Rev. VanBaren is pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church of Loveland, Colorado.
United Reformed Churched in North America
On October 1 and 2, 1996, at Lynwood Christian Reformed Church (Independent) in Lynwood, Illinois, another denomination was formed. Representatives from 36 churches, formerly associated with the Christian Reformed Church, dealt with matters pertaining to the establishment of a new denomination. Rev. E. Knott (formerly of the Protestant Reformed Churches) was chosen as president of the meeting, Rev. Ralph Pontier as vice-president, and Rev. Jerome Julien as clerk.
One of the first items on the order of business was the choice of name. Among four possibilities, the name of "United Reformed Churches in North America" (URCNA) was chosen.
Most of the business dealt with church polity, especially the adoption of a Church Order. That Church Order follows the pattern of the Church Order of Dordt, with changes deemed necessary for their present situation. A motion was defeated to refer their adopted Church Order to the Orthodox Christian Reformed Churches, the Canadian Reformed Churches, the Free Reformed Churches, the Protestant Reformed Churches, and the Reformed Church in the United States for evaluation and recommendations.
The churches were divided into three Classes: East, Midwest, and West. A church in each grouping was appointed as calling church for the first classical meeting. The body also decided that their Article 32 be suspended "for one year and refer it to the next synodical meeting so that like-minded churches and their ministers may be received during that year as charter members of the federation without sponsorship and additional examination."
The body also decided to send "a communication to the November meeting of the C.R.C. Inter-classical conference. This communication shall include a brief history of who we are and express:
"1. that we share in their sorrow and grief over the spiritual decline of the Christian Reformed denomination;
"2. that if they are to secede from that denomination, we encourage them to look to us and join us;
"3. that whether this occurs or not, we will pray for God's blessing upon them as they contend for the faith."
The body also decided to adopt as their own the liturgical forms and Form of Subscription as included in the Psalter Hymnal, Centennial Edition (1976) for use in their churches.
The next synodical gathering was scheduled for" October, 1997 at the Trinity Orthodox Reformed church, St. Catharines, ON Canada.
One cannot help but notice in their adopted name the emphasis upon "churches" (plural) in distinction from the official name of the Christian Reformed Church (singular). Obviously the URCNA has come to recognize what the Protestant Reformed Churches (plural) pointed out early on after 1924: the denomination is not the "church," but it is the union of like-minded "churches." The singular used in the name of the CRC lends itself to the developing hierarchy seen within its own midst and because of which the URCNA ultimately had to leave.
While one cannot help but wish this newly established denomination well, and pray that God may use them also mightily in the spread of the gospel, purely proclaimed, still one can do so also with a large measure of concern for the difficult path that this newly organized denomination must walk. They are to be commended, of course, for following the Reformed practice of federation rather than holding to the Congregational approach of independentism. Surely, however, they must be deeply conscious of the difficulties which lie before them.
First, it is obvious that this new denomination does not agree at some point(s) with existing denominations, such as the Orthodox Christian Reformed Churches (which also came out of the CRC), or the Canadian Reformed Churches, or the Protestant Reformed Churches, or the Reformed Church US, or others. Otherwise, surely, they would be obliged to become part of one of these — rather than begin another Reformed body of believers.
Secondly, one cannot help but wonder which of the decisions of the CRC, adopted before they left that denomination, will now be regarded as theirs. Are they going to debate anew all of the questions which were resolved by the CRC synods of the past? Are they going; to agree among themselves to regard as their own those decisions taken before a specific date? Obviously, they are not going to adopt as their own the CRC decisions on women in church office. But are they going to adopt as their own the decisions of the CRC on the movie and dance (which had completely reversed earlier stands against "worldly amusements")? Are they going to maintain strictly the stand of the CRC on union membership or follow the current practice of ignoring that? Which song book of praise will they adopt? Will they go back to the time when the CRC used exclusive Psalmody? Then we ourselves have the question: will they refuse the decisions taken in 1924 on the "Three Points of Common Grace"? Will they declare this to be an optional matter for their members? Or will they continue to maintain those points? Will they declare them to be an interpretation of the creeds as the CRC did in 1924? That they have come to recognize that a denomination consists of "churches" and is not itself the "church" is an encouraging development. So, the question remains: what will this denomination consider as part of its own heritage from the CRC; and what will it reject?
Obviously, they will be walking through a "mine-field." The potential for disaster is there. What will be considered as essential for unity - and what optional? We will be watching and listening.
Meanwhile....
Darrell Todd Maurina, in the United Reformed News Service, reports that a number of non-federated (former) Christian Reformed churches decided to hold the meetings of the Alliance of Reformed Churches as planned, on November 12 and 13, 1996. This group of churches appears to fear federation, lest once again there develop a hierarchical structure from which they were forced to escape by leaving the Christian Reformed denomination.
The Pope Speaks out on Evolution
A number of readers have called attention to many press reports of the declaration of the Pope stating that evolution is now to be considered as irrefutable. I quote from the Denver Post (though all major papers in the US and the world contained the same information):
Pope John Paul II issued a statement this week saying new research shows that physical evolution is "more than just a theory," a significant step beyond the Catholic Church's pronouncement nearly 50 years ago that evolution was worthy of discussion but still an open question.
The pope nevertheless said the human soul is divinely created anew in each person, and not subject to the evolutionary process. Any other teaching, he said, is "incompatible with the truth about man."
His statement is not likely to shake many in his own church, which has long assumed the credibility of evolution and taught it in Catholic schools. But it may rattle some non-Catholic Biblical fundamentalists who believe in creationism and have respected this pope for his traditionalist reputation and his emphatic teaching against abortion.
...In his message, which was written in French, John Paul refers to Pope Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical "Humani Generis." That encyclical considered evolution a "serious hypothesis," John Paul wrote, "worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection on a par with the opposite hypothesis.
"Today, more than a half century after this encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis," Pope John Paul II wrote. "The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
David Beyers, executive director of the committee on science and human values for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, said of the pope's message, "There is an advance there. The church went from saying you could either accept evolution or some form of creationism, to saying that now we'll accept evolution, which is the de facto situation anyway. Who questions evolution now in the Catholic church? I can't really think of anybody."
So the number of those who maintain the literal creation account of Genesis 1 becomes ever smaller. What the pope declares can now be used by many outside of the churches as proof that the church no longer is so foolish as to believe the teachings of creationism.
The mighty attacks of Satan against the very "foundations" appear to be meeting with great success. He began his attack in Paradise as he approached Eve with the question, "Yea, hath God said...?" It's been the heart of his battle-plan against the Almighty and His church ever since. If he can destroy confidence in God's Word, he has won the battle. If Genesis l-3 is not a literal, reliable account, if these chapters are mythical or some sort of literary device upon which the teaching of evolution can hang, then all of Scripture can be considered suspect. Ultimately one must reach the point of the "modernist" in the churches who denies the truth of "blood atonement."
By grace we must continue to maintain steadfastly the truth of Hebrews 11:3, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." It is a matter of faith. And all of the declarations of the pope cannot change the scriptural assertion that! the things seen were not made of things which do appear.