In this article, Rev. Harry Van Dyken discusses what has come to be known as the Verhey case. He writes: “Classis [Grand Rapids East] and Synod [1976] have both declared that a candidate holding the views alleged concerning Dr. Verhey can be ordained to the ministry and receive the approval of Synod.” Rev. Van Dyken is pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Mount Vernon, Washington.
On September 18, 1975, Classis Grand Rapids East of the Christian Reformed Church examined Candidate Dr. Allen Verhey for ordination to the ministry of the Word and sacraments in the Christian Reformed Church. Having examined the Candidate. Classis decided to approve him for ordination. It seems that not all the delegates to that meeting of the Class is were in agreement with Classis’ decision. It seems also that the synodical examiners, while concurring in the decision of Classis, had some serious concern over certain expressions of the Candidate in responding to examination. This concern was expressed in a communication to the Consistory of the calling church. This communication stated that “the brother had expressed ambiguous and imprecise views of inspiration.”
It seems obvious that the Consistory of the calling church, the Neland Avcnue Christian Reformed Church, had no particular problem with the decision of Classis. In a communication to Synod 1976 they stated, “Allen Verhey was, at the time of his examination, and is now, firmly committed to the sound doctrine of the Scripture as set forth in the Reformed confessions and the doctrinal deliverances of the synod of the CRC.” Understandably and correctly, therefore, they proceeded to the ordination of the Candidate.
Dutton Protest – Subsequent to the meeting of Classis Grand Rapids East, the delegates from the various churches reported to their consistories concerning the action Classis had taken. This is important to note since Synod in ground a., supporting recommendation 1. (Acts of Synod, 1976, p. 95, E., 1., a.), states that the decision of Classis “stood unprotested up to and including the time of his [Dr. Verhey‘s) ordination.”
Classis is an assembly that gathers and disperses. At the time the Consistory of the Dutton Christian Reformed Church met and received the report of their delegates, Classis had long since adjourned. A protest could only, in the nature of the case, come to the next meeting of Classis. The Dutton Consistory did lodge a protest with the next meeting of Classis on January 15, 1976, as did also the Consistory of the Cascade Christian Reformed Church. This was the first opportunity for a protest to be lodged by a consistory. Obviously, no delegate at Classis was able to say that the consistory he represented would protest the action at hand. He must first consult with his consistory. By that time the meeting of Classis had adjourned.
Action of Classis C. R. East – It strikes one as strange that a classis, receiving a protest from one of its constituent consistories, which bases its protest on the Word of God, the confessions, and the doctrinal deliverances of Synod, should receive such a protest as information. Yet this is precisely what Classis Grand Rapids East did. Certainly such a protest must either be proven wrong, or it must be sustained.
In the meeting on May 20, 1976, Classis decided to formulate and adopt two grounds for its action in January. The first of these grounds states that Classis’ decision was taken “on the basis of a majority vote and did not involve the approval of specific positions held by him [Candidate Verhey]” But is not that just what a classical examination is all about? Is it not to determine whether, yes or no, the “positions” held by the candidate are in agreement with the Word of God and the Reformed confessions? And, when a classis approves such a candidate, it says that it approves the positions held by that candidate and sends him with God‘s blessings to the pulpits of the churches.
The second ground stated that the protest was “not accompanied by an appeal or request for action on the part of classis . . . .” But surely any protest against a decision of an ecclesiastical assembly is a request to declare that the decision was wrongly taken. Whether or not the decision can be rescinded, depends on how far the decision has been executed. Other action than rescission may, indeed, be needed. Such action would have to be determined if, in fact, the protest was sustained.
Decision of Synod – This is the matter which came to Synod 1976 by way of an appeal from the Consistory of the Dutton Christian Reformed Church. It was an appeal to Synod to declare that the decision of Classis Grand Rapids East was a wrong decision. This is precisely the nature of an appeal. The appeal was clearly not an action taken against the Rev. Allen Verhey. This was true in the protest to Classis. It was true in the appeal to Synod. The report of the majority of the advisory committee of Synod indicates that they had taken full cognizance of this fact. We read on page 94 of the Acts of Synod, 1976, “The advisory committee, expanded by the addition of the officers of Synod, also interviewed Dr. Verhey, after giving him firm assurance he was to be treated as a witness to what took place at the classical examination with reference to the disputed statements.
“The protest, we must remember, is lodged against Classis Grand Rapids East. The appeal asks Synod to disapprove the action of this c1assis in confirming Candidate Verhey for ordination. Let us be clear that it is not our task to try Dr. Verhey. His statements come to our attention as evidence against the classis, not as evidence against him” (italics added). These observations of the committee are entirely correct. They are, in effect, saying, “A crucial matter here in the Consistory‘s case against the classis is the correctness of the Consistory‘s reporting of the events in the examination.” Or, to put it again in the words of the committee, “His statements come to our attention as evidence against classis.” Yet, when the committee reported to synod, they never revealed, as far as the record is concerned, whether that evidence supported the Consistory or the Classis. They left it out entirely!
