There are certain programs and activities in which the CRC and the RCA have worked together, and can do so, without a prior theological discussion and consideration of respective practices—but the proposed special services to promote “closer fellowship, cooperation, and denominational unity” is not one of them.
On April 8, 1857 Classis Holland of the Dutch Reformed Church received four documents of secession which charged Classis with a departure from principles held in the Netherlands before emigration to America. The communication from the Graafschap Consistory particularly specified reasons for separation as follows:
We are obliged to give you notice of our present ecclesiastical standpoint, namely, separating ourselves from your denomination, together with all Protestant denominations, with which we thoughtlessly became connected upon our arrival in America . . . The reasons for this our secession, namely, 113 members, or communicants, are as follows:
(1) The collection of 800 hymns, introduced contrary to the church order.
(2) Inviting (men of) all religious views to the Lord’s Supper, excepting Roman Catholics.
(3) Neglecting to preach the Catechism regularly, (to hold) catechetical classes, and (to do) house visitation.
(4) That no religious books are circulated without the consent of other denominations, directing your attention to the Sabbath booklet, with the practice of J. Van Der Meulen, in 1855.
(5) And what grieves our hearts most in all of this is that there are members among you who regard our secession in the Netherlands as not strict1y necessary, or (think that) it was untimely.
(6) In the report of Rev. Wyckoff he gives us liberty to walk in this ecclesiastical path. Brethren, we are glad that almost the entire congregation, the number of members given above, with us, the consistory, and our dear little children, again stand upon the same standpoint on which our fathers enjoyed so great blessedness, and oh, we should rejoice still more if the King of the Church should bring you to this conviction. This is the duty of us all. The God of love be your counsellor and guide to walk in the way of truth. (Classis Holland Minutes 1848–1858, pp. 241–242.)
On or about April 8, 1973 all the churches of the Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America are asked to hold special services, according to a recommendation by the recent Conference of the CRC and RCA. Sunday worship or weekday meeting is apparently meant—“whether jointly or otherwise,” the proposal reads, “for the promotion of closer fellowship, cooperation, and denominational unity.”
The question is whether we should do what is recommended for 1973 without looking back and considering what was done in 1851.
Serious matters which burdened the hearts of certain leaders and congregations were brought to Classis Holland in 1857. “Inviting (men of) all religious views to the Lord’s Supper” and “Neglecting to preach the Catechism regularly and (to do) house visitation” were cited, for example, in the document from the Graafschap Consistory, and fraternization “with those who are in opposition to the doctrine of our fathers” stated in the communication from the Polkton Church.
Some of these issues have rooted firmly during the ensuing years, spread out and given rise to others, and still others have sprung up. There is the lodge matter, ordination of women to church offices, the establishment and promotion of Christian schools in the Christian community, the significance of the historic standards and confessions for the churches and pastors, the doctrine of Scripture, its infallibility and authority, and matters of inter-church relations like the acceptance and reception of a disciplined member of one church by another which appears to have little conscience about it.
And now special services in all the churches on or about April 8, 1973 “for the promotion of closer fel1owship, cooperation, and denominational unity?” Without conversation on these issues? Without coming together for a meeting of minds? The recent Conference was hardly that, according to news reports, but dealt with things in common and put attention on unity. “The three-day meeting emphasized the similarities,” The Church Herald told its readers, “rather than the differences between the two denominations.”
It is an apt figure, “a divorced couple who keep seeing each other,” describing the relationship between the CRC and RCA. But the divorced couple ought to do some talking about their differences, not only about their similarities, before renewed courtship. Which brings to mind the conversation I had with a divorced couple sometime ago who wanted me to remarry them. “What about the problem that led to your divorce several months ago?” I inquired. “Never mind,” they responded in effect, “we’re not going into all that. We’re just going to forget about the past and start all over.” They have married again, I learned recently, but the old problem of alcoholism and consequent marital difficulties have persisted.
