The Symbolic and Sacramental Reading of the Bible – Sacral or Sacrilege?[1]

By Chris van Wyk

2015

Abstract

When Jeremiah grappled in the sixth century BC with his calling to announce the exile of his people, the Lord gave him insight into their apostasy. The Lord was carefully listening to what his people were saying and responded like this: “How can you say, “We are wise! We have the law of the Lord”? The truth is those who teach it have used their writings to make it say what it does not really mean.” (Jeremiah 8:8 NET)

I think this was also the case when in 2015 the Dutch Reformed Church’s general synod approved a report of the Commission for Theology and Current Affairs (ATLAS) named “Our Christian Faith and Science” (Ons Christelike geloof en die wetenskap, p 267-287) [2]. The report was hailed by the Commission and the general synod as the pinnacle of the development of a sound hermeneutic for Reformed Theology in South Africa. Synods were encouraged to give financial and logistical support to spread the content of this report: “to articulate the DR Church’s perspective on the relationship between our Christian faith and science.” (Agenda 16de Algemene Sinode 2015, p 253) However, this report explicitly denigrated an empirical and rational reading in favour of a symbolic and sacramental reading of the Bible on the premise that this method is the only way readers can find the “divine” in the text. To read the Confessions of the Church or even the Bible with empirical and rational categories is to “do the text an injustice” in their view (Ons Christelike geloof en die wetenskap, p 286).

This paper therefore holds up a mirror to the elevation of that hermeneutic above other ways of reading the text. It asks the question: “Does the symbolic and sacramental reading of the Bible give one access to the sacred in the text or is it rather a sacrilege (“heiligskennis”)?” And answer the question in the words of Jeremiah: “The truth is those who teach it have used their writings to make it say what it does not really mean.”

Symbolic and sacramental reading

There are basically two ways of sacramental reading, with the reading of the general synod a problematic third.

1. The one type of sacramental reading is when the focus is on what the Bible and the Confessions teach on the sacraments themselves. The focus in this type of reading is on the grace of God that becomes visible and real in the experience of the sacraments in the community of faith.

2. The other type of sacramental reading of the Bible and the Confessions focuses on a broader application of sacramental theology where Scripture itself is read in the conscious recognition that God is present in the words of Scripture as can especially be seen inter alia in the works of Prof Hans Boersma[3], the J.I. Packer Professor of Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia. He says: “To speak of a sacramental hermeneutic, therefore, is to allude to the recognition of the real presence of the new Christ-reality hidden within the outward sacrament of the biblical text.” (Boersma, p 12-13) But, importantly, the historical and literary dimensions of the text are still taken as real and in correspondence to reality, that facilitate the real, one can even call it the sacral, presence of Christ Himself. More on that later.

3. This is however not the way the general synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in 2015 understood a sacramental reading of Scripture. For them a sacramental reading moves beyond the historical and literary dimensions of the text. From a scientific perspective the text should not be read with empirical and rational categories. This is thus a third type of sacramental reading – in my view a very problematic reading – where the text is read symbolical and sacramentally without trying to ascertain the empirical or rational significance of the text, because doing so would in their view be an injustice: “’n onreg wat die teks aangedoen word” (Ons Christelike geloof en die wetenskap, p 286). Reading like this would still give you access to the divine presence in the text. However, the significance of that would not be empirical or rational in content. It would only be a sort of consciousness of God, much like the father of liberalism, Friedrich Schleiermacher, described the “feeling of absolute dependence” (Schleiermacher, p xvii) that faith embraces and is common to all religions.

“Our Christian Faith and Science” report

This version of sacramental reading is ostensibly based on the work of Dr Ben du Toit as compiler of the report of ATLAS.[4] This report – accepted by general synod – offers on the one hand a new hermeneutical approach to the reading of the Bible and the confessionals. On the other hand, there was also a minority report included in which Dr Danie Malan presented an alternative reading, a more conventional-dogmatic reading of the text. However, ATLAS makes it clear that his way of reading: “does not reflect the style and content of ATLAS’s document on hermeneutics” (Agenda Algemene Sinode 2015, p 253).

