Our Lord taught and prayed that His church and people “may be one” (John 15:11, 20, 22, 23) in relationship with Him through the sanctifying work of His gospel (vss. 17ff.). Therefore we must “believe a holy catholic Church” and pray and work for church union with those who share this faith. While we have to oppose the church unions of believers with unbelievers, as Bible-believing and therefore Reformed. Christians we must seek to bring Reformed and Presbyterians who share that aim together and not let cultural and historical differences keep us apart. The Reformed Churches in Australia (and in New Zealand arising out of the post World War II Dutch immigration) have tried to draw Presbyterian and Reformed together by cooperating in a joint seminary at Geelong, as well as in other ways. Some of their experiences with the problems which arise in this interaction of Presbyterian and Reformed may be interesting and helpful to us. Professor Noel Weeks, a correspondent in Australia, has written us about this subject. Dr. Weeks came from the Presbyterian Church of Australia, studied at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and received the Ph. D. degree from Brandeis University. He teaches at the University of Sydney and is a member of the Reformed. Church of Sutherland. (a Sydney suburb). His address is 77 Woronora Cresc, Como West, N.S.W. 2226 Australia. His article is to appear in this and coming issues of the OUTLOOK. (Editor).
The Reformed Ecumenical Synod is an organized form of something that is a major factor in the Reformed world of today: the meeting, interaction and sometimes collision of Anglo-Saxon and Dutch expressions of the Reformed faith. This interaction is not new but has emerged in many new forms today through the migration of many Dutch people to English speaking countries and the translation of important Dutch thinkers into English. Along with this meeting there have come tensions. Churches like the Orthodox Presbyterian and the Free Church of Scotland have been concerned and critical about developments in the GKN (The Reformed Churches in the Netherlands). In North America there has been a certain degree of polarity: Toronto vs Westminster or Orthodox Presbyterian vs Christian Reformed. In Australia this has manifested itself in differences between the Free Kirk and the Reformed Churches centering around the Reformed Theological College Geelong.
These are merely manifestations of what some see as a fundamental cleavage between Reformed (Dutch) and Presbyterian (Anglo-Saxon) approaches. On either side the accusations are sometimes far reaching: that the Anglo–Saxon mind lacks the philosophical depth to produce great theology; that the Dutch are oblivious to the practical concerns of Christianity like godliness and evangelism; that the other side should be left to their philosophical blindness or ignorance.
The Ethnic Captivity of the Church
I hope that any serious Christian on either side would be concerned by this state of affairs. Do we accept that there is an unbridgeable gap between those who should be closest together through their devotion to the Reformed faith? Perhaps an even more fundamental question is this: are we so trapped in our ethnic and cultural ghettos that we cannot reach each other and help each other? I would not deny that there is such a thing as a national characteristic. After all, Paul said all Cretans are liars! Perhaps he would say today that the Dutch and the Anglo-Saxons both suffer from the same national characteristic: pride. Does the “practical” AngloSaxon look so practical when compared with the actual accomplishments of the Dutch in churches, schools, welfare etc.?
We cannot afford the isolation of national pride. Even if we do give to each national group or culture a distinctive calling then we must remember that the perfection of the body requires the proper working of each part together, not in total separation from each other. Yet we must be sensitive to each others’ historical shaping. We must be awake to our tendency to be pressed into the mould of our own particular world. It seems to me that there are a number of factors that must be appreciated.
The Migrant Dilemma
The Dutch that have come into closest contact with Presbyterianism have done so as migrants to English speaking countries. Some of the Presbyterian groups they have encountered have themselves been remnants of close–knit migrant communities like the Free Kirk in Australia. One can observe roughly three stages in the process of migrant assimilation. The first generation, represented especially in Canada, Australia and New Zealand are rightly impressed by the advantages of the homeland in comparison with the new country. They resolve not to lose the culture of the old in the barren wilderness of the new land. The second generation is inclined to react against this. They are sick of being stigmatized at school as “Dutchies.” Within the church the reaction may take the form of rejection of the distinctively Dutch elements or of the whole Reformed faith. Subsequent generations, basically assimilated to their new land can afford the luxury of a sentimental adoration of all things “Scottish” or “Dutch.” This is the stage reached by some elements of the Free Kirk in Australia and the CRC in the U.S.
It should not be forgotten that what appear at first as indigenous Presbyterian groups are really refugee groups. The Orthodox Presbyterians, the Free Church of Scotland or the various individuals who have come out of d.ead and. apostate Presbyterian churches to find refuge in Reformed Churches are refugees from the sinking of the once great Presbyterian church. Often they had the experience of being persecuted minorities forced to leave to experience freedom of conscience before God. They are fiercely loyal to that for which they have suffered exile and banishment: the Reformed faith.
In the midst of all these sociological and psychological pressures, is any working together of Reformed and Presbyterian meaningful? The answer I give to this question is significant because it is consistent with the answer I will give to later questions. Our belief in the transforming power of Word and Spirit makes us reject the notion of the sociological captivity of the church. Communion is possible because Scripture judges all tradition. That does not mean it is easy, because here we are fighting against a form of conformity to this age.
Our Great Revival
In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, especially in its English version represented particularly by the Banner of Truth Trust, there is a nostalgic longing for the return of the days of Whitfield. Those with this perspective are inclined to look rather skeptically at the Dutch interest in Christian political parties etc. “Would it not be more sensible,” they ask,” to convert the nation rather than trying to start a Christian party in a nation made up predominately of unbelievers?” This very scepticism is seen in turn by some of the Reformed as proof that the AngloSaxons have a “pietist” interest in evangelism to the exclusion of the establishment of the kingdom of Christ.
In neither case is the matter quite so simple. The Evangelical Awakening in which Whitfield and other Calvinists played a part was a national affair. Directly and indirectly the politics and society of England were profoundly affected. The evangelical crusades for social reform of the nineteenth century had their roots in the revival of the eighteenth. The English Reformed fascination with revival is not a denial of the relevance of the gospel to all of life. It is rather a desire for the return of the days when the gospel had such far reaching effects. Yet herein lies the danger. Will God always work in the same way? The same question might be asked of those who long for the return of the glorious days of Kuyper. Both English and Dutch are looking for a repeat of that glorious period in which the gospel rocked and transformed their nation. The danger is that they expect it to come exactly as it did in the past, either through the mighty revival or through Christian social and political organization. What if God were to raise up a second Whitfield but in the Netherlands and. a second Anti-Revolutionary Government, but in England?
Are we guilty of absolutizing our own historical experience as though God must bless us as he has done in the past? Now there may be other reasons, to be touched upon later, for opposition to the notions of revival or of Christian political action. For the moment let us urge men to proclaim the gospel and to be Christian, really Christian, in their political lives.
(to be continued)