Postponement of execution. This was the startling title of an article written by Dr. J. Plomp in the Gereformeerde Weekblad (Reformed Weekly), August 1, 1980, commenting on the meeting of theReformed Ecumenical Synod in Nimes, France. Dr. Plomp’s observations raise some fundamental questions about the continuation of the RCN (Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands) membership within the RES.
(1) Dr. H. Wiersinga and Prof. Dr. H. Kuitert.
The RES agreed that the RCN had exercised discipline in the case of Dr. H. Wiersinga, whose views on the atonement were found to be without Biblical warrant. This decision, which was based on information given by the RCN, greatly surprised Dr. Plomp. Why? Because, according to him, the general synod of the RCN did not exercise discipline. The synod didn‘t have the authority to do so. The Kuitert case presented no difficulties. The RES took note that it is still under study. The only possible position the RES can take at this time is—wait and see.
(2) The World Council of Churches.
Dr. Plomp complains that this was not the first time that the RES called the RCN on the carpet to defend their dual membership in the Reformed Ecumenical Synod and the World Council of Churches (The RES holds to the incompatibility of dual membership). A committee was appointed to study “the Reformed concept of the church and its implications for current and future ecumenical relationships.” This study must be ready for t he RES meeting of 1984. And this was, according to Dr. Plomp, a “postponement of execution.” Why should the RCN give up membership in the WCC for the sake of the RES?
(3) Homosexuality.
The RES had expressed its “grave concern about the ambiguous nature of the 1979 decision of the GKN” on homosexuality. A committee was appointed to study the Biblical data and hermeneutical questions related to the problems of “homophility” (homosexuality). But Dr. Plomp feels that one can also speak of a postponement of execution. And he remarks: “I don’t just think this because I know my own Dutch customers. They walk somewhat faster than many foreign Reformed; they are somewhat more progressive, or whatever one may want to call it. But I think this specially because an enormous difference has arisen between them and most other Reformed in the RES. That is a difference in t he view of Scripture (Schriftbeschouwing).”
Dr. Plomp thinks that in Nimes this issue didn’t get the attention it deserved, no—actually demanded. Many member churches give the impression of being sure and steadfast on a host of issues. But they are so sure and steadfast because they have hardly any problem with the text of the confessions and even less with Scripture. When the RES says that according to the traditional Reformed view homosexuality is a sin, a number of Bible texts are added to the pronouncement.
Dr. Plomp puts his finger on the real problem the RCN has with the RES. He says that Scriptures, and most likely the confessions, are treated in a manner to which we were once accustomed in Holland. But many Reformed scholars no longer treat them so, and neither does their synod. He claims that they now have a feeling for the whole of the hermeneutical problem; what it is that the Lord wants to say to us in these old texts which originated in a totally different world and in a historical situation completely different from ours. Dr. Plomp believes that it is too bad that the RES didn‘t decide to study this problem in all openness and quietness for the next few years. And he concludes his article by saying that since this question of hermeneutics was not on the agenda; the execution of the sentence, for which the words were already present at Nimes, will take place at the next Synod.
Since Nimes, an eighty–four page report on the “Nature of Biblical Authority” has been approved by the RCN. The report’s view of truth is similar to that of dialectical theology—“truth as encounter.” Bible writers did make mistakes in their writings. As norm for life, the Bible must be seen as having many time–related commands. The report departs from the historic organic view of Scripture as taught by Dr. A. Kuyper and Dr. Herman Bavinck.
Recently the RCN have stated that they will not withdraw from the RES. But why do the RCN stay within the RES? Why didn’t the—otherwise so outspoken—Dutch say in Nimes: “Brothers you are wasting your time; your view of Scripture is no longer ours; we are not on the same wavelength.” An expression of such an opinion would have saddened the Reformed churches around the world, but it would have been treated with respect. Now I get the feeling that we have been taken. We have been told that the Dutch have progressed too far to ever return to the traditional Reformed position.
Johan D. Tangelder is the pastor of the East Christian Reformed Church of Strathroy, Ontario.