“An exercise in futility” was our reviewer’s final characterization of the CR Synod of ‘87 (July/Aug. Outlook). Why should delegates have found it frustrating? The author observed “the clear evidence that we are a divided house,” making one “often wonder how it is possible for such widely divergent views to coexist in the same denomination.” He spoke of obvious indifference to arguments and a “mind already made up on many issues.” And finally, he noted the need (demonstrated in the synod) to recover an understanding of “the nature and government of the church.”

Discarding the Lord’s Doctrine of the Church

Occasionally watching the synod expression of ever more diverging opinions en route to makeshift decisions repeatedly recalled a surprising 1984 observation made by Rev. Henry Vander Kam, former president of Calvin’s Board of Trustees, that the doctrine about the Christian church, Ecclesiology, had “not been taught at Calvin Seminary in the department of Dogmatics for the last 15 years” (May, 1984 Outlook). The almost two-decade failure to recognize in the denomination’s official minister-training curriculum that there is any such thing as an established Biblical and therefore Reformed doctrine about the church often seemed painfully apparent at the synod.

This remarkable loss of common conviction of what a church should be and how it should run, previously came to expression in our many years of fumbling with the questions about the place of evangelists. The occasion for and the drift of the argument became especially evident in 1973 and ‘74 . In the Acts of the latter year, the advisory committee observed, “Is not our thirty year history of indecisiveness on this issue evidence of the inadequacy of trying to fit twentieth century evangelists into sixteenth century structures?” comparing this with “putting new wine into old wineskins” (Mt. 9:17). It quoted statements from the 1973 report (p. 673) that while the New Testament materials contain significant guiding principles for every age, “they do not present a definitive church-organizational structure to which the church must remain bound for all time. Neither do they describe the offices of the church with such finality that no changes may be permitted in their number or in their functioning.” Then it cited the 1973 “Guideline” #12 that “the Bible leaves room for the church to adapt or modify its particular ministries in order to carry out effectively its service to Christ . . .” (Acts 1974, pp. 73, 74).

Resulting Church Chaos

Considering this history, we need not be surprised by any of the recent synod decisions, nor by the fact that there was no serious effort to argue for them or ground them on the Bible. The “Vision-21” hierarchical restructuring of the church was accepted in principle, despite its conflicts with Scripture and confessions.¹ (When the committee representative was asked whether it had studied other churches, he admitted that the large Presbyterian and Reformed churches in particular had been studied. It is significant that both of those bodies have long had an authoritarian bureaucracy pursuing liberal objectives in defiance of those in their churches who wanted to remain faithful to their earlier Biblical confessions—And the former head of the RCA has recently moved to an executive job in the World Council! Look at those churches, if you wish to see where our church designers who copied them are leading us.)

Other indications of the loss of Biblical direction appeared throughout the synod decisions. The Ecumenical Charter, which proceeded on the principle that we are already one with all churches regardless of differing confessions and beliefs, was adopted with slight modifications, although it pointedly ignored the Lord’s warnings against false teachers and alliances with those who follow them. And the committee, which got the approval it wanted, avowedly plans to have us join the World Alliance with some of the most Liberal of churches within another year. (Acts, pp. 197–201).

Payment of church quotas will be pressed, regardless of their conflict with confessions or individual consciences. The Banner gleefully reported the gains of the feminists in their antiBiblical and anti-confessional drive for all church offices. The gross discrimination in membership and ministers’ requirements in favor of non-white churches and officers, with the hypocritical claim that this eliminates racism, gains new momentum. And Calvin Seminary’s labor-union style monopoly control of access to the churches’ ministry is confirmed. All this and much more is easily understandable, if one only bears in mind that the church is operating on the principle that first and 16th century Biblical and confessional teachings are no longer suitable to today’s and tomorrow’s church. The consequent lack of common convictions on almost every subject and the loss of Biblical and confessional direction, that frustrate any Bible-believing Christian, are inevitable results. Our lord said that His Word is to be our “light” and that if we disregard it, we and those who follow us will “walk in darkness.”

Our Confessed Alternatives

The frustration of many with a denomination that, commonly rejecting the law of the Lord, has become lawless, is neither surprising , nor unusual. For over 400 years we have been confessing in our Belgic Confession (Article 29) the conflict that invading error must bring between the “true” and the “false” church. The true church is characterized by the fact that in it “all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ (is) acknowledged as the only Head of the Church.” “As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ.”² A thoughtful review of the actions of our synod, judged by this standard, could hardly leave anyone in doubt about which of the two opposite courses the denomination is taking. The synod, without sensational debate, but indifferent to any Biblical or confessional argument, at almost every vote, showed that the majority was ready to follow wherever popular trends and an opportunistic bureaucracy might lead.

Our Future Course?

What must Christians , who are still conscience-bound by God’s Word to work and pray for a Bible-believing, confessionally Reformed faith, life AND CHURCH do when their denomination persistently betrays them in this way?

Some suggest that we redouble efforts to overture coming synods to reverse the denominational course. We should be thankful for any who are trying to maintain the Biblical and confessional faith and life and who are driven by their convictions to make such protests. But we must consider that such protests and overtures have been sent in for years. The recent synod was faced with twenty of them against the “Vision-21” hierarchical restructuring of the denomination. When dozens of such efforts are more and more cynically brushed aside, as this year’s were, and when we are repeatedly reminded that overture, no matter how Biblically or confessionally well-grounded they may be, are “legally” dismissed if they do not present “new grounds,” the futility of that kind of effort in the CRC today become obvious.

What must we do now? Give up reform efforts by overture and protest, and settle for trying to maintain local (dwindling?) Reformed pockets in another pluralistic Liberal church? Some tell us, be it reluctantly, that that is what we should do. “Stay in until they throw you out!”

