When I accepted the editor’s kind invitation to contribute an article to The Outlook, I decided to do what I could to foster dialogue between the various sectors in the Christian Reformed Church. And dialogue–if it is to be meaningful—involves some frank talk. Hence I shall begin by indicating how I view the conservatives in the CRC.
The conservatives, it seems to me, can best be compared to back–seat drivers. Although they still have some influence in the denomination, they are clearly not behind the wheel. Because they are in the back seat, they are being taken where they do not want to go. As back-seat drivers, they do not have a good view of the road ahead. They issue warnings now and then, but no one seems to pay much attention as the car lurches along.
Many specific areas could be appealed to in filling out this thesis. I will mention only three.
First, the conservatives in the CRC seem to be almost without influence in the critical area of higher education. People of their way of thinking are not often appointed to teach in our educational institutions. The interest in higher education among the conservatives seems to be sporadic. Of late there has been talk of a new seminary, but as far as I can tell such talk does not issue from a wide–ranging critique of what the young people in the CRC are being offered in the name of Christian higher education; rather the issue seems to be solely theological.
Secondly, the conservatives almost seem willing to settle for little impact theologically in our circles, for they operate with a reduced or restricted conception of theology that does not take current cultural and intellectual realities into proper account. Today’s theological challenges will not be met adequately with appeals to Louis Berkhof. In fact, if the conservatives would pay more attention than they usually do to the other Berkhof (i.e. Hendrikus) and probe the sources and background of his thought, they would be better equipped to deal with the theological challenge from the Netherlands. In particular, the meaning of such thinkers as Marx and Hegel for theology needs to be explored more intensively in the CRC than it has been thus far. The alternative, I fear, is to back into liberation theology without quite knowing what it is.
Thirdly, during the last decade or two, the conservatives in the CRC have not taken our Christian responsibilities in politics and social action as seriously as they should. As a result, they have drifted slowly toward a reduced view of the Christian life, a view that simply does not appeal to the rank and file of the younger generation. The main reason for this, I suspect, is that the conservatives have slipped into a pattern of reaction—criticizing efforts made by others instead of getting involved themselves. The back-seat driver, as I noted, does not have a clear view of the road ahead.
In conclusion, I would like to issue an appeal and challenge to the conservatives in the CRC. I would like to see them broaden their horizons culturally and become more adventuresome intellectually, by reading more widely and paying attention to a wider range of issues. One way to do so is to become more involved in—and supportive of—Christian efforts in higher education, where the issues not just of the CRC but of our society generally and of the whole world have to be faced.
Such a broadening would then help prepare the way for dialogue with other segments of the CRC, including its left wing. Since moving to Grand Rapids, I have been surprised at the extent to which communication between the right and left wings of our church as represented by people in the Grand Rapids area has broken down. Dialogue would require of both sides a willingness to lay suspicions (and even prejudices) aside.
The conservatives in the CRC are very adept at pointing out how the left–wing segment in the CRC, which is beginning to speak the language of liberation, is accommodating itself to the left-wing forces in the secular world which have made liberation their guiding theme. This is indeed a worrisome form of worldliness, and it should be discussed openly. The liberation that is promised can easily turn out to be a new bondage. But the conservatives who argue such a point should then also be sensitive to the danger of accommodation and worldliness in their own ranks, which takes the form of uncritical support of capitalistic values and of the political agenda of certain elements of the Republican Party.
I hope and pray that the conservatives will reinsert themselves into the life of our denomination through free discussion, unconditional participation, and openness to Christian brothers and sisters with different opinions. Perhaps this brief article will spark a response that will lead in such a direction.
Editor’s Note: Dr. Theodore Plantinga is an assistant Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. (He should not be confused with Dr. Alvin Carl Plantinga of Calvin‘s Philosophy department or with Professor Cornelius Plantinga who teaches Systematic Theology at the seminary.)
I had intended to place Dr. Plantinga’s provocative article without comment, anticipating possible reader reactions. Since he invites “dialog” some comment may be in order, with the suggestion that others may wish to join in.
Dr. Plantinga‘s intriguing illustration suggests what some of us have been sensing (as a son put it in discussing the article) that we were being “taken for a ride” by some of our leaders.
Who is responsible for conservatives being shoved “in the back seat”? Are they at fault because of laziness or lack of initiative? That possibility has to be considered. An editor’s frustrations in trying to get people to write their convictions sometimes makes that a tempting explanation. Fairness, however, requires us to face the fact that the people who are “behind the wheel” of both our educational and ecclesiastical establishments have usually shown no inclination to “trade off driving” with conservatives. The student letter in our June Outlook is an unusually clear expression of the common student complaint that the convictions held and taught in their churches get no fair expression in many college classrooms. It is commonly alleged that the Bible’s claims to inerrancy and its requirements about who may hold church office get no official support, and opposing views are widely disseminated. Some time ago I attended two lectures at Calvin dealing with the family. but noted that neither speaker represented the conservative convictions which are traditionally and still widely held in our churches. This summer a conference on Biblical interpretation was held at the AACS lnstitute in Toronto and widely publicized, but again, neither of the two leaders represented the conviction of Biblical inerrancy, although much of the discussion reportedly centered around that issue.
Relegating conservatives to “the back seat” is also becoming routine in the operation of our church establishment. Consider the appointments to important committees. Although some may contain a “token” conservative or two, many of them, notably those dealing with women in office, have been plainly “stacked” to predetermine their direction. And it is an accepted practice that standing committees nominate their own successors. It is hardly fair to blame conservatives for lack of “dialog” in circles from which they are systematically excluded.
Furthermore, is it fair to charge that conservatives lack interest in Christian higher education? Who started and over the years supported our colleges? Liberals do not generally begin and sustain such schools; they subvert them.
And as far as clear vision is concerned. to the extent that conservatives seek to gain and keep a Biblical perspective on where we are and where we are going, they often have a more accurate sense of our over-all position and direction than their opponents, who in their eagerness to adjust their views to conform to current fads in the secular world turn out to be remarkably naive.
Regarding dialog, I have often felt that discussion of differences may be desirable. Such discussions may lead to clearer understanding by all and to sounder decisions than those reached by consulting only one opinion. On many secondary matters there is room for difference of opinion and compromise. When we have to deal with basic matters, especially those that concern the clear teaching of God‘s Word regarding our faith and life, although we may learn from dialog with those who differ, we have to refuse to compromise. While ever ready to talk with Christian brothers and sisters, we will have to refuse to accompany them where we are convinced that they are going or leading others astray.
I appreciate especially Professor Plantinga’s concern about the direction of our Christian higher education and his effort to provoke us to give more attention to it. Will his writing elicit further response from our readers?