LICENSING Students and Candidates

Jelle Tuininga

I have never been happy with the policy of having the Board of Trustees of Calvin College and Seminary license candidates for the ministry in the Christian Reformed Church or give students license to exhort in the churches. Now that this procedure has been “tightened” and updated, I am even more unhappy. It seems to me that Reformed church polity would dictate that classes’ perform these tasks rather than a church board. Since when do boards lord it over classes and local consistories? That’s putting the cart before the horse.

In line with Reformed church polity, the procedure should be as follows: Let the governing board of any reputable seminary (not only Calvin) say to the churches: We present to you these students who have completed (part or all, as the case may be) the necessary academic requirements at our institution. You take them and examine them to see whether they meet the necessary qualifications for the ministry in your church. And then any worthy classis (or even consistory, for that matter) could easily determine whether they meet the necessary academic requirements and whether they are Reformed in their thinking. On that basis they would decide to ordain (or license) or not to ordain. It doesn’t matter so much as to which seminary these men attended . As long as the men qualify as ministers or exhorters in a Reformed church, that is all that is required. (I have never liked the rule either, that students at other seminaries must attend Calvin for one year. That is unnecessary at best and paternalistic at worst.) It is the product that counts, not where he has studied. And the products will recommend (or not recommend) the institution at which they studied.

A few comments found in the 1957 Acts of Synod (in connection with the issue of particular synods) are apropos here:

When the Board of Trustees conducted this examination there was dissatisfaction, rightly so, because the elders had no share in it . . . . We propose that this be done in classes . . . . Let the executive committee of the Board of Trustees assign to each of these classes a number of prospective candidates . . . . Let these classes report their actions, each to the particular synod of which it is a part.

In this way . . . the examination could be made thorough and respectable and the work of these classes could be controlled by the particular synods.

Later we read this:

The evil of boardism is the concentration of too much power in the hands of a few. Committees entrusted with a task must have an amount of power to act, but this should be properly controlled. Such committees, though not necessarily intentionally, have a way of acquiring more and more power . . . . Our three big boards, The General Home Missions Committee (now the Board of Home Miss. J.T.), The Christian Reformed Boards of Missions, and the Board of Trustees of Calvin College and Seminary, wield a tremendous power. Each of these is in charge of work of far-reaching consequences . . . As a matter of fact, the work is largely done by the executive committees; the rest, by dint of circumstances, have little actual control in the matter. This is not a good situation.

These comments are as relevant in 1984 as they were in 1957 . Since the present machinery is all neatly in place, and since ecclesiastical wheels tend to grind very slowly, I don’t foresee a sudden change in the situation. But that does not remove the fact that the present situation with respect to ministerial candidates is not only unjust to a degree, but also violates the best principles of Reformed church polity. It is time we think about changing the rules.

 

Christian Renewal on the AACS

It has been heartening to many of us involved in the OUTLOOK to observe the increasing forthrightness in promoting the Reformed faith and opposing what endangers it which is becoming apparent in the pages of Christian Renewal since its reorganization, change of name (from Renewal) and move to Canada. This development appears in many of its articles, in their stance on social and political matters, and in their opposition to the current drive to override the Bible’s teaching on women in church office. It appears also in the recent writing of the editor dealing with the problems of the AACS.

The acronym AACS stands for the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship. It began a number of years ago (under a different name) in the circles of our Reformed Fellowship to advance the Biblical claims of Christ in higher education, and claimed the interest and support of many of us. In the course of time it evidently underwent a significant change of direction, especially in the attitude toward the Bible expressed in a number of its writings. At the request of the Reformed Fellowship board I wrote a number of articles about this subject in the mid 70’s and a booklet, Some Questions and Answers About the AACS, which the Fellowship printed.

In the Feb. 6, 1984, Christian Renewal its managing editor John Hultink placed an editorial on “The AACS and those Troublesome Conservatives.” In that article he recalls with warm appreciation some of his earlier years with that association and the excitement of its early conferences.

He recalls the beginning of the AACS, as “the same people who pioneered churches, grade schools and a fledgling labor association, put their hearts and hard-earned dollars to work for Christian higher education.”

He observes that these people are “of a predominantly conservative bent of mind . . . . conservative in a positive, reformational sense of the word. They want to conserve their beginnings, their foundation, their principles, fully realizing that without a firm, biblical foundation all organizational efforts will sink away in the quicksand of relativism.

