CATECHISM PREACHING

Dear Rev. De Jong,

Though I am, in a sense, an outsider as respects the recent exchange in The Outlook on the subject of Catechism preaching, perhaps you will allow me a few words. I say “in a sense an outsider” because I served for a number of years with the Reformed Churches of New Zealand. When I began my ministry there [in 1963) we used as our church order there, precisely that which was then used by the Christian Reformed Church in this country. But, in due time, it was revised to read as follows: “Ordinarily at one of the services on each Lord’s Day the Word shall be expounded as summarised in the Confessional Standards.” This revision was made for a number of reasons, one of which was a growing conviction that all four of the Confessional Statements of the Church deserved equal attention in the official preaching of the Church. Another was precisely the danger that you stated so succinctly in the January issue (p. 18). You said “we ought to be alert to the danger that by using the Catechism as though it were a text of the Bible, we inadvertently lead-people back into the Roman Catholic error of placing church creeds and decisions beside (and, in effect, over) the Bible.” You then go on to say that this may also help to explain the present anti-traditional reaction which is now undermining the Christian Reformed Church. I believe you are right, and would like to mention an incident that underlines this for me. During the early years of my ministry, as an Orthodox Presbyterian pastor in New England, I sometimes preached in Iowa in the Summer in Christian Reformed Churches. I met some wonderful people. But I also noticed an element that troubled me in the thinking of some I met–and they were invariably among the most conservative in many ways. I remember one middle-aged couple, in particular, who said the Heidelberg Catechism was inspired by God. I could hardly believe it, and questioned them closely. But that is what they said, meant, and believed. And I think it was because they so often heard it treated as if it was.

I am reluctant to say it, but I’m afraid that this very idea is expressed in Rev. Kloosterman’s interesting article. In fact, this false and dangerous idea is-no doubt inadvertently-expressed a number of times. He says, for instance, that “this is a false dilemma: [because I the church’s doctrine is the Bible’s doctrine!” (p. 14). Again he says “to preach the content of the Catechism is to preach the content of Scripture” and again “The Catechism’s explanation of good works is the Scripture’s teaching about good works” and so on. Now the trouble with these statements is that they go too far. The content of the Catechism is not identical with the content of Scripture. No, it is only a summary of the content of Scripture. And again, the Catechism’s explanation of good works is not the Scripture’s teaching about good works. No, it is only—at best—a summary of the Scripture’s teaching. I am well aware that Rev. Kloosterman does not intend to put the Catechism on the same level with the Bible, yet I think these statements show that this is exactly what is inadvertently done-when one sets out to prove the legitimacy of using the Catechism text as the text to be preached to God’s people. And frankly, I do not see how it could ever be proper for any uninspired words of man to merit that status in the Church of God.

Mr. R. Lankheet says “Rev. Kloosterman fears that by using this method [that is, the method that expounds only Scripture text] of constructing the catechism sermon, I am setting the Scripture against the Catechism.” It seems to me that Mr. Lankheet is correct. But I would like to say that all of the praise that Mr. Kloosterman heaps upon the Heidelberg Catechism [and in this I join him] seems to me to prove that he has no valid reason for these fears. If–as he strongly insists-the Heidelberg Catechism really is faithful to the Bible, then there can only be one result from the kind of catechism preaching that Mr. Lankheet advocates, namely, that the people of God will be convinced–again and again—that the Heidelberg Catechisim is faithful. I followed this great Catechism for many years in my preaching in New Zealand, and always used the method advocated by Mr. Lankheet. The result was that the people were more and more convinced that this Catechism really does have the support of the Bible. But—and this is of paramount importance—they never had the slightest temptation to think that it was divinely inspired.

In conclusion let me put forward my conviction that it may seem ironic, but it is nevertheless true: those who place the Heidelberg Catechism so high up that it even bas sermon text status just as the Bible does for the other Sermon each Lord’s Day), will only succeed in undermining what they seek to uphold.

[*The Reformed Churches of New Zealand adopted the Westminster Confession ofFaith as a fourth confessional standard.]

Yours in the Lord,

Rev. G.I. Williamson

Bethel Orthodox Presbyterian

Church, Carson, N.D.

TIME TO WAKEUP

“Calvin profs criticized, but not penalized,” said the headline in the Grand Rapids Press. In a later edition Rev. Charles De Ridder, president of the Board ofTrustees was quoted as saying that the report (on evolutionary views of professors prepared by the Committee and adopted by the Board) was “very critical in a careful, pastoral and studied way.” But one had to go through the report with a fine-toothed comb to find that “criticism.” What is not hard to find, and what receives the major emphasis in the report is the profuse praise that is given the professors. One recommendation reads “that the Board ofTrustees commend these three Professors for their deep personal devotion to Christ and their diligence in subjecting their scholarship to His service.” The last part of that statement effectually nullifies any criticism there might be. If their scholarship is subjected to the service of Christ, then it has to be biblical. That stands to reason. Where is this “criticism” the headlines talk about?

Yes, indeed, “the Board reminds the professors of the limitations that these guidelines place upon the interpretation of Scripture.” What that means is clear from the reaction of the professors: Young is quoted as saying, “I can’t see that its report will change my teaching one iota. I don’t feel threatened or constricted in any way.” Menninga uses almost identical words, and Van Till said “the Board of Trustees have become the real heroes in this story.” College Provost Gordon Van Harn, asked if the board’s actions meant the professors could teach whatever they wanted, responded by saying, “The answer, very simply, is yes.”

There you have the whole sad story. Any criticism there is of the professors’ views is so mild and minimal as to be negligible. The professors got a clean bill of health. Or, to put it in a blunter but more accurate way, the report was a white-wash exercise, a real “snow-job.” There’s no other conclusion one can come to. And it’s a very, very sad affair to say it mildly.

Anyone who has or wants to take the time to read what these professors have written, and then compares that to what our confessions say on the same matter, and to the vows they made in the Form of Subscription, and to the synodical guidelines for the interpretation of Scripture, particularly Genesis, will be struck by the complete incompatibility between the two. It is so clear that a child can understand it.

The report in the Grand Rapids Press itself, when referring to Van Till’s book, The Fourth Day, says, “The book calls into question the biblical account of creation and indicates Van Till views Adam and Eve as mythical figures.” And that, please note, was declared by the Board to “fall within the limits set by the synodically adopted guidelines for the interpretation of Scripture and by the doctrinal statements of the Chr. Ref. Church.” That’s how far we have come.

It is absolutely incredible to me how this can happen. To my way of thinking there is a very serious lack of integrity here on the part of the Board. There is in the whole report a sustained effort to protect the professors and the institution at which they teach. In fact, they are given high praise and encouraged to continue in their service to the Lord. It’s as if all the criticism that the Board has received concerning the views of these men is completely beside the point, and that these professors are champions of orthodoxy. That is the net result of this investigation. And that is, sad to say, the “cuckoo-song” (to use a Dutch expression) of our agencies in Grand Rapids. It appears that the sun rises and sets on Grand Rapids, and especially Calvin College. I call it a form of idolatry.

The necessity of Mid-America Reformed Seminary was never more clearly demonstrated than is now the case. It is to be hoped that many prospective seminary students will see “the handwriting on the wall,” and will choose to study at MidAmerica. And it is also to be ardently hoped that many apathetic churches and church members will realize what time it is-high time to awake from their slumber.

J. Tuininga Lethbridge, Alta.