It is true that talk is sometimes fruitless and conversation non-productive. The Editor of The Banner observed in his Reformation Day piece that “Ecumenicity is moving from the irresolution of endless discussion, countless committees, expensive conferences, unread reports and unheeded declarations, toward more practical inter-denominational and inter-congregational cooperation in getting jobs done obediently to Christian mandates.” With his eye on the coming CRC and RCA Conference, he went on to declare: “We can hardly talk ourselves into unity.” But not to talk can be dangerous and not to hold conversation may result in disaster. There are certain programs and activities in which the CRC and the RCA have worked together, and can do so, without a prior theological discussion and consideration of respective practices—but the proposed special services to promote “closer fellowship, cooperation, and denominational unity” is not one of them.
Classis Holland of the Christian Reformed Church, in session last September expressed the judgment that conversation on these issues was important and offered to get it started.
In response to a communication from Classis Holland of the Reformed Church in America. requesting a c1assis-wide pulpit exchange, Classis CRC stated that the matter was the concern of local consistories. It went on, however, to adopt the following recommendations: “That Classis welcome theological dialogue and discussion relating to matters of inter-church relations,” and “That Classis appoint a committee of elders and pastors to initiate such dialogue and discussion upon the concurrence of Classis Holland of the RCA.” Classis CRC refused to become involved in the requested exchange, but did assert its willingness to meet for conversation on these issues. A large majority of classical delegates judged this to be the proper course.
Elders of Christian Reformed churches, I have observed in various meetings and on occasions of church visiting, are concerned about the state of the church and their congregations particularly. They are concerned about the matter of lodge affiliation when it comes to the admission of new members, the church offices and their fellow officers who share in responsibilities of supervision and work of mercy, the Christian school and its availability for their church families, and the minister of the Word of God, his preaching and what he says.
Concern for these matters, and others as well, ought to be reflected in serious consideration of this proposal to hold special services and of its purpose a proposal that has come out of the CRC and RCA Conference.
Charles Steenstra is pastor of Faith Christian Reformed Church of Holland, Michigan.
On April 8, 1857 Classis Holland of the Dutch Reformed Church received four documents of secession which charged Classis with a departure from principles held in the Netherlands before emigration to America. The communication from the Graafschap Consistory particularly specified reasons for separation as follows:
We are obliged to give you notice of our present ecclesiastical standpoint, namely, separating ourselves from your denomination, together with all Protestant denominations, with which we thoughtlessly became connected upon our arrival in America . . . The reasons for this our secession, namely, 113 members, or communicants, are as follows:
(1) The collection of 800 hymns, introduced contrary to the church order.
(2) Inviting (men of) all religious views to the Lord’s Supper, excepting Roman Catholics.
(3) Neglecting to preach the Catechism regularly, (to hold) catechetical classes, and (to do) house visitation.
(4) That no religious books are circulated without the consent of other denominations, directing your attention to the Sabbath booklet, with the practice of J. Van Der Meulen, in 1855.
(5) And what grieves our hearts most in all of this is that there are members among you who regard our secession in the Netherlands as not strict1y necessary, or (think that) it was untimely.
(6) In the report of Rev. Wyckoff he gives us liberty to walk in this ecclesiastical path. Brethren, we are glad that almost the entire congregation, the number of members given above, with us, the consistory, and our dear little children, again stand upon the same standpoint on which our fathers enjoyed so great blessedness, and oh, we should rejoice still more if the King of the Church should bring you to this conviction. This is the duty of us all. The God of love be your counsellor and guide to walk in the way of truth. (Classis Holland Minutes 1848–1858, pp. 241–242.)
On or about April 8, 1973 all the churches of the Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America are asked to hold special services, according to a recommendation by the recent Conference of the CRC and RCA. Sunday worship or weekday meeting is apparently meant—“whether jointly or otherwise,” the proposal reads, “for the promotion of closer fellowship, cooperation, and denominational unity.”
