Many of our readers will recall that there is also pending before the GKN the case of Dr. H. Wiersinga. The latter, in a doctoral dissertation approved by the Theological Faculty of the Free University, openly and blatantly contradicted the Reformed view of the atonement and of reconciliation.
A preliminary decision in that case: was reached early in 1972. On this we reported in Vol. 48, pp. 338-341. We characterized that decision as a Laodicean decision. It was another one of those delay-and-dialogue decisions.
Perhaps you will recall that part of that decision also was “To appoint a committee which shall speak with Dr. Wiersinga for the purpose of coming to more clarity concerning his views and to seek a solution for the problems which are raised in the church by his publications and by the protests filed on account of them.” Further, the Synod decided to request “Dr. H. Wiersinga to declare himself ready to conduct the discussion about his published objections against the confessions with this committee, in the expectation that during this discussion Dr. H. Wiersinga and all concerned will preserve the pastorally required reserve and self-control.”
Now the Wiersinga case is following the pattern of the Kuitert case, i.e., delay and dialogue.
In the same issue of RES News Exchange which reported on the Kuitert case there appears this item: “The commission reported that it had not had sufficient time to complete its work and that if it would report at the present time it would contribute to a ‘blurring of the existing problematics.’ ” The news item continues: “The Synod noted with appreciation that progress had been made in reaching clarity in regard to Dr. Wiersinga’s view and appointed a commission for continuing consultation with him. The commission will report to the next session of the Synod which will convene in May 1973.”
Anyone who trusts that anything good will come out of this case is trusting in a broken staff!
Can the GKN which tolerate Kuitert refuse to tolerate Wiersinga?
And will Wiersinga show any more inclination to forsake his new theology than did Kuitert?
We think not.
And we think that the handwriting is on the wall!