Editors, TORCH AND TRUMPET   Dear Brethren: The enclosed piece is a copy of a communication I sent to the Reformed Journal about a year ago. I requested the editors to publish it, but it has never appeared. I also sent a copy to James Daane, but have never heard from him. Since it is clear that no recognition will be given it, I wish that you would consider running it. Seems to me Daane’s position should not go unchallenged. Cordially, (Rev.) HENRY W. CORAY, Calvary Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Glenside, Pennsylvania   DAANE’S TRIBUTE TO DOWEY   In the December 1968 issue of the Reformed Journal, the Rev. James Daane, currently teaching on the faculty of Fuller Theological Seminary, tosses a sweet smelling bouquet of roses at Dr. Edward Dowey, author of A Commentary on the Confession of 1967. Dr. Dowey served as chairman of thc Committee of Fifteen that put together the Book of Confessions, which is Part I of the Constitution of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Here is a quotation from Mr . Daane’s review of Dowey’s book:   This commentary should lay to rest the uneasiness of Presbyterians who feared that a dangerous basic motive lay behind the formation and adoption of the confession.   Even those who cannot agree with every phrase of the 1967 Confession, nor with every comment on it by its chief editor, have little to fear about the V.P.C. if its clergy and leadership are articulate in preaching, and practice in life what the confession declares in words. Anyone who can recognize the contours of Barth’s theology, will recognize its influence upon the new Confession. But only those who feel that the Westminster Confession expresses the final theology or that Barth has had no salutary corrective influence at all upon Reformed theology will regard the theological differences between the Westminster Confession of Faith and the ’67 Confession as a 1967 departure from the message of Scripture.   Ironically there appeared in the January, 1969, issue of The Presbyterian Layman, a journal produced by “concerned” members of the U.P.C., a review of Dowey’s work introduced by the caption, New Dowey Commentary Reveals Gap between Historic Presbyterianism C-’67. Donald A. Dunkerley, the writer of the article, has a number of interesting comments on the Commentary. Here are some excerpts:   The difference between the Westminster view of Scripture and that of C-’67 has been very obvious and has occasioned much comment. Dowey points out that. in contrast to Westminster, the new Confession “carefully avoids saying either that Scripture ‘is’ God’s Word or that Scripture ‘is’ authoritative as such or in its own right (p. 100).”   Mr. Dunkerly points out that, over against the Shorter Catechism’s definition of sin as “any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God,” which is the historic Presbyterian concept:   Dowey views sin simply as “destroyed humanity” and sinfulness as “lost humanity” (p. 63). It is not the result of a “Fall” in history, To take “Adam for the primitive ancestor of man is dilettantish” (pp. 69–70) and, “While the story of the Fall will not cease to reveal the nature of sin, it can no longer be taken as a literal account of sin’s origin” (p. 61). Such a position leaves sin unexplained, except as a fatal flaw in creation, which would make God responsible.   Referring to Dr. Dowey’s interpretation of the central theme of redemption, our Lord’s death and resurrection, Dunkerley writes:   Christ, in His death and resurrection, did not exactly offer “a vicarious satisfaction of a legal penalty,” nor did He win “a victory over the rowers of evil,” for such concepts are mere “images” and “theories.” Dowey says, “Substitutionary satisfaction and vicarious suffering have played especially large roles in Reformed theology… Against these tendencies…the warning is offered (by C-’67) that the truth of reconciliation remains ‘beyond the reach of all such theory’” (pp. 51–3).   It is not to be wondered at that evangelical Presbyterians are disturbed as they consider this militant assault on the pivotal doctrine of their historic faith.   Mr. Dunkerley drops a real bomb when he points out that:   In line with the increasing secularization of the church, C-’67 says, “Repeatedly God has used the influence of non-Christians to challenge the church to renewal.” Dower indicates the sort of persons he may have had in mind when this was written, persons to whom we might look for enlightenment, Marx, Freud, Gandhi, Bertrand Russell, and Malcolm X (p. 124).   Mr. Daane may think that laymen have little to fear about the trend and the leadership in the UPUSA Church. Apparently “concerned Presbyterians” are in sharp disagreement with his conclusion.   Moreover, Daane’s barb, that “only those who feel that the Westminster Confession expresses the final theology,” etc., is an extremely unfair and unjust indictment. Those who take the Westminster Confession of Faith with any degree of seriousness are fully aware of the fact that the document is “subordinate to the Word of God,” that the Scripture alone is the textbook of “the final theology.” Certainly, until the Confession of ’67 appeared, this was the understanding of those committed to historic Presbyterianism. It is inconceivable that Daane himself should not know this.   One who reads carefully the Commentary by Dr. Dowey and then studies the ·Westminster Confession of Faith must realize that there is a Berlin Wall separating the two documents. They represent, not mere minimal doctrinal shadings or nuances, but a whole theology. The distinction is not simply one of emphasis. Actually, there are two contradictory, mutually exclusive religions set forth. If one is true, the other is radically false. If one is false, the other is radically true. You cannot hold to one and not despise the other. Let’s not try! Daane’s review of Dowey’s Commentary poses some interesting questions. For instance, what is Daane doing in a Church committed to a Reformed witness, whose doctrinal standards are at glaring variance with the theology defined in C-’67, including Dowey’s endorsement of the same? And if you hold to the teachings defined in the C-’67, what” safeguard do you have to protect and preserve the purity of the Church? To what could one appeal if he felt it necessary to charge an office-bearer with doctrinal defection? Certainly not the Bible, and not the historic creeds;of the Church. Accept the authority of C-’67 and you have “planted your feet firmly in mid air.”   Again, now that James Daane’s views are out in the open, a burning question comes forth: What will the Christian Reformed Church do with the problem? Here is a minister in good and regular standing committing himself to a position structurally at odds with the standards of his denomination. The matter would appear to call for some kind of response.   I want to add a final word of a personal nature. Some years ago I was associated with a group of men of the Reformed persuasion who gathered periodically for earnest study in the Word of God. Jim Daane was among us. We enjoyed close fellowship together. We were at that time persuaded that whatever minor differences existed in the fellowship we agreed that the Bible was the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. I remember Jim Daane as a Christian gentleman. I thought of him then, and I do now, as a friend. Therefore whatever has been said above in no way involves personalities. I have tried to keep the discussion on a level of principle. I could wish with all my heart that Jim would return to that pattern of doctrine so honoring to our covenant God and his Christ.