1. In the first part of the ATLAS report, the focus is firstly on “Our Christian Faith” in which, tellingly, we are not taken back to the Bible, but to the six confessions of the DR Church: the three ecumenical confessions of the early church and the three Formularies of Unity. These Confessions form the basis of their argument. In the case of the ecumenical confessions, the Trinity is quite rightly interpreted as the centre. In the case of the three Formularies of Unity, the five solas are laid out as their centre, which are more debatable[5].

2. Secondly the focus is on “Science”, in which the past 200 years of developments are listed which have compromised this belief in their view. Examples from astronomy, philosophy, physics, cosmology, biology, medicine, and psychology are cited which are used to show central doctrines of the faith as untenable. For example:

• From the point of view of astronomy: “places like ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ have become extremely problematic.”
• From the point of view of philosophy: “Only what one can prove experimentally can (be) certain/fixed knowledge and be believed.”
• From Immanuel Kant’s specific philosophical distinction between Geschichte (the practical reasoning around morality and ethics) and Historie (the knowledge through pure reason) comes the perspective that: “the truth that one considers to be true and practical,” can only be true: “through experiments and rational argumentation”.

3. Only after these two sections the focus shifts thirdly to the Bible as a “bridge” between faith and science in which a symbolic and sacramental reading of the Bible is proposed, so that despite the problems on a scientific level with the Bible and the untestable realities it describes, we would be able to hear the “divine” in the text. With this hermeneutical approach, the Bible therefore no longer functions as a description of realities, but only as a bridge, an “interface”, between the untestable creeds and the certainty – one can even call it absolutes – of the realities described by science.

A description of three levels of reading the Bible is then given: historical, literary, and sacramental or symbolic.[6] Efforts are made to demonstrate the untenability of a literal and factual reading of the biblical texts, because such a reading of the Bible: “Is to narrow down the intentions, meanings, value and message of the Bible. To interpret the Bible literally is to arrive at half-truths and even form false impressions or perceptions.” The “literal and factual reading” of the Bible – i.e., in the sense that it describes or corresponds to realities or absolutes – is thus largely rejected because science cannot verify that reality. Certainty is with science not with the Bible (or the Confessions).

The writer of the report is aware that with this hermeneutic approach there is a move away from the generally applicable reading of the Bible, which is the practice in the DR Church, but nevertheless advocates this approach that: “can introduce the church to a next phase of its journey with the Bible and our Christian faith in our time.” (Ons Christelike geloof en die wetenskap, p 273)

In the second part of the report, this way of reading is illustrated in the reading of the Old and New Testaments with Genesis 1-2 and Mark 5:1-21 as examples, as well as in the Confessions with article 12 of the Belgic Confession of Faith as an example. Space lacks to go into this section in too much detail, but it must be said that the exegesis of these texts leaves much to be desired, not only because it is first and foremost based on an uncritical acceptance of the results of historical criticism – with a broad description that these results are “undeniable” (“onteenseglik”) true – but also because the reading itself is very selective (Ons Christelike geloof en die wetenskap, p 276).

For example, what bothers with the interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is that only the similarities between the Bible and extra-Biblical creation stories are referred to without pointing out the many critical and decisive differences. I will name just four differences:

• The depiction of God in Genesis is unique, and singular compared to the polytheism of the Babylonian stories.
• Humanity is described in Genesis as the crown of God’s creation but remains creatures. Unlike Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh who becomes a god because of his obedience.
• The biblical story of creation begins with the good creation of God, which was plunged into a crisis by man’s fall and follows the inevitable judgement of God through various stages with Noah and Babylon. The Babylonian creation stories do it the other way around.
• And it is particularly remarkable that the morality of man is decisively determined in Genesis by their spirituality, their relationship with God. With that comes the extremely critical commentary on the immorality of the Babylonians and Canaanites that permeates the rest of Scripture.

