THE DOOYEWEERDIAN CONCEPT OF THE WORD OF GOD, by Robert A. Morey, Appendices by John M. Frame and Gerald O’Donnell. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974, 53 pp. $1.50.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN “POWER-WORD” AND “TEXT-WORD” IN RECENT REFORMED THOUGHT: The View of Scripture Set Forth by Some Representatives of the Philosophy of the Law-Idea, by Harry L. Downs. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Nutley, New Jersey, 1974, 144pp. $3.50.

THE IDEA OF A CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY, Essays in Honour of D. H. Th. Vollenhoven. Wedge Publishing Foundation, Toronto, Canada, 1973. 232 pp.

These three paper-backs all shed significant light on the Dooyeweerdian movement, but they do it on various levels and in different ways.

Morey – Morey’s little book alerts the ordinary reader to an effort by a modern form of “synthesis religion” using Christian terms and called “Neo-Calvinism” to “undermine the historic faith of the Reformation.” He sees this movement, centering in Toronto in the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship (AACS) and its Institute for Christian Studies (ICS) attacking the Reformed faith through a peculiar view of the Word of God.

What is this view of the Word of God? A number of representative Dooyeweerdian writers are quoted to show that they hold that this “Word” is to be distinguished from both God and His creation. It is Power and cannot be reduced to written or spoken language (p. 4). While it “grips the heart giving Religious Directive,” “this Directive does not bring with it moral directions or rules” (p. 6). The Bible, while not to be identified with the Word is still a “form” of it. The Bible does not supply us with scientific knowledge (p. 8) and does not contain any moral lessons (p. 10). “We must look to the Word of God in creation or ‘nature’ to find answers to our ethical problems” (p. 11). The Bible is a book which contains man’s confession to God–not God‘s instructions for man (p. 12).

Morey points out how these views depart from historic Christianity in setting up a philosophical “power–Word” in place of the Scriptures and therefore lead us into relativism and subjectivism. Practically, he pOints out that such a relativistic view of right and wrong can be used to justify adultery and divorce. While the book is not as carefully put together as one would wish, it does give the ordinary reader in a very brief form an introduction to the basic error of the Dooyeweerdian movement: its unbiblical view of the Word of God.

Downs – More extensive and thorough than Morey‘s book is that of Harry Downs which deals with the same general subject. Long himself a member and enthusiastic promoter of the Dooyeweerdian movement, Rev. Downs became troubled by and made a careful study of the way its leaders distinguish between a vague “Power-Word” and the “text–Word” of the Bible. This study worked out as a master‘s thesis for Calvin Seminary is now published in book form. Professor Norman Shepherd in his “Foreword” asks whether we are not seeing “a philosophical system which professes to be subject to the Word of God but which in practice subjects the Bible to the requirements of the system.” His questions neatly summarize the problem with which this book deals.

A preliminary chapter traces the history of the “AACS” or Dooyeweerdian movement centering in Toronto and the discussions that arose around it. A second chapter begins analysing the problem by direct attention to the AACS “world–and-life-view” which involves a “pre-scientific faith-vision” that it considers basic to philosophy as well as every other science, including theology. This chapter necessarily becomes somewhat technical and the author in his introductory note suggests that the average reader may want to skip it. An explanation at this pOint may help our readers to appreciate the importance of the subject with which this chapter deals. We, with other Christians, have held, as the Bible teaches us (II Tim. 3:15–17), that the Bible (Holy Scriptures) makes us “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” and continues to be our complete guide in every area and activity of our lives.

To the mind of the AACS this is too simple and it is misleading. AACS writers sometimes call this “biblicism.” They say that the “Word of God” is not really a book, the Bible; that it is, at most, only one of various “forms” of the Word of God. The Word of God is a Power in various “forms”: in creation, in the Bible, in Christ, and perhaps more. By that Power, working directly on his “heart” man is given this “world–and-life view,” this “faith-vision.” Only afterwards, with this “world–and–life view” or this “faith-vision,” does he work as a scientist, philosopher, and perhaps, if he is a theologian, engage in exegesis, or technical Bible study. Now this “world-and–life view” this “faith vision” is only properly understood when seen as a basic principle of the Dooyeweerdian philosophy. And so we begin to understand how in this system it is not the study of the Bible that controls the philosophy but the philosophy that controls the Bible study. Downs says it a little more technically:

Thus the followers of Dooyeweerd. along with Dooyeweerd himself, frankly admit that their view of theology (including exegesis), including their theoretical accounting of what Scripture says about its own nature, is shaped not only by their over-all religious stance and world-and-life view and pre-scientific faith-vision but also by their philosophical vision (p. 33).

