Noel Weeks of Sidney, Australia, concludes his discussion of differences which are threatening the unified efforts of Reformed and Presbyterians for Biblical faith and action. Many modern Reformed people excuse their divergence from the Bible and the Creeds by saying that they are loyal to the “intent” of both. Dr. Weeks points out what is wrong in this procedure.

Closely related to this whole attempt to find a basic intent in Scripture is the discussion of the scopus or goal of Scripture. Here there may be agreement on the formal level and yet basic disagreement. Who amongst believers could deny that the Bible aims to set forth Jesus Christ and His redemptive work for lost mankind? It is with some of the conclusions drawn from this that problems arise. Can we therefore say that it tells us only about God’s religious purpose in Christ and hence not about God’s work and purpose in creation? Or about salvation and nothing about ethics?

A similar question arises with the Creation, Fall, Redemption motive which adherents of the Cosmonomic Idea (of Professor Dooyeweerd) find in Scripture. The moment we say the Bible is primarily about X, hence it is not a “textbook” of Y, our logic is suspicious. This sort of reasoning looks very like the sort of abstract deductive reasoning that in other contexts is so strongly condemned. Does the Scripture itself limit its own relevance in such a way?

Limiting Scripture

There is a curious feature about this limitation of Scripture. It is very close to pietism! This may seem a strange charge to lay against those who are so quick to charge others with pietism. Nevertheless this sort of restriction of Scripture to a narrow concern with “salvation” is typical of pietism. Also the depreciation of the intellectual content of Scripture and the emphasis on its emotive religious content is typically pietistic. One of the consequences this pietistic limiting of scripture brings with it is that pietism has often been closely associated with the entry of non–Christian philosophies into the church. Having restricted the Scripture to a very narrow topic, it ceases to speak and warn against philosophies of men.

The adherent of the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea sees a general indifference to the broad social and political implications of Christianity in Presbyterianism. Often the evangelical, even the liberal, will seem more receptive to these social and political implications. I do not deny that the problem in Presbyterianism is a real one. As I explained above, I think the Presbyterian indifference stems in part from unfounded expectations that history must repeat itself. However, if our devotee of Dooyeweerd dismisses it simply as “pietism” then he will close the door to what could be profitable communication. For his own position comes across to the Presbyterian very much as a “pietist” position; that is as a position with religious enthusiasm, a few Biblically based slogans and no depth of Scriptural foundation. While I readily grant the differences between the Dooyeweerdian and most pietists I would point out that true historic pietism had a concern for Christian influence in all areas of national life as is indicated by Francke and the pietist university of Halle. Such a concern emerges in many forms of Neo–Evangelicalism where social concern has been added to a pietist faith.

Need For Honesty

We get nowhere ultimately by labeling each other as “pietists.” My point is simply that there is as good a ground for labeling the Neo–Reformed and the adherents of the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea as “pietists” as there is for applying that label to historic Presbyterians. The problem with such labeling is that it defines those labeled as—by implication—not Reformed. I think there is an issue of honesty here. It may be a political tactic to brand all one’s opponents as radicals or reactionaries and to grab the middle ground. Whether it is ethical is another matter. When those who adhere to the older Reformed understanding are labeled as “Biblicists” and “pietists” it carries the implication that they are not true–blue Reformed. Yet their understanding may be far closer to the letter of the Confessions. The historic requirement that one who differed from the Confessions bring a gravamen (complaint) against them shows that the founding fathers of the Reformed Church wanted to adhere to the words and not just the “deepest intent” of the Confessions. What happens to the man who is honestly out of sympathy with the confessions? He holds to what he thinks is their “deepest intent” but not to the words. If he can dismiss those who hold to the confessions as Biblicists and pietists his conscience is somewhat eased. It is they who have left the Reformed faith and not he. He even becomes a little self-righteously indignant if they question the sincerity of his profession. “Perhaps it is their Presbyterian narrow mindedness. They are not pure Dutch in thought.”

Do you see the danger? There is an element of conscience–saving here. We have ceased to be honest with each other. When this happens the church is in danger. For the church depends on the blessing of Christ which may be withdrawn when there is dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Those who disagree with me may well want to change the whole binding nature of the Confessions and the Scripture in the Reformed Churches. That door must always be left open because we cannot think that at any stage the church has arrived at the final truth. But let it be done openly and honestly. The man who thinks that he can be silent about his lack of sympathy with the Confessions is in an ethical dilemma. He is unfaithful to a vow before God. If he thinks that the time is not yet ripe politically for that motion in Synod then he is a politician and not a man of principle.

A Threatening Situation

Conclusion:

This paper has covered a wide ground. It has opened up many issues and thoroughly argued none. In many ways it raises the questions I wish could be answered. As I sit as a person with some (but by no means exclusive) Presbyterian background in a Reformed world I see profound changes taking place in the Reformed Churches. There are fundamental issues and questions that occur to the person whose sympathies lie with the historic Reformed or Presbyterian position. I have tried to highlight these. I hope that an attempt will be made to answer the questions. For at the moment we are perilously close to that situation that preceeds a schism: the failure of effective communication. Slogans and labels do not create communication and trust. They tend rather to destroy it. If the Neo-Reformed cannot appreciate the frame of mind of somebody who adheres to the confessions and speak to that, then it may already be too late. The conceptual gap may be too great to be bridged. Schism of some sort is then inevitable. There is also the ethical consequence: Woe to the man who takes or holds an oath of loyalty to the confessions with insincerity. He may have the majority of the church when the practical schism comes. However, even if he should be right in his reservations about the Confession, will he have the blessing of God?