ON THE VOS LEGACY

It was good that the Outlook carried the article by Peter De Jong on Geerhardus Vos and J.G. Vos.

Some scholars feel that G. Vos was the greatest Reformed theologian the western hemisphere has produced. They consider that the mantle of Calvin fell on his shoulders. And J.G. is not only a penetrating and lucid scholar in his own right, but has been to his father as Luke was to Paul. One might have to go back to Calvin and Olevianus to find so fruitful a teacher-disciple team.

At times both G. Vos and J.G. Vos were badly treated, sometimes by those who should hav e revered them. The sincere appreciation for them shown in the excellent Outlook article is justified and all believers can be grateful for it.

Howard Long Anchorage, Alaska

“CONGREGATIONAL PARTICIPATION” 

A Popular Trend

“Congregational participation in worship”—if you are not a stranger in Jerusalem you will have heard this phrase quite often lately, and you will know that it happens to be one of the “in” things today in the CRC, especially in Canada. Just recently a colleague of mine wrote:

When you visit the various churches you get the impression that worship is a very solemn occasion. Again in general there is not much spontaneity in the worship services. Someone said to me: “The Sunday service is all too often a spectator’s game instead of an active worshipping of our God.” . . . Many members of our churches have become a bit restless; tired of the formalistic worship and the traditional way in which we do things.

This is only one voice among many, particularly among the leaders. calling for more “participation” in the worship service.

Wholesome Change

Before making a few comments regarding this, let me say first of all that I am not opposed to some liturgical changes, provided they are edifying to the congregation and conducive to better worship. A certain flexibility, openness and freedom in the worship service is desirable. as long as the proclamation of the Word remains central. T he form of worship will differ somewhat from congregation to congregation, and all changes are not wrong; nor are they all beneficial. If the principles of worship set forth in Lord’s Days 35 and 38 of the Heidelberg Catechism (cf. Acts 2:42) are adhered to. then one need not worry too much about “liturgical renewal,” provided it is genuine renewal.

Reservations About This Trend

Having said that, let me state a few reservations I have regarding the call for more “congregational participation.”

1. From what I’ve seen and heard, there are some strange liturgical calisthenics taking place in some of our churches, which either deny or seriously jeopardize the above–mentioned principles of worship. Corresponding with an over–emphasis on “liturgy” is a de-emphasis on preaching. 2. I have the distinct impression that most of the demand for “participation” comes from the leaders (clergy) rather than the members of the congregation. The same is true of the desire for a variety of liturgical innovations. 3. I know from experience that the majority of the members of our churches still want to hear a good sermon above anything else, and when that is present, liturgy becomes secondary. Whereas if the first is missing, no amount of toying with the latter is going to remedy the situation. 4. The second service is in serious decline in many of our churches. Liturgical experimentation has done nothing to improve it. 5. Most basic of all, what is “congregational participation”? Is the congregation not participating in listening to the sermon, praying along in intercessory prayer. giving offerings, and most of all in responding to God in congregational singing? Is this all a “spectator’s game”? If things are the way they should be, if there is rapport between the minister and his people, is there really such a thing as a “one–man show”? Or are these just slogans repeated by unthinking people who don’t really know what worship is all about? 6. Does not congregational response come to its best and fullest expression in congregational singing? Is that not what John Calvin taught us? Can Scripture reading or prayer or singsong leading by a few members of the congregation (whereby at least 90% of the congregation is still excluded) ever measure up to communal, congregational singing? Again, just what is “congregational participation”? Is it something we have never had before? Or could it be a phrase coined by some who have a radically different conception of what worship ought to be? 7. Let’s keep in mind the admonition of a leader in the Methodist church given some years ago: “Certainly one could draw upon many illustrations to show that when spiritual life and righteousness disintegrate, ritualism is apt to receive more attention. And let the Methodist Church seek more earnestly to follow Jesus Christ, whose only requirement of worship was that it be ‘in spirit and truth.”

