It has become very obvious to many people that the confessionally conservative point of view does not do well at Christian Reformed synods in recent years. Dr. Lester De Koster, editor-in-chief of THE BANNER (the CRC’s “official” publication, still read by most members of the church) has signalized this in a series of recent editorials. His simple suggestion is that we ought to become more political that is, more willing to think in terms of using every legitimate way to gain and exercise power in the church courts.

That “conservatives” are frustrated by situations, developments and procedures in the Christian Reformed Church is no secret. As a result anyone who is known to have such leanings hears the question, What can we do about it?

There are a lot of aspects to this problem.

For example: there is the position of some who say that doing something about it is in itself wrong. These people argue that nothing good comes by way of “rules of order,” or by concerted political effort in the church. For them such things are worldly and self-defeating. They assert (and with considerable justification) that the church ca n deal with error and sin in only one way, and that is by consistorial discipline. If that is neglected, nothing else will make any real or truly beneficial difference.

I think that these people have a point. It is not helpful to argue that people have always had differences of opinion on matters of doctrine and morals, not to mention such things as emphases and preferences, and that a given church ought to be ready to adopt an architecture with movable walls so t hat adjustment can be made to “the times” and “the latest thinking” as required. Such normless liberalism is hardly a good solution to anything, I’m sure.

At the outset let me say, therefore, that we are not out to establish a certain party in the church which will recognize the existence of other groups, and will go into the arena with them to see who has the votes. The church is not a debating society and its synodical gatherings are not parliaments or congresses with a majority and minority point-of-view or allegiance.

But I do think that at the present time we are the victim of a parliamentary situation which works to the disadvantage of some at synodical meetings, a situation which ought to be changed—and very soon! If it isn’t I think it is not alarmist to warn that the frustration some feel may lead to that dread result all good church people hate, division and eventual church splitting.

In my judgment we ought to take De Koster’s suggestion that Robert’s Rules of Order or something similar be adopted and enforced very seriously. What can we do about it? Any Christian Reformed Church member can overture his consistory, classis and eventually synod to ask that this be done.

I want to go one step further.

It is time that we stop acting as if everything means the same thing to everybody in the Christian Reformed Church. I know that there was a time when one could assume a certain consistency and homogeneity with respect to almost any matter of the Christian confession. This is no longer the case. So far as I know, no reputable observer of CRC developments denies the change.

The place at which this becomes most difficult is at synod. One could go on for a long time to explain why this is the case. Just a few indicators will do, however. Synod is a large assembly (4 x 38 classes = 152 delegates) with an enormous agenda which must be handled within ten working days (delegates begin leaving on Thursday of the second week and by Friday things are running or limping in str ange ways). Synod is also a non–continuous assembly. Each synod is a brand new one, in a certain sense. When it adjourns it is out–of–business until the following year. One more thing: synod is each year (except for a few delegations—as well described by the editor of THE BANNER) a different body. Most ministers and practically all elders are relatively inexperienced in the transactions of synodical business.

I think it is time to emphasize a bit less “the deliberative character” of synod. There isn‘t really much t ime to deliberate. At the last synod discussions even at the most crucial moments were cut short. With a show of fairness, of course. But who can really resist the kindly suggestion of a popular chairman when he rules that sufficient debate has taken place?

For reasons such as these, I suggest that classes ought to be more deliberate in their selection of synodical delegates. Brothers, the day is over that the variations on “lets-rotate–synodical–delegates among-the-ministers” theme are justifiable (if ever they were!). Similarly, elder delegates ought to be chosen with great care. Their importance was beautifully demonstrated at the last synod, in my opinion, and their role ought not to be minimized. But we can’t get high caliber elder delegates without care.

But now it is time for the painful suggestion.

Remember, we are asking, what can we do about the fact that the conservative point-of–view, although representative of a substantial part of the church (I estimate that no less than 80 delegates at the last synod were committed, more or less, to that position at the ‘79 Synod), cannot seem to gain free exercise of its power?

The answer, in part, is that classes must face the fact that there is a difference of opinion among us on many issues, and that delegates ought to be chosen on the basis of their honesty and openly–stated doctrinal and moral convictions. It ought to be perfectly possible and permissible for any delegate of classis to ask of any person nominated as a possible delegate to synod to state his positions on crucial issues. Brothers, let’s be willing to say what we think, why we think so, and let the church then decide if we are wort hy to represent her in the church courts.

And in that connection, I think that the people of the confessionally conservative stripe ought not be afraid to identify themselves as such at synod. It would be good for them to meet prior to synod, say on Monday afternoon of opening week, and discuss positions, preferences, strategies, etc.

Wouldn’t it be nicer if this weren’t necessary? Indeed. But to ignore this matter would be to refuse to heed the fact that the most definitive (although hardly the most fair) statement of Christian Reformed current conditions—I refer to the elaborate series by Rev. Clarence Boomsma in THE BANNER some time ago—stated plainly that we are not of the same mind.

If the point-of-view many of us hold dear is to have its day, we will have to work harder than ever before. I hope that we give it a try!

Note: John H. Piersma is pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Sioux Center, Iowa.