The April ‘84 issue of Calvin Theological Journal contains a paper read by the Rev. Clarence Boomsma on the occasion of Dr. J. Kromrninga’s retirement as president of Calvin Seminary. The title of this paper is: “What Has Happened Theologically to the Chr. Ref. Church Since World War II?” It is an interesting and irenic analysis of the CRC since W.W. II , and at the same time somewhat disturbing.

I wish to comment on one aspect of Boomsma’s analysis. Taking his cue from some articles written several years ago by Dr. H. Stob, in which he analysed the Chr. Ref. Church in terms of various “minds” (the “mind of safety,” the “militant mind,” the “positive mind,” etc.), Boomsma sees certain “minds” in the CRC. He describes the “militant mind” as characterized by “aggressive action to root out any defections and to expose any weakness in the defense of the faith.” This mind, says Boomsma, came to “organized expression” in the Reformed Fellowship, and to “more radical expression” in the Association of Christian Reformed Laymen.

He goes on to say that this “mind” brought about the controversy regarding the infallibility of the Scriptures in connection with certain views or statements of Kromminga in the late fifties. This “mind” was also behind the so–called “Dekker case” in the sixties, and the ” Verhey case” in the seventies.

Now whatever one may think of describing the CRC in terms of different “minds,” I find this analysis a very strange one indeed, to say the least. So the “militant mind” was responsible for raising the above-named issues. If there had been no such “mind,” then apparently these controversies would have not erupted. For good or ill, whatever the case may be. But is that all there is to it? And is that all one can say? Are right and wrong, the truth and the lie, measured by “minds” in the church? Or should the “militant mind” disappear and make way for the “positive mind”? I find this whole way of argumentation not only quite silly, but also dangerous. Do we judge the rightness or wrongness of certain views in the church by determining what “mind” they come from? Or are there views of Scripture and theological viewpoints that are really wrong, regardless of who holds them? Were we just beating the air in the cases mentioned above, or was there actual or potential heresy involved? That is the question, and not what “mind” gave rise to these controversies. The latter method relativizes the truth. It’s only the “militant mind” that feels threatened by such views, and that makes such an issue of them! Too bad the promoters of this “mind” are not more “positive”! Then we wouldn’t have all these controversies!

Sorry, but I find this kind of analysis not only very unhelpful, but also dangerous. Whatever happened to the view that truth is truth no matter who says it, and that the lie is the lie wherever it comes from? And talking of being “militant,” does not Jude tell us to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (vs. 3)? Should not the entire church be militant for the Lord and His Word? Never mind the “minds” in the church; let the whole church be valiant for truth.

J. Tuninga, Lethbridge, Alta.