A third chapter quotes from a number of AACS writings to show their view of Scripture:

Although there is no unanimity among the leaders of the AACS as to how many forms there are through which the Word comes or  which reveal the Word, there appears to be a growing consensus among them that there is a supra-temporal Word which is a POWER that cannot be defined and which therefore cannot  be identified with or tied to the form whether it be the created universe, Christ, or even Scripture (pp. 53, 54).

Chapter IV summarizes charges made by various writers that this peculiar AACS view of the Bible is contrary to the classic Reformed view and is a form of modern subjectivism and mysticism. Downs sees “some of the leaders (if not all) of the AACS” denying the “Reformed view of the Scripture as the infallible, inerrant, plenary, verbal Word of God,” replacing it with their “vague undefined . . . power-Word” (p. 79).

Chapter VI gives Downs’ own evaluation of this AACS distinction between “power-word” and “text-word.” He first asks what they mean by this “power-word.” Is it God or not? In their writings one can find them saying both “yes” and “no.” Although the leaders of the AACS identify the “power-Word” in some way with God or the Logos, there is also an emphasis in their writings upon a Word between God and the forms through which the Word is manifested including even the incarnate form of the Word” (p. 84). (Doesn’t putting this philosophical “word” even above Christ show it to be an “idol”?) “It has become increasingly evident that the leaders of the AACS do not merely distinguish between ‘power-Word’ and ‘text-Word’; they actually separate the ‘power-Word’ from the Scripture as ‘text-Word’” (p. 87). “It is because leaders of the AACS refuse to call the Bible the ‘power-Word’ of God that their view of Scripture has undergone such intense attack from within the Reformed community” (p. 85). This view brings them into conflict with the Scriptures which “abundantly testify that they themselves are the powerful Word of God” (p. 89), and with standard Reformed theology. It also exposes them to being charged with neo-orthodox subjectivism and mysticism.

Downs shows why this view of the Bible must lead to such errors: “Without the objective standard of the written Scriptures as ‘text–Word’ one must turn to a subjective standard. A ‘power-Word’ which is not defined by and is not one with the written Scripture as ‘text-Word’ is no sure ‘Law-Word’ or ‘Norm’ and cannot give one ‘direction’ ‘integral-light,’ ‘order,’ ‘guidance,’ ‘meaning,’ or anything which is sure and stable. One who seeks to be normed by such a ‘power-Word’ is always cast upon his own subjective reason or mystical feelings to determine whether he is hearing and heeding that ‘power-Word.’”

Although the AACS leaders do not want to depreciate the Bible in the way neo-orthodox language in attacking traditional orthodoxy and in formulating their own view of the Bible leading them in the same direction as these movements they claim they oppose (pp. 100–101).

Furthermore, by insisting that the Bible is merely a “republication” of the “power-Word” or original “creation-Word,” Downs observes, these AACS writers do not do justice to sin and its consequences (which is not covered by the ‘creation-Word’). They also do not do justice to Christ‘s atonement and redemptive work which goes far beyond the original creation (pp. 97–99). The book concludes by observing that although the writer can appreciate certain emphases of the movement, such as the “world-and-life view” with its motif of “creation; fall and redemption,” he has to reject their “failure to view the Bible as the Word of God their failure” “to derive their view of the Word of God or Scripture from Scripture itself” (p. 108). These errors must be “corrected by Scripture, that is to say the ‘text-Word,’ as the only authoritative normative ‘power-Word’ for this age” (p. 113).

One can point a few minor faults such as the sometimes confusing footnotes which refer one back to previous footnotes to determine sources. The quotation and endorsement of the CRC Synod’s “Report 44” on Biblical Authority (pp. 105, 106) which insists that “all Scripture is redemptive” raises a point which is open to criticism and seems to have no bearing on the matter under discussion. Despite such a critical observation or two, I believe that this book makes an important and unique contribution to dealing with the problem of the AACS movement. It exposes the heart of the problem and shows how it will have to be resolved.

