DR. SIERD WOUDSTRA REPLIES

Dear Rev. DeJong:

Please permit me to set a badly flawed record straight. I have in mind a number of things in the April i981 issue of Outlook. In your lead-article “Time to Break Fellowship” you charge me with saying that in my Nov. 24, 1980 Banner article on Isaiah 14 I say that the prophet borrowed (italics mine, SW) this chapter from pagan Canaanite mythology. I should point out that what I wrote is: “The prophet uses here the language of pagan Canaanite mythology.” The difference is obvious and pertinent. “Borrowing” means taking over; “using the language of means making use of the Canaanite myth to get God’s message across. There is nothing unusual about what I say. Reformed theology has always recognized that in giving His revelation God frequently made use of existing customs, institutions, concepts and words. For instance, God used the structure of a Hittite suzerainty treaty when He gave Israel His covenant, and John uses the philosophically loaded term logos (word) in reference to Christ in the prologue of his gospel.

The same issue of Outlook carries a letter by Rev. J. Tuininga. Also there I read unfounded accusations which should not be allowed to stand. On the basis of something I wrote in the August 1980 issue of the RES Theological Forum Mr. Tuininga charges me with a “radical, unReformed view of Scripture.” I wish to make the readers of Outlook aware that essentially what I do in that brief article is lay the finger on a peculiar inconsistency in the approach to Genesis which I frequently encounter. On the one band, many Christian scientists are convinced that on the basis of presently available scientific evidence the earth is a few billion years old. On the other hand, the traditional hermeneutical approach to Genesis seems to allow only for a relatively young earth. As a theologian I struggle with this disparity and would like to see this matter openly and dispassionately discussed. In an honest academic discussion charges such as those of Mr. Tuininga should have no place.

The same letter writer in Outlook also misses the point when he insinuates t hat because somewhere I wrote that I regard Hendrikus Berkhofs theological approach in his Christian Faith as “essentially correct,” I seem to have a view of Scripture which is far removed from that of traditional Reformed theology. I have reason to believe that Mr. Tuininga bas never read H. Berkhof’s book, certainly not the “A Word from the Translator” which I have appended to my translation of it. If he had read the book he would have known that the Dutch title is not Het Christelijk Geloof, but simply Christelijk Geloof. In his own Introduction Berkhof carefully explains why he has left the article out. Also, if Mr. Tuininga had read the book, he would have known that in my own preface I specifically state: “a translator is neither responsible for nor necessarily in full agreement with what he translates. Often I have found myself silently entering into discussion with the author” (p. xvi). Finally, Mr. Tuininga shows no awareness that the words “essentially correct” occur in a review of Berkhors book which I wrote for the RES News Exchange of May 1980. They refer to Berkhors biblical–theological approach to Systematic theology. The simple fact is that I do not subscribe to Professor Berkhors four levels in the Scriptural witness (p. 90 f.). Where then did Mr. Tuininga pick up these words “essentially correct”? In a series of articles written on Berkhors book by the Australian minister Bill Deenick in Trowel & Sword, the unofficial monthly of the Reformed Churches of Australia. Enough said.

I would like to conclude this letter by quoting almost in its entirety Professor Berkhors paragraph on the subject of doctrinal discipline.

If church polity is to guard the mediating process, it will obviously have to set rules for proclamation and instruction. To begin with, the office-bearers will have to state, in one form or another, the content and the norm which they accept for all their transmission activity. If they become aware that they no longer agree with that, they should resign their office. But what is to be done if they do not feel that way themselves, but the church at large thinks differently? In that case the church can make a pronouncement about the teachings of such an office-bearer to avoid a confusion of spirits and to make clear what she sees as the true gospel. Will such a declaration and a concomitant admonition to the office-bearer suffice? In other words, is it enough to practice a so-called ethical, therapeutic, or judicial form of doctrinal discipline? Or should he also by ecclesiastical sentence be deposed from his office, by what is called juridical or justiciable discipline? A church which is deeply conscious of her high calling and which knows of the distortions to which the gospel, since it is foolishness and an offense to the world, is always subject, will not a priori exclude such a deposition as the final resort. There are situations in which it is all or nothing. That is rarely the case, however, where it concerns the deviating ideas of only one office-bearer. Nor should a possible deposition be automatically considered in case an office-bearer defends views which are rejected by his own denomination but accepted in other churches. As a matter of fact, the lesson of history is that “heretics” have often been people who defended truths that bad been lost sight of or who were ahead of their own church in their insights as to how the gospel could best be passed on to a future generation. For these reasons juridical discipline may not be excluded, nor may it become the rule. The church is only rarely served by acts of force; rather it is promoted by coming with arguments, by a spiritual struggle to see the light, and by brotherly discussion. (Christian Faith, p. 384f.)

