The Form of Subscription discussed in this article may be found on page 71 at the back of the Psalter Hymnal. Efforts are being put forth to have this Form revised. A specific amendment is now under consideration by the churches, action on which is scheduled for Synod 1976. A second article on this is to appear next month. The writer, Rev. Jelle Tuininga, is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Smithers, British Columbia.

If a venerable document like the Form of Subscription, which has served the churches well for hundreds of years, is to be revised, there must not only be weighty reasons for such a revision, but it must also be an improvement over the old form. As I see it, the proposed revision presented to the Synod of 1974 fails on both counts.

Let‘s take a look first at some of the reasoning behind the proposed revision, not necessarily in the order of importance. (The most extensive argumentation for the proposed change can be found in the original overture of Dr. Harry Boer (pp. 729–731 of the 1973 Acts of Synod) and in articles by the Rev. John Vriend in Calvinist Contact (June 4 and July 23/30, 1973).

Both Boer and Vriend mention, as one of the arguments for change, such “discrepancies” as the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, the reference to “detesting” the Anabaptists in Article 36, and the statement regarding the eating and drinking of the Lord‘s body and blood in Article 35 –all in the Belgic Confession.

Now I find this particular argument not only very weak, but even a bit childish. Surely our confession deserves more esteem than to subject it to such an arbitrary, literalistic analysis. “l11ese minor incidentals, for one thing, detract nothing from the authority and purpose of the confession; and what is more, they will be found in any and every creed that we write. Even if we wrote a new confession today, in a few years critics would find minor discrepancies in it also. That is simply an inevitable consequence of the fact that confessions always bear the mark of their own time. That is unavoidable. Confessions grow out of the need of the time; they are never a–historical. But no one need sign with mental reservations because of these matters. Every intelligent person fit to serve in a capacity of leadership understands that.

Surprisingly, Vriend quotes from the minority report submitted by Dr. Spykman to the Synod of 1961 to the effect that “the demand for incidental corrections in the Confession suggests a too literalistic approach to the Confession,” and yet he proceeds to do precisely that. Spykman argued that the creed may not be subjected to such a literalistic approach. It is worth taking note of what he says:

It presupposes that at present we can no longer endorse this Confession wholeheartedly. This presupposition, I submit, is contrary to fact, and this approach contrary to the real genius of the Confession.

Secondly, by common consent, the proposed modification of disputed passages means at best a patchwork approach to the Confession. It fails to touch the heart of the real question, namely; How shall we approach the Confession to gain a proper understanding of it? Of necessity it is peripheral and occasionalistic, and offers no real promise of resolving in a lasting way the many problems of interpretation existent in the Confession. Each new objection raised becomes the occasion for possible new patchwork. This approach, if carried out consistently, could in time make of the Belgic Confession a barely recognizable polygot of emendations . . . .

Fifthly, and most importantly, I submit that a historical–textual approach to the Confession will provide satisfactory answers to the objections raised. By keeping the Belgic Confession in its proper historical context and by applying to it sound exegetical methods, the difficulties indicated in the Majority Report can be greatly alleviated, if not entirely removed, and at any rate satisfactorily explained (Acts 61, pp. 211, 212; Cf. also Acts 59, pp. 205ff).

How, in the face of this, Boer and Vriend can nevertheless adopt this literalistic, piecemeal approach toward the Confession, is hard for me to understand. I realize full well that we‘re talking about a revision of the Form of Subscription, not of the Confession. But we should not attempt to get by way of the back door what we failed to get through the front door. Such arguments carry no more weight in pleading for a change in the Form of Subscription than they do in trying to change the creed itself.

It might also be pointed out here that De Bres’ original version of Article 36 did not mention the Anabaptists by name (d . De Voorzeide Deer, Vol. IIIb, by Ds. C. Vonk, pp. 628, 646, 655). Perhaps we ought to go back to the original version. More to the point, are we not making a mountain of a molehill here? Article 13 of the Confession refers to “that damnable error of the Epicureans,” and Article 15 speaks of “the error of the Pelagians.” Can we not understand Article 36 in the same way? And if, as Vriend asserts, the Roman Catholic believer has such good intentions behind his erroneous conception and practice of the Mass, perhaps we might grant the Reformed fathers a bit of this good intention behind the words of Article 36. And with regard to Answer 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism, let’s keep in mind that it states that “at bottom.” the mass is “an accursed idolatry.” The Reformed creeds are very mild-mannered compared to the canons of the Council of Trent!

With respect to the statement in Article 35 of the Belgic Confession regarding the Lord’s Supper, I really can‘t see this as much of a problem. Perhaps the language is a bit infelicitous, but surely the meaning is clear and cannot possibly be misunderstood, if read in the context of the whole article. It states clearly that “the manner of our partaking of the same is not by the mouth, but by the spirit through faith.” So where is the problem? And did not Christ say much the same thing to the Jews in John 6:53–56? The Jews took this as a ‘“hard saying” too, but Christ never retracted it.