What is troubling is also the inconsistency of deliberately attempting with Genesis 1-2 not to use scientific knowledge to analyse the text, but with Mark 5 doing so freely. This is coupled with a selective reading of the text in which only the scientific presuppositions of the report come to the fore. This not only leads to the fact that the reality of evil spirits is denied in the text with reference to medical science and psychiatry, but that the facts of the deliverance of the man is ignored in the effort to interpret the story only as a message to the persecuted church that God’s rule over the Roman empire will triumph in the end.[7] It is also ironic that in the report something is made of Mark that wrote this story in a “reporter-style”, but then with the interpretation of the passage disregarding this aspect of it. Consequently, the report cannot explain, for example, the immediate deliverance of the man and the drowning of the pigs in the sea. These facts of the story are just passed over and ignored.

These examples from the Old and New Testament however sets the table for dealing with article 12 of the BCF where the reality of heavenly beings is denied on the same grounds that they cannot be scientifically verified (Ons Christelike geloof en die wetenskap, p 276). This is surprising. One can understand that the empirical reality of heavenly beings is questioned when you don’t believe that they exist, but why would one not interpret the text with rational categories? That is quite impossible to understand. The bigger question, of course, is that if you do not accept the existence of heavenly beings since you cannot empirically verify them, then how can you accept the existence of God? A question that is pertinently asked in the minority report by Dr Malan: “If we read the Bible as ‘scientific people’ after 1630 – after Galileo – and think in advance that the devil and evil spirits do not exist, why do we still retain God?” (God se troos vir middeleeuse mense – en vir ons vandag, p 292) Which succinctly highlights the main problem with the DR Church’s sacramental reading of the Bible and the Confessions. That is, that in this hermeneutic the interpretation of the text is separated from the realities that it talks about, even from God Himself one could extrapolate, because His existence is also scientifically untestable. This amounts to a desecration of the Bible and the Confessions, a sacrilege: “a violation or misuse of what is regarded as sacred.”[8] Dr Malan then also points out how drastically this way of reading differs from the main discourse in the DR Church, as recognized inter alia at the 2011 synod with its decision on the reality of the devil: “The main discourse in the DR Church is that angels and evil spirits are realities, and that room is given for doubters who cling to Christ and understand evil differently, but the impression should not be created as if the vast majority of believers or ministers endorse these positions.” (God se troos vir middeleeuse mense – en vir ons vandag, p 292)

The historical and literary dimensions of the text are real and correspond to reality

It is obvious when you compare this way of describing a sacramental reading of Scripture with the sacramental reading of someone like Prof Boersma, that there is a big difference. The big difference is that the historical and literary dimensions of the text in Prof Boersma’s method are still taken as real and with a correspondence to reality, that facilitate the real, one can even call it the sacral, presence of Christ Himself. Prof Boersma attributes this way of reading in his discussion of hermeneutics – the same type of reading that we can see in the DR Church’s report – to a detachment of the historical text from the heavenly realities to which it is linked, as argued by some of the modern philosophers that he discusses, such as Hobbes who rejects the reality of God: “Having rejected the sacramental link between heaven and earth, Hobbes turned the reading of Scripture into a purely natural exercise of historical scholarship.” (Boersma, p 31)

The same goes for Spinoza who collapsed the concept of God into his view of nature. Prof Boersma remarks: “What Hobbes achieved by excluding God from his amoral mathematical-mechanical account of nature, Spinoza obtained by identifying God with his amoral mathematical account of nature.” (Boersma, p 7) As a result, Spinoza claimed that Scripture must be treated like any other ordinary, visible thing: it must be analysed empirically, and one must not allow higher, invisible realities to determine one’s natural understanding of the Bible.

Thus, in the report of the DR Church, ATLAS still recognizes the “divine” in the text, like Spinoza, but at the same time – disconcertingly I might add – undermines even that reality by rejecting any empirical and rational interpretation of the text. The result is however the same. On the one hand the bond between the reality of the text and the reality of God is broken by the argument that the text cannot be interpreted based on empirical and rational categories. Which on the other hand means that even the “divine” cannot really be real because the text itself has no empirical and rational value.