I suggest that the Christian Reformed synods and other bodies that have to deal with doctrinal discipline take these words of the Leiden professor to heart. We would have less heat and see more light.

Sincerely yours,

Sierd Woudstra

Religion and Theology Department, Calvin College

Editor’s Response:

My critical allusion to Rev. S. Woudstra’s explanation of Isaiah 14 could have been more precisely phrased. Although be did not say that Isaiah borrowed the whole of his 14th chapter from pagan mythology, he did allege, as he states in his letter, that Isaiah used “the Canaanite myth to get God‘s message across.” This explanation given in the Nov. 24 Banner seemed to follow the common Liberal practice of trying to trace what the Bible presents as unique Divine revelation to pagan “sources.” What especially caught my attention was the blunt statement, “The Most High was the highest of the Canaanite gods.”

PDJ

REPLY TO WOUDSTRA

I was not born yesterday and I am not a total stranger in Jerusalem. This was not the first thing I read of Dr. Berkhof, nor of Prof. Woudstra. For better or for worse, one always reads within a certain context. He gets to know from which corner the wind is blowing, and that may indeed color one’s interpretation.

However, the fact that I am by no means the only one who objects to Woudstra’s views suggests that my view may not be as jaundiced as it appears.

In his reply to Prof. Schuurman in the RES Theological Forum, Woudstra is doing much more than calling attention to a “disparity” or “inconsistency” among Christian scientists with a view to Genesis. Discussion on that subject is still in full swing, and not nearly all Christian scientists (not even all those who hold to a “young earth”) see the kind of disparity between “the traditional conservative reading” of Gen. 1 & 2 and the findings of science that Woudstra sees. And what is more, as Prof. Schuurman says, no science may ever rule over Scripture.

But what I wanted to say is that Woudstra’s own views come through quite clearly. Indeed, there are statements that he attributes to others, but even there, as Schuurman says, “the language is suggestive.” And though Woudstra wants to hold onto the doctrine of creation, Schuurman correctly notes that “in light of the foregoing it must be said that its content bas drastically changed. ‘It seems to need a new filling.’ This ‘solution’ of the dilemma cannot be mine.” Precisely. That’s all I was trying to say too.

To come back to Berkhof, there are insights in his books for which one can be thankful. But his view of Scripture is one which is totally unacceptable within a Reformed framework. It is little wonder, as pointed out by Haverkamp in De Wachter, that he is so enthusiastic about the latest report on Scripture put out by the Geref. Kerken. If Woudstra bad written in his “appendix” that he categorically rejected Berkhof’s view of Scripture, it would be quite a different matter. But he didn‘t do that at all. What is more, his lengthy quotation from Berkhof’s book speaks volumes. Fact is, after reading that, I wondered why he objected to my letter at all. I would have had more respect for him if he had simply said: My sympathies lie with Berkhof and that’s that. I always get leery of Professors who backtrack when someone challenges them.

We need less heat and more light. Granted. “In thy light we see light” (Ps. 36:9). And there is a proper kind of “beat”: “We declare that we not only reject all errors that militate against this doctrine . . . , but that we are disposed to refute and contradict these and to exert ourselves in keeping the Church free from such errors” (Form of Subscription). For that cause De Bres and his followers were willing to “offer their backs to stripes, their tongues to knives, their mouths to gags, and their whole bodies to the fire.” We need a bit more of that kind of heat and light today.

