This article is an adaptation of a speech delivered on October 1, 1981, at the annual Reformed Fellowship Meeting in the Kelloggsville CRC. Its author, Nelson D. Kloosterman, is pastor of the Immanuel CRC of Sheldon, IA, and is secretary of the Board of the Mid-America Reformed Seminary.

It is no overstatement to say that the subject of my address has aroused members within the Christian Reformed Churches as nothing else has in the past number of years. Some are enthusiastic about it, many are nervous about it. Far too many are in the dark about it, and we are trying to remedy that. Far too many are indifferent about it, and for that we see no remedy at hand.

The subject of my address is, of course, the new seminary, the Mid-America Reformed Seminary. I am dividing my remarks according to two questions: 1) Is the new seminary needed for the Christian Reformed Churches? and 2) Is the new seminary wise for the Christian Reformed Churches? Because I want my remarks to be personal, I will rephrase the questions: 1) Is the new seminary necessary for you? and 2) Is the entire movement a wise effort, deserving your participation?

The Churches’ Spiritual Climate

As a context for proper answer to these questions, it would be helpful to provide a brief description of the spiritual climate in which the Christian Reformed Churches live in the early 1980’s. I would describe this global cultural climate as being heated by the friction of light with darkness, being clouded by the subtleties generated as the Truth meets the Lie. Within this climate the church of Jesus Christ, called to be a city set on a hill, faces momentous choices. Ours is a time of crisis. To be sure, this is not new. My point is this: the crisis faced today by the church in the world is of such intense proportions that, unless this is recognized, not only will the Christian Reformed Church’s voice be muted—she won’t even be able to clear her throat. Not only will her light be dimmed—her candle won’t even flicker. As death vainly tries to swallow life, the church is surrounded with persistent attempts to seduce her into moral and ideological companionship with the world. The world, rather than the Word, comes to set the agenda for the church.

And we are not left untouched. It is now trite to say that among us the rate of divorce is increasing; rather, the depressing admission must now be made that among us the sin of divorce is becoming tolerable. Furthermore, I have been told by one who teaches at a church-owned college that, whereas in the 1950’s, administrators and counselors dealt with frequent alcohol misuse on campus, and in the 1960’s with frequent drug abuse, in the late 1970’s and early ’80’s a frequent counseling problem is homosexuality. Both faithful worship attendance and faithful church discipline appear to be relics of a past age, at most optional for the Christian church. And complaints about preaching abound on various levels within the Christian Reformed Churches—at classical exams, in consistory rooms, and around kitchen tables. There is economic and social movement within the churches; the lunch bucket has been replaced by the attache case, and the blue collar is being traded in for a white collar. Affluence has impaired our ability and willingness to suffer for the sake of principles and loyalties.

Our Positive Answer

What then is needed for the Christian Reformed Churches? The answer depends, of course, on whom you ask. My purpose in this address is to provide you with the answer that a certain identifiable segment of believers within the Christian Reformed Churches is giving—a new seminary.

Who Are We?

First, let me describe this segment of believers. These people—and I count you among them—are enthusiastically committed to the church’s God-blessed past. We seek to practice confessional integrity, whereby that which has been historically understood and proclaimed as the Biblical faith of the church is still so understood and proclaimed today. This segment of believers strives toward Biblical godliness through the maintenance of a lifestyle which is antithetical to the world. These folks are militant proponents of moral righteousness wherein the priority rests upon personal uprightness as the prerequisite for social morality.

What Are We For?

Allow me to state briefly some of our crucial confessional positions. We are for an infallible, inerrant Bible which is the Word of God, whose authority inheres in its divinely inspired text rather than in the human author’s inaccessible intention and meaning. We possess an enthusiastic loyalty to the Christian Reformed Churches’ historic confessional identity, unity, style and practice, and seek to address today’s culture by means of that loyalty practiced in life. We are for the faithful exercise of church office according to the authority of Christ Himself in service to the Word of God in the midst of the obedient congregation. We therefore bow to the clear testimony of Scripture and refuse to modify Scripture by Scripture, but rather wish to interpret Scripture with Scripture, as a result of which we stand opposed to the practice of opening these offices to women. Finally, we stand committed to a certain kind of preaching which is God’s authoritative address to the congregation whereby Christ gathers His church and the saints are equipped for obedience in the world.

The Churches’ Present Division

I wish to say more about this kind of preaching, but I must first admit that we who compose this segment of believers in the Christian Reformed Churches live among others who have opposing commitments. We sit in the same pews with them; we serve on the same consistories with them; and, saddest of all perhaps, we live in t he same families with them. These opponents are against what we are for. They hold to a Bible whose authority is limited by the human author’s intentions, intentions which can presumably be exposed and defended by a certain kind of theological scholarship. We stand opposed to the methods used by Allen Verhey and Clayton Libolt in Bible interpretation; they stand with them, either vocally, or, as in Libolt’s case, silently.

