 |
|
| Home | Current Issue | Print Article | Print Issue Policy | Narrow/Wide |
|
Volume 69,
Issue 1
Taking Heed to the Doctrine The Problem of Viewpoint Rev. Woudenberg is pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church of Kalamazoo, Michigan. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. It bothers me, for I have no wish to misrepresent anyone; but perhaps it is to be expected, and to a degree unavoidable. When one describes events of recent history, while some who participated in them are still living, and especially when they were on the opposite side in a matter of conflict, almost invariably what one says will bring the accusation of misrepresentation. And, to a degree, perhaps, this is always true. After all, we always see things from our own point of view; and God has given to none of us the full and perfect wisdom necessary for a complete understanding of even the most minute of matters. It is only over periods of time, if God will give us the grace to work with humility and perseverance that gradually we come to an appreciation of what He has brought about. But it does not come easily, and it does require a humble and honest effort, not only in reviewing one's own memory of what has transpired, but also in listening to that of others. Repeatedly one must lay out what he remembers and understands, and then listen to the response of those who, from a different viewpoint, can suggest another understanding of the matter. It requires Christian communication with others, if we are to continue to grow in an appreciation of that which God has privileged us to experience in His working with His church. Not only do the Scriptures instruct us to do this (as in passages such as Eph. 4:1-3 and Phil. 2:1-5), but we have also the example of the early Reformers. It is striking that, in spite of many and serious differences, they unceasingly continued to correspond back and forth in search of each other's opinions and advice in all kinds of matters both doctrinal and practical. It is something which we should never fail in our efforts to emulate. Differences will always be there, sometimes too great to allow us to work together in certain areas; but never is there a child of God in whom the Spirit dwells with whom we can not profitably communicate for one purpose or another, and especially so when they share with us a common love of the Reformed faith. Through the years I have tried to do that particularly, having grown to maturity myself through the controversy of the early fifties, with those who have experienced the same from other points of view. This includes those who participated in it as members, or former members of the Liberated churches. Not only have I read what material is accessible to me (and in recent years some most interesting publications have appeared regarding these matters, also in English);but I have tried at various points to search out and share viewpoints with such people both in our country and in Canada and Australia, always in an attempt to grasp the true nature of the breach that stands between us. Back in my Lynden days, for example, there were a number of such people whom I came to know. One couple, I remember well, had belonged to our congregation in Hamilton when it was first organized. With them we visited often; and I tried to gain a feeling for their view of what had transpired. And then there was the man who had carried on that correspondence with Prof. Holwerda which finally evoked the letter which was distributed among the immigrants in Canada, and then published by Rev. Ophoff. Many times we reviewed those days, and I have little question that his understanding of them differed little from mine. And, in time, he joined our churches again. In fact, if any recall the early articles in this series, they may well remember that they were written with the purpose of bringing out the area of agreement which we and the Liberated had in our disagreement with the followers of Abraham Kuyper, and the resultant attraction which we had toward each other. And still, all of this is said with no intent of claiming complete accuracy and objectivity for my self in these matters. All of these inquiries, no matter how extensive they may have been, could not be expected to compensate for the fact that I passed through the experience of those days as a member of the Protestant Reformed Churches. And from that point of view, for an understanding of the Liberated view of these matters, it would be better to hear from someone other than myself. But that is not to say that there is not a reason for and a value to the Protestant Reformed viewpoint being expressed once again on these matters. Those events which transpired affected the development of the Protestant Reformed Churches immensely; and there are now many who have since grown up with no direct memory of what took place and why. What happened to our little denomination in those days was a major disruption, sad and unexpected; and it did much to mold the nature of what we are now. But time has passed; and we have not spent as much time recalling them as might have been expected. The result is that many, if not most, have only a limited awareness of what those events were all about. It is primarily for them that I have been writing; and, as is to be expected, I write from the viewpoint of my own experience. But still, I was surprised, not so much that there were objections, but from where it came. I had expected them more, if they were to come, from those who left us and experienced them from the viewpoint of "the DeWolf group." Through the ensuing years I have tried to understand them as well; and I know that many of them see what happened quite differently than do we. Some of them, indeed, have returned to our churches (and for this we are happy); but, even for them, painful memories do remain. Others there are who have not returned; and they hold some very mixed feelings toward us and the history which divided our churches so deeply. Some indeed (and this is perhaps the saddest of all) have left sound Reformed principles to become among the most liberal of those with whom they have joined. Of us they seldom think; and for us they have little sympathy anymore. But there are others whose heart has never strayed far from the Reformed principles which once they shared with us, even though they have never found it possible to return to us again. For them, perhaps, the memory of those days is the most painful of all; and they simply do not see why the matters with which we were concerned could have been so important as to warrant the formulating of the Declaration of Principles, and finally the splitting of our churches as they did. For many, from the very beginning, it had always seemed that the conflict was little more than a question of terminology, a question of whether the word "condition" could have a proper use in Reformed theology or not. Back and forth the battle raged: can the covenant of God in any way be considered conditional, and/or are there any conditional elements within it? I can remember well the endless wrangling which went on over this, as though it were the only real thing which separated us from the Liberated. Dictionaries were brought out, definitions minutely examined, and old writings searched for some indication that the word "condition" can have some proper use in our theological language. If only this could be demonstrated, the reason for our differences would be taken out of the way; and for that proof endless searches were made. To this day there appear to be those who think that the problem that divided our churches was not deeper than that. But it was; and, once the historical framework has been laid out, I would like to try to get into that. As Rev. Ophoff tried to bring out at the time, words do have import, and one must be responsible, not just for what he wishes to say, but also for the thought conveyed by those words to others. And, as Rev. Hoeksema pointed out many times, there was something more basic and more important in that controversy than even that of 1924. But the call spoken of was not the only response we received. It was just a few days later that I received a letter concerning my articles. This was from a man who had been rather centrally involved in the controversy of that day. He left us when the separation came, but has continued to follow the progress of our churches ever since, and not without occasional expressions of approval. His expressions were generally appreciative of what I wrote (even if, I assume, he did not agree with me completely); but he had one suggestion. That was that this matter should be traced back several centuries in the history of the church. It is a worthy suggestion for, I too, have come to the realization that what we were debating in the early fifties was hardly a new question. It is something that has divided the churches, especially in England, practically from the time of the Reformation on. And, at least within the limits of my scholastic abilities, I would like to deal with that as well. |
|
| SEARCH STANDARD BEARER TEXT HERE Advanced Search Reset | ||
| BIBLE TEXT INDEX | ||