Printed as the 38th volume of the periodical Philosophia Reformata, this paperback is published by Wedge Foundation (the issuer or AACS publications) in Toronto. Written by and for those with special interests in philosophy, it will not have much appeal to the ordinary reader. For the serious student who wants to get a firsthand idea of some of the discussions going on between the various representatives of the Dooyeweerdian movement it is very useful.

As is usual in such collections of essays by a variety of authors the subjects and quality of the writing vary widely. Dr. Dooyeweerd begins the series with an introduction tracing the history of the movement as he and his associates developed it out of some of the ideas of Abraham Kuyper, showing particularly  how they worked from but also away from the un developed ideas of Kuyperian “sphere-sovereignty.”

Hendrik Hart writes on the “Problems of Time” calling attention between the differences between Dooyeweerd‘s and Vollenhoven‘s views. (“Vollenhoven always speaks of a basic three-some, God, law and cosmos, whereas Dooyeweerd is more inclined to speak of God and the cosmos . . . .”) At the end of his essay he brings in the question of Scripture‘s bearing on these problems. “We do not generally believe that one can treat the Scriptures as providing or at least intending to provide information for theory. On the other hand, we do want to let our believing response be functionally active in an integral way as well as to let what the Scriptures say play a basic role.” With this somewhat ambiguous appeal to Scripture Hart concludes that Vollenhoven‘s views of the time problem [came closer to being sensitive to this confessional depth awareness than Dooyeweerd’s” and are therefore as he sees them, preferable.

Dr. J. Klapwijk’s essay on “Calvin and Neo-Calvinism on Non-Christian Philosophy” deals with the question of the relationship between the Christian faith and non-Christian thought. It is a competent survey of the views of Calvin, Groen van Prinsterer, Abraham Kuyper, Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven on this problem, analysing particularly their views of “common grace.”

N. T. Van der Merwe’s “Quia Via, Philosophia?” is a ramble through a variety of literary allusions, ancient and modern, to the conclusion that we need the light of God‘s Word if we are to get anywhere in philosophy.

Dr. K. J. Popma writes on the “Patristic Evaluation of Culture” surveying the views of the early church fathers on the problem of whether the Christian must oppose or accommodate himself to the surrounding culture.

Calvin Seerveld’s “Biblical Wisdom Underneath Vollenhoven’s Categories for Philosophical Historiography” invites us to follow him in a look at the question how we ought to regard the whole history of human thought. Unfortunately the guide plunges us into a perfect thicket of words. Seerveld in the past has written prose that was a delight to read. But how many readers will try to hack their way through such monstrosities of language as “juggling haecceity and universality into a simple. abstract equation neutralized from the multifarious richness of our creatural bonds and voided of any transcendental reach”? Of the few who do, even fewer will be able to say where their labors have brought them. It’s a pity, because the trip promised to be interesting.

Dr A. Troost’s “Christian Alternatives for Traditional Ethics” introduces us to some of the radical (and destructive) implications of the Dooyeweerdian system for more traditional faith and morality. The Heidelberg Catechism‘s definition of faith (Question and Answer 21) gets thrown out (p. 170) and we are assured that “There is but one revelation of God, and that is the revelation of creation.” “It is also complete and not amenable to supplements which God and/or men could add in the course of history” ( p. 172)!

John Vander Stelt (of Dordt College) criticizes “Kuyper’s Semi–Mystical Conception” which he sees limiting his work as a reformer especially in the area of philosophy. The limitations of space forbid one to even attempt a complete list of the variety of materials found in this collection of over a dozen essays on the general subject of Christian philosophy.

The Scriptures often commend the love of and the search for wisdom. But Dr. Dooyeweerd has himself warned on occasion that the temptation of every philosopher is to become so enamoured with his own system that he lets it reason away the data of experience (In the Twilight of Western Thought, p. 60). It is evident as one studies his movement that its adherents have by no means escaped from that temptation. When their system begins to usurp the place of the Bible as man‘s inspired guide, the time has come for us to recall the warnings of God‘s Word against exactly that temptation: “Take heed lest there shall be anyone that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8).

Lacking that only inspired guide one sooner or later finds himself with the old Persian cynic, Omar Khayyam:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument About it and about: but evermore Came out by the same door as I went.