Discussion On The Sunday

(Editorial Paragraphs)

Prof. K. Runia. Trowel & Sword. June 1966

Preamble: If we were able to ask Prof. Runia about it today he would probably admit that he was surprised by the depth and passion of Rev. Deenick’s response to his articles on “Sunday Observance and Sunday Labour”. Likewise, if we were able to talk to Bill about it he would probably have to admit that he didn’t actually address one of the initial and main points raised by Klaas; that being how to integrate the “traditional” view of the Sabbath, ie. as a day of rest and no work, with the demands of a modern society which cannot exist without a considerable proportion of the population working on the Sunday. Theology versus practicality.
Rev. J.W. Westendorp commented after we re-published the first of these articles that he still vividly remembered the discussions and debates (arguments?) triggered by these articles in family and church; and that was sixty years ago. Runia recognised the potential for all out war and wisely ended the debate; but there will always be questions relating to the interpretation of scripture where the only solution may be that we agree to disagree.

Discussion On The Sunday

After the Rev. J.W. Deenick has completed his series of articles on the Sunday, it seems better to close the discussion, at least for the time being. I do not believe it to be profitable for our churches, if I started a new discussion of the exegesis of the N.T. passages, as given by Mr. Deenick. Although I still believe that these passages require a different exegesis, I am quite happy to let the matter rest. Perhaps there are other means and ways to continue the discussion among the theologians. It would undoubtedly be more profitable for the churches, if after the completion on such a discussion they could be informed of the results.

It may be helpful, however, if I add a few general remarks.

In the first place I would like to state that, when I started this series of articles, I was under the impression that the SECTION OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION, dealing with the sabbath, WAS NOT YET BINDING on the New Zealand churches. This, of course, was a wrong impression. I am sorry that I did not check the matter in the Acts.The impression was due to the fact that before the last N.Z. Synod a lengthy report on Sunday observance was published in which the Westminster Confession view was defended. This led me to believe that it was still an open question. After the publication of my first articles the N.Z.Synod met and only then it became clear to me that I was mistaken. But at that time I had started already and I thought it better to finish the series than to break off half way. In addition, our Reformed position has always been that not the confession but Scripture is the FINAL authority. And in my articles I did nothing else than try to bring out what I regard to be doctrine of Scripture itself.

Of course, one could ask: Would it not have been better to bring the matter up by way of a gravamen? In general this is true. In this particular case, however, the matter is somewhat complicated, because as a minister of the Reformed Churches of Australia I am not in the same way bound to the Westminster Confession as the New Zealand office-bearers. The Australian Churches have accepted the Westminster Confession as an important and genuinely Reformed confession, but because of certain objections in details no office bearer is bound to it on those points, in which the Westminster Confession goes beyond the Belgic Confession. I may further point out that also in other cases sometimes a public discussion started before an official gravamen was lodged. Dr. Kuyper, e.g., openly criticised Art. 36 of the Belgic Confession, in its old formulation, long before it was changed at the 1905 Synod (cf. Chr. Encyclopedie, 2nd ed., Vol. I, p. 339).

Yet I personally do not think this is the best way and I wish wish to state publicly that, if I had known the exact situation on this point, I would not have started this discussion in Trowel and Sword.  Perhaps I may add, not as an excuse but as a clarification, that last year, when I attended a conference of the N.Z. ministers, we discussed the problem at length. At the end of the discussion I asked whether they could agree to my writing about it in Trowel and Sword. The unanimous reply was Yes. It is, after the reactions, quite obvious that there has been misunderstanding on either side. But it confirmed my impression that the matter was still open for discussion.

Prof. K. Runia.

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