We live in the churches among those who are committed to an ecclesiastical identity, style and practice which are free of constraints embedded in revealed, propositional Truth, committed to a Holy Spirit who leads immediately, sometimes contrary to the revealed Word of God which that Spirit is supposed to have inspired.

We live among those who are desperately committed to the opening of offices in the church to women, who seek to justify their pursuits by removing from the concept of office Christ-centered authority and replacing that with humanitarian service. Our opponents follow a practice of public worship that abolishes form in favor of spontaneity, reduces God to a co-celebrant, and identifies the value of “going to church” merely in terms of the benefits we get out of it.

Three Observations

In this connection, please notice three things. First, that which I have carefully described as a difference of commitment is just that—difference of commitment. Not merely a difference of opinion, of upbringing, of geography, of culture, of environment. But a difference of belief and practice. For example, those Calvin Seminary professors who participated in ordaining Mrs. Rienstra to the office of Minister of the Word by laying their hands on her head, have done so, in my judgment, intelligently, intentionally and willingly—before the face of the Most High God, as their response to His will. We have, I’m saying, a difference of commitment within the Christian Reformed Churches.

Notice secondly, that we who are the promoters of the new seminary did not originate or generate this difference of commitment. The new doctrines of the church, the Bible, the nature of office, of preaching, of public worship, of mission work—these have not been born out of the womb of the confessional conservatives within the churches. And so to the oftheard question asked of the conservative, “At what point would you actually leave the denomination?”, we reply, “We shall remain. When will the real dissidents be leaving?”

Please recognize, thirdly, that any solution to the spiritual crisis in our churches today must be fully serviceable to our commitment. Any solution which is eclectic, picking up good ideas from here, there and everywhere, will have the same result as sewing a new patch on an old garment.

The Answer: A Certain Kind of Preaching

We return to the main question: Why do the Christian Reformed Churches need a new SEMINARY? The answer: Because this segment of the churches believes with all its collective heart that the seed of revival, restoration and rebuilding within the church is a certain kind of preaching. Not programs (Key 73, church growth, discover your gifts); not new liturgical forms; not synodical committees to stamp out sin. None of these provides the cure. Only a certain kind of preaching.

We have said that in light of the current spiritual climate within the Christian Reformed Churches today, a certain segment of believers finds the solution for the church’s dilemma in providing a certain kind of preaching.

This kind of preaching has, in my judgment, been clearly described by a Dutch professor, Dr. C. Veenhof, in his book Pre diking en Uitverkiezing. Although he is describing the nature and power of the Word of God in the light of popular misunderstandings, the following applies equally well to the proclamation of that Word.

. . . That Word is often viewed as nothing more than a completely reliable communication about creation, fall, redemption, in short, regarding God and His works. In addition, it is perhaps a rule according to which one ought to live. But that the primary function of the Word is that God in Christ through the Spirit gives therein the forgiveness of sins, eternal life, yes, even His very self; . . . that is rarely understood. And yet it is this view, this perspective with respect to the Word which belongs to the very essence of the Reformation. In the Reformation that which was primarily in question was the manner in which God grants His grace: sola fide which is correlative to solo verbo Spiritus Sancti . . . The Word that God by means of the Scriptures sends to men is the Word by which God Himself addresses us. Undoubtedly it comes to us in human language, but nevertheless it is the Word by which and wherein the Lord Himself directs His speech to us. The Scriptures, Calvin says, come to us out of heaven as if God’s own living voice were heard (lnst. I, VII, 1).

Summarizing, we may describe the Gospel . . . as a word—a word spoken—that has Jesus Christ and the salvation completed, merited by Him as its content. It is a word spoken by the Holy Spirit, and as such is a living power of God unto salvation. It is a word that not only talks about a previously realized central moment in the history of redemption, but as the word about that event is itself a saving event (heilsgebeuren). It is never empty or ineffectual. On the contrary, it produces fellowship with Christ, and in Him with God, and is as such an instrument in the realization of our salvation and the formation of the church. It is and it grants God’s grace. Or, in the case of rejection, it works everlasting judgment. . . . The preaching of the gospel is the central moment in the work of Jesus Christ, of the apostles, of the church . . .” (emphasis).

To help us identify that which we will endeavor to produce at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, I would describe this preaching as confessional, covenantal, textual/thematic and Christo-centric preaching. Confessional preaching is something far more than mere repetition of the church’s belief; it consists of the personal, life-related setting forth of the apostolic tradition, summarized in our creeds, which once gripped Augustine, Calvin, Herman Bavinck and others. To preach covenantally is to proclaim that sovereign, intimate, gracious summons of God to His people, that they live before His face in a world that rejects Him, that they live antithetically to the world’s principles and idols. This segment in the church is for preaching which is textual/thematic, that is to say, which opens the text by means of the reproduction and development of the text’s content in an identifiable, thematic proclamation of the truth of the text. Christo-centric preaching is the kind which views the text as part of a coherent whole, which views all of the promises and commands of God’s covenant as fulfilled in Christ, so that all of life proceeds unto Him and derives from Him.

