One article argues that developments in science are going to make our current understanding of Adam and Eve, original sin, salvation and eschatology look like the old doctrines of purgatory, indulgences, Papal authority, and transubstantiation. In the second article, the author argues for a looser stance on premarital sex. “If I read Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs correctly, then God wants people to take pleasure in their youth – and that pleasure most certainly includes lovemaking.”

Bob De Moor, editor of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) periodical The Banner, met with the denomination’s Board of Trustees on September 26 to discuss two articles that some say are against Scripture and the Reformed confessions.

The first article, titled “Tomorrow’s Theology,” appeared in the June 2013 edition of The Banner. In it, the writer, Rev. Edwin Walhout, argues that developments in science are going to make our current understanding of Adam and Eve, original sin, salvation and eschatology look like the old doctrines of purgatory, indulgences, Papal authority, and transubstantiation.

Walhout, a retired minister from Classis Grand Rapids East, says in his article that due to the theory of evolution the church will be reading the same Bible but have to update our doctrines. Future theologians, he says, “may find that some of the doctrines that form the essential structure of our creeds and confessions miss the mark.”

The second article, titled “Where Do We Draw The Line?” appeared in the next issue of The Banner. In this second article, Harry Van Belle, argues for a looser stance on premarital sex. “If I read Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs correctly, then God wants people to take pleasure in their youth – and that pleasure most certainly includes lovemaking.”

Van Belle is an emeritus professor of psychology at The Kings University College in Edmonton, Alberta.

“The situation today has changed,” Van Belle says. “In earlier times” sexual intercourse “could – and often did – result in pregnancy.” However, “Today’s young people have a variety of contraceptives at their disposal to minimize that risk.” Therefore, “Better criteria for evaluating people’s sexual behavior, I suggest, are maturity and commitment. …the strength of the personal maturity of single people and on their level of commitment to one another.”

The editor’s column by Bob De Moor in the July Banner took a defensive posture. “The Banner is mandated by synod to do four things: inform, inspire, educate, and challenge its readers.” De Moor continues, “The metaphor for its editorial policy remains a kitchen table – the place where family and friends freely converse about significant matters and where all reasonable voices are heard. …provided they are within the bounds of Scripture, don’t directly advocate against the doctrines taught in the creeds and confessions, and remain reasonable and respectful” (The Banner, July 2013, pg. 9).

De Moor’s defense appeared in the same issue as Van Belle’s article on opening up the ethical doors to premarital sex. Even though the subtitle explained that this was intended to “begin the conversation,” and Van Belle’s article was used as a counterpoint to follow a more traditional article by Chelsey Harmon, readers did not see this as a kitchen table discussion starter.

“Is it just me, or is The Banner intentionally trying to test the patience of CRC members for the second month in a row?” asked Rev. Tyler Wagonmaker of Beaverdam CRC in Zeeland, Michigan.

“The bottom line when it comes to The Banner is that while we are assured we will read things that are challenging, biblical, and meant to build us up, we are actually reading things that are patently unbiblical and downright rebellious towards the Scriptures,” said another CRC minister, Matt Ford, of Fountain Valley, California on a blog post. “And all right there at the kitchen table.”

In The Banner’s August 2013 issue, Editor De Moor wrote an editorial note about the last two articles and the resulting backlash. It begins with an explanation: “We believe that the authors represent more than just a few voices within our denomination and . . . we believe that they should be heard and responded to in truth and love (Eph. 4:15)” because they “genuinely seek to apply their Reformed understanding to difficult issues” (pg. 3).

But then De Moor takes new direction, admitting that “Your frank responses, as well as a good heart-to-heart conversation with our executive director, who expressed serious concerns, have made me realize, perhaps too late, that the manner and timing of publishing these articles has led to significant doubt about the magazine’s direction. For this I sincerely apologize” (pg. 3).

The two Banner articles would bring in over 100 letters and emails to the CRC Executive Director alone, as well as overtures from Classes Minnkota and Illiana that ask for editor Robert De Moor’s immediate dismissal.

“Walhout’s and Van Belle’s articles are not within the bounds of Scripture and directly advocate against the doctrines taught in the creeds and confessions,” reads Classis Illiana’s overture. “In light of Bob DeMoor’s own stated understanding of The Banner’s editorial policy, he apparently thinks those articles do not conflict with Scripture or the Reformed confessions. In that case, we need a more discerning Banner editor.”

De Moor met with the CRC Board of Trustees on September 26. The next day the Board made their conclusions, released October 1, which amounted to a slap on the wrist.

In the October 1 email sent to all CRC congregations, the Board President, Sheila Holmes, wrote “The Board gave serious consideration to all of the voices that it heard and is offering the document linked below as its response to the correspondence received.”

The document revealed that the Board of Trustees “expressed disappointment with the situation” but had “accepted De Moor’s sincere apology.” Apparently, the publication of the two articles was not the problem. It was “the manner in which the articles in question were presented” that was problematic: “…he failed to use appropriate editorial judgment by not more clearly indicating that these articles were intended to promote conversation and were in no way intended to present official positions of the CRC.”

Other affirmations of De Moor included his ten years of service as editor, and that during that time has stimulated discussion, noting “His ability to do this has been affirmed by an increase in readership…” Also mentioned was the council holding his ministerial credentials, which had determined De Moor “has not functioned outside of the doctrinal standards of the CRC.” De Moor and the Board “together affirmed Scripture and the doctrinal positions of the CRC.”

In short, the Board of Trustees determined that De Moor’s apology and his ten years of work were sufficient to allow him to continue as editor of The Banner. However, the Board did appoint “a subcommittee to review and recommend measures to strengthen the mandate of the Banner Editorial Council.”

Responses of disappointment filled Facebook the same day. “This is what passes for leadership in CRC bureaucracy: have a meeting, talk about process, slap a wrist, appoint a subcommittee, issue a damage-control memo, and then on with business as usual,” said Rev. David Feddes. “Pew sitters, keep paying your quotas to publish The Banner, and trust your trustees that the editor has been doing a superb job except for a few excusable glitches.”

Feddes posted The Banner Editorial Council Minutes of June 6, which show the council gave unanimous “wholehearted support” to publishing the first article by Walhout. Why De Moor apologized and was called before the Board and not the Editorial Council is unclear. Except that, in the Board’s view, there was no problem with publishing the articles but only the manner of their presentation.

Feddes added, “The minutes show that nobody on the Banner Council saw any problem with printing heresy. The pot needs to be cleaned out, not just stirred.”

Rev. Aaron Vriesman is Pastor at North Blendon Christian Reformed Church(CRC) in Hudsonville, Mich.