Prof Boersma’s approach – although one can rightly criticize his use of the term in the sense that it overstretches the concept of a sacrament, and I for one would rather choose a more directly grammatical-historical hermeneutic – has the advantage that it recognizes the metaphysical realities to which the text refers (Boersma, p 12). He also rightly admits that his approach does not exclude other types of reading (Boersma, p 13) However, the value of his hermeneutic approach is that Prof Boersma points to the untenable – he calls it “fateful” – separation between nature and the supernatural. He shows how the historical-critical method – that this 2015 report of the general synod is also based upon – not only evades the question of truth, but makes it disappear, thereby compromising the bond with the reality of God himself. In contrast, he opts for a hermeneutic in which it is recognized that: “Exegesis is not primarily a historical endeavor and that it first of all asks about the subject of the text—that is to say, about God and our relationship to him.” (Boersma, p 276)

This type of a sacramental and symbolic reading of the text that prof Boersma endorses could thus rightly be regarded as a sacral reading, giving one access to the sacred in the text, whereas the DR Church report’s sacramental reading is rather a sacrilege, a desecration of the Bible and the Confessions, in that it “fatefully” separates nature and the supernatural. The question that remains, is to ask why this specific sacramental hermeneutic was chosen by the DR Church, even when the sacramental model of Prof Boersma and others was available at the time that would recognize the realities that Scripture testifies to?

The historical criticism method has eclipsed the grammatical-historical method

I think this choice was made because the writer did not really understand what a sacramental reading of Scripture entails. Erroneously it was just assumed that a sacramental reading also worked with no real correspondence with reality as is the case with the historical criticism method. And this misunderstanding led to the choice of this hermeneutic. The actual hermeneutic that was put on the table with this report in my view is rather the unbridled method of historical criticism supported by the certainties and absolutes of the scientific method. This choice thus illustrates the eclipse of the grammatical-historical method by the historical criticism method in our seminaries that can be seen in the gradual change in decisions of the general synod from 1986 to 2015 on the authority and use of Scripture.  Whereas the general synod in 1986 specifically distanced itself – with a great majority, I might add – from the historical critical method, the opposite happened from 1990 up to 2015. The general synod embraced the historical criticism method as the only valid hermeneutic they would support.

The “regsinnige” and “vrysinnige” stream of interpretation

But to really understand this, we must go back to the longstanding clash of the “regsinnige” (“right-minded”) stream with the “vrysinnige” (“free-minded”) stream in the DR Church, also known as the “orthodox” and “liberal” / “modern” streams of interpretation. These two streams of interpretation have flown together for more than two centuries side by side in the DR Church which at points led to great conflict. Just think of the numerous court cases in the Cape in the 19th century that persons from the free-minded stream – known at that time as the “modernist party” – launched against the right-minded stream – known at that time as the “orthodox party”.[9]

There was the case of Rev. JJ Kotze (1832-1902) of the congregation in Darling in the Western Cape against the Cape synod. In 1862, at the Cape Synod, he rebelled against the Heidelberg Catechism’s description of man’s constant tendency to sin (question & answer 60). When the synod ruled against him, because he did not accept the Heidelberg Catechism on the point, he sued the church before the Cape court in 1864 and won the case. There was also the case of Rev. TF Burgers (1834-1881) from the congregation in Hanover in the Northern Cape who at the same synod went even further and rejected many basic doctrines: the existence of the devil, the sinlessness of Jesus Christ, the resurrection from the dead, and the survival of the soul after death. The synod also acted against him, but Burgers finally won his case on appeal in 1865. In addition, at the same synod, elder HH Loedolff (1804–1864) objected to the right of sitting of all delegates outside the then colonial borders. When the meeting maintained the status quo, Loedolff simply turned to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of his objection. Delegates from congregations outside the Cape Colony then had to leave the hall with the result that the synodical connection of the DR Church with congregations outside of the then colonial borders, ended abruptly (Du Plessis, p 213-235). At the next synod in 1867, Burgers and Kotze were still present despite their rejection of central doctrines of the church which not only led to great conflict but crippled the synod’s effectiveness. Burgers later left the ministry and became the 4th president of the South African Republic. Kotze continued to promote liberalism and in his farewell address in Darling in 1894 even railed against the vicarious suffering and death of Jesus.