“They are not well-educated folk, these immigrants. But they are a deeply religious people who take their calling in life seriously. They are a reformed people who take their stand upon the confessions for the church, confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord over all of life. They do not want to cling blindly to the past, nor do they want to revere that which is old, simply because it is old. That would be dead conservatism of which these people want no part. But at the same time, they harbor a deep respect and love for biblical principles which are timeless. They are not caught up in the maelstrom of the new theology which subtly shifts the accent from Christ to the Christian, and elevates its own views above the plain teachings of Scripture.”

Editor Hultink takes exception to remarks of Calvin Seerveld, professor at the AACS’ Toronto Institute for Christian Studies, who criticized conservatives saying that the AACS had been “left by friends who couldn’t take our weaknesses.”

“The Institute . . . is not, as Seerveld puts it, ‘at the point of bankruptcy’ because its ‘conservative’ friends can’t tolerate its weaknesses. The Institute’s ‘conservatives’ readily concede that they also are prone to many weaknesses. They confess that forgiveness must of necessity play a leading role in the life of the Christian. But that decidely is not the problem. It is not a ‘holier than thou’ attitude which has driven the ‘conservatives’ out of the AACS fold.

“The reasons ‘conservatives’ have for years been withholding their financial support from the AACS are more honorable than that. The ‘conservatives’ perceive , rightly or wrongly, that the AACs has become, in notable instances, unfaithful to its beginnings. Much o f the heady, unifying spirit of the Unionville days is gone: debilitating divisiveness and disagreement on matters of principle have taken center stage. The AACS suffers from the worst of all possible spiritual maladies–it has become a house divided against itself . . . .

“For more than six years now the AACS has sapped its spiritual vitality through internal disagreements which are not being resolved. A loss of unanimity of direction and purpose has resulted in endless discussion of issues which should be taken for granted among Christians. Staff members apparently not satisfied with teaching the fundamentals of Christian learning attempt, with prophetic zeal, to persuade its ‘conservative’ constituency to adopt its radical views–views which in many instances are perceived to be at odd s with the reformed faith . . . .” “That is why with heavy hearts, fully realizing that Christian higher education is not an option but a covenant obligation so many” conservatives have withdrawn their support. In good conscience they sincerely believed they could not do otherwise.”

The February, 1984, Christian Home and School contains a biographical sketch of the career of John Hultink, from his immigrant origins, early work experience, attendance at Calvin, and affiliations with the AACS, of which he was for a time a travelling promoter and an employee of its Wedge Publish ing Foundation. Disappointed with publishing, he began a successful real estate business, only to return to publishing , establishing his own Paideia Press. From that agency is issuing an increasing number of Reformed classics, often translated from the Dutch. From his “Book Manor” overlooking the vineyards of the Niagara Peninsula he is also the managing editor of Christian Renewal. Published 22 times a year, subscriptions are $17 .50 per year ($30.00, 2 years) at P.O. Box 777, Jordan Station, Ontario LOR ISO or P.O. Box 770. Lewiston, NY 14092 . PDJ

*The booklet, Some Questions and Answers About the AACS is available from the OUTLOOK office at 40¢ per copy; 3 for 1.00; 10 for $2.00; 100 for $15.00.

 

An Open-Ended DECISION

Syburn M. Voortman

Though I firmly believe that I Timothy 3:8, 12 and Acts 6:3, along with other passages, close the office of deacon to women, defending that position is not the purpose of this viewpoint.

Wishful Thinking

My present concern is the erroneous dream that, despite the decision of 1984 concerning women deacons, we will not have women elders and ministers in the near or even foreseeable future.

Many members of the Christian Reformed Church believe just that. I have heard many make statements to that effect. One relatively young member, who is not averse to women deacons and is mildly opposed to women elders and ministers, commented: “We won’t have women elders and ministers in my lifetime.” A prominent leader in our denomination is rumored to have remarked that he is for women deacons but would be opposed to it if he thought it would lead to the opening of the other two offices to women.

I believe that some delegates to this last synod were operating under this delusion. One delegate said: “I voted for women deacons, not women elders and ministers.” Furthermore , the synod did decide “that the man should exercise primary leadership and direction-setting in the home and in the church,” and that the ordaining of women deacons is to be on the condition that “their work be distinguished from that of elders.” Surely, these decisions imply that the remaining two offices should remain closed to women; do they not? With some justification a delegate could now say: “That’s what we decided, that’s what I voted for, and that closes the other offices to women.”