It is this kind of preaching which has given birth to our commitment, nourished and sustained it, and continues to energize it. We need Mid-America Reformed Seminary to provide total instruction and training intended and tailored to make our enthusiastic commitment fruitful. We need the new seminary to prepare men to preach the Word of God with uncompromising integrity and unfailing competence, so that the church is once again the center of the believer’s life as the spiritual “mother of believers.”

We contend that there is within the Christian Reformed Churches a potentially fatal schizophrenia of conviction, and that we confessional Calvinists who compose the core, the backbone, the majority of the church, have the solemn obligation to apply the vision for Reformed life to the pulpit. To rebuild life, we must rebuild the church. And to rebuild the church, we must rebuild the pulpit.

But Why a NEW Seminary?

The question remains answered only in part at this point. If it is granted that we need a seminary to accomplish our objectives, why do we need a new seminary? Why not, instead of a new seminary, put our representative on the faculty of Calvin Seminary? Perhaps endow a Chair of Conservative Theology? Or, why not erect a satellite of Calvin Seminary, move a couple of professors out there to northwest Iowa, to meet the needs of “those people out there”?

Given the description of the conditions within the churches and the composition of the confessional conservatives, it is obvious that no education which is true to that term can succeed if it proceeds according to opposing commitments and points of view. Our desire could not possibly be simply to have ministerial students get a taste of our principles, a sample of our ideals, and a glimpse of our vision. They must get the whole thing!

Furthermore, it should be obvious that in this case the concept of a satellite seminary has been bred out of an attitude which is both paternalistic and provincial. Paternalistic, because it says to us, “Here, you noisy children; here’s something to keep you quiet.” Provincial, because the underlying premise is that “Northwest Iowa must want what we have here in Grand Rapids, else why the fuss?” The whole problem, you see, is reduced to our need for attention.

No, we want a NEW seminary to shape that vision to which we’re committed, to solidify and strengthen its inner vitality, to communicate it to trustworthy men who themselves will proclaim it to God’s people.

It May Be Needed, But Is It Wise?

After all the arguments are heard, the question persists: what will this new seminary do to the Christian Reformed Churches? Some are afraid that we are starting another church; others wish we were. Both are mistaken. By God’s grace, out of our enthusiastic commitment, we must direct our efforts by this question: what will Mid–America Reformed Seminary do for the denomination?

It will give us a choice. Those who are opposed to our ideals have long been fond of giving us choices—a choice in liturgical forms, in catechism curricula, in evangelism methods, in hermeneutical methods. Now, for the first time in years, the Christian Reformed Churches can have within their own ranks a choice in ministerial training. Such competition, we believe, will produce better quality all around. It will provide checks and supervision, a need to excel in seminary education.

To Each His Own, Then?

Some charge us with advocating pluralism within the church, saying that if everyone followed our example, each segment or interest group within the churches would build its own seminary. Two things must be said in reply. First, we do not advocate pluralism of faith, doctrine or belief. But plural institutions and agencies which serve the churches is not that. Second, our arguments for the new seminary are in terms of the present situation in the church a situation that is divided, disunited and fractured, a situation with which we are not pleased. To argue in terms of the situation is not necessarily to agree with that situation. We don’t regard it as .sin for a doctor to diagnose a fatal disease and make prescriptions for radical treatment of the disease. That which is sin, and also fatal, is not diagnosis and treatment, but cover-up and silence.

And What about YOU?

Do you, with us, favor the unity of the church? Do you, with us, love harmony, peace and brotherhood? Then work with us to restore it in line with the Biblical teaching that unity is found in the Truth, first of all in the Faith, not in the institutional system of schools and agencies.

Climb with us the mountain of faithfulness to God and His Word. For there is no price too high, no relationship too precious, no family too dear, so that we will again be seduced into waiting, and watching, and hoping that something somewhere will change in the church to stop her accelerating slide into the sea of formless participation and powerless identification with the world’s preoccupations.

The world is preoccupied with feminism, liberation, adaptation and accommodation. If those are our concerns, and the concerns of the Christian Reformed Churches, then I grant you, we don’t need or want this new seminary. But if those are our concerns, by the same token, neither do we want or need Calvin Seminary to research, promote and integrate them into the life of the church. There are many other seminaries that are doing and can do that for us.

As the late Dr. Machen used to say, “I’m going up the mountain. I’d like you to go along. But if you won’t, I’m going anyway.”

What about you?