Introduction

I realize that this document is called a “Testimony,” and is not meant to be a Creed in the usual sense of that term, and therefore is not meant to be in “competition” with our present creeds. Nevertheless, it is said to “augment” the present creeds and may eventually receive creedal status. That makes it more than a “temporary” Testimony, and for that reason it deserves a good, hard look.

   

General Remarks

Though written in a more popular style than our present creeds, and therefore easier to read and understand, I believe that on the whole it is rather bland in character and lacks clarity, conciseness and specificity. This is due partly, I believe, to its “poetic” style. Is poetry a proper vehicle for creedal documents which in the nature of the case are meant to give clear and unambiguous direction? It may sound nice and have a nice “style,” but what it gains in style it loses in clarity and succinctness. Too many statements are far too general and can be interpreted in more than one way. Whereas our present creeds are concerned about spelling out in clear language certain important biblical themes and concepts, I get the impression from the present document that it is more interested in the how of saying it than in the what it is saying.

It is said that a contemporary testimony “can guide and direct the church . . . in speaking to the current world situation.” That may be so, but is that not the on-going task of the church through its preaching, teaching, example and living? And through institutions and agencies such as the Christian School and Christian Labor Association. Does one need a “Testimony” for that? And is such a task not “open-ended” in the sense that new situations need new application of principles? Can one ever have “final” solutions to problems such as the arms race, environmental pollution, etc.? I am aware that there is talk of expanding this Testimony in the future as the need arises. But that’s just my point: Is that not a never-ending task? Must we write new “Testimonies” every ten years or so? To my way of thinking, our present creeds give us the fundamentals or the foundation on which we stand, and on the basis of that foundation we can and must address the problems of our society. To try to write a somewhat complete and final “Testimony” for that task is to try the impossible, it seems to me.

It has been said that our present creeds are outdated and do not speak about many matters with which we are faced today. My question is: Must the church’s creeds talk about everything? Are the creeds not intended to give us direction by giving us the fundamentals of the faith, the sure foundation on which we stand, so that from them we may draw further inferences and make application of these principles in our daily lives in society? If the church had to speak creedally or confessionally on all the many-facetted problems of our society, there would be no end to the length of its creeds, and the very purpose of creeds would be defeated. Creeds or confessions may be called the “constitution” of the church. That constitution ought to be relatively brief, stating the fundamentals of the faith so that on the basis of those fundamentals the church may live its life ·and perform its task. No church can even hope to address all the various problems that exist in our world today by means of its confessional statements. That is not the intention of creeds. To give one example: Must a creed or “Testimony” necessarily address the problem of abortion? Are not the principles by which we may address that issue spelled out clearly in L. D. 40 of the Heidelberg Catechism? Is that not sufficient?

That raises another point. In its creeds the church confesses the faith once for all delivered to the saints. It confesses the fundamentals of the faith, that which is “always and everywhere believed.” There is a certain universality of consensus about those fundamentals. In this Testimony, however, I find statements about subjects on which there is a wide diversity of opinion, even in the Christian community—topics like nuclear arms, feminism, ecumenicity, etc. Are these proper topics for creedal documents? And if so, is there sufficient unanimity about such topics in the Christian community that statements about them can be “codified” in creedal documents?

Moreover, while our existing creeds spell out that which is the heart of our faith, namely our relationship to God (sin, salvation by the grace of God, and our subsequent requirement for thankful living), this document appears to stress the “horizontal” (love for the neighbor) more than the “vertical” (love for God). As an ecclesiastical document (for the institutional church) I find its focus too broad and too much geared to societal problems. The church is called to be salt and light in this world, as individual believers testify to their faith (the church as organism), but a creedal document is not the proper vehicle for spelling all that out.

It has been said that our present creeds do not adequately deal with certain issues which are of crucial importance today, e.g. the doctrine of Scripture and that of the Holy Spirit. Taken by itself, that statement may have some validity. But are the relevant sections in the “Testimony” an improvement on this score? Hardly. I think if one would compare all the articles and statements on both topics in our present creeds with those found in the “Testimony,” he would find that both in terms of length and of clarity the former excels over the latter, notwithstanding the helpful statement about Scripture that “the Bible tells God’s mighty acts in the unfolding of covenant history.”

