Our Reformed Identity

TROWEL & SWORD

Prof Amy van Wijk

Our Reformed Identity

After the synod of the Reformed Church of South Africa (GKSA) in January 2009, to celebrate it’s 150th year, the GKSA hosted an international conference in Potchefstroom to focus on the subject of Reformed Identity in the world today. Together with other international visitors I was asked to deliver a paper on that subject as it related to the CRCA in Australia. The following article is the concluding paper by Prof. Amie van Wyk which was the summing up paper of the two day discussion. (Editor).

1. Introduction

It is truly a privilege to participate in the conference and to respond to the different presentations on our Reformed Identity (RI). It is always important to define and redefine the key features of our reformed tradition, to identify the new dangers and to discover the new challenges in an ever changing world society.

I start with an introductory remark and that is that I prefer to use the concept Christian Identity (and Christian Faith) instead of Reformed Identity (and Reformed Faith). The Dutch theologian AA van Ruler correctly said that “Christian” is my real name,” reformed” my nickname. This approach can be substantiated from our reformed confessions. The Heidelberg Catechism does not ask “what is necessary for a reformed person to believe?” or “why are you called a reformed person?”, but: “what is necessary for a Christian to believe?” (HC 7:22) and “why are you called a Christian?” (HC 12:32; see 31:85). This implies that our reformed confession itself puts the emphasis on our Christian Identity.

This does not implicate that our Reformed Identity is worthless, but it proposes (and presupposes) that we are reformed Christians, striving to be a public demonstration of authentic Christianity.
I therefore prefer to refer to Christian faith instead of reformed faith, although I have no objection to speak of our “reformed tradition” or “reformed identity”, as long as we view our Christian faith as the core of that identity.

This brings me to the issues at stake: what are the key features of our Reformed Identity, that is: our Reformed Christian Identity?

2. Key characteristics

Our RI is of course characterised by the five wellknown solisms of the Reformation of the sixteenth century, namely soli Deo Gloria, solo Christo, sola gratia, sola fide and sola Scriptura. It is almost obvious to take this route, but for this presentation
I have decided to explore another angle of incidence – although we can expect that many of the solisms will appear in some or other form.

The first characteristic mentioned by almost all participants during the conference is - what I would call - theocentricity. The Christian life is God centred.

God centred

Not just the concept of God, but God Himself, as a living and life giving Person, stands at the heart of our Reformed Identity. The question about God is far more important than the question about the church and the latter should never obscure or obstruct the way to God – which sometimes happens.

Calvin starts his Genevan Catechism with the question “what is the most important purpose of a human being’s life?” and he answers, “to get to know God, by whom man has been created.”

Reformed Identity is therefore unconditional, unreserved and unashamed theocentric. It is characterised by the credo soli Deo Gloria (or gloria Dei), with great emphasis on the idea of the sovereignty of God – although I have to add that this idea should be explored in a trinitarian perspective.

Because theocentrism, in a reformed perspective, always implies a trinitarian approach, therefore Patrology, Christology and Pneumatology form an inseparable unity. Reformed Identity deals with the Father and our creation, the Son and our redemption and the Holy Spirit and our sanctification (HC 8:24).

The Reformed Tradition accepts that although God revealed Himself in creation and more clearly in Scripture, his ultimate revelation takes place in and through Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1-2). Bavinck therefore correctly argues that although Christology is not the point of departure, it is the central point of the whole scope of dogmatics, that is to say of our Reformed Tradition. The confession of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ is of decisive significance for our Christian faith, the church, theology and our Reformed Identity. Without the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, God becomes an obscure and far away entity, unapproachable and inaccessible. Christology also helps us to connect the concept of the sovereignty of God with the kingship of Christ and to avoid a deterministic approach of God’s sovereignty.

The consequence of this approach is far-reaching. It implies that no part of Scripture could be correctly understood without relating it to Jesus Christ. It also implies that no ethical question could be resolved without the light of Christology. It is an open question whether the Reformed Tradition really avoided the pitfalls of an unchristological approach.