In making their recommendations to Synod, recommendations which Synod adopted, the committee urged Synod not to sustain the appeal of the Consistory on the grounds: a. that classis followed proper procedure; and b. that the procedures of the Form of Subscription should be followed.
On the matter of ground a., the Consistory in its appeal never questioned the procedures followed by Classis. How can this, then, be a ground for not sustaining? The Consistory was maintaining that the decision of the Class is brought them into conflict with the Scriptures, the Reformed confessions and the doctrinal deliverances of Synod. This, quite obviously, has nothing to do with procedure.
In ground b., the committee, and Synod in adopting the committee’s recommendations, completely switches its position. It had maintained, as noted above, that the appeal of the Consistory was not against Dr. Verhey. Now they, and Synod, tell the Consistory that they must follow a different way “if a minister’s loyalty to the confessions is called into question.” Note once again that the committee said, “His [Dr. Verhey’s] statements come to our attention as evidence against the Classis, not as evidence against him.”
The second recommendation of the committee as adopted by Synod restates this same matter as found in ground b., and directs the appellants to receive it as an instruction if they wish to carry this matter any further.
This is confusion! – This is how the matter nOw stands. A Consistory submitted an appeal to Synod which was properly before Synod. This appeal, by its very nature, asked Synod to declare that the decision of Classis Grand Rapids East was in conflict with the Word of God, the confessions, and the doctrinal deliverances of Synod. Such procedure is altogether proper and is guaranteed to the Consistory by article 30 of the Church Order. Synod on the one hand recognizes that this is the case and yet treats the appeal as if it is against a man rather than against a decision of an assembly.
This is confusion! Evidently Dr. Verhey clearly expressed his views. Dr. Verhey did not make the decision approving ordination. Yet Synod says, “You must address yourself to him and his views if you remain convinced that it must go further.” Had Dr. Verhey withheld or camouflaged his views at the examination, and then expressed them later, the position of Synod would be correct. Classis could not have known it at the time of examination. As it now stands, certainly the Classis should either be cleared of blame, if its decision was not in conflict with the Scriptures, etc., or Classis must bear the blame if it was.
This whole matter weighs heavily upon us in these times, particularly because we find a strong tendency to accommodation to the world on many fronts. We see compromise in many areas for the sake of “better” relations. The worst of these efforts, worst because it is so basic and because of its results, is compromise of the Word of God. Such compromise is rampant in many churches today, seeking a synthesis of the wisdom of men and that of God; seeking the approval and respect of those of whom the Apostle Paul said that they consider the wisdom of God as foolishness. A compromise that can only bring a harvest of destruction in the churches.
“Report 44” ambiguous – It has been maintained by some that the Heport which Synod adopted on the Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority leads us in this direction. I personally strongly believe this is the case. The synodical examiners observed that Candidate Verhey “expressed ambiguous and imprecise views of inspiration.” One has only to read all the different views of scholars as to what “Report 44” means to realize its ambiguity and imprecision.
Synod 1977 will certainly be faced with appeals from the churches to reconsider its decision regarding the appeal of the Dutton Consistory. It ought to reconsider and face squarely the charge the Consistory makes against Classis, i.e., that the decision of Classis is in conflict with the Scriptures, the Reformed confessions, and the doctrinal deliverances of Synod. Synod ought also to face that, in approving the action of its synodical examiners it has, in very fact, approved this decision of Classis. Surely synodical examiners are not merely sent to the classes to see to it that the classes follow proper procedure. This may be important, but there are matters far more important. Surely Synod, in approving the work of its synodical examiners, is not merely approving some procedural matters. The question that we must face is; Did the Classis arrive at a decision which is in harmony with the Word of God, the Reformed confessions, with the Church Order? In approving the work of its examiners in this case, Synod has, in effect, declared that she is satisfied that there is no conflict here with the Word of God. This is disturbing. Synod. ought to reconsider this decision!
And finally, ought we not, in looking forward in the life of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Christian Reformed Church in particular, erase Report 44 from the records with all its ambiguity, with all its irreconcilable tensions, and consider adopting a precise, unambiguous statement of our belief concerning the nature and extent of biblical authority?
And what about Dr. Verhey? He is a minister in good and regular standing in the Christian Reformed Church. It is his position on Scripture which is in question, but he did not make the decision to approve himself for ordination. He must be approached by way of the Form of Subscription. But, if the decision of Class is Grand Rapids East retains its present approval by Synod, first of all in refusing to sustain a protest against the decision and, secondly, by the approval of the work of the synodical examiners in their concurring with this decision, then any effort by way of the Form of Subscription or Articles 89, 90, 91, or 93 of the Church Order must prove fruitless. Classis and Synod have both declared that a candidate holding the views alleged concerning Dr. Verhey can be ordained to the ministry and receive the approval of Synod.
These are difficult matters. Anyone who has been involved in casting a vote on a candidate for ordination knows how hard it is to bring one’s self to vote against such ordination. It must, however, be much harder for any of those charged with this work to send men to the pulpits of our churches who do not sound a clear, unambiguous voice. Paul’s epistles to Timothy alone makes this abundantly clear.