You don’t have to be very old or very wise to notice that things are changing in the Christian Reformed Church. Some of the changes are for the better; few people would want to see everything in the denomination stay the same. At the same time, when the changes involve denial of Biblical truth or compromise with the world, we have reason to be alarmed. The pages of this magazine have repeatedly documented this kind of change in the CRC.

Many contributors to Th e Outlook have also pointed out that those responsible for the trends at work within the denomination hold to a view of Scripture that is unlike the historic position of the church. While this analysis is correct, the problem is even deeper than that. Those pushing for unwelcome changes in the CRC often have a view of revelation that is un–Reformed and heretical.

The Reformed View of Revelation

What’s the difference between revelation and Scripture? Scripture is one means of revelation; the other is the creation which we call “general revelation.” Revelation refers to God’s disclosure of Himself to man. (See Article II of the Belgic Confession.)

The historic, Reformed. position on revelation is that God.‘s revelation of Himself to man includes “propositions,” or statements of the truth. According to this view, revelation contains information about God that has been written down for us in the Bible.

As a result of our view of revelation, we have maintained that the Bible IS God’s Word; when the Bible speaks, God speaks. Faith t hen involves the acceptance of the Bible as truth and. trust in God based on what is revealed about Him in the Scriptures. (See Lord’s Day 7, Q & A 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism.) The task of the church as it formulates d.octrine is to sum up the truth of the Word and to set that truth forth in a systematic way. Doctrine is either orthodox or heretical depending on whether it faithfully reflects the truth of the Bible.

The “Neo-orthodox” View

In sharp contrast to the historic Reformed view of revelation is what we may term the “neo-orthodox” view. The term “neo-orthodox” refers to a trend of theology that began around the end of World. War I. It arose as a reaction to the liberalism of the 19th century, and.in comparison to the old liberalism, this new movement appeared to some to be “new” and “orthodox.” In fact it is neither new orothodox, as its teaching regarding revelation demonstrates. Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, and Paul Tillich are but a few representatives of this widespread and complex movement.

The neo-orthodox movement teaches that God reveals Himself only through His personal presence; knowledge or information about God is never given through revelation. Revelation is an “event” or an “encounter” with God, and it can never be reduced to words. Advocates of this position accuse their opponents of “Bibliolotry,” or making the Bible an idol, because they insist that the Bible IS God’s Word.

“Encounter” Replaces Creed

Perhaps you can guess at some of the consequences of this “new” view. The Bible no longer IS God’s Word; rather it is a “witness to” the Word of God, a record of the theological reflections of men in the past. The Bible is not the Word, but becomes the Word when and if God “encounters” me as I read it. When the Scriptures are seen in this way, then everyone is free to decide for himself what within the Bible he thinks is God’s Word and what is not. Faith is man’s response to the event of revelation, and it will not take any prescribed form—certainly not the acceptance of any creed or system of truth. Doctrine is reduced to something people make up as they reflect on t he encounter they had with God, and it is to be judged as true or false only in terms of human experience. Doctrine is very subjective for the neo-orthodox, that is, no one else can really criticize my “doctrine” since they know nothing about the “encounter” I had. Carried to its logical conclusion, this view of revelation leaves the church with no truth to proclaim, no basis for faith, and no justification for discipline of any kind.

If you have had your ear to the ground, you no doubt recognize elements within the neo-orthodox view—you have seen and heard them within the CRC. The influence of this faulty view of revelation may be seen in a general de-emphasis of the creeds and the knowledge aspect of the faith. All that matters is your “encounter” with God and your “response” to it. (In this connection, see the article by Peter DeJong “Are Christian Schools Teaching the Bible?” in the March 1979 issue.)

The subtle impact of this view of revelation may also be seen in an excessive concern with personal beliefs and feelings, usually accompanied by an unhealthy desire to “share” these with others. The important thing is no longer “what does the Bible say” but “what do you think” or “how do you feel” about the Scripture and its teaching? This is the basic technique of a popular Bible study program, the “Discovery Method.” This method instructs you to read through a passage and ask afterward, “what does this mean to you?”

A Destructive Deception

Those who favor the neo-orthodox or “encounter” view of revelation are fond of ridiculing the Reformed position as the “propositional” view. They do their best to convince people that this view is “fundamentalistic” and not really Reformed at all. The suggestion is further made that we think of revelation only in terms of dry, lifeless statements about God that misrepresent Him and “restrict His freedom.” If you swallow this line, you may well conclude that the “propositional” view and “dead orthodoxy” are one and the same thing.

Naturally dead orthodoxy is a real danger; there is always the possibility that we will have “a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof.” (II Timothy 3:5) But to suggest that the only alternative to a cold, intellectualized “faith” is a view of revelation that denies the authority of the Word of God is devilish deception!

It is at this point that we see the worst aspect of the encounter position; it misleads all who are not constantly alert to its cleverness and subtlety. Those who accept this view know how to use words to disguise their real teachings. They use familiar terms that sound pious and traditional, when in fact they “reinterpret” and “redefine” most concepts and terms so that they mean something far different from what the church has historically taught. This means that we must ask what is intended by the reassuring phrases we hear from certain advocates of change. We are again reminded of the timeliness of the Biblical warning: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

John R. Jackson is pastor of the Bethel Christian Reformed Church at Waupun, Wisconsin.