The RTC And Its Theological Climate

Rev. J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword, July 1977.

Preamble: From time to time one of the criticisms of T&S was that it tended to be a magazine written by ministers for ministers. Some would say that the following article is an example of that and to some degree they would be correct. But it is also true that what is taught at RTC eventually affects in some way every member of the Reformed Churches of Australia and New Zealand. What is equally important for the health of RTC and by extension the Churches is that there is a constant appraisal being carried out by competent, experienced and qualified “independent” assessors to ensure that the college does not stray from its core values. Just as “bracket creep” can cause increased taxation by stealth, “theology creep” can result in a gradual decline in theological standards if careful vigilance is not exercised.

The RTC and its Theological Climate

For some time now and from close quarters I have been an interested and sympathetic observer of the work done and the theological instruction given at the RTC; and I am not sure that I am altogether happy with what I see. Since the association which maintains the college seeks and receives the most loyal support of many T&S readers as association members, and since the Reformed Churches are vitally interested in the kind of training for the ministry that the RTC offers it seems proper, and very much in the interest of the College itself, that this matter becomes a subject of public discussion.

The question could be raised (and quite legitimately, I think) whether in a time like ours, in which we are confronted with so many issues of much greater importance, the theological direction of a small college like the RTC is worth quarrelling about. Yet, if it is worth having the College and supporting it with many sacrifices it must have some value to think about the theological climate prevailing there.

THE PROBLEM 

The main problem, as I see it, is that the theological faculty at the RTC is moving away distinctly from the theological climate of what I would like to call the continental Reformed Church and is moving much more exclusively in the direction of orthodox presbyterianism; and I deplore that.

I realise that I have to explain what I mean with that distinction and I will try to do that.

With orthodox presbyterianism I do not refer to any particular church or to any particular theological seminary. My interest is theologies, not people. With orthodox presbyterianism then I have in mind that section of the Presbyterian Church that desires to be loyal to the Westminster confessional statements and that for its (systematic) theology has leaned rather heavily on men like A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield, and more recently on men like John Murray and E.J. Young.

When, in distinction of – not in contrast to – orthodox presbyterianism, I refer to continental Reformed theology I have in mind that section of Reformed protestantism particularly in Europe and the USA that in loyalty to the confessional standards of the Reformation looked upon Herman Bavinck as its systematic theologian and that in later years has been influenced theologically by men like S.G. deGraaf, K. Schilder, Herman Ridderbos and G.C. Berkouwer (even if not all his later publications were welcomed with equal and undivided enthusiasm); and in matters of philosophy by men like Vollenhoven and Zuidema.

Ever since I came to New Zealand in 1952 I have observed orthodox presbyterianism with considerable and sympathetic interest and have compared it with what I had experienced until then (and later) in the continental Reformed tradition. I have always felt that while the two traditions were in agreement on the basic issues there was still a marked difference in theological approach. I have always considered a man like E.J. Young to differ distinctly from Herman Ridderbos. I found John Murray’s Principles of Conduct to have very little in common with e.g. A. Troost’s propositions on Christian ethics, and I feel that the theological climate in which men like C. Veenhof, Calvin Seerveld and R.H. Bremmer live differs markedly from that in which Jay E. Adams and John Frame move. 

Where I precisely see the difference is another question, and I hope to come back to that, but I doubt whether anyone could deny the difference. A simple comparison of e.g. G.I. Williamson’s treatment of the Westminster Confession in study lessons with e.g. Gordon J. Spykman’s Christian Faith in Focus could illustrate that further; as could a comparison of Jack Postma’s meditations in T&S with certain sermons in Word of Salvation.

All of this may not be so immediately obvious to the average Reformed and Presbyterian churchgoer, but a somewhat closer observation over a longer period of time usually makes it much clearer. It is not a matter of orthodoxy or of confessional loyalty. That does not really come into it. Both in the Presbyterian and in the Reformed community we have had (and we still have) our problems on that score. But that is not what am referring to. Since the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKN) allow for more doctrinal liberty in their circle and since the Christian Reformed Church in the USA has left a number of questions (round the doctrines of Holy Scripture, the Church and Election/Reprobation) unclarified, things have naturally become somewhat more complicated church wise; but the Presbyterian world has not been free from such problems either and a more careful analysis of orthodox presbyterian church life in Scotland, Ireland and the USA leads to its own surprises.

In our own circle the cases of Dr. J.A. Schep and of Dr. S. Woudstra naturally come to mind in this context. Both Dr. Schep and Dr. Woudstra believed that in their case one could speak only of a difference in theological approach within the confessional and orthodox framework. Classis Victoria (very much in the firing line) supported Dr. Woudstra in this, but not Dr. Schep; while others, among whom the RTC authorities and this commentator, believed that also in Dr. Woudstra’s case the confessional integrity of the College was at stake. But we do not have to go into this now. Dr. Schep has gone to be with the Lord and Dr. Woudstra will soon leave us and return to the USA. We hope that never such problems will arise for him again.

