Because of the interest of many of our readers in the churches in the Netherlands, THE OUTLOOK is publishing the following news releases, for all of which we are indebted to the Reformed Ecumenical Synod News Exchange.
REFORMED CHURCHES IN NETHERLANDS MAKE PRONOUNCEMENT ON WIERSINGA CASE – The Synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKN) issued a pointed resolution on the so-called “Wiersinga case,” which it has had before it for the last few years. It upheld and sharpened its earlier statement of 1974. Dr. H. Wiersinga’s attempt to involve man in the ministry of reconciliation, it repeated, was commendable. But, it went on to utter its iudicium, namely that Wiersinga’s conception “not only does not do justice to the work of reconciliation . . . but thereby also denies the gospel’s source for the ministry of reconciliation.” The synodical decision called the doctrine of Christ’s suffering under the wrath of God in our stead so fundamental that it could not admit Wiersinga‘s denial of it. The synod also expressed its expectation that Wiersinga‘s consistory will see to it that such a denial of this doctrine will not occur and that it will oppose it.
In the discussion preceding the resolution Dr. H. M. Kuitert introduced a motion to forestall action and keep the discussions open with Dr. Wiersinga, but this was defeated. He compared the judicial proceedings of the church to those behind the iron curtain because the prosecutor and judge are one and the same. Citing a survey that claimed that only 66% of the members of the CKN still conceive of God as a person, Dr. J. Firet lauded Dr. Wiersinga‘s emphasis upon a Cod who identifies and sympathizes with man. Dr. C. Th. Rothizen, too, made an appeal for further consultation: at issue, he said, is not the substitutionary atonement itself but only the nature of the substitution.
Others, such as H. van Benthem and B. Rietveld saw in Wiersinga’s view a clearly deviant conception whose existence challenges the Reformed character of the church. No one wished to start the process of discipline. in the sense of excommunicating Dr. Wiersinga, but it was pointed out that justicial doctrinal discipline (the application of sanctions) is the last resort by which the church attempts to keep someone within the communion. Dr. J. Veenhof said the intention was to build bridges and to make a Christian appeal to Wiersinga. Dr. Verkuyl spoke in the same vein and made an eloquent appeal to Wiersinga to reconsider his position; he pointed out that although various of Wiersinga’s colleagues have spoken words in defense of him, none of them have tried to defend his theological position.
Dr. K. Runia points out in an editorial after the resolution was passed that the Synod has been very patient and gentle with Wiersinga. No one had the slightest desire to begin discipline procedures against him. But that possibility did exist from the beginning not because of the Synod, Runia points out, but because in his dissertation Wiersinga dismissed a fundamental segment of the church’s confession. The problem, says Runia, is Wiersinga’s inflexible position. Dr. Ridderbos commented that the Synod could not have done much less, but neither could it have done much more. According to church law, he said, it is now the duty of Wiersinga’s consistory to oversee his work and his preaching so that he does not oppose what the church has declared indispensable. The hall is, thus, in the hands of his consistory and in the hands of Wiersinga.
In another editorial, Dr. A. Kruyswijk, past president of the Synod, commends the Synod’s decision to address a pastoral letter to the churches on the matter. The Wiersinga case, he says, has revealed that a large segment of the GKN can no longer make the confession of the church their own. The church, he says, has made clear to them that it rejects the idea that the confession of the church can be fundamentally determined by the mind of modern man apart from Holy Scripture. On the other hand, it was largely due to the great divergence that has developed within the church, says Kruyswijk, that the Synod could not go the way of justicial discipline. The church must first understand and come to terms with the unsettling spiritual developments in its midst during the last decades. Citing Dr. Veenhof, he says, the church cannot exercise discipline at a level higher than that at which she stands herself.
STUDENT CHAPLAINS AT ODDS WITH SYNODICAL DECISION – Twelve chaplains to the student community in Amsterdam addressed a letter of protest to the Synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKN) regarding its action on the Wiersinga case. In view of the far-from-unanimous vote in Synod (48 to 21), they felt that the judicium uttered on Wiersinga‘s views was a bit of power politics. They accused the Synod of stigmatizing the work and person of Dr. Wiersinga; such an exercise of power, they warned, would alienate great numbers of students who have until now maintained a tenuous tie to the church. The church, they concluded, would have won much more in authority and respect had the Synod openly acknowledged its impotence and refrained from all judgment.
Picking up the challenge of the chaplains, Klaas Runia responded in a pointed article in Centraal Weekblad. He found all the objections of the chaplains to be “strange reasonings.” He contested that the opinion of the world is the standard for the confession of church and expressed amazement that the protest at no place enters into the content of Synod’s decision.
“CONCERNED” IN GKN CONTINUE TO MOBILIZE – The petition drive that was launched by the association of concerned Christians in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKN) called Word and Witness (Schrift en Cetuigenis) yielded a disappointing number of signatures—7,322. Representatives of the group met with the moderamen [officers] of the CKN to discuss the issues that prompted the action. Rev. H. J. Hegger, secretary of the group, said that it was not an attempt to exert pressure but only to sound an alarm. He suggested that the normal way of submitting appeals to Synod no longer brings any results. The moderamen and Word and Witness did not see eye to eye regarding the present condition of the CKN. Word and Witness feels that the GKN has already become a “modality” church, whereas the moderamen feels that this is not (yet) the case.
Afterward, Word and Witness reiterated its call for the formation of “churches-in-distress.” This would make it possible for those who feel local conditions to be intolerable to nevertheless remain within the church. If conditions warrant, these churches will serve as a transition to a new form of church communion. Various local consistories are already exploring ways of creating such “churches-in-distress” in a way that accords with the church order, for the procedure raises all kinds of questions at this level.
UNAFFILIATED REFORMED CHURCHES TAKE STEPS TO ORGANIZE – The youngest Reformed church in the Netherlands, which still has no official name but which is usually referred to as the Reformed Churches—Liberated and Unaffiliated (Vrijgemaakt, Buitenverband) . . . has not been able to agree to any form of church organization. Some steps in this direction, however, were recently taken.
The Unaffiliated churches came into existence when they separated from the other Liberated churches in 1967. The latter originated with the split in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKN) that was brought about by the disciplining of Dr. K. Schilder in 1944. There are about 91,000 members in the Liberated churches and about 29,000 in the Unaffiliated churches.
In many localities the Unaffiliated churches have developed close ties with the Christian Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. Not having a theological school of their own, they also recommend the theological school of the latter to their theological students.
The Unaffiliated churches have held annual conventions but also the status of this assembly is uncertain. The manner of representation to this convention varies: in some places there are still Classes; in others churches are only grouped by regions; and in still other cases churches cling stubbornly to the independence of the local church. Because the two splits of 1944 and 1967 were precipitated by synodical decisions which were seen as instances of synodical supererogation, the Unaffiliated churches have become shy of anything that looks like centralized control. Those that feel this way want a form of church government in which every church is individually represented at the national assembly (or synod); others, however, argue that this is not practicable. The convention held in February of this year discussed a compromise plan that would involve both kinds of assemblies.