The “regsinnige” stream always triumphed in the past

However, the public nature of the debate helped the members of the DR Church across the country to understand what the debate between the right-wing and liberal currents in the church was about. And what consequences liberalism have for orthodox doctrines of the church. The Kerkbode (founded in 1849) provided a platform for this discussion so that members could take note, and the establishment of the Theological Seminary in Stellenbosch (1859) contributed to students no longer being exposed to the liberal ideas of the Dutch Seminary in Utrecht and could be educated confessionally. The right-minded stream therefore became stronger and stronger in congregations. Free-minded ministers were simply not considered for ministerial posts. And with the revival that began at the Worcester conference in 1860, the leadership of Dr Andrew Murray in the synod, and the Pentecost prayer movement that began in Paarl in 1862 under the leadership of rev. Gottlieb van Lingen (1804-1869), a period of prosperity for the Reformed Church arrived, which led, among other things, to a strong missionary awakening.

In 1864, among other things, Dr Murray was called as pastor to the Cape Mother Church, the Grootte Kerk, to curb the growing liberalism in the congregation. This led to major conflicts, but also to a clear articulation of the issues that were at stake in this struggle. Four years later, at the height of the conflict between the two streams – also locally in the Cape Mother Church where he served at the time – Dr Murray delivered thirteen sermons against liberalism. This was in response to a publication by Mr David Faure, Modern Theology, early in 1868, in which Mr Faure advocated a liberal hermeneutic under the following headings: the Human Reason, Revelation, the Old Testament, the New Testament, Miracles, the Resurrection, Jesus the Son of Man, Jesus Christ the Son of God, Man, the Atonement, Eternal Punishment, Prophecy, Truth and Error. In thirteen lectures, Dr Murray responded to each of these topics and pointed out the unbelief that lies at the basis of them. He did not hesitate to address members and pastors who let themselves be carried away by liberalism. His lectures were published in 1868 as the book The Modern Unbelief: thirteen teaching sermons (Du Plessis, p 236-256).

The “vrysinnige” stream did not disappear

However, the free-minded stream did not disappear, as the famous Du Plessis case proved in the 20th century. Dr Johannes du Plessis (1868-1935) advocated the historical-critical approach to the Bible through which he questioned the inspiration of the Bible, for example in terms of the origin of the Pentateuch. He also questioned the two natures of Christ, his omniscience and atoning death, as well as the inerrancy of the Scriptures and the correctness of the confessions, which led to the termination of his professorship at the Seminary in 1930. However, he took the church to court and as was the case with di Kotze and Burgers he also won his case against the church. However, as was the case with the previous conflicts between orthodoxy and liberalism, the victory in court did the opposite. The DR Church broadly remained with the right-minded hermeneutic stream. For a time, this conflict disappeared beneath the surface, because the conflict surrounding the theological justification of the political ideology of apartheid dominated the public theological discussion for the next fifty years. With the establishment of the general synod of the DR Church on 11 October in 1962, the five involved DR Churches called it a reunification, remembering the fateful consequences of the Loedolff case. On the wall panel of that event – still preserved in the DRC Archives – is the quote from Jesus in Matthew 19:6: “What God has joined together, no man can separate.”[10]

The liberal historical-critical hermeneutic was rejected in 1986

What is clear is that the general synod managed from 1962 until 1986 to stick to the right-minded grammatical-historical stream of interpretation. A case in point was the position on Scripture, “Skrifgesag en Skrifgebruik”, that was accepted in 1986. The 1986 position was drawn up by the three DR Church seminaries of that time, each of which made its own contribution. However, the three contributions demonstrated such a remarkable unity of viewpoints that Prof Pieter Potgieter was able to comfortably unite them in one document, so that it could be accepted by the general synod. Among other things, the DR Church explicitly and particularly distanced themselves from the historical critical hermeneutic. The reason was simple. The general synod said that the proponents of the historical-critical hermeneutics treated the Scriptures in the same way as every other historical document, simply as a human writing. The general synod particularly pointed out the danger if people start to make a distinction between what comes from God in the Bible and what would only be the historical and human “packaging” in which it comes to us.