But there is a lesson to be learned from Dr. Woudstra’s welcome within the Reformed community. When controversial issues were avoided Dr. Woudstra obviously represented a spiritual climate, an atmosphere in church-life, in preaching and in teaching with which many Reformed people in Australia and New Zealand could easily identify. His New Zealand tour at the time was a decided success and in Australia as well as in New Zealand his contact with many of the rank and file was natural and cordial.

This, of course, works both ways. The man of orthodox presbyterian convictions will find a more natural and easy welcome in congenious (sic) surroundings. But one thing I have noticed both in the church and at the College is that the continental Reformed climate has been much more open to the orthodox presbyterian contribution than the other way round. Reformed Church pulpits and the Reformed Church ministry have not only welcomed but have actively sought the assistance of orthodox presbyterian men. Yet, not many Reformed men without orthodox presbyterian credentials made the grade of being invited to the pulpits of the orthodox presbyterianism. But more about this later.

THE DIFFERENCE 

Coming to what see as the difference between the two approaches I would like to single out a few areas of difference that have interested me more particularly.

a). First of all I have found orthodox presbyterianism generally much more traditional in its orthodoxy, and much less imaginative in its systematic theology. Historically this is quite understandable. Orthodox presbyterianism had to concentrate on holding the fort of the traditional biblical truths; and particularly in the USA they often did that in unison with fundamentalist theologians. But this has hindered orthodox presbyterianism in critically examining its own theological heritage and in developing new ways of presenting the orthodox truth systematically. The fact that Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology (already dated when it was first published in 1938; like in the Netherlands A.G. Honig’s Manual of Reformed Dogmatics, also published in 1938) had to be reprinted so many times (Honig’s was never reprinted) reflects unfavourably on orthodox presbyterianism in the English speaking world.

In comparison with what I saw happen in Reformed circles at the time I have found orthodox presbyterianism unimaginative in its systematic theology. I refer to the penetrating questioning to which K. Schilder subjected all the dignified scholastic distinctions that Reformed theology had borrowed from the Roman Catholic past; to his crusade against subjectivism in Reformed theology; to S.G. deGraaf’s masterly renewal of the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace and to the way he used this insight in his sermons and in his “Verbondsgeschiedenis” (sic); to Vollenhoven’s critical examination of the philosophical background of certain theological positions that until then had been unquestionably accepted.

I hope that I am not unfair when in distinction I compare orthodox presbyterian theology with a stately old mansion kept in perfect condition with all the antique furniture still in place and neatly polished but not really so very functional anymore. In orthodox presbyterianism all the old (pre-reformational) theological distinctions (between the natural versus the supra-natural; the common versus the particular; the external versus the internal; the communicable versus the incommunicable) still seem to be important.

b). Another point at which I have found orthodox presbyterianism to differ markedly from the continental tradition is in its use of Holy Scripture; I mean the use of Holy Scripture to prove a point of doctrine or of morality, and the way in which Holy Scripture is introduced to give answers to present day problems. For every problem there seems to be a text.

A somewhat frightening example of this is Jay E. Adams. His appeal to James 5:14 (in Competent to Counsel: 105ff) could serve as an example. He does there what biblicism in the past used to do; he introduces James for the purpose of answering a few typically twentieth century questions. He finds in that text that “James clearly recognises two sources of sickness, one organic and one non-organic” and “if the cause (of the sickness) is otherwise unknown – and perhaps even in the case of some known causes – James directed that when the patient discusses his sickness with the elders and prayer is made the possibility of sickness as the result of sin ought to be discussed”. Doctors and parsons take note. James has it all worked out for you. The first thing to be done in the case of the next illness in your church is to make a divinely ordained distinction between organic and non-organic sicknesses; and if the cause has been found to be non-organic the doctor departs and the counsellor takes over. This manner of appeal to Scripture is foreign to the Reformed theology that I have learned to love.

Another example of this we found in a recent issue of T&S in a letter to the editor, March ’77. In it Dr. Noel Weeks introduces Job 38:33 for the purpose of answering once again a typically twentieth century question. The question was: do we come to know any of God’s laws (by which He in His providence governs the creation) from the study of nature? Is it possible for a Christian scientist to discover (through his scientific research) any of the laws that God has “built in” in the creation? To answer that question Dr. Weeks appeals to what God said to Job: “Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?” Job’s answer is: No. Job did not know the ordinances of the heavens. Q.e.d. (sic) God Himself says that we cannot know his laws and ordinances. The creation reveals God’s character, not His laws. And so a scholastic distinction between the knowledge of God’s character (which is possible) and the knowledge of God’s laws (which is impossible) has received divine sanction. What interests me at present is not so much the distinction itself (which I cannot accept as correct, but hope to come back to that) but the use of Scripture to sanction it. Schilder and Berkouwer, I would have hoped, could have taught us that only after the most careful analysis of Scripture may we trust to have a “proof text”.