Bible based

A second characteristic of our RI is that it is (far more than the Catholic Identity) Bible based, which implies that the Bible is the source and norm for the church, theology and Christian life. Neither the order of nature, nor ecclesiastic decisions and traditions, nor the views of (even the greatest) church fathers, nor human reason, how important all these may be, have decisive significance for our RI. Sola Scriptura is one of the most important features of the Reformed Tradition.

Accompanying the idea of the sola Scriptura is the tota Scriptura, meaning that both Old and New Testament are viewed as the one Word of God, despite being revealed in two testaments which do not compete with or contradict each other, they rather complete each another. Van Ruler remarks that nowhere in Christianity does the Old Testament play such a distinctive role as in reformed theology.

This is only but one side of the coin, because there is also another – and very difficult – side, which can be described as the hermeneutical question. It is one thing to accept the authority of the Bible but something rather different to interpret this authoritative Word in a correct and responsible way. We know that many psychological, sociological, economical and political presuppositions co-determine our understanding of the Biblical message. We fully accept the claritas of Scriptures, but in many instances it is difficult to understand the Bible correctly in isolation without the insight of believers around the world and through the centuries (Eph 3:18). In this regard the reformed confessions can play an important role (as norma normata). And of course, the illumination by the Holy Spirit is indispensable here.

We must try to avoid at all cost a biblistic and simplistic interpretation of the Bible which ignores the different theological and social contexts and which quotes texts out of context. We have to take into account that the Bible is in the first place a book of faith (BC 7) and that it is a misuse when we use it as a handbook for different sciences. Therefore the ongoing discussion between ‘faith and science’, or more precisely between ‘theology as science’ and the ‘natural sciences’, should be welcomed and promoted. We strongly confess that it is the same God who revealed himself in creation and Scripture and that his (double) revelation cannot contradict itself.

Kingdom seeking

I now refer to a new notion which is lacking in most of the handbooks dealing with our RI. To tell the truth, this theme was not fully developed during the period of the Reformation of the sixteenth century although it was not totally absent. Even our reformed confessions do not often refer to it. What I have in mind is the notion of the kingdom of God.

It is a well known fact that the notion of the covenant plays an important role in the Reformed tradition, yes, nowhere else does the theme of the covenant play such an important role in theology as in the reformed theology (WD Jonker). But what about the kingdom of God? It is an open question in which either takes prominence in the Bible. When you investigate the Bible, you discover that the idea of the kingdom of God is of cardinal importance not only in the New Testament but also in the Old Testament. (I personally view the covenant as the inner configuration {“gestalte”} of the kingdom and the kingdom as the outer configuration of the covenant).

From the teaching and preaching of Jesus Christ it is clear that the theme of the coming of the kingdom of God is of essential importance. Over and over again He speaks of the kingdom and calls upon his followers to seek first the kingdom of God (Matt 6:33). Although the theme of the kingdom seems peripheral in the letters of Paul, we know from Luke that also for Paul the message of the kingdom was indispensable (Acts 28:31).

Bavinck is correct in saying that the kingdom of God should be seen as the essential content, the core and the purpose of the total world history. This implies that the church - as the people of God, the body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit – should be viewed from and placed within the perspective of the kingdom. Reformed Christians should not only be concerned with the true church (as opposed to the false church), but also with the true kingdom (as opposed to the false kingdom). This implies that time has passed to focus disproportionally on matters of internal church concern instead of the questions about God and the kingdom of God
(Eric Peels).

No Christian tradition can do without the eschatological perspective of the kingdom of God and a theology of hope. Eschatology keeps the world going.

Therefore the Reformed Tradition is a religion of the missio Dei, a tradition which preaches the Good News not only in the local congregation but also proclaiming it worldwide to all nations on earth – although it is open for discussion whether the Reformers of the sixteenth century displayed a great enough missiological clan.

(The question is unavoidable: why are the Pentescostal churches - whose numbers amount to approximately 650 million - the fastest growing Christian community in the world, much faster than the Reformed churches, not even reaching 100 million?)

The GKSA (Die Gereformeerde Kerke in Suid-Afrika) this year celebrate their 150th anniversary and the question to be answered is easy: were the GKSA instrumental in promoting the kingdom of God, yes or no? I leave the answer of the question in the hands of every member of the GKSA.

