Nonsensical “Interpretation”
J . Tuininga
Synod of 83 decided with respect to the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands that pulpit fellow ship and intercommunion “no longer apply, except at the discretion of the local consistories.” That is, to my way of thinking, the very least synod could have done, and a step that was long overdue.
One stands amazed time and again at the evidence of what I would call a spirit of stupor among many of the leaders in the GKN. The RES Theological Forum of March 83 contains a sample of that. This Forum dealt with the topic of discipline in a number of churches who are members of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod, including the GKN. Rev. P.J. Schravendeel writes for the GKN. Though he admits that “in the last half century the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands have in large measure become an open church,” he nevertheless reduces the doctrinal and ethical controversies in his churches to a difference in interpretation. He says: “During the last 10 to 15 years the GKN has repeatedly been confronted with the fact that all their members and office–bearers accept the Holy Scripture as the authoritative Word of God but sometimes differ greatly concerning how this authoritative Word must be understood and what the results of it are” In his evaluation of the various contributions to the Forum, Prof . emeritus J. Plomp of the GKN Theological College at Kampen, writes in much the same vein. He says: “The more open posture of the GKN in recent decades does not necessarily lead to a violation or denial of truth. This may be seen in the treatment and resolution of the socalled Dr. H. Wiersinga case on the synodical level.” Earlier Plomp had written that when a minister of the Word at a significant point of doctrine evidently contravenes Holy Scripture and thereby violates the unity of faith and confession, then suspension and/or deposition are in order. Yet Wiersinga has never been suspended or deposed to my knowledge, and continues teaching students preparing for the ministry. Apparently Wiersinga has not contravened Holy Scripture at a significant point, though the synod did say that his views were “inadmissible.”
I must honestly say that I have great difficulty understanding how leaders in the GKN can talk that way, and , what is more, I get very impatient with that kind of talk. The differences in the GKN are not just a matter of interpretation, but have to do with the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God. And men like Kuitert, Wiersinga, etc. have contravened the Confession of the church at fundamental points. These matters concern cardinal teachings of the Bible. It is time that all the leaders in the GKN wake up and see that.
More Relativism
J. Tuininga
When professors at our universities and some preachers in the pulpit no longer have an absolute standard of truth by which to judge right and wrong, it is little wonder that other leaders in society follow suit. Many are products of the universities themselves.
I was watching the program “The Journal” on the CBC. Interviewer Barbara Fromm was questioning the Hon. Mark MacQuigan, Canada’s minister of Justice, about the laws concerning abortion. Fromm was clearly a n advocate for changing the present law in order to make it easier for women to obtain abortions. MacQuigan, on the other hand, wanted to maintain the present law.
What struck me, however, was not the position each one held on the issue, but the basis on which they defended them. That basis was simply popular opinion. Fromm argued that since 70% of the populace favored relaxing the abortion law, the Justice Minister should implement such change. MacQuigan argued that the poll on which Fromm based her argument was not an accurate one, and he cited another poll to the effect that the majority of Canadians were against any further concessions toward abortion-on-demand. And so it went, back and forth. Only toward the end of the intervi ew did Fromm mention something about women’s rights being violated (an absolutely absurb argument), to which MacQuigan replied that some people believed the fetus was a human being and also had rights.
And that was the end of the program. Once again, pure relativism! No principal discussion of the issues at all. No understanding of what constitutes right and wrong or of what “human rights” are. One then wishes for an opportunity to interrupt in order to ask a few basic questions and to impart a few elementary gems of biblical wisdom.
One would like to ask, “Should laws concerning murder and stealing be based on popular opinion too?” Or, “What if the majority of Canadians wanted no traffic laws at all? Should the government give its consent? Are laws just as changeable and flexible as public opinion? What makes a law valid? Who is the real LawGiver?”
Religious questions, in the final analysis. As are all questions about human existence. The participants were simply revealing the bankruptcy of humanism which has long plagued western society.
And with blind leaders of the blind, will not all fall into the ditch! We do well to take to heart the prophetic words of the late Groen Van Prinsterer, found in his book Unbelief and Revolution:
What I have tried to demonstrate is that the principle of unbelief—the sovereignty of reason and the sovereignty of the people—must end, while proclaiming Liberty, either in radicalism or in despotism: in the disintegration of society or in the tyranny of a state in which all things are levelled without any regard to true liberties and true rights.
Elsewhere he wrote: “I am not afraid of the acute sickness of democracy; . . . I am afraid of the chronic illness of liberalism. It is not violent overthrow but gradual subversion that I fear.” How true that is. We see it all around us. As F.J. Stahl, a contemporary of Groen wrote: Popular sovereignty “is the pivotal error of the Revolution, for upon it rests its basic premise: that the fountain and standard of law is the will of man and not the world order of God.”