Finally, our present creeds were all born in times of crisis, to meet the crying need of the hour. I do not believe that “these secular spirits of our times” present us with a crisis of a similar nature. The church as a whole does not experience that as a crisis, sad to say. In many· respects it has accommodated itself to those secular spirits. Can a largely complacent, apathetic church write a new and vibrant creed? I don’t notice much of De Bres’ poignancy (backs to stripes, etc.) in this document. Could one of the reasons be that we aren’t aware of the great spiritual conflict between Christ and the devil, the church and the world, as that is depicted in the book of Revelation? When we don’t live out of this great antithesis, we can perhaps write poetry, but creeds languish on our lips.

Some Specific Points: A. The Text.

I wonder whether it would not ·be better to say that our world belongs to Christ. That immediately puts it in a redemptive, covenantal setting. Too many people are willing to admit that there is a “God” in charge, but they know nothing of Jesus Christ. It amounts to practical atheism. Why not put Christ in the center? Cf. Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20–22; Col. 1:15–20; I Pet. 3:22; Rev. 11:15, 17:14.

Paragraph 4: “As children of our times, we, too, engage in this struggle of the spirits.” Though I think I understand what this is trying to say (we are never disengaged from the struggles of this world), I wonder whether this is the way to say it. Are we “children of our times”? Cf. e.g. I John 5:19; John 15:19; 17:16.

Paragraph 5: “Our first parents . . . were seduced by the great deceiver . . . .” Is that all? Where is human responsibility here? The Catechism puts it much better: “from the fall and disobedience of our first parents.” Cf. Canons I,1; III/IV,

Paragraph 36: “as true daughters and sons . . . .” Is that natural phraseology, or a concession to feminism? Why not stick with the familiar and more natural: sons and daughters (Cf. II Cor. 6:18 e.g.) Doe Maar gewoon en doe je gek genoeg.

Paragraph 38: “He gives at least one gift to each believer.” Is that not a strange way of putting it? Why not simply and biblically: there are varieties of gifts?

Under the section on The Church, I read nothing about discipline. Yet that is an area where the CRC and other churches fail today. Why not say something about that?

Also, there is talk about bickering and brokenness in the church, and that is a problem to be sure. But I read nothing about the more serious problem of being “by heresies distressed.” Shouldn’t that aspect of the church’s struggle be highlighted as well?

Paragraph 48: “to offer the cup of cold water.” That is ambiguous and open to misunderstanding. There is mention of assurance of forgiveness in the name of Christ. Shouldn’t that also be said with respect to the cup of cold water? Or is this just “humanitarianism”? There is much confusion and misunderstanding about this today.

Paragraphs 58 and 59: “We call on governments . . . . We urge governments . . . .” Is that the kind of language or pronouncement that fits in a church creed? Christian citizens may do that as part of their individual witness in society, but must this be stated in a churchly “Testimony”? I find it out of place. The same goes for “we call on all nations to work towards disarmament.” Is this document to be given to kings and rulers? Or are we telling ourselves to do this? It is confusing.

B. The Commentary

On Human Rights: “In Christ God acted to liberate the oppressed.” What does that mean? The context speaks of human, civil rights in general. This statement needs clarification, especially in view of the unbiblical notion rampant today in Liberation Theology. This statement by itself, as it stands, is misleading.

On Feminism: The Commentary states that the Christian community “should repent of the male chauvinism . . . .” But today, especially today, an equal warning is needed against radical feminism even within the CRC. The fact is, the latter is more of a problem today than the former. Let’s be sensitive to the spirits of the age. As it is now, this commentary is one-sided.

On Missions: “the church . . . must call women and men to repent . . . .” Why not just stick with the normal, natural phraseology: men and women. Let’s not have discrimination in reverse.

On Nuclear Weapons: “we call on all nations and especially on those in which we live, to halt the development of nuclear weaponry . . . and . . . to accept the risks that are necessary. . . .” Not only is this a view which has no place in a confessional document; it is also a one-sided view of a complex issue. Michael Novak writes: “Were the Soviet Union a benign nation, even a nation like Japan and Germany, a nation like others, the need for deterrence would by now have much diminished or disappeared . . . . The reality of the Soviet Union is the linchpin of the dilemma.” That is much closer to the truth and reality. Why then this one-sided call for disarmament? And why must the West take the “risks”? I find this unacceptable, particularly in an ecclesiastical “Testimony.”

J. Tuininga is the pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. The committee solicits reactions to its draft of the Testimony, to be sent to its secretary, Prof R. Recker at Calvin Seminary before January 1, 1985 (Agenda 1984, p. 279).