J. Tuininga P.S.: I can think of dozens of good Dutch books which, if translated, would be of infinitely more value to the church than Berkhof’s volume.

THE OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT

Dear Rev. DeJong,

In the June issue of Outlook, page 11, you make reference to the letter, over my signature, to President Ronald Reagan, in connection with the United States’ Latin American policy.

Some of your observations appear inaccurate to me and I would like to share the following observations with the readers of Outlook.

You make reference to a copy of the letter to President Reagan as it appeared in the Banner of April 13, 1981 (page 22), and then write, “By what authority does this mission secretary presume to commit the whole denomination to such a partisan opinion on a strictly political issue?” I must point out that the Banner clearly stated that the Executive Committee of the Board of World Missions authorized me to write the letter. The Executive Committee consists of eighteen members, all representing the Christian Reformed Church by synodical appointment. The initiative for this letter originated with the Executive Committee itself in its March, 1981 meeting. After careful scrutiny of the first draft, the committee mandated me to address it to the President.

You also express yourself critically of the intent and content of the letter itself. You state that our mission administration tries to hinder the established government (of El Salvador) from defending itself against a Marxist guerilla take-over. In response I would refer to the letter to President Reagan in which I stated “We recognize that international communism will seek to take advantage of unsettled conditions wherever they exist. We encourage you in taking decisive action to discourage such a takeover.” But I then went on to state that the underlying problems in Central America are famine and oppression and that the U.S. must do its share in solving those in a Christian and just-way. It is a matter of record, Mr. Editor, that the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala use means of brutal oppression to silence legitimate criticism, and because of U.S. aid to those governments we as a Christian Reformed Church are not free from responsibility in these policies. As a matter of fact, the governments of these countries, by their brutal methods, are forcing people into the arms of the communists, whose policies we all abhor.

In writing our President we knew ourselves in the Biblical tradition of being moved by the plight of the poor and oppressed, and that, we thought, also represented the best of American tradition.

I would appreciate your sharing these thoughts with Outlook readers.

Sincerely,

Rev. G. Bernard Dokter,

Latin America Area Secretary

Editor’s Reply:

The letter from our Latin American Missions secretary explains that his own open letter to the president on which I commented was written on the initiative of the Executive Committee. He corrects the mistaken impression I received and conveyed that the initiative that produced it was the writer’s. I regret the mistake and gladly pass Rev. Mr. Dokter’s correction on to our readers. The correction does not remove the serious objections which I see to this letter. It increases them to the extent that it makes the sending of it more official.

(1) Although the letter does express opposition to a Communist take-over, itat the same time argues against the giving of military aid to the government of El Salvador in its life-and-death battle against being overcome by militant Communist revolutionaries. The argument contradicts itself.

(2) The letter is open to criticism from the point of view of church polity . While individuals may express their convictions to our government, by what authority does our Executive Committee for World Missions commit our churches to trying to dissuade our President from giving military aid to the government of El Salvador in its war against a take-over by Communist guerillas? Our classes elected the delegates to carry out a foreign mission program, not to lobby regarding social, economic, political and military matters in Washington.

(3) Such a letter threatens the welcome and possibly the safety of the missionaries in that land in which they work. Having lived for about ten years outside of the United States I am the more sensitive to the need of a visitor being cautious about expressing judgments regarding the internal politics of the land in which he is only a guest. Such a visitor who becomes involved in political agitation regarding the government of the country is asking for his own expulsion as an undesirable alien or may even be endangering the safety of himself and others associated with him. As the agenda report intimated (p. 60), “missionaries may themselves become an embarrassment to the national groups they nurture.”

