No doubt you are already somewhat familiar with the little booklet Our World Belongs to God – A Contemporary Testimony (hereafter “CT”). Our Synod and the Board of Publications have made a concerted effort to ensure that copies of the CT might be readily available to any church or church member that wanted one. Synod granted “provisional approval” for the CT in order that its evaluation might be “in the church,” and as it is being used, rather than “in the abstract.”
When, in 1983, Synod granted “provisional approval,” it also asked that “written response” be solicited and sent in to the CT committee secretary, Professor Robert Recker. Through seminary Professor Recker, Calvin Seminary students were among the first to see the new testimony, and although at the time it generated some lively discussion and even a student editorial or two, relatively few students actually wrote in. While the CT no longer occasions much debate at the seminary, I am happy to be able to report that finally, a good number of students have indeed written in.
About the same time that the CT first came out, a group of conservative seminary students form ed an association calling itself the “Reformed Evangelical Forum (REF).” Banding together for mutual support and encouragement, the first major project of this student organization was a thorough-going analysis of the CT.
The culmination of a two year effort, the REF “write in” took the rather ambitious form of a full scale revision which included a thirteen page “Rationale” explaining the reasons behind the proposed changes. Since the students followed the original wording of the CT as closely as possible, it is immediately apparent that their chief concern was not the matter of style. Style had been a major student concern in 1983. For example, one student editorial of that year intoned that stylistically the CT was “as dull, as gray, and as flat as a slab of cement.” The REF students, however, have chosen a different issue, the more substantive one of theological precision.
The chief concerns of the REF are immediately evident from even a cursory reading of their attached rationale. First of all, these students are concerned that the current version of the CT is weak in regard to the doctrine of Scripture. Second, they sense some confusion as to just “who” is in the Kingdom of God and who is not. Third, there is a concern that sin and God’s wrath against it are not dealt with adequately. Fourth, they feel that the doctrines of election and predestination have been “de-emphasized.” Finally, they feel that the CT could be much more positive about what believers have become through their victorious Lord.
To be sure, the REF proposal reflects other concerns as well. Apparent throughout its proposal is the REF perception that the CT in its original form tends to follow what many would consider to be a liberal agenda. More to the theological point at hand, it may also be observed that if it is true that the “Kingdom Theology” of the CT is confused (REF concern #2), then it only follows that the CT would also be weak in regard to sin and wrath, election and predestination, and the virtues that Christ accomplishes in believers (concerns 3-5), because it is especially those things which define just who is and who is not in God’s Kingdom. In this connection it seems significant that the REF proposal has a decidedly more evangelistic tone than does the original CT.
It seems that there are two kinds of people in this world: those who think that there is only one kind , and those who think there are two kinds. In his recent book, Christians and Reformed Today, CRC minister and professor John Bolt, stresses the importance of having a correct view of “common grace.” Even more recently, Calvin College professor Henry Vander Goat (who wrote Interpreting the Bible in Theology and the Church, 1984). in an address to the Reformed Fellowship, stressed the importance of one’s view of “common grace” for hermeneutics. In light of this resurgent interest it would seem appropriate to ask whether or not the 1983 “Kingdom Theology” of the CT is consistent with synod’s 1924 statement on “Common Grace.”
As noted earlier, the REF proposal follows the original wording of the CT as closely as possible. Because of this, major differences can depend on the deletion, addition or substitution of a single word. For example, the REF concern about the CT kingdom theology is reflected in the REF’s more precise use of the pronouns “we” and “our.” In the original CT it is often very difficult to know just when these pronouns refer to Christians, non-Christians, or to humanity in general. The REF proposal takes care of this ambiguity quite handily.
Again, for example, the REF concern that the CT tends to be too soft on sin and sinners while at the same time it tends to be too hard on saints, is reflected in its revisions of “can” and “may.” There are major differences between “possibility” and “actuality,”. . . between “permission” and “necessity.” Especially in a testimony, the difference between “I am a Christian” and “I may be a Christian” may be (and often is) as great as the chasm which separated Lazarus and the rich man. The martyr dies for one statement, the sinner hedges with the other. Need we be reminded that there is a sense in which “common grace” is “no” grace? These fundamental distinctions should not be blurred.
Adding an “according to Scripture” here, and an “in the church” there, the REF went through the CT with a fine-toothed comb, making small changes here and there which accumulate to produce a significant difference. Wh;Ie the end result cannot be precisely what the authors of the CT originally intended, the REF proposal is certainly more precise than the original, and I think it merits our serious attention. Having done what I could to suggest the differences between the original CT and the REF proposal, I freely admit that it was beyond my ability to demonstrate them. The students of the REF invite the readers to judge for themselves: Copies of the side–by-side analysis may be obtained free of charge by writing: The Reformed Evangelical Forum, P. 0. Box 68062, Grand Rapids, MI 49506.
John De Koekkoek is currently a senior or Colvin Theological Seminary. (The Synod has asked that reactions to the Contemporary Testimony be sent to the committee before January 1, 1986. Its secretory is Professor Robert Recker of Calvin Theological Semi nary. The committee envisions approval of the Testimony by the 1986 Synod.)
