David Feddes

This article contains some good insights, but it is quite partisan and careless with facts. The author suggests that Daniel Darling and Michael Bird are victims of white rage. Before attributing Darling's firing to white rage against vaccination, keep in mind that vaccination rates are lower among blacks than whites. Before depicting Bird as a victim of white rage, keep in mind that black officer Bird shot and killed an unarmed white woman without facing any charges. He's alive; she's dead.

The author equates American rage with white rage, but American rage is not unique to white, conservative evangelicals. Vast numbers of liberal Americans refused to believe that Donald Trump was the legitimate winner of the 2016 election. They erupted in rage and embraced false narratives about Russian interference. They tried to undo the election by impeaching the President. When a white officer killed an unarmed black man, George Floyd, there was widespread rioting, destruction of property, and loss of life. Sad to say, rage infects people of all races and all political persuasions. We all need to repent and go to the cross--the author is surely right about that.

The article states that Shimei was a prophet, but this is incorrect. Shimei was from Saul's clan, hated David due to political rivalry, and cursed him when David seemed doomed. David did not immediately retaliate against Shimei, reasoning that maybe the curses were prompted by the Lord. But David later instructed his son Solomon to arrange a bloody death for Shimei (2 Kings 2:9).  So this is probably not a good example for Christians to follow.

As a former president of the CRC's publishing arm and as a current member of the CRC's Board of Trustees, Rev. Ken Baker is not a neutral observer merely asking some questions. He is a powerful denominational leader who has been directly involved in these matters. He evidently still isn't convinced Bob DeMoor was wrong to publish the articles. He wonders, "Did they cross the line?" He still doesn't know the answer to that question. No wonder Rev. Baker and his fellow members on the Board of Trustees gave such an inadequate response to The Banner's blunders. No wonder Synod itself needs to address the matter.

Rev. Baker should acknowledge that Edwin Walhout isn't just another CRC member with some opinions that push the envelope. Walhout was a longtime leader at CRC Publications (later Faith Alive, of which Rev. Baker was board president). After retirement, Walhout declared in print that the Reformed confessions are no longer normative for him and wrote that Reformed doctrines would topple like dominos under the force of evolutionary theory. This is the man whose assertions Bob DeMoor decided to spread to every family in the CRC.

Rev. Baker should acknowledge that former Banner editor John Suk left the CRC after affirming homosexual marriage and expressing disbelief in Jesus' Second Coming. Suk published a book titled "Not Sure." This title was echoed in Bob DeMoor's editorial "Don't Be So Sure," published shortly before he published the articles exalting evolution and cohabitation.

Rev. Baker appeals to the editor's "ten years of faithful and edifying service." Picture a pastor who has served in a CRC congregation for ten years. The congregation has recently been shaken to learn that its former pastor has renounced key doctrines and joined an ultra-liberal denomination. Around this time, the current pastor preaches a sermon titled, "Don't Be So Sure." A month later, he knowingly invites a guest preacher to proclaim to the whole congregation that Adam never existed and that Reformed doctrines must fall like dominoes. The next month, he invites a guest speaker to tell the youth group that sex before marriage is fine if two people feel sort of mature and committed. When many people from the congregation express outrage over these things, the pastor says he's sorry they got so upset, and he explains that he was just trying to stimulate discussion. Most CRC congregations would not continue to employ such a pastor. Even if some Council members still liked him and still thought he was not really trying to undermine  confidence in biblical, Reformed truth, they would recognize that he had brought division and had lost the confidence of too many people in the congregation to continue serving the whole church effectively.

Back to Rev. Baker's question: What do we want from The Banner? For starters, we want it to be trustworthy. We want faithfulness to the church's doctrinal and ethical standards. We want a magazine with content that every CRC household can trust to be biblical and Reformed, or else we want to stop using ministry shares to send that magazine to every CRC household. We want an editor who firmly rejects and opposes the direction taken by Banner/Pubs predecessors such as Walhout and Suk, not an editor who publishes Walhout and echoes Suk's call to be unsure. We want more than an editorial apology for "the manner and timing of publishing these articles"; we want an editor with the wisdom not to publish such articles at all.

And we want real accountability. The Banner Editorial Council was of no help at all; they unanimously approved the editor's decision to print the articles. The Board of Trustees was of little help. Trustee Baker still doesn't know if the articles crossed the line, and evidently others on the Board were equally indecisive. They called the editor to Grand Rapids for a conversation, issued some damage control press releases, and continued with business as usual. The Board of Trustees, after further study, called for stronger oversight--and then gave the editor veto power in choosing half the members of the committee that is supposed to hold him accountable. Synod must do better than that.

Besides the concern to unite word and deed, we need to ask, "What kind of word? What kind of deed? And for whom?" Do we prioritize the kind of words and deeds that are directed toward non-Christians in order to lead them to Christ, or do we mainly stick with words and deeds directed toward those who are already believers? A ministry might be "holistic" in the sense that it combines word and deed, yet it might choose words that mainly edify the already-saved and deeds that mainly bless fellow believers. Even if such a word-and-deed ministry were considered holistic, it would not have the missionary intent and impact of Paul's word-and-deed mission to unreached peoples and unsaved persons. Denominational mission agencies, whatever organizational shape they take and whatever their philosophy of "word and deed," must place high priority on reaching those who do not yet know Christ.