Rumour Round The College

Rev. Bill Deenick. Trowel & Sword. November 1974

Preamble: I must begin by declaring my own interest in the events described in the following article. I was a student at the RTC at the time that these events took place and was recorded in the minutes of a student meeting as the lone voice opposing an action by the students which sought to petition the Board of Directors regarding the teaching of Dr. Woudstra. Revisiting this article may well be seen by some as reopening old wounds, however this is not our intention. Its purpose is twofold. Firstly it is to remind us that the history of the CRCA, and by extension the RTC, has not always been plain sailing and that there have been many bumps along the way. More importantly, it is to remind us that the RTC does not belong the the CRCA but was set up as an independent institution for the training of men and women in the Reformed tradition; this being a first step in the eventual establishment of a Christian/Reformed University. In many ways it has also served as a model in the setting up of Christian schools around the country. (Bert)

Rumour Round The College

In the circle of its friends and supporters the Reformed Theological College is very much a topic of discussion and controversy at present; and not for the best of reasons. Many have asked questions; others have expressed concern and disappointment; some confess to being very angry.

The issue that has caused the commotion is a decision by the Board of Directors (BofD) to terminate the professorship of Dr. S. Woudstra. Dr. Woudstra has been loaned to the college by the Christian Reformed Board of Foreign Missions, and after having been in charge of the O.T. department since late 1972 he has been lecturing systematic theology since the beginning of this year. Since T&S has been in close fellowship with the college ever since its establishment it seems proper that we should comment on these events.

The BofD has published a statement on its decision, a copy of which the sessions and the individual members of the association will have received.

Before anything else, however, a few points should be made clear concerning the character of the college as an independent institution and concerning its relationship to the churches that co-operate in it.

1. The R.T.C. is an independent college; in fact it is the theological faculty of what is hoped to be in God’s time a Christian University. It was always meant to be independent. If the Australian Reformed Churches had wanted to establish a church-controlled seminary they could have tried, and might have succeeded, to do so. But they never did, and they never wanted it that way. The first president of the BofD. was a minister of the Reformed Presbyterian Church and from the start the principal of the College has been Prof. A. Barkley, also a minister in that church. The college always hoped to attract a wide range of students and when last year the (Free) Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia decided to co-operate within the RTC and use it as the institution for the training of its ministers we were happy not only because this would mean an expansion of the college community but also because we saw in it a further step forward in Reformed ecumenicity, i.e. in making the RES fellowship between the Reformed Presbyterian Church, the Free Church and the Reformed Churches more meaningful.

The reformed ecumenical character of the RTC has been an essential aspect of the institution from the very start. The men who originally established the college were not narrow minded men. They saw the vision of a reformed theological training centre that could serve the orthodox reformed and presbyterian community in this country.

It is clear from the more recent history of the college that the men now responsible for its direction are not prepared to deviate from that policy. It has been firmly established in the constitution and the college has been blessed that way.

Those in reformed circles who would want to reverse that direction and would prefer a nice little seminary of our own with half a dozen students and one or two professors whom we could press to our heart and call our very own, have the right to make a proposition to that effect in the councils of the church, and the church could then decide upon it; but they must be well aware of the consequences of such a policy. Other Reformed and Presbyterian Churches would have the right to do the same and soon we could boast of three to seven miniature seminaries in this country all claiming to represent the Reformed Faith. Our dividedness would be shamefully confirmed by it. The men who established the college never wanted that and T&S will never support it.

Naturally, co-operation in a college like the RTC means certain sacrifices but the measure of unity that we have in the college is worth these sacrifices.

That there is a place and a future for this type of co-operation and for this type of college is clear from experiences also in other parts of the world. Elsewhere in this issue we publish a few RES news items, that deserve to be taken note of, concerning the Westminster Seminary at Philadelphia and the Reformed Theological College at Jackson, Miss. (where Dr. G. VanGroningen works).

2. That the RTC is an independent college also means that we must respect the authority that the institution has in its own affairs. The men appointed to exercise that authority are bound by the constitution under which they have been appointed. In the matter of professorial appointments and doctrinal supervision the churches co-operating in the RTC have (through their synodically appointed deputies) certain rights, privileges and obligations, stipulated in the constitution; but the final decision rests with the BofD. It is quite out of the question that local sessions or individual members of the association could have a say in such appointments. The evaluation of a professor’s qualifications (academically and otherwise), of his place in and his contribution to the college and of his doctrinal standing within the RTC is not the responsibility of any local church or any individual. It is the responsibility of the BofD which receives advice from church representatives and from the faculty.

In Dr. Woudstra’s case this means that the final decision re his professorship at the RTC is no one’s responsibility but that of the board.

3. One more question comes up in this connection. How far reaches the validity of a pronouncement by the BofD concerning a man’s orthodoxy? Obviously it has validity within the context of the RTC, but in the church it cannot have any authority. Yet, a man’s reputation in the church could be severely damaged by it. He stands accused before his case has been dealt with properly in the councils of the church. It seems necessary then that at this point (as well as at others) the constitution of the RTC be looked into carefully.

The evaluation of the work of a professor or a lecturer is properly within the jurisdiction of the BofD; and many different aspects of his work, also its doctrinal aspect, will come up for examination. But the authority to make (and to publish) a verdict on a man’s orthodoxy can (it seems to me) never rest with a non-ecclesiastical body. The present board has acted wholly within the limits of the constitution, but the constitution may well need revision at this point.

As far as Dr. Woudstra is concerned good order and fairness require that the church holds him innocent until the church finds him guilty if it finds him guilty. In what manner the church should act in his case is to be decided upon by the classis of the Reformed Churches in Victoria.

4. In reformed circles the question has been asked what in the present circumstances has been left of the (Dutch) Reformed contribution to the college. At this point many feel deeply disappointed and some refer cynically to the RTC’s finances and properties as the only contribution still expected from their side.

Understandable as this reaction may be, it is not fair to ignore the fact that the real reason for our troubles is the theological confusion in which the (Dutch orientated) Reformed community finds itself. This is not the mistake of the Reformed Presbyterians or the Free Presbyterians but of the Reformed theologians (in the Dutch tradition) themselves. That the many and consistent efforts by the BofD to attract Reformed theologians, suited for a small college of the character of  the RTC and willing to come, have been so unsuccessful has most certainly not been the mistake of the board or of anyone else connected with the college.

At the invitation of the Christian Reformed Mission Board Dr. Woudstra was prepared to come and teach here. For them it was not an easy decision to make. For us it was an answer to prayer. That his teaching and his position at the college have run into the present difficulties is a distressing disappointment for all and every one in the RTC; but it is not unrelated to the general state of uncertainty in (Dutch orientated) Reformed theology, for which no one in the Presbyterian world can be blamed and in which we in Australia do not want to be involved.

5. On the personal level the whole affair has caused very deep discouragement and bewilderment to Dr. and Mrs. Woudstra. In different ways they have become the victims of mistakes made in the College community. All this is the more disappointing since Dr. Woudstra had come to love his work here; while in the church his person and his ministry found ready acceptance.

6. Can the difficulties still be solved without dividing the college or jeopardising its doctrinal integrity? In order to answer that question we would have to know all the details and circumstances. But that is not really our business. It is the board’s business.

The church’s business is to maintain its own doctrinal honesty and its unity; and, in this case, to see to it that justice is done to Dr. Woudstra re. his standing in the church.

Finally, through experiences like these we discover again that even with the best of intentions and with mutual love and respect we do not necessarily solve theological problems and that the welfare of a theological college is not safe in the hands of theologians, deputies or directors but only in the hand of God our Saviour.

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