Denominational Student Aid?

There is an item in the 1985 Acts of Synod that deserves the attention and careful scrutiny of consistories and classes. It concerns the “Denominational Calvin Seminary Student Aid Fund.” Readers are no doubt aware that up till now every Classis has a “Student Aid Fund” designed to help needy students studying for the ministry in the CRC. Students in a particular classis may apply for aid to the Student Fund Committee, and that Committee in turn seeks the approval of Classis for its recommendations.

The new proposed Denominational Student Aid Fund would change all that. Instead of many regional Funds, we would have one big centralized fund from which all students would get aid. The new fund “will be supervised by the Board ofTrustees and will be administered by the Seminary Financial Need Committee.” “The treasurer of each classis shall forward, quarterly, an appropriate amount to the Seminary Financial Aid Committee.” This could be a quota, “a per-family allocation required from each classical student fund committee.”

The above proposal was presented to synod by the Board of Trustees for Calvin College & Seminary. Happily, synod’s pre-advice committee which had to deal with this matter saw some potential problems with this proposal and recommended the synod refer this matter to the churches and classes for reflection and evaluation. Synod adopted that recommendation, and churches now have til Jan. 31, 86 (not far off!) to respond.

When I first heard about this proposal, I could hardly believe my ears! I wondered to myself: Whose brain-child is this? Talk about hierarchy—here you have it! As if we don’t already have too much of that in our church. We have more than we need of “Boardism” and “Executive Committeeism” and now we’re going to add yet another brick to this structure. I see this as a very evil trend, and it bodes no good for the churches at all.

The main argument in favor of such a centralized fund is that it promotes equality in aid given. The present set-up lends itself to “inequity” it is said. But so what? Does everything have to be offered on the altar of egalitarianism? Variety is the spice of life.

The disadvantages far outweigh the (ostensible) advantage: the entire matter would become much more impersonal than it is now; churches and classes would have little knowledge of how their money is being used, and the students themselves would be another step removed from their home churches and classes. What is worse, local churches and classes would have very little say in how the money is administered—it would simply be sent to “the big pot.” Note too, that this centralized fund would only be for students studying at Calvin Seminary. Those studying elsewhere would have to go to their local classes or churches for support. And who knows how soon some of this money would be used to finance female aspirants for the ministry?

There is absolutely no way that I want the Board of Trustees deciding for the churches who is and who is not going to get aid! With the local churches and classes meekly paying the bill!

It is to be hoped that local consistories and classes will adamantly oppose this new scheme. It is another big step toward hierarchy and centralization, and that runs completely counter to the biblical and Reformed way of doing things in the church.

One might also ask the question: Who gives the Board of Trustees the right to bring such a proposal before synod? Are matters for the synodical agenda not to come from the churches themselves? This too is a very dangerous way of doing things—witness the debacle of 1944 in the Netherlands, the result of dealing with matters not properly before synod (i.e. not having arisen from the churches).

Note: The relevant information regarding this can be found on pp. 565–567 & 791–2 of the 85 Acts.

J. Tuininga, Lethbridge, Alta.

False Prophecy on a Grand Scale

The present pope is a man who in some ways inspires respect. He speaks out decisively for the sanctity of the family and against the atrocity of abortion. In taking such a stand, in contrast with many leaders in mainline Protestant churches who show their kinship with the devil, the original murderer (John 8:44), by crusading against the “right” to murder the unborn, the pope seems to stand out like light against the darkness.

While we need to appreciate his taking such public stands, the May, 1985, Dutch paper, Getrouw, in an article by P. Kuijt with the above title, cautions us that we should not be misled by them. It recalls the career of Pope John Paul II since the smoke from the Sistine Chapel indicated his election to that office in 1978. Then the Polish Carolum Woytyla, the first non-Italian to hold that office in 455 years, appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s to declare his and the church’s “trust in the Mother of Christ and of the church.” The article points out that from the outset, this pope expressed his determination not to be swayed or ordered, as was his predecessor, by others. “I myself determine what I do.” And he has shown that determination in the succeeding six and a half years. His unpublished doctoral thesis indicated his commitment to the traditions of the church, including the decrees of the Council of Trent (against the Reformation) and, in particular, the church’s exaltation of Mary. Accordingly, this much-traveled pope has made well–publicized pilgrimages to shrines dedicated to Mary, to “the brown mother of God” the miracle-working image of the Madonna of Guadaloupe in Central America, and to “the Black Madonna” in Czestochowa, in his native Poland, “In Mary,” said the pope, “God and man, man and God are united . . . What Christ won, God has put in her hands . . . I put my lot and yours, and the lot of this world in her hands. In the hands outstretched to you of my dearly loved mother Mary.”

Thus, what God’s Word characterizes as the gracious gifts of God in Christ to a lost sinner, applied by the Holy Spirit by means of the preached Word, this pope attributes to Mary and to mystical union with her.

The article begins by recalling the stem warnings in Jeremiah 23:9–40 against false prophets who told the people lies in the name of God. It observes that in the leadership of the present pope with his widespread appeals to people of all nations we have another such example of what, by the definition of God’s Word, is simply false prophecy, promoting the same errors that that church d id centuries ago.

Despite the pope’s high moral stands for the integrity of the family and against abortion, his morality is rooted in a false doctrine of salvation leading people to trust in Mary and an infallible church instead of to rely in faith only on Christ and to obey Him. Now, as in the days of Jeremiah , when people tum away from the Lord, one of His judgments against them comes in the form of false prophets by whom He permits them to be misled (Cf. 2 Thess. 2:9ff.). The need now , no less than 5 centuries ago, is for real Reformation guided and directed by God’s Word and Spirit, not by an apostate church—or churches.

Perhaps you, as I on occasion , have encountered Roman Catholics who say that their trust is in Christ rather than in the Church and its erroneous Mariolatry and doctrines of merit. One hopes that their number is great. Such encounters do not mitigate, but underscore the continuing error of the institution and its head who misdirect the hopes of people to someone other than Christ the only Savior.

PDJ

On the Liberal Track

The Reformed Ecumenical Synod News Exchange of September 3 relayed a brief news item from The Presbyterian Laymen under the heading, “Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ‘still on Liberal track.’” After noting the disappointment of Conservatives because the denomination had reaffirmed its pro-choice stand on abortion, the report continued:

Though some positive things did occur in Indianapolis, the assembly spent most of its time on political/social economic issues, such as the United States involvement in Central America and divestment in South Africa. The editor laments that things are made more difficult for Presbyterian evangelicals by the way things are done. Very rarely in any of the meetings of the General Assembly is there opportunity for examination of view points other than those of the official agencies. The printed materials presented are biased toward one point of view. The great number of issues makes it impossible particularly for elder commissioners, to come prepared. The editorial states: “. . . the number of issues considered by the General Assembly each year must be reduced. Issues to be considered should be those that affect the spiritual and moral well-being of society and not every political, social and economic problem facing the world.” Could these comments not also describe much of the activity of our Christian Reformed synods?

PDJ