Clarification on ‘Freedom to Differ’

TROWEL & SWORD

Rev. Andre van Oudtshoorn

This item is linked to the following items:
'Freedom to Differ' - T&S August 2009

I thank Rev. Geluk and Rev. Esselbrugge for their critical response to my article. They seem to take umbrage at my plea for the theological freedom to continually and critically revise our theological doctrines in the light of further reflection on the Word of God. With so much liberal and even anti-Christian theology emanating from theological institutions operating under the banner of ‘academic freedom’, their concern is both reasonable and understandable.

Being aware of the possible dangers inherent in my position, however, does not relieve us of the problem of how we can maintain the ultimate authority of the Word of God over against our theological truths.

I believe that the Confessions of the Christian Reformed Churches of Australia are intrinsic to its identity and agree that they should only be changed via gravamen (a prescribed process of bringing a grievance against a particular teaching of the confessions – a number of these have been agenda items at past synods of the CRCA).

The church, however, has always held its doctrines to count for ‘less’ than the absolute truth of Scripture – that is why we have not expanded the Bible to include them in it. The doctrines of the church are seen to be the result of sinful human interaction with the Word of God. This is the reason why a church of the Reformation is called to continually reform itself in the light of the Word of God. To do so, however, we need some kind of theological forum in which new theological insights can be discussed and our old theological doctrines be reviewed in the light of Scripture - without the suspicion that those participating in the discussion are heretical. At the moment any challenge to our doctrines always comes from ‘without’ and those on the ‘inside’ are only expected to defend the Reformed truth against such ‘attacks’. However, if we truly believe that ‘all men are liars’ we need to be as suspicious of our own theological theories - and those of our forefathers - as we are of the theological beliefs of others. Without the opportunity for theologians who subscribe to the church’s beliefs to help the church examine its own theology in the light of the Word of God we are in practice, if not in theory, denying the supremacy of the Word of God as the only final truth in the church. Theological truths that cannot be questioned by the Word of God quickly become ideologies and their proclamation nothing more than propaganda and indoctrination.

To put it somewhat more technically: We acknowledge that the church’s doctrines are not absolutely true, for we believe this attribute only belongs to the Bible. Does this, however, imply that the doctrines are therefore, by definition, false? The terms ‘true’ and ‘false’ seem to be misleading in this context because they are mutually exclusive terms – if something is not true it must be false. The doctrines of the church obviously belong to a different set of truths. We can say that we believe the church’s doctrines to be true (while acknowledging that they may, in time, be shown to have been in error or contain certain errors – for this very reason the church has always provided for a process of grievance (gravamen) concerning the confessions). Such truths, whose truth value is based on how much we believe them to be in agreement with Scripture, may be called ‘second order’ or ‘dependent’ truths. They are true because we believe them to be true. This is in contrast to the Word of God which exists as a first order, self authenticating truth - it is and remains true whether we believe it or not and it proves itself to be true through the working of the Holy Spirit in and through it. We believe in the Word of God because it is true. In the case of second order truths the need for reflection and discussion on why we believe them to be true, is paramount. Their truth value can never be taken for granted but must always be open to testing in the light of the only absolute truth – the Word of God.

Second order truths can convey more or less of the Absolute Truth of the Word of God. If we approach theology in this way, it will allow us to engage more humbly with those who disagree with us. We will not act as if all our doctrines are absolutely right and those who disagree with us must therefore be completely false. We will, instead, enthusiastically enter into a discussion with others to see if there are other ways of ‘seeing’ the truth that may more accurately reflect the message of Scripture. We may conclude that our existing doctrines reflect more of the Biblical truth than any of the alternative views, but we will not always necessarily depict these alternative positions as false, sometimes we may be able to see they are only less adequate for such and such reasons.

There are obviously some second order truths that the church believes so clearly depict the Biblical truth that to deny them is to deny the gospel and salvation. I have termed such truths ‘core confessions’ and I have argued in my article that they should be as few as possible – something like the Apostles' Creed. That Jesus died for our sin and was raised on the third day is obviously a more definitive and important Biblical statement than Calvin’s assertion within the context of divine election that God creates certain babies for the express purpose of casting them into hell!

I do not believe that I have propounded
a new and dangerous theory in my article.
I have simply restated what the church has always believed about its theological truths. I believe that what I wrote is important for the church to maintain or regain its calling to ‘do’ theology in humility, instead of simply ‘learning’ theological truths that we unquestioningly consider to be completely right against all others who disagree with us. Sola Scriptura!

Rev Andre van Oudtshoorn

The process of a gravamen

And if hereafter any difficulties or different sentiments respecting the aforesaid doctrines should arise in our minds, we promise that we will neither publicly nor privately propose, teach or defend the same, either by preaching or by writing, until we have first revealed such sentiments to the Session, Classis or Synod, that the same may there be examined, being ready always cheerfully to submit to the judgment of the Session, Classis or Synod under the penalty, in the case of refusal, of being by that very fact suspended from our office.

And further, if at any time the Session, Classis, or Synod, upon sufficient grounds of suspicion and to preserve the uniformity and purity of doctrine, may deem it proper to require of us a further explanation respecting any particular article of the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort or the Westminster Confession of Faith, we do hereby promise to be always willing and ready to comply with such requisition under the penalty above mentioned, reserving for ourselves, however, the right of appeal in the case we should believe ourselves to be aggrieved by the sentence of the Session or the Classis; and until a decision is made upon such an appeal, we will acquiesce in the determination and judgment already passed.

(Excerpt from the Form of Subscription)

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

Privacy