The other day I was talking to one of the committee members which authored the “Contemporary Testimony.” I was mentioning the fact that I thought the document was quite bland and general in many respects, and that it Jacked specificity and conciseness in confessing our biblical faith. His answer was revealing: “If we make it too specific, it will be outdated in ten years.” My response was that that was now precisely the major problem with this entire document. It makes all kinds of questionable and controversial statements, many of which reflect the spirit of the age in which we live, and that is precisely why they will be outdated in ten years. A good confessional document (like we have in our Three Forms of Unity) does not become outdated in ten years! I mentioned the fact that the Canons of Dort were as relevant today as they were when they were written. The same can be said of the Heidelberg Catechism. The reason is obvious: These documents reflect biblical teaching; they confess—that is, they “say the same things” as the Scriptures. That is why they are enduring, timeless.

But what we’re trying to do in this Contemporary Testimony is zero in on all kinds of problematics with which we’re faced today in society, without a clear direction as to which way we should go. The world sets the agenda, one might say, not the Bible . And that is putting the cart before the horse.

I maintain that the biblical principles with which we are to face society are fairly well spelled out in our present creeds , and they give us the basis from which we can proceed to analyze and answer the problems facing us today. The principles may have to be applied differently at different

times in history, but the principles remain valid. And the confessions must deal with basic principles, not with the latest fads or with symptoms. Matters such as the arms race, environmental pollution, multinational corporations, etc. not only have no place in church confession, but they can be tackled on the basis of that which we already confess in our present creeds. (Think of Belgic Confession Arts. 12 & 13; the Heidelberg Catechism L.D. 10, 12 & 42. e.g.).

If the enthusiasm which some in our circles appear to have for the Contemporary Testimony were matched by an equal enthusiasm for our present creeds, it might not be so bad. But I don’t see much o f that: the Three Forms of Unity are often treated with apathy and a shrug of the shoulders. And that worries me not a little.