“We accept that the Holy Scripture in its entirety and in all its parts is the Word of God, and that it is impossible to separate in the Bible between what is from God and what comes from man, or between the contents of God’s Word and the human form in which it comes to us.” (Skrifgesag en Skrifgebruik, p 56)

Because once you start to distinguish between the divine and human parts, they warned, in the end nothing of the Bible will be left. Why? Because the moment one starts doing this, then one’s own interpretation and input become decisive for the truth of the Scriptures, they said. Then your interpretation acquires creative power, and you are easily tempted to be also critical of the content and realities of Scripture: “The historical-critical method of Bible research as it has developed over the past three centuries, treat the Scriptures in the same way as every other historical document, and it places the confession concerning the inerrancy of the Scriptures under heavy pressure.”  (Skrifgesag en Skrifgebruik, p 56).

The general synod of the current century opted for a “ruim huis” approach

However, since 1986, the general synod of the DR Church has become more and more accommodating of diverse viewpoints. A “ruim huis” – a “spacious house”. And at certain points moved away from the orthodox right-minded grammatical-historical hermeneutic toward the liberal free-minded acceptance of the historical criticism method. In 2002 and 2004, the general synod took positions on the Bible as the Word of God that differed from the 1986 positions, especially based on historical criticism. Take the following statement from 2002 as an example:

“While the Word in Christ becomes sinless flesh, the Spirit comes to live in our sinful flesh. This also applies to the biblical writers. Inspired by the Spirit, they did not cease to be human; they did not even cease to be sinful people. This human character of the Scriptures is a truth that we must not gnash our teeth into, but over which we must rejoice… Even about the human “mistakes” in the Bible, we must feel as we do about the scars in Jesus’ hands and feet.” (Gesag van die Skrif, p 202)

This statement was a telling move from the position of the general synod of 1986 that no distinction should be made between what comes from God in the Bible and what would only be the historical and human “packaging” it comes to us. The sinfulness of the writers are even pointed out!

In 2011, the general synod more overtly accommodated dissenting views on the devil’s personal existence that clearly deviate from the confessional writings (Bediening van die Bevryding, p 172-189). The same happened with the general synod in 2013 that accommodated cohabitation and sex before marriage, admittedly by also expressing the wish that people would marry anyway, but without maintaining in clear language – like it is done in the Bible and the confessions – the position that sex must be preserved for marriage (Huwelik/Saamwoon, p 89-90). This is clearly against the biblical message as numerous biblical passages show (Gen 2; Matt 19; 1 Cor 7). In 2015 the move toward historical criticism was complete as can be seen in this quote from “Our Christian Faith and Science” in describing the Bible: “These Book(s) are therefore ancient historical artifacts that can be analysed, studied, and compared with similar (extra-biblical) ancient texts. We do this by making use of all kinds of critical scientific methods and techniques, to understand the intention and meaning of the text as best as possible.” (Ons Christelike geloof en die wetenskap, p 270)

No wonder that the monument in Stellenbosch for Johannes du Plessis was recently moved from its place on the campus of the University to the garden of the Theological Seminary! A symbol of the place the free-minded stream of interpretation claimed for themselves. This also implies that the general synod has progressively moved away from a position of “Christ the Transformer of Culture” to “Christ of Culture” (in the model of H Richard Niebuhr), the default liberal position, where the absolutes of the Bible are relativised to accommodate the worldview of the current secular culture. Time constraints deter me from elaborating on this, but I briefly sketch the model and especially his take on liberalism in this footnote.[11] (Carson, p 11)

This brings me to a pertinent question that many people in the DR Church are asking today: “Is there a way forward?” What do we see when we try to look through a window, as it were, into the future?

Return to Sola et Tota Scriptura

My answer is that I think there is a way forward. But that would be the way of a return to an unadulterated focus on Sola et Tota Scriptura. Where the absolutes of the Word of God are treated as real and still applicable in our lives. It might thus this time around have to include an alternative for theological training that could preserve the right-minded stream of interpretation in the DR Church.