One more example. G.I. Williamson in his treatment of the issue of marriage and divorce uses 1 Cor. 7:15 in an interesting way; The Westminster Confession of Faith, for study classes, 185f. As Williamson sees it the NT permits divorce only on the ground of adultery; except that Paul permits divorce in case an unbelieving party wilfully deserts a believing party. What interests me here Williamson’s implied criticism of the Westminster Confession with the help of a “proof text”. The Westminster fathers obviously allow for the possibility of divorce in case of wilful and irreparable desertion, irrespective of the parties being believing or unbelieving. But Williamson can not agree with that. He has no text for it. He has a text only for the case of an unbelieving party deserting a believing party, I Cor. 7:15. And so we find another distinction (between two kinds of desertion) divinely sanctioned. The difficulty in the courts of the church and the state will be to give conclusive evidence concerning the parties being believing or unbelieving. The Westminster theologians avoided that dilemma.

In my experience this manner of using the Word of God could no longer pass as valid in Reformed circles.

c). There are, however, several other points at which I believe to have observed a marked difference between the two traditions. Very briefly I mention two more. One is the approach to the sermon.

The redemptive historical approach to the sermon never seems to have made a noticeable impact among orthodox presbyterians. From my reading of sermons I learn that there continues to be a decided tendency to be doctrinal in the exposition and, what I would call, moralistic, sometimes subjectivistic, in the application. I am not disputing that many excellent sermons are preached in orthodox presbyterian circles. We all know that there are. But there is a different approach. Often this is already obvious from the choice of the text; and the road from the text to the application is an uncomplicated one. In fact often the text seems to have been chosen for the very purpose of providing a direct answer to a present day problem, be it a moral or a doctrinal one.

It is not untypical that in 1958 Charles Hodge’s Princeton Sermons have been republished, introduced by John Murray. I find Hodge’s sermons a disturbing example of how one should not use a text. Since the RTC is there also to train preachers it seems to me to be a point of considerable importance to the churches that the continental Reformed contribution to homiletics be represented on the theological faculty.

d). One final point. Orthodox presbyterianism seems to have been so involved in the defence of its doctrinal heritage that its interest (and involvement) in the great social and political issues of the day has been extremely limited. In fact it seems as if the liberal wing of presbyterianism has been more alert to maintaining this aspect of the great presbyterian past than the conservatives have. At this point too, the continental Reformed climate has been markedly different.

CONCLUSION

1). But I must come to my conclusions. In the above I have referred to a few individual authors to make my point, but the issue is not persons or nationalities. Theologies are the issue.

11). Since the retirement of Dr. J.A. Schep and the departure of Dr. G. VanGroningen and Dr. K. Runia the balance in the theological climate at the RTC has changed distinctly. At the time others in their position and responsibility and this commentator as synodical deputy repeatedly expressed their concern about this to the principal and the other faculty members. We never seem to have been understood. And so today I am more concerned about the future appointment policy at the College than I have been before.

111). I am being told now that the distinction I have made above is no longer valid; that we have passed that stage and that since we all are now reading the same books we have come to the point that largely we all present the same theology.

I do not believe a word of it. Nor would I want it to be true. The men appointed at the theological faculty of the RTC have been appointed as the men they were with the theology they had, and no one expected them to change their views. Every one is expected to make his own contribution. But what I express my concern about is that at present the voice of the continental Reformed theology that I love and for which I see a great future is not really represented on the faculty.

IV). Since Dr. Van Groningen and Dr. Runia left, the faculty has often been frightfully weak in manpower. Yet never at any time has the Reformed ministry been called upon to assist at the College in a meaningful way.

I think of two possibilities in particular which as synodical deputy I repeatedly urged upon the remaining members of the faculty. The Rev. J.F.H. vanderBom whose outstanding qualifications and experience in the field of homiletics and pastoral work have no peer at the RTC has never been invited to a meaningful participation in the training program at the College. There would have been a variety of ways in which this could have been done.

The same is true about the Rev. A.I. deGraaf whose theological talent and enthusiasm would have been (and still would be) a much needed inspiration at the College, but who never seemed to qualify for a worthwhile part in the program.

V). The thing for which I am pleading is that in the appointments policy at the theological faculty of the RTC the theology which has its roots in the Netherlands (mainly) be accorded the same courtesy as which it offered. Orthodox presbyterianism has been given a royal place at the College, and no one ever complained about it. That courtesy should be returned.

For the welfare of the Australian Reformed Churches, for its preaching, its evangelism and its involvement in the issues of the day I believe this to be essential. I do not believe that the RTC constituency, or for that matter the Australian Reformed Churches, will be satisfied with any less.

BILL DEENICK

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com