To me this appears to be just wishful thinking and a delusion. Logically it might seem tenable, but in practice it will not hold up.

Inevitable Sequel

In Reformed circles where the Reformed view of the offices prevails, the opening of one ecclesiastical office to women has always resulted in the opening of all the offices to women and will inevitably do so. Note the history of the Reformed Church in America. Starting with women deacons and elders, it soon thereafter had women ministers. Will our history be different?

In fact, some consistories have already defied synods by ordaining adjunct or non–voting women elders. Some churches have even permitted or requested women to preach or exhort in their pulpits. This was all before this synod lifted the moratorium on ordaining women deacons.

Our seminary and college professors have been very influential in shaping the thinking and practice ofour denomination. They have been the spawning bed of such controversial notions as theistic evolution, the universal love of God, and the new hermeneutics, all of which have become prominent among us. Where do they stand on the issue of women in all the offices? I have heard several of our college and seminary professors state in public meetings and/or on the floor of synod that they felt strongly for women elders and ministers and hoped that the day of their ordination would soon come. At a public meeting, prior to the synod, one seminary professor suggested that consistories go ahead and ordain women elders and let those in the church who oppose it protest via consistory and classis to synod. “This,” he said, “will give synod a concrete case to adjudicate and will place the burden of proof on synod to show that it is contrary to Scripture.” At the same meeting this professor advocated first getting women deacons and then appealing to the sense of the deep unity of all three offices to open all of the offices to women. Also, in answer to a question from the floor, he predicted that we would have women elders within five years. I know of many of our professors who openly and passionately teach, speak, and write in favor of women in all the offices of the church.

This past synod gave considerable evidence of what is to come. Significantly, it refused to say “that the headship of man in the church implies that women should not be admitted to the offices of minister, elder, and evangelist.” This leaves the door open. Notice, too, that Synodical Study Committee Minority Report II, which argues for women in all the ecclesiastical offices, found favor with many delegates at synod.

Finally, if I Timothy 3:8, 12 and Acts 6:3 could be ignored by this last synod, what is to stop future synods from ignoring the Scriptural passages that close the offices of minister and elder to women?

This isn’t the end of the campaign to put women in the offices; it is just the first battle. Those who want women in all the offices have just begun to fight. They won a battle and intend to press on to complete victory. Just ask them.

A Call To Action

To think that the struggle will stop with getting women deacons is being hopelessly naive. Those of us who believe that the truth of God’s Word is at stake must also enter the fray.

How can further erosion of Biblical practice be prevented? It seems to be that the only way to stop the otherwise inevitable opening of all the offices to women is to have the decision of this last synod concerning women deacons revoked.

What can we do? For starters, I urge you to protest the decision of 1984 and to request a revision of the decision by the Synod of 1985. Base that protest and request on the fact that 1984’s decision is unbiblical, in conflict with Article 30 of The Belgic Confession and opposed by a vast majority of the membership of the Christian Reformed Church. (See The Banner of January 23, 1984 for statistics on the membership opposition. Surely the conscientious opposition of by far the most church members should have a restraining influence against the ordaining of women deacons, a practice which by no stretch of the imagination can be said to be required by Scripture.) Channel your protest and request for revision through your consistory and classis; if it is turned down, present it to the Synod of 1985 yourself. If we do nothing, the steamroller campaign for women in all the offices will just roll on. Let’s begin trying to roll things back.

God grant that next year’s synod be inundated with such protests and requests from individuals, consistories and, hopefully, classes. Please work on yours.

 

An Appeal to CONSERVATIVES

Henry Vanden Heuvel

Ever since Synod 1984 decided in favor of women in the office of deacon, there have been discussions throughout the denomination as to what to do . Many people who are dismayed with the direction of Synod at this past session, are convinced that this is only the first step in the process. In a couple of years, Synod will approve women as elders, women as ministers, and women as evangelists. For one of the cardinal principles of the Church Order is the equality of the offices. So it follows that if women can be deacons, they can also be elders, evangelists, and ministers. The reasoning among many conservatives in the Christian Reformed Church is that the church has started on a path that can only lead to all out liberalism. Now is the time to get out and find a church that is still true to the historic, reformed faith. If that is not satisfactory, now is the time to form one’s own denomination.