Incidentally, one of the two gravamina in the history of our church dealt precisely with this matter, and Dr. Boer is correct in saying that it surely was not dealt with in a very responsible way. But 1 am in agreement with the sentiment expressed publicly at that time by Prof. M. H. Woudstra in Church and Nation, viz. that this gravamen should never have come to Synod. The consistory involved failed to do its work, and Synod should simply have told the consistory to do its homework. That body could easily have solved the matter. After all, the intent of the article is clear to all.

Another (more weighty) argument raised by Boer and Vriend is that the present Form of Subscription hinders the necessary freedom of the church in the further study and development of the truth. To say it with Vriend, “it has also fostered a certain theological subscription in which it was hardly possible to have a vigorous climate of research, scholarship, and publication in our theological seminary.”

Now on this point there seems to be some confusion. The Rev. John Engbers, writing in THE OUTLOOK (Sept. 73), is of the opinion that the proposed revision of the form “does not change what has always been possible under the present wording of the form,” but “only makes explicit what has always been implicit.” According to that view, we’ve always had all the room we need, and with that I would agree. But I do not believe that the proposed revision is only making explicit what always was implicit. As I see it, the proposed change definitely adds a new element to the Form, and this would seem to be confirmed by the numerous communications received by the 1974 Synod on this mailer. That new element is this:

Office-bearers would have the freedom, after notifying the proper body concerning the matter, of publicly airing their disagreements with the creeds, before and until such a time as the matter would be adjudicated by the proper ecclesiastical assembly. The present Form has never been understood as allowing this freedom, and the two gravamina mentioned by Dr. Boer illustrate the point.

Getting back to the matter of freedom, however, I see the matter as follows: In the first place, there always has been and will continue to be a lot of room for discussion of secondary issues within the bounds of the creeds. Consider, e.g., such issues as “common grace,” the exact nature of the covenant, the meaning of baptism, etc.—not minor matters by any means!

Freedom for differences of opinion within the framework of the creeds is a very precious and necessary thing. Confessionalism can be almost as dangerous as anti-confessionalism (think, e.g., of the developments within the Vrijgemaakte Kerken in Holland). But has this freedom not been present under the old Form? Has it stifled Reformed scholarship, or stymied progressive insights into the truth? What about the several volumes of “Studies in Dogmatics” by Prof. Berkouwer, to single him out for a moment? Did not his first volumes in particular fairly burst with refreshing “new” insights? Were we not aided in many helpful ways in our understanding of Reformed doctrines?

And did not such men as Schilder, Holwerda, S.C. De Graaf et al. deepen our insight into the Scriptures, and show us the richness of our Reformed confessions? Indeed they did. Did they feel at all restricted by the Form of Subscription? Berkouwer generally began his volumes with a chapter on “Confessional Reconnaissance” in which he would seek to delimit the scope of the discussion, and show the relevance of the creeds for the topic under consideration. One never got the idea from those first volumes that he felt “hemmed in” by the Form of Subscription which he had signed.

At this point I would like to quote from one of our own Seminary professors, Dr. Marten H. Woudstra. In his printed notes on “Old Testament History and Theology” he says:

There are presuppositions which one takes along to his study. These are either in keeping with the general teachings of the church as laid down in the Church’s creeds, or they are not or partly. A solid commitment to the Church’s creeds does not preclude a genuine investigation of all the data, but simply circumscribes the area within which, and the point of reference with respect to which, the questions discussed will be viewed. Each investigator has that kind of a starting point. Ours is an openly acknowledged one, whereas that of others sometimes is not. It is the Church‘s duty and privilege to make sure that the presuppositions to which it has committed its scholars, and to which its scholars have voluntarily committed themselves, are not violated but rather consciously accepted as the proper frame of reference within which scholarly investigation is pursued. At no time should the thought be entertained that this sort of general oversight constitutes a drag on the freedom of expression. On the other hand, this oversight should be exercised in such a manner that proper freedom of expression can be enjoyed within certain predetermined limits.

That is a rather lengthy quotation, but fully worth quoting. Not only is that kind of language rarely heard anymore nowadays, but it spells out quite clearly the proper balance between freedom and authority with respect to the creeds of the church. Notice that Woudstra speaks of “an openly acknowledged” starting point, and of presuppositions “to which its scholars have voluntarily committed themselves.” Woudstra doesn’t seem to experience the “threatening” character of the present Form of Subscription of which Vriend speaks, nor its “hierarchical” nature of which Boer spoke.

I suppose it all depends on what one considers to be a threat, and on what type of freedom one desires. That‘s where the real crux of the matter lies, it seems to me. The most “ironclad” document will not guarantee a church‘s orthodoxy. It will not make the church immune to the attacks of those who wish for greater freedom than the church feels it can give on the basis of Scripture. On the other hand, a more “relaxed” form would not mean that everyone would quickly jump to exercise their new-found freedom. In the final analysis, it depends on the integrity of those signing the Form. But with humans being what they are, and with Satan going about like an angel of light, “it is the church‘s duty and privilege to make sure that the presuppositions to which it has committed its scholars . . . are not violated” (Woudstra).

(To be continued)