FILTER BY:

Letters to the Editor

Dear Sir:

The following is for the record.

I present this to you for publication because I noticed that the letter Dr. Noel Weeks wrote to the editor of Trowel and Sword was also sent to THE OUTLOOK (Aug. 74). He made a few informal changes e.g, in addressing it to THE OUTLOOK. The content, however, is identical.

The editor of Trowel and Sword (publication for the Reformed in Australia and New Zealand) wrote me as follows when he received Dr. Weeksletter and before he published it:

“The article I arranged from the two articles” you wrote on Sphere Sovereignty . . . has been very well received … (a correspondent) wrote: very helpful and constructive. But our friend Dr. Weeks . . . still has a question or two. I would like to publish his letter but send a photocopy to you for a few notes in reply . . . .”

The notes I wrote for Trowel & Sword and which I would like to see published in THE OUTLOOK also are the following:

1. Dr. Weeks raises the problem of “how to read the Bible” and “how does one formulate Biblical teachings and principles on the basis of what the Bible actually states in words.” These are big problems indeed. I am very thankful that Dr. Weeks does not insist on a “chapter and verse which states the truth explicitly” approach. We all realize that if he did insist on that he would have to draw a curtain of uncertainty ovcr the: a) doctrine of the Trinity; b) doctrine of the Son of God’s presence in the O.T. times; c) the progressive, organic. unified character of God’s Self-revelation; and d) infant baptism. So, this point is agreed upon: we do not insist on a chapter-verse reference to establish the Biblical source and authority of a doctrine, principle, or axiom.

2. Dr. Weeks agrees that there is a development and differentiation discernible in the O.T. and N.T. in. for example, the specific offices of prophet, priest, and king. He insists that we should also stress their reintegration in Christ and in the N.T. believers. It seems to mc that , did not in any way deny the fact of the unity and integrality of the offices. True, I did not refer to it either. Let me then now state: I do not believe that we should speak of the reintegration of the offices of Christ. Rather, the offices, though differentiated in time, always were, are, and will be united in Christ. In Christ is the unity, the wholeness. But, among Christ’s co-workers in history, these united offices are differentiated in order that the Church (O.T. & N.T.) and society as a whole, can more efficiently and harmoniously carry out the mission mandate and the cultural mandate. I would also add that in the however, indeed as Dr. Weeks notes,. the offices are also united. At the same time, Dr. Weeks would agree with me. I’m quite sure, that in the societal setting of life. as reflected in the N.T. and under the Spirit’s guidance and God s prvoidential rule, elders are distinct—differentiated from deacons, preachers from teachers, law makers from tax collectors and financial people. So, this point is agreed upon. I’m quite certain, that the principle of unity and inseparable from it the principle of differentiation, is presented in Scripture.

3. Dr. Weeks has trouble with the idea that the Scripture “teaches a one-direction on-going process of cultural differentiation and separation of more and more societal spheres.” This statement really calls for expanded treatment. Space forbids that. Let me, however, point out that, as stated in notes 1. and 2 Dr. Weeks seems to imply that the principles we established there are not to be gainsaid. But, I am somewhat puzzled by two phrases Dr. Weeks uses: “on-going process” . . . of more and more societal spheres”. Does Dr. Weeks want to suggest that some men teach that new societal spheres are being created? societal spheres which were not germinally, (in bud form) present from the time of creation? Whoever even suggested that art, science, industry, labor, family, community of people were not germinally present in God’s original creation: (A point of continued discussion is whether the state was introduced after sin or not. I believe the potential concept was there, but sin was the reason for its specific development and part of its God given role.) My point in this third note is this: I detect an uncertainty or a general vagueness in Dr. Weeks understanding of the societal spheres themselves and the fact that they are integral aspects of God‘s created order. Let me add that I think I can understand why Dr. Weeks reflects this. It is due to the misuse and abuse some people have made of the principle of God’s sovereignty over every sphere of societal life that have been presented by those who have overreacted to the abuse and misuse.

4. Dr. Weeks seems to ques~on whether or not cultural differentiation comes from Scripture. I would reply that this cultural development is plainly presented. Consider the general cultural development of Israel: Abraham, when called adopted a nomadic life style initially; then he became a pastoralist. His descendants became rural settled agrtculturalists and urbanites. This cultural development pattern can be discerned in the development of other nations also. There was also the development from the family group, in which many distinct functions took place, governing, teaching of and training for trades, group-worship, industrial arts, and commercial activities are some examples. And the Scriptures indicate, and sanction the development of specific areas—spheres where these functions concentrate e.g., worship, while continuing in the family, found concentration in the Tabernacle and then the Temple. Schools developed. Craftsmen became recognized. Truly, the Bible, presenting God’s Self-revelation, presents this revelation to man in the ongoing processes of history. This does not mean that there was an evolutionary process, i.e., a natural development from simpler to higher forms of life. Darwinian evolution is something entirely different from historical differentiation and cultural development.

G. VAN GRONINGEN Jackson, Mississippi