(4) The most serious objection to this action is that it appears to be a distortion of the gospel as the Lord and His apostles taught and called us to bring it. The Lord absolutely refused to let Himself become involved in political activity against the Roman government although many felt for and justified such revolutionary activity with the same kind of arguments as those used to justify such revolutionary activity today (John 6). Similarly, Paul and the other missionaries showed the same preoccupation with the gospel and refusal to become involved in the political and social politics of revolution which are increasingly being championed by many churches and religious agencies. The influence of the gospel did eventually correct social evils and alter institutions, but to make of the gospel a political revolutionary movement is a perversion. That the Liberal churches, who have little respect for the Lord and less for the Bible, fall for this political perversion is not surprising. But we should not imitate them.

INFLATION IS A MORAL PROBLEM

In connection with Rev. Peter DeJong’s timely article, “Inflation Is A Moral Problem” in the May ’81 issue, reprinted from the Outlook, March 1975, I would like to share what some years ago, the D.A.R. magazine (Daughters of the American Revolution) bad to say about inflation in a patriotic article.

“Inflation is gnawing at the vitals of the economy; we are a people burdened with soaring debt, both personal and national. Inflation is robbing the people of their savings. However the entire blame for inflation cannot be laid at the Government’s door for we are all to blame to some extent for the inflationary wave sweeping the country. We are a people who live by the principle, ‘Buy now, pay later.’ The luxuries of yesterday have become the necessities of today. The fact is that the average American is spending far more than be should. Meanwhile Labor Unions are demanding wage increases far in excess of productivity increases. And the results are, we are in danger of pricing ourselves not only out of the world markets, but domestic market as well. Never in history was it more important for the people to understand the need for self discipline. No native American has known the ravages of runaway inflation. Secure in their belief in the country’s wealth, not all Americans have recognized the dangers inherent on the inflationary road we are travelling. For years there have been voices raised to warn that the road from inflation to socialism is inevitable and let it not be forgotten that socialism is the little brother of communism. Today the American people can no longer afford to ignore the storm signals being hoisted on many fronts. The impending crisis resulting from our dwindling gold supplies and continuing unfavorable balance of payments cannot be postponed indefinitely. No sacrifice is too great to stave off national bankruptcy; a bankrupt nation is no longer a great nation. The survival of freedom itself hinges on national solvency. This every American must understand because there is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of a society than to debauch the currency.”

This was written about ten years ago and the American economy, once envied by the entire world, is still squeaking along. Economists in general agree that our startling low levels of savings and investments are the key factors in our failure to produce the capital to finance the real economic growth for which we yearn so deeply.

The people of West Germany and Japan, the big losers of W.W. II, set aside 15–20% of their earnings. This bas created the enormous pool of savings which bas helped the spectacular growth of those countries. In the U.S. the savings are an incredible 4.5%.

Many are blaming the Federal Reserve Board for the high interest rates. But the Federal Reserve Board states that rather we than they are the cause of high inflation rates: from living beyond our means, from living off credit, from refusing to believe that in order to live well, we must produce well; which is to say we must work productively and save for a rainy day.

But then the question arises, is this not the language of the Scriptures? We read in Genesis 3:17–19 that the punishment for sin is hard labor. God’s law “Six days shalt thou labor . . .” is basically still valid, so that a man when be can no longer toil in the sweat of his brow, may be able to eat the bread of the labor of his days of vigor. It is a sad thing that the secular press has to tell us this, and that we hear so little of it in the church press. America was built by hard working people.

A Christian sees his work as a divine vocation. The ungodly sees it as a necessary evil—seeking a shorter work week and extended vacations. The Lord promises us in Proverbs 14:34, “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” It is no surprise then that today the economy is declining.

Dr. Abraham Kuyper once said, “It is so profoundly untrue that God’s Word lets us bear only appeals for the salvation of our souls. No, very definitely also for our national existence, and for our social life together, God’s Word gives us fixed ordinances; it marks out lines that are clearly visible . . . . For on almost every point on social life, God’s Word gives us the most positive direction.”

Is it not time that the Outlook provides us with articles like that of Rev. DeJong which gives us a more positive direction towards a Christian lifestyle?

If we are concerned only with the defense of our doctrines, but no application of the Biblical message for life, in our efforts to defend the faith, we can end up with a faith that is no longer translated into action.

Herman Woltjer, Zeeland, Mich.