to read this entry in the Index of the Acts of Synod 1985, “Synod sustains SIC ruling, 727–28” (p. 845). Synod did not sustain the ruling of the Synodical Interim Committee (SIC) which through its Church Polity and Program Committee judged that the overture had no place on the Synod’s agenda. The Synodical Interim Committee had no authority to judge the merits of the petition of the overture, and so all talk of Synod’s sustaining a SIC ruling on that score is pointless, if not misleading.

The question arising at this point is that of the extent of the authority of the Synodical Interim Committee and its

Church Polity and Program Committee in assessing the propriety of materials submitted to Synod. The history of the Florida overture seems to suggest that some clear guidelines are needed. It would seem clear that this authority is limited to judgments on the technical aspects of the documents submitted to Synod, whereas judgments on the propriety of the petitions carried by such documents must be left to the body to which the documents are addressed. Failure to observe some such rule can only bring trouble like the bureaucratic foul-up encountered by the Florida overture.

The Role of the Board of Publications

One of the more puzzling aspects of this whole scenario is the role played by the denominational Board of Publications. This Board obtained a copy of the Florida overture and made some pronouncements on it at its meeting held in February 1985, pronouncements that were publicized in The Banner and brought to Synod 1985 in the Board’s annual report. This body declared that it “judges that Classis Florida’s request for ‘further explanation’ contains a serious charge against Rev. Kuyvenhoven, that it should have been addressed either to his supervising consistory (Boston Square CRC, Grand Rapids) or to his supervising agency (Board of Publications), and that it is not properly addressed to synod.” The Board further said that it found “no grounds for questioning his faithfulness to the Scriptures, his loyalty to the confessions, or his love for the church.” (See Acts of Synod 1985, p. 58).

One cannot fault the Board of Publications for giving expression to its confidence in the work and views of one under its supervision. And probably the Board should have been sent a copy of the overture as a matter of information and courtesy. Any reflection on the work and views of one under their supervision and in such a significant position in the church would have to be a matter of real concern to them. But is it in their province to make and publicize official judgments on the legal status of an overture addressed to Synod? And is it not preposterous for the Board to suggest that a request for “further explanation” can and should be dealt with by them? Only a consistory, classis or synod has the authority to do this. So again one must express his wonderment at other entries in the Index of the Acts of Synod 1985. Here we read, “Overture requesting explanation of views considered out of order by B of P, 57–58,” and “B of P view sustained by SIC.” Such entries are more properly to be viewed as an index to a thoroughly muddled notion of doing the church’s business.

Text of Overture Not Found in the ACTS

The officers of Synod 1985 said that the Florida overture was legally before Synod. Synod itself underscored this decision of the officers by acting on the overture (pp. 727f. of the Acts). So it definitely was part of the Synod’s business. Yet the text of the overture is nowhere to be found in the Acts of Synod 1985. What will future students of the Christian Reformed Church and its history think when they read of Synod’s action in the Acts but find no trace of what Synod acted on? Such future students may well be as amazed at this strange omission as is the author of this article.

Was Synod’s Judgment Right?

Synod 1985 decided not to accede to the petition of the Florida overture. Was the Synod correct in arriving at this decision? This question is properly asked because in so deciding the Synod judged that the Synods of 1936, 1961 and 1963 were wrong, and possibly also the Synod of 1959. In a previous article in this magazine (April 1985) I pointed out that the Synods of 1936 and 1961 honored requests from consistories for “further explanation” and acted positively on them. In 1963 Classis Orange City came with a request that Synod ask the Professor of Missions at Calvin Seminary for “further explanation” of his views on the love of God for all men, a subject he had set forth in certain articles he had written. Synod 1963 did not find the overture out of order, even though the Classis had not previously consulted the professor or his supervising consistory. Synod 1963 did not accede to the overture because, in the mind of Synod, the Classis had not demonstrated the “sufficient grounds of suspicion” called for in the Form of Subscription. In all of these instances the propriety of the procedure followed by Classis Florida was acknowledged.

In 1959 Professor M. J. Wyngaarden came to Synod with an appeal from the failure of the Calvin Board of Trustees to act on his complaint against some writing by the president of the seminary on the infallibility of the Bible. In his appeal to Synod Wyngaarden declared that the president of the seminary “had taken a position on infallibility which, according to the view of this protest, is not in line with the Belgic Confession” (Acts of Synod 1959, p. 563). What did Synod 1959 do in the matter? Did it tell Dr. Wyngaarden that he had to go first of all to the supervising consistory with his allegations against the seminary president? Not at all. Synod dealt in detail with the professor’s protest. We bear in mind that the grounds for the action of Synod 1985 appeal to these words taken from the Acts of Synod 1976 (p. 95), “Beyond the point of ordination the procedures outlined in the Form ofSubscription and the Church Order must be followed if a minister’s loyalty to the confessions is called into question. (See Form of Subscription and Church Order Article 89, 90, 91 and 93).” The Synods of 1976 and 1985 interpreted this statement adopted in 1976 to mean that the Church Order plainly says that any question about a minister’s views must first be addressed to the supervising consistory.

At this point many questions surface. Does this language, appearing in the grounds for a previous Synod’s action, become the law of the church? The statement excels more in ambiguity than it does in precision. What does the statement actually mean? Does it plainly mean what the Synods of 1976 and 1985 took it to mean? Article 89 of the Church Order says, “Special discipline (that is, suspension and deposition, Article 88–E .H.) shall be applied to office-bearers if they violate the Form of Subscription, are guilty of neglect or abuse of office, or in any way seriously deviate from sound doctrine and godly conduct.” Where does the “further explanation” of the Form of Subscription fit in here? The overture from Classis Florida did not charge that the editor did “seriously deviate from sound doctrine.” Rather, the overture raised a question of high current urgency relative to the contemporary authority of the Bible, and the editor would be given every opportunity to put to rest the suspicions raised by his writings and reported utterances. Much clarification is called for before the church can be guided by decisions of the kind which the Synod of 1985 made in this instance. The precedents of 1936, 1961 and 1963 plainly call for such clarification, and perhaps also the precedent o f 1959.

Edward Heerema is a retired Christian Reformed pastor living at Cape Coral, Florida.