J. Tuininga Lethbridge, Alberta

THE NEW METHODOLOGY

Synod 1979 took an important step in the wrong direction. This synod tolerated a strange formula of the interpreting of the infallibility of H.S. The name of this strange formula is: “The New Methodology.”

The New Methodology (New Theology) by Prof. Van Elderen and Verhey.

Prof. Van Elderen in his speech in defence of Verhey‘s errors at Synod said that he also tried to come to a New Methodology the same as Verhey did. He explains that this new method means, that we must interpret each Gospel and Bible book in its own setting, in its own “sitz.-im-leben,” after its own special purpose, and time.

Some fruits of this new methodology we find in what Van Elderen wrote in Calvin Theol. Journal, 1976, page 71. Volume III, No.1

There Van Elderen said: “The first chapters of Genesis were written centuries (in fact millennia) after the events described there in. And further that the age of man on earth is hundreds of thousands of years, maybe millions.”

According to this New Methodology of Van Elderen the purpose of these first chapters of Genesis is not to give historical facts. Their purpose is to defend the God of Israel against the heathen idolatry of the gods of Canaan. This is called a polemical approach.

As said, thus the purpose of these chapters is not to give exact historical facts, but no more than polemically reasoning to defend Israel’s God against heathen mythology. Therefore we do not have to interpret these chapters literally. according to Van Elderen, because that is not their purpose. They are of a polemical order and do not have to be seen as historical facts first of all. Especially not in case they are contradicted by facts of science regarding e.g. the great age of the human race, and the speaking serpent.

But if then these narratives about the creation of Adam and Eve and about the Fall of men are not literally true, then they are myths.

Biblical myths.

And mind you here comes the totally irrational reasoning of Van Elderen and the New Methodology, they want to use this Biblical myths to defend Israel’s God against the Canaanite idols with their heathen myths.

According to Van Elderen: these first chapters have been written by an unknown, an anonymous author, many thousands of years after the events, which they try to describe. Maybe in the time of the Judges or Kings. Shortly before the exile, says Dr. Kuitert. Genesis has thus nothing to do with Moses.

F.ortunately, there is a better view of Genesis than that of Van Elder en, professor at Calvin Seminary. That is the view of Dr. D.J. Wiseman, Professor of Assyriology at the University of London, England, author of many books in this field. He defends the view of his father, P.J. Wiseman.

That view is that Genesis consists of the toledots, the accounts of the Patriarchs of old, written down on clay tablets and signed off with their own names: Adam, Noah, S hem, Isaac and Jacob.

These Patriarchs were the first prophets of their time.

Moses assembled these toledots in one book. And that is the book Genesis. And the Lord Jesus testified about their literal truthfulness in Matthew when He said: “Did you not read that?” Also many quotations in the New Testament.

(more information about these toledots on request).

Concerning the errors of Dr. Verhey, who doubts the reality of the earthquake in Matthew 28 and that the serpent spoke to Eve.

The leaders of the synod stressed very much the declaration made by Verhey that the Bible is the fully reliable and authoritative Word of God. But the synod tolerated doubts about the literal exegeting of the earthquake and the serpent, leaving the possibilities of a new methodology as advocated by Van Elderen and Ver hey.

But to this New Methodology there is no end. One can further doubt if there were real angels in the grave or their real message. And what not? One can doubt every thing under the disguise of this new methodology.

The toleration of this New Methodology as synod did in the Verhey case (and the Van Elderen easel opens the door to a total liberty of interpretation (leervrijheid) as in the Geref. Kerken.

This is the most dangerous resolution a synod of the Christian Reformed Church ever took.

And the worst thing is, they try to cover it with the formula that the Bible is t he fully reliable and authoritative Word of God.

Here one comes on the slanting slope which leads to the New theology of Dr. Kuitert who doubts the reality of the ascension and the second coming. And there at the end looms the doubt about the resurrection of the dead.

P.H. Vander Werff London, Ont.