100 Years Later – What Can We Learn?

There was anticipation, eagerness, concern and maybe even dread. You never know what will happen at a Synod.  Overtures had been prepared and prayers were being offered.  Strong opinions were expressed and there were advocates forming their arguments on what they thought was at stake.

I am not describing the upcoming Synod of 2024.  I am describing the Synod of 1924 which is known in the Christian Reformed Church as the “Common Grace” Synod.

It is the 100th anniversary of that Synod and I recently read the Calvin Theological Journal articles reviewing the “unfinished” work of that Synod by Professor Emeritus John Bolt.  I recommend these articles to anyone wanting to learn more about that Synod, but also to deepen our own wisdom as the Church faces Synod 2024.

Here are three take-aways that I suggest are helpful for us:

1. Be Patient

Obviously, there is a concern that to “slow-down” any process may be used by some to subvert a decision of Synod.  I understand.  At the same time, wisdom comes with time and also can take time.

Daniel Kahneman, who recently died at the age of 90, was the award-winning author of Thinking Fast and Slow.  Kahneman’s data exposes the extraordinary capabilities – and also the faults and biases – of fast thinking, and reveals the pervasive influence of impressions on our thoughts and even behaviors.  When combined with our current social media frenzy, the antidote we need is to slow down to think deeply.

As an example, I have read (as many have) about gravamina – their history, purpose and potential use in our current situation.  The depth of the topic would usually lead us in the Christian Reformed Church to set-up a study committee so we could understand the issue together and communicate well to the whole church.  Are we willing to be patient for more study?

Here are a few words from Professor Bolt’s review of 1924:

“One is led to wonder:  Could it be that synod was less than fully confident of its position?  Were there other (unstated) reasons for its haste?  Perhaps more to the point:  If the warning sought to do justice to the concerns raised by Danhof and Hoeksema, would it not have been wiser – and clearly more in the spirit of Christian brotherly love – to pursue some kind of resolution by appointing a study committee to investigate the matter further?  Synod had the opportunity to help the church come to a fuller statement on common grace that would incorporate these concerns and not as a mere after thought  For some reason it did not desire such a statement.  It’s own conclusion, it would be fair to say, was also ‘one-sided.’”
(Calvin Theological Journal, November 2022, Volume 57, Number 2, p. 282)

2. Time Spent Today May Help or Hurt For Tomorrow

I turn again to the search for wisdom through the lens of the Synod of 1924.  The delegates who made their decision knew that what they did would make a difference in the lives of the church, but did they see all that would still unfold?

Again from Professor Bolt –

“Does the1924 Synod still matter?  Did it have any significant practical, ecclesiastical consequences for the Christian Reformed Church beside the tragic loss of Hoeksema and Danhof and the formation of the Protestant Reformed Church?  There are two instances, both arising from mission concerns, where the inadequacy of the 1924 statement on common grace directly impacted the CRC:  (a) The Harold Decker controversy about the ‘Love of God’; (b) The current missiological emphasis on ‘Participating in God’s Mission.’” 
(Calvin Theological Journal,  November 2023, Volume 58, Number 2, p. 280)

If you want to learn more about these matters, you will have to read the article!  I am not even expressing agreement with all of Professor Bolt’s perspective.  What I do agree with is that ideas have consequences and even unintended consequences.

Another recent example comes from the ministry of John F. MacArthur (radio minister of “Grace to You”) who for concern about “cheap grace” made much in the 1980s of “Lordship Salvation.”  That controversy regarding how people come to faith in Christ and what they needed to believe has historical, biblical, and theological roots and branches.  (See for example editor Michael Horton’s Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation.)

What is discussed and decided and how it is discussed and decided makes a difference.

3. Heat is Not Always Light

I have seen and felt (and I have the emails to prove it) that passion is part of the current conversations.  Passion can help us identify and even communicate that what is being discussed is important.

In my pastoral ministry, I used the Conflict Card inventory tool from Les and Leslie Parrot.  The use of the card helps illustrate that people may have different views on the level of importance and rather than meeting in the middle, we go to extremes which can lead us to be even further apart.  (Yes – I can give personal testimony from my nearly 42 years of marriage!)

Professor Bolt in his article argues that a restatement of the doctrine of common grace is overdue and that an injustice occurred to Revs. Herman Hoeksema and Henry Danhof.  As we enter into the 100th anniversary of the Synod 1924, what is owed to the Protestant Reformed Church and the heirs of Hoeksema and Danhof?

Here is one more excerpt from Professor Bolt’s articles:

“Nonetheless, we need to exercise caution in assessing the actual significance of any denominational extra-confessional doctrinal statements and their impact on Christian practice.  Thus, for example, it is a mistake to look at the past one hundred years of CRC history and attribute all its alleged errors to the 1924 “mistake” on common grace.  Ideas, including doctrines, play an important role in human history, but they are not all-important; personal, social, cultural, and other nontheological influences also play important roles.  That is why good church history cannot be reduced to a history of doctrines(s), which in turn is also never a matter of ideas only.  My plea is thus for clarity and my hope is that greater clarity might also influence practice for the better; stated differently; my hope is that clarity opens up hearts to charity.  But hope is not the same as causation.” 
(Calvin Theological Journal, November 2023, Volume 58, Number 2, pp. 300-301)

The above is Professor Bolt’s final paragraph from his two journal articles.  His statements are focused on 1924, but are they helpful or applicable to us today?

We all need to evaluate our times and our actions.

May God grant us wisdom as we submit ourselves to Him and may we continue to pray for Synod 2024.