“Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis in the Reformed Community Today” was the theme of a Conference hosted by Redeemer College in Hamilton, Ontario, May 30 to June 1, 1985. The Conference faced the question, ”Is there a shift from understanding Christian truth in terms of doctrine (orthodoxy) to truth as right moral and social action (orthopraxis)?” There were six addresses on subjects related to that theme, and a respondent to each of the six speakers. Opportunity was given after each address for questions from the conferees, an opportunity which was often used to give little “speeches.” As the Conference progressed the critical significance of the issues came into sharper focus and this was reflected also in the atmosphere of the meetings.

Some 150-200 people were welcomed to the Conference by Rev. Henry DeBolster, President of Redeemer College, who based his introductory remarks on I Corinthians 13.

The first speaker, Dr. John Cooper, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College, spoke on the subject “The Changing Face of Truth.” Contributing factors to the tension and polarization that exist in our church are different concepts of the nature of truth itself. The speaker cited theological and ecclesiastical objections to the traditional concept of truth, and explained various theories about truth. The position espoused by “God Met ons” (God With Us) in the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, was described as a rejection of the traditional view of truth, and replacement of it with a relational theory of truth–” there is no objective truth;” “truth is not located in the text of Scripture, or to what the text refers, but in the event of the text;” “truth always occurs in relationship of man with something else.” The speaker asserted that orthodoxy is primary to and basic for ortho-praxis, and called us back to Biblical realism—the view that truth emanates from Scripture. The Bible reveals factual truth which must be accepted.

Rev. Philip Holtrop, Assistant Professor of Religion and Theology at Calvin College, criticized Dr. Cooper’s paper as a “philosophical paper,” based on philosophy rather than on the Bible and the Reformation; as “canonizing” a “traditional” view; as lacking historical and Biblical sensitivity; and all tending toward reductionism, abstraction, and latent “ego-centrism.” The respondent described “God Met Ons” as getting at something powerfully important, namely: God calls men to action. He asserted that the relational view of truth ought to be maintained to re-affirm covenantal fidelity.

Dr. John VanDyk, Professor of Philosophy at Dort College, addressed the Conference on the subject “The Problem of Conflict and Forbearance in the Earlier Church and Today.” Historical , systematic, and practical considerations were presented–What happened? What can be learned? And, what can we do? The speaker traced the attitudes of tolerance and intolerance in the history of the church, showing how the intellectualization of doctrine, the institutionalization of the church, and a growing loss of Kingdom vision made for changes in the expression of tolerance and intolerance. There is a two–fold character of the Gospel–it is complete and unfolding—which must be recognized. A number off actors must be taken into account when one deals with tolerance and/or intolerance. The speaker answered “No” to the question “Learning to live in the bond of unity—can it be done?” The history of the Christian church is one long history of conflict and polarization. Yet we must exercise patience and forbearance in the way of repentance for self-will. We must provide greater leadership, Christian education on all levels must teach greater skill in conflict resolution, and we must work out a Biblical perspective on truth, and learn to avoid unbiblical accommodation to pagan systems.

Dr. James Payton, Pastor of the Stratford CRC criticized Dr. Van Dyk’s paper for failing to define “heresy,” commented about the attitude of tolerance and intolerance in the Apostolic Church, warned that a heresy-hunting mentality destroys the ability to recognize heresy, and observed that in the face of change we must differentiate carefully between normative and peripheral matters.

“Confessing the Reformed Faith Today” was the theme of the address of Dr. Gordon Spykman, Professor ofReligion and Theology at Calvin College. The speaker identified secularism as the overwhelming crisis of our time, as the matrix of modern life and culture, a life and culture in which the church is no longer a dominant majority in any locale. Dr. Spykman asserted that the “Contemporary Testimony” is a radical attack upon the spirit of secularism and explained and defended the document as a means to heal the polarization evident in our church.

Dr. Fred Klooster, Professor of Systematic Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary, the respondent, indicated considerable agreement with the “Contemporary Testimony,” but questioned whether the “Contemporary Testimony” is more helpful than our present Creeds in answering the crises of the day, and challenged the Contemporary Testimony Committee to define secularism. The respondent questioned whether the “Contemporary Testimony” is adequate, and wondered whether our people are aware of the crises facing us today.