We respect the convictions of those who have decided to do either of those two things. There have been several movements in recent years, each of which has been led by dedicated, conscientious ministers of the Christian Reformed Church. Anyone who knows what has been happening in the past twenty years in the Christian Reformed Church knows the justification for such decisions to separate.

However we ought to sound a word of caution. One of the great tactics of any enemy in combat is “divide and conquer.” Those who would lead our church to open all the offices to women would like nothing better than that the opponents would all leave for more conservative churches. We must not simply give in to their desires. We must stand together in an effort to bring our church back to the historic, reformed interpretation of Scripture that has guided our church since its beginnings.

When one thinks about what has been happening in our church, and the decision of many conservatives to leave the church, one comes to a strange conclusion. That conclusion is this: Who wants to change the historic, reformed position ofour church? Do we conservatives who have fought against a weakening of the standards of truth that have stood for so many years? Do we desire to turn our church into a carbon copy of the other mainline denominations in the United States and Canada that have sold their heritage for a more respectable place in modern society? The answer is most certainly no. We are not the ones who have changed. Nor is the Bible any different from what it was thirty or forty years ago . The ones who are seeking to change the church are those who have been affected by the Women’s Liberation movement in this country and elsewhere. They are the ones who are not satisfied with the historic, reformed position of the church. Given that situation , who are the ones who ought to be honest enough to say that their church no longer satisfies their desires? Certainly not those who are seeking to maintain the historic, reformed position of the church. It is rather those who want to change. Let them be honest enough to say, “Let’s join another denomination where our ideas are acceptable and accepted.”

But of course they are not doing that, nor is it likely that they will do that. Rather they want to have the strength of the Christian Reformed Church, and still change it to conform to their ideas . And, we might add, have us pay for it. And that is the rub. That is where you and I as conservatives ought to ask ourselves some very practical questions. How long may we continue to support organizations within our church that openly support positions that are contrary to the historic, reformed interpretation of the Scriptures? This is a decision that every person must make for himself. But it is a decision that is possible for us to take. It is also one that ought to be taken before we simply pull out of the church.

Those who are angry at what is happening in the church should band together for mutual support and discussion as to what they can do. Remember that fragmentation is not in the best interests of the church of Jesus Christ. It will not strengthen the church. It will only weaken it. Let us rather unite together to seek ways and means to let our voices be heard, and to change the direction of the church we love. Remember that we are bound only by Scripture and our own consciences. The Church Order protects the inviolable conscience of every believer. Do not give the church over to forces that want to change it into what it never was intended to be.

Henry B. Vanden Heuvel is the pastor of the Bethel C.R. Church of Zeeland, Mich., and president of the Reformed Fellowship.

 

WE MUST KNOW what we believe

Jelle Tuininga

We are trying to revive some interest in things creedal and confessional in the CRC by promoting the so-called “Contemporary Testimony.” Some are hailing this as a great document, and according to some spokesmen, part of the reason for this document is the lack of knowledge of our present creeds among our people.

Now I must confess that we in the CRC, generally speaking, are no longer very literate when it comes to matters confessional, and even many of our leaders are no longer very articulate on this score. That is cause for concern. While a few decades ago, few of our parents and grandparents had much in the way of formal education, they knew the confessions of the church, and could defend the Reformed position when that was called for. Today, on the other hand, many more of our members have a high school or college education, but their knowledge of the church’s creeds is often dismal. Some even say that they are too difficult to understand.

At the same time, I don’t believe for a moment that a new “contemporary testimony” is the remedy. Certainly not if it has the caliber of the present document by that name. “Daar kan je aile kant en mee op,” as they say in Dutch (you can make it say anything you want.)

I have a few suggestions as to how we can improve the knowledge of and appreciation for, our present creeds:

1. Restore the confessions to a place of honor in our Bible Way church-school material. And have the children memorize the questions and answers of the Heidelberg Catechism. Even people who have more appreciation for the Bible Way material than I do have told me that, generally speaking, the reference to one of our creeds is relegated to a footnote, which can easily be (and often is) overlooked. Here we are nuturing the very problem that we want to overcome by means of the Contemporary Testimony. Let‘s shut the tap before we start wiping the floor. And let’s really begin in earnest to implement Arts. 63 & 64c of the Church Order again.

Also, in this connection, let’s get away somewhat from the “discussion fad,” and have the students learn both by memorization and by solid teaching. Children can memorize today just as well as we could in our day. Let’s stress the what more than the how in catechism teaching.