And of course, the same question applies to all reformed churches and Christians around the world.

Unity seeking

Although the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century implied a break with the Roman Catholic Church, it was never the intention of (say) Luther and Calvin to divide the church and to create disunity in the church. ‘Church division’ was not viewed as a biblical principle to be adhered to and to apply every now and then – a view found amongst many reformed Christians today. It was only after they had been thrown out of the church, as Calvin says, that they considered the formation of a new and true church.

The Reformed Tradition is anti-sectarian. Calvin himself had far-reaching ideas as far as the unity of the church was concerned. We know that he was prepared to cross ten oceans for the unity of the (reformed) church, namely to attend a reformed (ecumenical) synod as was visualized by Thomas Cranmer.

The RI strives to be an authentic expression of our Christian identity – we said earlier on. It is ecumenical in essence and structure.

In the words of Bavinck:

In no confession has ‘being Christian’ in its religious, ethical and theological character come so much to its right; nowhere has it been included so deep and broad, so spacious and free, so truly catholic than in the confession of the Reformed churches.

Van Ruler agrees: Reformed theology has succeeded in transmitting the Reformation to the furthest, and therefore has to be the most ecumenical form of Christianity.

The RI is shaped by the theologies of Augustine, Calvin and Bavinck, to mention only these three giants. Of course there were more, but I personally view them as the fathers of orthodox Christianity. Of the three, Augustine was the most ecumenical, as was Calvin, but Bavinck to a lesser degree. For Augustine disunity of the church (between Catholics and Donatists) was unacceptable and unbiblical. Calvin campaigned for the visible unity of especially the Protestant churches. Bavinck, although in the end he unwillingly accepted a plurality of churches, said the following:

It cannot be denied that the endless separation of the believers of Christ gives the world reason for joy and mockery, and is a cause for the world’s unbelief in the One sent by the Father, because they don’t see the unity of believers in Christ (John 17:21). We as Christians cannot abase ourselves enough because of the division and discord which has existed in the church of Christ through the ages. It is a sin against God, in contrast with the prayer of Christ and caused by the darkness of our reason and the lovelessness of our heart.

We as Christians cannot abase ourselves enough……What happened to Reformed Christianity that - what seems in total contradiction to the Biblical view on the unity of the church - had become acceptable, advisable and even unavoidable? What happened to us that we as Reformed Christians almost never yearn – and pray – for the unity and unification of the children of God and the believers of Christ? Didn’t we go astray in this regard, deviating far away from the prayer of Christ in John 17:21?

Are we aware of the great influence exercised by the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century on the Western mind, the influence namely of individualism and rationalism, and that it is precisely this mindset which undermines and destroys the unity of the church of Christ?

Let me clarify this point: when I refer to ‘unity’ I do not mean ‘uniformity’. In the one church of Christ there may be pluriformity, diversity and variety as can clearly be seen in the New Testament congregations. But it is a diversity-in-unity and a unity-in-diversity.

Context sensitive

Let me clarify these concepts right from the beginning. I make a distinction between contextuality and contextualism. In a contextual approach the Bible takes priority and penetrates and transforms the context, without being absorbed or demolished by it, as is the case in a contextualistic approach. In this way we avoid the danger of deriving the gospel from the context instead of bringing it to the context. The context, although an important factor, may never be the ultimate determining factor, which can only be the Word of God.

Nevertheless, the context is of great importance, for we practise theology and exist as a church of Christ not in a vacuum but in many different social, cultural, political, economical, ecological and religious contexts – as was clearly demonstrated by the different presentations at this conference.

Our approach as Reformed Christians, living in a predominantly plural society, whether Muslim or secular or atheistic, differs from Christians living in a country where traditional African religion is dominant. As Christians we still serve the same God, we preach the same gospel, we serve the same kingdom of God, but there is variation in expression and configuration of our Christain faith, liturgy and worship service.

We tackle contextual questions, in whatever shape or size they may appear, whether Marxism, Nazism, imperialism or apartism. We affirm that the church of Christ has been assigned the task of being a prophetic witness in society where human beings are mistreated, oppressed or murdered.