The speaker for the last session of Friday afternoon was Dr. Henry Vander Goot, Professor of Religion and Theology at Calvin College, who addressed us on the subject “Why Apartheid is Not a Heresy.” The speaker discussed the decision of the CRC 1984 Synod on Apartheid, tracing the background for the decision, the work of the Interchurch Relations Committee, and the significance of this act of Synod. The decision shows a shift from basing judgment in the church on orthodoxy to basing it on so-called orthopraxis. Dr. Vander Goot declared that latent, unformulated falsifications ofBiblical revelation, whether in the form of teachings or practices, though deplorable, are not heresies. Wife-beating for example, is wrong, but that is not a “heresy.” Heresy is explicit, formal, culpable, and legal falsification of the Creeds of the institutional church. The decision to declare Apartheid “heresy” violates Reformed ecclesiology and the Reformed view of the Christian witness in the social order.

The respondent, Dr. Paul Schrotenboer, General Secretary of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod, asserted that a church’s defense of Apartheid is heresy, and added that the situation in the church of South Africa met the conditions for the declaration of heresy on the part of our church.

Friday evening Rev. Nelson Kloosterman, Associate Professor of New Testament and Ethics at Mid-America Re:”ormed Seminary, spoke on the subject: “The ‘Women in Office Issue’: How Crucial Is It?” The speaker centered his address on three “dogmas” or convictions, namely: Scripture, Equality, and Ecclesiastical Office; and described the views of opponents to and advocates for women in ecclesiastical office on each of the above, showing basic differences in viewpoint. Rev. Kloosterman also elaborated on me problematic matter of ministers being excused for conscience reasons from participating in the ordination of women and the implications of one of the Classes’ appeals to Synod 1985 regard ing pastors’ participation in the ordination of women. The speaker assetted that the decision of Synod 1984 greatly increased polarization in the church and that the Biblical warrant for the diaconate should be studied.

The respondent, Dr. George Vander Velde, Senior Member in Theology at the Toronto Institute for Christian Studies, criticized Rev. Kloosterman’s paper for not addressing the question of the relation of the general office of believer to the special offices, and raised the question of the extent of tolerance in our church.

The Saturday morning speaker was Dr. John Bolt, Assistant Professor of Religion and Theology at Redeemer College. His theme was “Liberating Secession or Lamentable Schism: Can a Reformed Church be both ‘Catholic’ and ‘True’?” The speaker discussed the meaning of the words “conservative” and “liberal,” and concluded that the answer to the question: “Are those terms adequately descriptive of the polarization in the CRC?” is a qualified “No.” It is possible to be both theologically conservative and socially/politically liberal, and vice versa. Dr. Bolt mentioned various descriptions of “parties” within the CRC, and asserted that theological liberalism is not a great danger in the CRC although some leaders in the church are attracted to social and political liberalism. The speaker maintained that we must live with the tension between “catholicity” and “truth;” the alternative is unacceptable. Secession from the church by confessional, doctrinal conservatives would be lamentable both for the church and for those seceding. We must be both “Catholic” and “True,” and recognize and correct the fact that “conservatives” in our church are by and large silenced by the present leadership in the CRC.

The respondent, Rev. Raymond Sikkema, pastor of Mount Hamilton CRC, questioned Dr. Bolt‘s contention that we must live with the tension “catholicity” and “truth,” and the description of “conservative” and “liberal.” True catholicity is present only when the church stands on the truth of the infallibly inspired Word of God. There may not be a tension between “catholicity” and “truth,” or between orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Rev. Sikkema asserted that we must build on the foundation Jesus Christ, and reminded us of the Savior’s words “because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:16).

Dr. John Hulst, President, Dordt College, “wrapped up” the Conference by calling for pastoral concern for the people of God, humility on the part of the leaders in the church, and a common obeisance for and obedience to the Word of God. According to Dr. Hulst the Conference gave evidence of the antithetical thinking present in our church today; “God Met Ons” violates orthodoxy. Orthodoxy and orthopraxis may not be pitted against each other.

The undersigned found it no easy task to adequately report on the Conference in a brief article. The addresses were substantive and thought-provoking. The outlines of the addresses provided by some of the speakers were much appreciated. We trust we have been fair in presenting the expressed views of the speakers and of the respondents.

We commend Dr. John Bolt and Redeemer College for organizing and hosting the Conference. We hope it will not be the last one. One matter which struck us forcefully was the evidence of and the extent of the polarization in our church. It is our conviction that at its heart is the question of the authority and the interpretation of Scripture. That matter would be a most appropriate subject for a next conference.

Harry Kwantes is the pastor of the Godwin Heights C.R. Church of Grand Rapids, Mich.