A decision by two groups of concerned Christians within the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands to merge and assume stronger organizational form has triggered a new conflict in the church there. The two groups, ‘Truth and Unity’ (Waarheid en Eenheid) and ‘Scripture and Witness’ (Schrift en Getuigenis) have not yet decided on the name of the new group, but they have determined to become an open force for orthodoxy in the Reformed churches.
Their plans call for separate catechism teaching, youth work, theological training and the organization of ‘confessional congregations.’ The group plans to hold conferences and issue publications that take clear positions on the current issues. The goal is to ‘preserve the identity of the Reformed Churches.’
An ‘alternative’ ministers association, called “Calvin,” has already been organized and has issued a call for a meeting on April 25 in Amersfoort. The purpose of the new association is to support those pastors who want to preserve the Reformed character of the church so that the Reformed Churches may conform to their calling to be confessing churches in the world.
The editor of Centraal Weekblad, Klaas Runia, reacted to the plans for the new organization by asking, “Are we facing a new rift?” He expressed his alarm by pointing out that the realization of these plans confront the church with an “especially serious situation.”
Runia noted that the reason given for the new action is the fact that there already are ‘modalities’ in the Reformed Churches . . . and that this has resulted from the disappointment of the associations of the concerned that the General Synod (Dordtrecht 1971/72) did not apply any disciplinary measures in November against Dr. Hany M. Kuitert. Runia expressed his doubt, however, whether these plans would offer a good solution, and feared that they would produce a modality church. He further noted that the plans are in direct conflict with the Church Order. If the churches do not adhere to these basic rules, it will become a chaos, Runia observed.
“It sounds terrible to speak of a new split in the church,” Runia concluded, “but I believe that if the concerned brothers and sisters continue on this way, it will be almost unavoidable. No local church council can tolerate that in its district alternative services and catechism teaching will be advocated. This will lead to a conflict.”
One of the ‘concerned,’ the Rev. W. van Benthem. wrote a reply to Runia which he could not get placed in any paper, so he bought advertising space in Trouw. He declared that the theology of Kuitert is deadly dangerous and that most of the students at the Free University where Kuitert teaches allow themselves to be pumped full and to bow before Baal. Van Benthem said that the pulpits should be barred to Kuitert and Wiersinga and that disciplinary measures should be taken against them. In this way he thought a new rift could be avoided.
A further reaction came from the Executive Committee (Moderamen) of the General Synod. It issued a call for a special day of prayer and repentance on Sunday, April 15. In its communication to the churches the Executive Committee spoke not only of the threatening conflict but also of a ‘spiritual crisis’ in the Reformed Churches. It saw a contrast “between our material prosperity and our spiritual poverty … we shall have to reflect together concerning this before the face of God.” (RES News Exchange 4/3/73.)
THREE DUTCH PROFS DEBATE CHURCH SITUATION
Three professors in theology in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands have engaged in a lively discussion in Centraal Weekblad, Harry Kuitert, Klaas Runia, and R. Th. Rothuizen.
Occasion for the discussion was a TV interview by Kuitert. In answering a question on the second coming of Christ, he stated that it could very well happen that of a sudden we will discover that Jesus is already with us and then the question will be, ‘Will the real Jesus stand up?’
Runia objected that the view of Kuitert was in disagreement with what the last General Synod had said concerning the ‘consequent horizontalizing of faith’ and in particular whereas it said that “the completion of the history of salvation lies beyond our present earthly existence and will occur in the day of Christ.” Runia found the statement of Kuitert to be entirely out of accord with the declaration of Synod with which Kuitert himself had expressed agreement.
The next issue of Centraal Weekblad carried an exchange of letters between Kuitert and Runia. Kuitert could not understand why Runia had, as it were, “called the church people to arms” against a fellow Christian and a colleague, also that Runia had not spoken with him first, and that he had written before he had the text of the interview in hand. Kuitert did not deny any of that which he had been alleged to say.
Runia replied that he had first showed his written comments to a number of colleagues before publishing them and later checked them with the transcript and found that there was no discrepancy. Runia’s concern was that Kuitert contradicted the testimony of the New Testament which teaches that the appearance of Christ will be from ‘outside,’ not from ‘within.’ Kuitert, said Runia, has not followed the rules of the game. “Is it really necessary to lure problems into the open and disturb the church?”
Prof. G. Th. Rothuizen entered the discussion by putting a few ‘critical questions’ to Runia. In his view Hunia holds to an idea of unity that may have been valid some fifteen years ago but is valid no longer. He pleaded for ‘alternative forms’ of the church, admitted that modalities do exist, and that this is no cause for shame. He claimed that along with a plurality in theology and in the forms of the church there should also be a ‘poly-interpretability of the Bible.’ “We shall have to learn to live with alternative forms of the church and theology,” he said. He defended what he called a new ‘pluriform unity.’
In reply Runia Singled out what he considered to be one of the most far-reaching differences within the Reformed Churches, namely the way in which we read the Bible. When he compared the views of Herman Wiersinga and Herman Ridderbos on the biblical idea of reconciliation, then he could no longer speak of a pluriform unity. Rothuizen had written that Kuitert and the concerned people could not be brought to one common theological denominator. But Runia said that the unity does not stand or fall with a theological unity. “Theology is a science that is surely of great importance to the church, but it is not the binding factor in the church. The binding factor is the confession, and that is quite different from theology . . . . The confession is in essence the song of praise in which the church sings its faith in Cod and in what He has done for us in Jesus Christ . . . . Must we not in last analysis say the same thing, at least when it concerns the central, fundamental aspects of the Christian faith?” (RES News Exchange 4/3/13.)