When Jeremiah was grappling with the issue of the nation’s wise men that used their writings to make the Word of God say what it does not really mean (Jer 8:8-9) he took recourse to the only One that can change that, God Himself. He is the only hope we’ve got. In words taken from Psalm 1[12] Jeremiah concurs with these words given by God:

“⁷ My blessing is on those people who trust in me, who put their confidence in me. ⁸ They will be like a tree planted near a stream whose roots spread out toward the water. It has nothing to fear when the heat comes. Its leaves are always green. It has no need to be concerned in a year of drought. It does not stop bearing fruit.” (Jeremiah 17:7-8 NET)

The same is true today. It is the common folk, the one’s still believing in the realities that the Word of God describes, that put their trust in God and in his Word, that will experience the blessing of the Lord and will be like a tree planted near a stream. They will never stop bearing fruit. After all, it has happened before in the history of the DR Church that the church has returned to its roots. Just remember the choice of the DR Church congregations against the liberalism of the previous centuries. It was the ordinary members and ministers of the DR Church that chose to believe in the reality of what the Bible and the confessions describe. Even though the DR Church always lost their battles in the courts[13] the church repeatedly returned to the right-minded stream of interpretation.

I close with the wisdom of Leland Ryken[14] that I use in this context to celebrate the effect that I think a right-minded focus on the Bible would have on our lives: “The stories in the Bible are partly mirrors in which we see ourselves and partly windows through which we observe life around us.”[15] That is the hope that will heal our church. When we use the Bible – only the Bible, and the whole of the Bible – as the norm and standard for our own lives and for the world around us.

May God grant us that wisdom again.

Bibliography

Agenda 16de Algemene Sinode 2015. Pretoria (www.kerkargief.co.za/acta).

Bediening van die Bevryding. Agenda 14de Algemene Sinode 2011, p 172-189. (www.kerkargief.co.za/acta)

Boersma, H. 2017. Scripture as Real Presence: Sacramental Exegesis in the Early Church. Grand Rapids; Baker Academic.

Brümmer, V. 2013. Vroom of Regsinnig? Teologie in die NG Kerk. Wellington: Bybel-Media.

Carson, D.A. 2008. Christ and Culture Revisited. Cambridge: Eerdmans.

Du Plessis, J. 1919. The Life of Andrew Murray of South Africa. London: Marshall Brothers.

Gesag van die Skrif. Agenda 11de Algemene Sinode 2002, p 201-210. (www.kerkargief.co.za/acta)

God se troos vir middeleeuse mense – en vir ons vandag. ’n Alternatiewe lesing. Agenda 16de Algemene Sinode 2015, p 288-292.

Huwelik/Saamwoon. Agenda 15de Algemene Sinode 2013, p 89-90. (www.kerkargief.co.za/acta)

Ons Christelike geloof en die wetenskap. Agenda 16de Algemene Sinode 2015, p 267-287. (www.kerkargief.co.za/acta)

Ryken, L. 2015. How Bible Stories Work: A Guided Study of Biblical Narrative. Bellingham: Lexham Press.

Schleiermacher, F. 1830. The Christian Faith. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark.

Skrifgesag en Skrifgebruik. Agenda 7de Algemene Sinode 1986, p 55-58. (www.kerkargief.co.za/acta)

Footnotes

[1] Paper delivered at Mirrors & Windows: Reflecting on the Reformed Tradition today. 17-19 October 2022 | Faculty of Theology, Stellenbosch University.

[2] All translations of that document included here are my own.

[3] Prof Boersma is the author of numerous critically acclaimed books – Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry (Eerdmans – 2011); Nouvelle Théologie and Sacramental Ontology: A Return to Mystery (Oxford University Press – 2013); Sacramental Preaching: Sermons on the Hidden Presence of Christ (Baker – 2016); Scripture as Real Presence: Sacramental Exegesis in the Early Church (Baker – 2017). He is also co-editor of The Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology.