When God Commands Separation

That is not what our Lord in His Word teaches us. He warned us against following false teachers and making any concessions to them (Matt. 7:15ff.). In Corinth Paul preached in the synagogue, until, facing rejection of the gospel, he separated from it, preaching next door (Acts 18:4ff.). In Ephesus, facing the same hostile reaction, he “separated the disciples” from the synagogue, to meet in a school (Acts 19:8ff.).

God’s Word COMMANDS us, “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition” of the gospel (2 Thess. 3:6). It warns us in the strongest of terms, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? . . . Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? . . . Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord” (2 Cor. 6:14–18). And such disciplinary action must not be long delayed for endless admonitions and useless debate, but proceed to separation (Titus 3:9–11).

Rev. Nelson Kloosterman has repeatedly called attention to the fact that such Biblical discipline is a distinguishing “mark” of the Christian church and that it must be exercised not only against the delinquent individual, but by faithful Christian church members and consistories toward a larger body that shows itself faithless to the Lord. That is what compelled our forefathers as well as many others to separate from church bodies that betrayed the Bible and their confessions.

An Ecumenical Quest for a Faithful Church

While our synod met, a number of other Presbyterian denominations who are committed to Biblically Reformed confessions were also meeting on the same campus. These simultaneous gatherings were supposed to promote Christian unity. But the contrast between them and our representative assembly was at times startling. They also faced many procedural problems, but one sensed in them and their transactions a commitment to the Word of God as their confessed authority that is conspicuously absent from our synod. Does the chosen course of our last synod not compel us, out of loyalty to our Lord and His Word to distance ourselves from those who reject that Word and to work for union with those who share our Biblical Reformed faith, in a genuine, ecumenically Christian church what our previous editor called a “United Reformed Church”? (Rev. J. Vander Ploeg wrote on this subject in the July 1977 and April and June 1978 Outlooks.) Now, ten years later, we see a growing need and opportunity for all who want to be Bible-believing and therefore confessionally Reformed Christians from various church backgrounds to work for a church union that is based, not on common ethnic background and history, but a common faith in one Lord and His Word. This is the genuine ecumenical ideal that the Lord taught us in His prayer in John 17 that His followers might be one, separated from the world and sanctified in His truth. It is with this positive Biblical ideal rather than with a traditional denominational separatism that we must oppose those who are determined to betray us into joining the Anti-christian union with all kinds of unbelievers in the World Alliance and World Council of Churches. The National Association of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches (NAPARC) was organized to work toward a Biblical and confessional union. In our situation there seems to be little reason to continue a distinction between Reformed and Presbyterian when those churches share the same Biblical and therefore Reformed faith.3 As the conflict between the Biblical faith and the popular apostasy sharpens, within as well as outside of our denomination, those who, by the grace of God are committed to be Biblical, confessionally Reformed Christians find themselves drawn together with many others from a number of denominational groups who consciously share the same commitment. We should move toward separation from unbelief and toward a church union with them.

Recently we were reading the account of Samuel’s disappointment at the apostasy of Israel’s promising first king (1 Sam. 15:35). One can understand such regrets and disappointment. But the Lord addressed Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul . . . ?” Instead of continuing to mourn over Saul’s apostasy, the prophet was ordered to go ahead to anoint God’s appointed successor (16:1). A real danger threatening many in our denomination is that of letting nostalgic memories of its past Biblical and confessional commitment be the excuse for remaining sentimentally attached to it when its present leaders reject that commitment. That is letting church loyalty become idolatry. We are called to believe in and serve the Lord and His Word, not some nominal “church” body that, when it rejects Him, He also rejects. Our fathers had to learn that lesson; we and our contemporaries must pray that the Lord will teach it to us again. This does not drive us to hasty and independent action, but, in company with those who share the same faith and confession, to prayerfully plan and work together. Concerned members and consistories need to stop supporting what God’s Word forbids and to renew and increase consistory consultations to rebuild a church fellowship that unitedly says what it means and means what it says in confessing and serving its Lord.

PDJ

Notes: Some facts about the “Vision-21” restructuring of the denomination are becoming known. A talented Executive Director of the Board of Publications was largely responsible for its phenomenal expansion which repeated agenda reports hailed as making it less like a church agency and more a Christian publishing business. That expanded publishing business was an important reason for the present 4 1/2million dollar enlargement of the denominational building. That director left rather abruptly with a scandal that shocked the editor of The Banner (Editorial of Dec. 24, 1984). Now the remarkably high expenses ($72,000 to date) of the “Vision–21″ committee include the high fees paid to the consultant firm of that former director of Publications for help to produce this report! The synod accepted the report in principle in spite of the volume of criticism because it would change the structure from that of a church to that of an authoritarian business administration.

2 The Presbyterian Westminster Confession is both blunter and more nuanced than our Belgic Confession in speaking of churches. It states (Chapter XXV, V) “The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to his will.”

3 Although the name “Reformed” (used in Europe) characterized the doctrines and the name “Presbyterian” (rule of elders, used in Britain) described the form of government, the Calvinistic faith of the churches was the same. (Our China mission kept the name “Presbyterian” after our denomination took responsibility for it.) One of the Strengths of Westminster Theological Seminary from its beginning was its blending of Presbyterian and Reformed traditions. Mid-America Reformed Seminary early threatened to become provincially CRC, to forestall criticism. (Think of how Westminster Seminary would hove been crippled if it had tied itself to the big Liberal Presbyterian denomination!) We may be grateful that MidAmerica is becoming both more ecumenical and more staunchly Reformed—to better equip leaders for our time.