Their plans call for separate catechism teaching, youth work, theological training and the organization of ‘confessional congregations.’ The group plans to hold conferences and issue publications that take clear positions on the current issues. The goal is to ‘preserve the identity of the Reformed Churches.’
An ‘alternative’ ministers association, called “Calvin,” has already been organized and has issued a call for a meeting on April 25 in Amersfoort. The purpose of the new association is to support those pastors who want to preserve the Reformed character of the church so that the Reformed Churches may conform to their calling to be confessing churches in the world.
The editor of Centraal Weekblad, Klaas Runia, reacted to the plans for the new organization by asking, “Are we facing a new rift?” He expressed his alarm by pointing out that the realization of these plans confront the church with an “especially serious situation.”
Runia noted that the reason given for the new action is the fact that there already are ‘modalities’ in the Reformed Churches . . . and that this has resulted from the disappointment of the associations of the concerned that the General Synod (Dordtrecht 1971/72) did not apply any disciplinary measures in November against Dr. Hany M. Kuitert. Runia expressed his doubt, however, whether these plans would offer a good solution, and feared that they would produce a modality church. He further noted that the plans are in direct conflict with the Church Order. If the churches do not adhere to these basic rules, it will become a chaos, Runia observed.
“It sounds terrible to speak of a new split in the church,” Runia concluded, “but I believe that if the concerned brothers and sisters continue on this way, it will be almost unavoidable. No local church council can tolerate that in its district alternative services and catechism teaching will be advocated. This will lead to a conflict.”
One of the ‘concerned,’ the Rev. W. van Benthem. wrote a reply to Runia which he could not get placed in any paper, so he bought advertising space in Trouw. He declared that the theology of Kuitert is deadly dangerous and that most of the students at the Free University where Kuitert teaches allow themselves to be pumped full and to bow before Baal. Van Benthem said that the pulpits should be barred to Kuitert and Wiersinga and that disciplinary measures should be taken against them. In this way he thought a new rift could be avoided.
A further reaction came from the Executive Committee (Moderamen) of the General Synod. It issued a call for a special day of prayer and repentance on Sunday, April 15. In its communication to the churches the Executive Committee spoke not only of the threatening conflict but also of a ‘spiritual crisis’ in the Reformed Churches. It saw a contrast “between our material prosperity and our spiritual poverty … we shall have to reflect together concerning this before the face of God.” (RES News Exchange 4/3/73.)
THREE DUTCH PROFS DEBATE CHURCH SITUATION
Three professors in theology in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands have engaged in a lively discussion in Centraal Weekblad, Harry Kuitert, Klaas Runia, and R. Th. Rothuizen.
Occasion for the discussion was a TV interview by Kuitert. In answering a question on the second coming of Christ, he stated that it could very well happen that of a sudden we will discover that Jesus is already with us and then the question will be, ‘Will the real Jesus stand up?’
Runia objected that the view of Kuitert was in disagreement with what the last General Synod had said concerning the ‘consequent horizontalizing of faith’ and in particular whereas it said that “the completion of the history of salvation lies beyond our present earthly existence and will occur in the day of Christ.” Runia found the statement of Kuitert to be entirely out of accord with the declaration of Synod with which Kuitert himself had expressed agreement.
The next issue of Centraal Weekblad carried an exchange of letters between Kuitert and Runia. Kuitert could not understand why Runia had, as it were, “called the church people to arms” against a fellow Christian and a colleague, also that Runia had not spoken with him first, and that he had written before he had the text of the interview in hand. Kuitert did not deny any of that which he had been alleged to say.
Runia replied that he had first showed his written comments to a number of colleagues before publishing them and later checked them with the transcript and found that there was no discrepancy. Runia’s concern was that Kuitert contradicted the testimony of the New Testament which teaches that the appearance of Christ will be from ‘outside,’ not from ‘within.’ Kuitert, said Runia, has not followed the rules of the game. “Is it really necessary to lure problems into the open and disturb the church?”
Prof. G. Th. Rothuizen entered the discussion by putting a few ‘critical questions’ to Runia. In his view Hunia holds to an idea of unity that may have been valid some fifteen years ago but is valid no longer. He pleaded for ‘alternative forms’ of the church, admitted that modalities do exist, and that this is no cause for shame. He claimed that along with a plurality in theology and in the forms of the church there should also be a ‘poly-interpretability of the Bible.’ “We shall have to learn to live with alternative forms of the church and theology,” he said. He defended what he called a new ‘pluriform unity.’
In reply Runia Singled out what he considered to be one of the most far-reaching differences within the Reformed Churches, namely the way in which we read the Bible. When he compared the views of Herman Wiersinga and Herman Ridderbos on the biblical idea of reconciliation, then he could no longer speak of a pluriform unity. Rothuizen had written that Kuitert and the concerned people could not be brought to one common theological denominator. But Runia said that the unity does not stand or fall with a theological unity. “Theology is a science that is surely of great importance to the church, but it is not the binding factor in the church. The binding factor is the confession, and that is quite different from theology . . . . The confession is in essence the song of praise in which the church sings its faith in Cod and in what He has done for us in Jesus Christ . . . . Must we not in last analysis say the same thing, at least when it concerns the central, fundamental aspects of the Christian faith?” (RES News Exchange 4/3/13.)