The question is whether we should do what is recommended for 1973 without looking back and considering what was done in 1851.
Serious matters which burdened the hearts of certain leaders and congregations were brought to Classis Holland in 1857. “Inviting (men of) all religious views to the Lord’s Supper” and “Neglecting to preach the Catechism regularly and (to do) house visitation” were cited, for example, in the document from the Graafschap Consistory, and fraternization “with those who are in opposition to the doctrine of our fathers” stated in the communication from the Polkton Church.
Some of these issues have rooted firmly during the ensuing years, spread out and given rise to others, and still others have sprung up. There is the lodge matter, ordination of women to church offices, the establishment and promotion of Christian schools in the Christian community, the significance of the historic standards and confessions for the churches and pastors, the doctrine of Scripture, its infallibility and authority, and matters of inter-church relations like the acceptance and reception of a disciplined member of one church by another which appears to have little conscience about it.
And now special services in all the churches on or about April 8, 1973 “for the promotion of closer fel1owship, cooperation, and denominational unity?” Without conversation on these issues? Without coming together for a meeting of minds? The recent Conference was hardly that, according to news reports, but dealt with things in common and put attention on unity. “The three-day meeting emphasized the similarities,” The Church Herald told its readers, “rather than the differences between the two denominations.”
It is an apt figure, “a divorced couple who keep seeing each other,” describing the relationship between the CRC and RCA. But the divorced couple ought to do some talking about their differences, not only about their similarities, before renewed courtship. Which brings to mind the conversation I had with a divorced couple sometime ago who wanted me to remarry them. “What about the problem that led to your divorce several months ago?” I inquired. “Never mind,” they responded in effect, “we’re not going into all that. We’re just going to forget about the past and start all over.” They have married again, I learned recently, but the old problem of alcoholism and consequent marital difficulties have persisted.
It is true that talk is sometimes fruitless and conversation non-productive. The Editor of The Banner observed in his Reformation Day piece that “Ecumenicity is moving from the irresolution of endless discussion, countless committees, expensive conferences, unread reports and unheeded declarations, toward more practical inter-denominational and inter-congregational cooperation in getting jobs done obediently to Christian mandates.” With his eye on the coming CRC and RCA Conference, he went on to declare: “We can hardly talk ourselves into unity.” But not to talk can be dangerous and not to hold conversation may result in disaster. There are certain programs and activities in which the CRC and the RCA have worked together, and can do so, without a prior theological discussion and consideration of respective practices—but the proposed special services to promote “closer fellowship, cooperation, and denominational unity” is not one of them.
Classis Holland of the Christian Reformed Church, in session last September expressed the judgment that conversation on these issues was important and offered to get it started.
In response to a communication from Classis Holland of the Reformed Church in America. requesting a c1assis-wide pulpit exchange, Classis CRC stated that the matter was the concern of local consistories. It went on, however, to adopt the following recommendations: “That Classis welcome theological dialogue and discussion relating to matters of inter-church relations,” and “That Classis appoint a committee of elders and pastors to initiate such dialogue and discussion upon the concurrence of Classis Holland of the RCA.” Classis CRC refused to become involved in the requested exchange, but did assert its willingness to meet for conversation on these issues. A large majority of classical delegates judged this to be the proper course.
Elders of Christian Reformed churches, I have observed in various meetings and on occasions of church visiting, are concerned about the state of the church and their congregations particularly. They are concerned about the matter of lodge affiliation when it comes to the admission of new members, the church offices and their fellow officers who share in responsibilities of supervision and work of mercy, the Christian school and its availability for their church families, and the minister of the Word of God, his preaching and what he says.
Concern for these matters, and others as well, ought to be reflected in serious consideration of this proposal to hold special services and of its purpose a proposal that has come out of the CRC and RCA Conference.
Charles Steenstra is pastor of Faith Christian Reformed Church of Holland, Michigan.