Two kinds of controversies trouble Christian churches. There are differences of opinion over minor matters which must be adjusted and accommodated in a spirit of patience and forebearance. There are also controversies that concern the essence and character of the Christian faith which must be resolved by correction and discipline if the faith is to be preserved.

John Calvin in his Institutes (IV, I, 12) pointed out this distinction: “For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion.” “Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith.” Although “we should agree on all points,” “since all men are somewhat beclouded with ignorance, either we must leave no church remaining or we must condone delusion in those matters which can go unknown without harm to the sum of religion and without loss of salvation.” Although he “would not support even the slightest errors,” he was also convinced that “we must not thoughtlessly forsake the church because of any petty dissensions.”

While in our present Reformed world many are suggesting that we dismiss the multiplying controversies as “petty dissensions,” it becomes increasingly apparent that underlying many of them are differences of belief that threaten the character and essence of the Christian faith.

This state of affairs is not new, although its appearance among us may seem so. It has perhaps never been more clearly described that it was a half-century ago by J. Gresham Machen in his Christianity and Liberalism. Machen pointed out that within the churches two totally different kinds of religion were in conflict. He saw “the great redemptive religion . . . Christianity . . . battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional terminology” (p. 2). In 1958 J.I. Packer, looking at inter-church relations, called attention to the same rift between different faiths. “Christian bodies of all sorts are constantly urged to come together, sink their differences and present a united front . . . . It is taken for granted that the differences in question are small and trifling—unsightly little cracks on the surface of an otherwise solid wall. But this assumption is false. Not all the cracks are mere superficial disfigurements; some of them are the outward signs of lack of structural integration. The wall is cracked because it is not all built on the same foundation. The more one probes the differences between Roman and Protestant, Liberal and Evangelical, the deeper they prove to be; beneath the cracks on the surface lie fissures which run down to the very foundations, broadening as they go. Nothing is gained just by trying to cement up the cracks; that only encourages the collapse of the entire wall. Sham unit is not worth working for, and real unity, that fellowship of love in the truth which Christ prayed that His disciples might enjoy (Jn. 17:17–23), will come only as those sections of the wall which rest on unsound foundations are dismantled and rebuilt” (“Fundamentalism” and the Word of God, p. 45). Dr. Packer’s observation clearly expresses what is also the growing conviction of the Reformed Fellowship’s Board about the nature of the problems which currently trouble especially our Christian Reformed Churches. That Board has expressed the desire that we in a series of short articles try to serve the welfare of those churches by more sharply focusing attention on basic issues which trouble them. Let us try to do this by presenting side-by-side (1) the historic, Biblical, Reformed view and (2) the emerging, changing, broadening view held by an increasing number in our churches, regarding some basic matters. Even trying to set forth the issues in this way calls attention to a basic issue under dispute, the question whether there really is such a difference or “antithesis” as we are suggesting at all.

I. The Nature of the Problem: The Biblical Antithesis

(1) THE BIBLICAL, REFORMED VIEW: God directly and clearly reveals himself and shows that in opposition to Him the devil has initiated a revolt. As God continues His Self-revelation His truth is opposed to the devil’s lie, His right is opposed to the devil’s wrong. This “antithesis” is not a “foreign” intellectualistic import into the Christian faith from Greek sources, as has been alleged, but is the teaching of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. The Bible teaches us to understand history as the battle-ground between the Lord and the devil. 1 John especially stresses this antithesis between light and darkness, truth and the lie, in both faith and life (1 John 1:5, 6; 2:21, “no lie is of the truth”; 3:8 “To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil,” 4:1–6; 5:19–21, “. . . the whole world lieth in the evil one. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we know him that is true, and are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. My little children, guard yourselves from idols.”

(2) THE BROADENING VIEW: The notion of such a black or white distinction of true against false, right against wrong is antiquated and simplistic. It arises out of a mistaken, scholastic, intellectualistic, static notion of truth as something that can be fixed in words or propositions, which has today been discarded. In our time we understand truth as functional, dynamic, and relational (or “covenantal”), concerning action rather than words. Although God reveals Himself, that revelation is neither direct, clear nor complete; it is in process, and by no means limited to “Christians”; His truth is everywhere and we must learn from dialog with those of differing views, seeking as a “redemptive,” “healing,” “reconciling” community to cooperate wherever possible with others to seek the good of all.