Having said that, the following questions arise:

• Why were Reformed churches and theologians in the Netherlands so quiet when Nazism under Hitler almost destroyed Europe – except for the courageous voice of Klaas Schilder?

• Why were Reformed churches and theologians in South Africa so silent – except for a few – when the whole world rejected apartheid as a crime against humanity?

• Was the protest of Reformed churches in the USA strong enough when president George Bush deployed his policy of neo-imperialism against Iraq, thus creating a grotesque crisis in world society? (Bush argued that he was called by God to invade Iraq.)

• Why are Reformed Christians in general so silent concerning the despotism exercised by president Mugabe and the humanitarian crisis that is taking place in Zimbabwe?

There are more examples. The world society experiences more and more of a tremendous energy and economic crisis while the natural resources are (mis-)used at a devastating rate. Consider in this regard also the immense pollution and destruction of the environment and it is clear that humanity – caught up in a mood of materialism and a culture of consumerism – is moving toward the abyss.

Why is there no protest from Reformed Christians in this regard? Didn’t we overemphasize the so-called culture mandate in Genesis 2:15 and have we forgotten that we are also caretakers of God’s world? We have a well-developed work ethic but lack a rest and take care ethic.

To protest against what is wrong in society, of course, may sometimes imply that we have to pay a price and that we should be willing to suffer for the sake of the truth, to sacrifice, to take up the cross and to follow Christ.

Praxis orientated

The Reformed Tradition always emphasised that orthodoxy and orthopraxy, doxa and praxis, doctrine and daily life, confession and action should form an inseparable unity. A Christian must practise what he/she preaches. As Christians we live an undivided life coram Deo in all spheres of life. This includes the praxis pietatis, but it is more than that. We are not (only) church-Christians, we are kingdom-Christians, serving God and humanity in every aspect of life – never forgetting that we are also caretakers of God’s creation.

Christians are the salt of the earth, light of the world and the yeast of society.

3. Conclusion

I conclude with a short summary of a few cardinal dangers of our Reformed Christian Identity as I see it.

In the first place there is the danger of materialism (or secularism). Money is the only idol referred to by Jesus Christ – as far as we know. Reformed churches existing in affluent societies always risk the danger of becoming fully self sufficient; God becomes more and more irrelevant; we entertain ourselves. We might also turn the gospel into a prosperity gospel to suit our own personal desires.

Secondly the danger of rationalism (or modernism) exists. We are not sufficiently aware of the fact that elements of rationalism silently crept into our Reformed Tradition and coloured it with intellectualism. Pure rationalism puts human reason at the centre of creation and rejects any form of revelation and metaphysics and therefore also the Bible as a true source of knowledge. This approach contradicts the very basis of our RI.

The third danger is relativism (or postmodernism). In contrast to the rationalism of modernism, postmodernism opts for relativism. There are no fixed single truths but rather many truths; no one way but many ways to God. Each religion offers its own way - Christ is no longer the only way. Religious pluralism is not just a fact but also a “truth”! It is clear that relativism undermines the essence of the Christian message.

In the fourth place dualism (i.e. a lack of integrity or authenticity) is another danger. We deny our Reformed Christian Identity when we confess one thing but practise something else. Christians should practise what they preach. Christians undermine the gospel message if their deeds contradict their words.

Fifthly there is the danger of syncretism, especially in the so-called younger churches in Africa and Asia. Young churches wrestle with the question of how, on the one hand, they should interpret and realise the gospel message in their specific context, while on the other hand staying true to the gospel message itself and not change it into a secular gospel.

I now close with the prayer of Paul for the Ephesians, a prayer also meant for all churches of Christ:

I pray to You, Father, that out of your glorious riches You may strengthen us with power through your Spirit in our inner being, so that Christ may dwell in our hearts through faith. I pray that we, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep the love of Christ is, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge – that we may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.

Now to You who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to your power, that is in work within us, to You be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.

(Ephesians 3:16-21).

All reports of problems and comments concerning this site: webmaster@trowelandsword.org.au

Privacy