[4] In passing, it must also be said, that in that same year, 2015, he purportedly grew beyond faith in God into a post-theistic worldview which departed even from that consciousness.

[5] The Belgic Confession was written primarily as a testimony to the Spanish king to prove that the Reformed believers were not rebels, as was charged, but law-abiding citizens who professed only those doctrines which were the teachings of Holy Scripture – sola scriptura. The Heidelberg Catechism taught especially young people that the only comfort in life and death is to be found in the glorious fact that you belong – body and soul – to your faithful Saviour Jesus Christ. The Canons of Dordt are the synod’s judgment on the Five Points of the Remonstrance, maintaining the truths of sovereign predestination, particular atonement, total depravity, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints.

[6] The latter is also described as the spiritual or theological meaning of the Bible.

[7] Really perplexing is that this inconsistency continues by later in the report – in an apparent total about turn – rejecting these types of questions with reference to Mark 5 which is difficult to understand.

[8] Google Dictionary, licensed from Oxford University Press’s OxfordDictionaries.com

[9] In my view this depiction of the two streams of interpretation in the DR Church is more fundamental than the distinction that Prof Vincent Brümmer uses of “vroom” and “regsinnig”. I acknowledge the fact that both “vrysinniges” and “regsinnige” theologians can by children of the Enlightenment, as he rightly points out (Brümmer: p 39). But, as he himself points out, “regsinnigheid” and “vroomheid” was chosen as the way forward against the “vrysinniges” stream: “Ten eerste het die kerk vanaf die 1860’s uit die Kweekskool in Stellenbosch predikante gekry wat nie die Moderne Rigting aangehang het nie. Ten tweede het die colloquium doctum wat die sinode in 1862 ingestel het, gesorg dat kandidate wat nog in Nederland opgelei is alleen toegelaat is tot die amp as hulle regsinnigheid en vroomheid eers vasgestel is. Ten derde het die Vrye Protestantse Kerk van DP Faure die vrysinniges in die Kaap onderdak gebied en hulle op dié manier uit die NG Kerk laat vertrek.” (p 195) That is the more relevant historical distinction.

[10] It is ironic that after sixty years the general synod is currently threatening to burst apart precisely because of the stalled debate on marriage that rages in all of the now ten synods of the DR Church. Because this quote from Jesus in Matthew 19, which is based on his position on the binary character of being human and of marriage, is no longer accepted as a norm by everyone in the DR Church.

[11] H Richard Niebuhr, writing from within the Neo-Orthodox movement, depicted fivefold choices Christians make in the relationship between Christ and Culture. 1) Christ against Culture – the separatists. 2) Christ of Culture – the cultural Christians, or liberalists. (The liberalists count themselves believers in the Lord especially in the sense that they seek to maintain community with all believers. Therefore, they seem equally at home in the community of culture… They tend to speak to the cultured among the despisers of religion; they use the language of the more sophisticated circles, of those who are acquainted with the science, the philosophy, and the political and economic movements of their time. They are missionaries to the aristocracy and the middle class, or to the groups rising to power in a civilization.). The other three movements in his model he identified as part of “the church of the centre.” 3) Christ above Culture – the synthesists – both and. 4) Christ and Culture in Paradox – the dualists. 5) Christ the Transformer of Culture – the conversionists, whether personal or public, individualistic, or corporate.

[12] It could also be interpretated the other way around but given the pride of place Psalm 1 has as the introduction to the whole five-volume book of Psalms in the Bible, it makes more sense to me that Jeremiah references Psalm 1.

[13] Ironically again not so long ago in 2018 with the judgement on same-sex marriages.

[14] Leland Ryken is professor of English emeritus at Wheaton College in Illinois. He has contributed a number of works to the study of classic literature from a Christian perspective. He was also the literary stylist for the English Standard Version of the Bible, published by Crossway Bibles in 2001. He is especially known for his six volumes on How to Read the Bible as Literature.

[15] Ryken, L. (2015) How Bible Stories Work: A Guided Study of Biblical Narrative. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press (Reading the Bible as Literature), p. 26.