2. Let consistories, classes and synod insist that Art. 54b of the Church Order be adhered to. I hear from quite a few churches that regular catechism preaching is a thing of the past. How can we expect our people to know the Catechism, and to appreciate it, if our ministers treat it so Lightly? Here again, we are feeding the very thing we say we want to fight creedal indifference and ignorance. 3. Let The Banner editor show some more enthusiasm for our present creeds, and let him use his position to teach our people the crucial importance of knowing the historic confessions of the Reformation. Remarks made by him in the past about our creeds come across to me as if our present confessions were beautiful museum pieces, but not very relevant today. Not even worth putting into a modem translation. Such remarks do nothing to enhance a love for the creeds among Banner readers. 4. Finally, let parents exercise their duty and privilege in seeing to it that their children get to know the creeds of the church, and let them remind their elders and ministers as to their duties. Sad to say, too many parents do nothing about the situation either. Too often they don’t even help their children with their catechetical instruction. But correction has to begin here if it is going to begin anywhere.

As a church we have valuable creeds. Let’s use this rich treasure, for our sake and the sake of our children.

 

Fight or Switch: A Laymen’s Perspective

Roger Key

In the past several months, much has been written about the problems within our beloved denomination, particularly regarding the question of women’s ordination and what to do should it be approved by Synod. Now that the decision has been made by Synod , the question still remains, What do we do about it? that is those of us who view that decision as totally against Scripture’s guidelines. In answer to that question, I believe the time has come to cease fighting and sw itch; to begin anew along with all who can be summoned to return to the Authority of Scripture as a main beginning point. This is a most serious statement and I offer the follow ing personal experience as a guideline for doing so at this time.

Fifteen years ago I accepted a new position which meant a move to a different area from where I had been born and raised. We became members of the RCA due to several factors, including the traveling distance required if we were to remain in the CRC. Our first several years in the RCA were very pleasant ones ; we grew spiritually, had a good solid minister, and enjoyed being very active in our church. We didn’t really pay much attention to what was going on in the denomination because it really didn’t seem to affect us as a local congregation, just as I’m sure the vast majority of CRC members feel today. However, my beloved friends, it will and does affect the local congregation, sooner or later, like a cancer spreading from a small beginning. Our minister retired and we called another who seemed to also have good qualifications and a solid commitment to the Reformed faith, however, such was not the case and he, along with a weak consistory, gave occasion for many changes until the church became like the denomination, largely apostate. Oh yes, it grew numerically, but the growth was due to promotion, accepting any belief into the membership of the church, acceptance of continued sinful living with no discipline, etc. After trying to fight this situation for two years and after many sleepless, prayerful nights, we decided to leave and made the commitment to travel a number of miles to a Christian Reformed church with a minister truly committed to Scripture’s teaching, regardless of popular opinion.

What is my reason for relating this experience? It is because I believe very strongly that the CRC is following the RCA very swiftly in making the same decisions a few years after them and the RCA has made the same decisions as the other apostate denominations before them. We do not seem to learn from history.

This leaves us Christians who want to stand solidly on the authority of Scripture with the following options:

(1) We can stay within our local churches and try to get them to change. This is a most admirable stance, however, it has been largely unsuccessful so far and has also been unsuccessful in other denominations to a large extent.

(2) We can affiliate, where possible, with a local conservative congregation and hope the Synod ical decisions won’t affect us. This idea sounds reasonable, however, it has not been true historically, nor in my own experience.

(3) We can break away. I respectfully submit we pursue this option. Why now, at this particular time? Because somewhere, sometime, the line must be drawn and I feel this is the time to rally together. We have allowed heretics to stay in our seminaries and colleges because we didn’t want to cause a stir. We have allowed some strange doctrines to be proclaimed from our pulpits. Our synod has made some dubious decisions regarding movies, dancing, etc. These same decisions have been made in other apostate denominations and we should learn from them. Apostacy with in a denomination does not happen overnight but rather, slowly, a little thing here, another decision there, more gradual tolerance for sin, until there are very few persons left who remain faithful to scripture.

I fear if the break is not made now, we will continue to drift away from Scripture‘s authority just as so many other denominations before. I believe what the church needs today is for the ministers and others with real leadership capability to organize, form a new denomination, and offer the laymen the opportunity to begin anew.

If it isn’t done now, I fear we will again witness history repeating itself. Let us rally the church as Joshua did with the words, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

RISE UP, OH MEN OF GOD.