REC Home*** Theological Forum 

 

Theological Forum

Vol. XXIII, No. 4, December 1995

 

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE DUTCH REFORMED

CHURCH IN SOUTH AFRICA

S.A. Strauss

1. INTRODUCTION

As its name indicates, the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa (DRC) right from the very start subscribed to the Dutch Reformed confession, the three Formularies of Unity (Britz 1993). The main objective of this study is to establish to what extent the confessional foundation also influenced the theology of the DRC. To obtain a reasonable overview of theological development in the DRC, we shall confine ourselves to systematic theology. It is logical to assume that current theological trends first and foremost manifested themselves in this subject area. From 1859 until approximately 1990 at least eight ecclesiastic professors taught dogmatics in the DRC. Their various contributions will be discussed in chronological sequence, after which we shall strive to draw a few summary conclusions.


2. JOHN MURRAY (1826-1882)

When the Theological Seminary in Stellenbosch1 was founded in 1859, the DRC initially attempted to call professors from the Reformed (Hervormde) Church in the Netherlands. The candidates on the nomination list were all representatives of the so-called Biblical apologetical school of Utrecht, kindred spirits form the circle of friends that had been established around the journal Elpis. When this attempt failed, the choice for the chair of dogmatics fell on the Rev. John Murray of Burgersdorp in the Karoo.

Murray, together with his famous brother Andrew, had studied in Scotland and Utrecht between the years 1838 and 1848. He had not been particularly impressed by the "moderate orthodoxy" of the then professor of dogmatics in Utrecht, H.E. Vinke. Spiritually he felt more at home in the student society Secor Dabar, within which, in accordance with the spirit of the Réveil, there was great enthusiasm for Bible study, prayer meetings, missionary activities and even private communion! As a student he had made an in-depth study of Herman Witsius's De oeconomia foederum. This Covenant theologist of the Nadere Reformatie enjoyed much support among the Scotch evangelicals, particularly due to the emphasis he laid on the free offer of salvation as well as the necessity of a saintly life.

Murray's affinity for the Dutch apologetical school is clearly apparent from his inaugural lecture at Stellenbosch (1859:71 et seq.). For instance, he maintained that both reason and science should support faith and theology (cf. also Joubert 1910). In his teaching he mainly made use of a translation of the German Reformed theologian, J.H.A. Ebrard's Christliche Dogmatik. He could not find it in himself to identify fully with the American Charles Hodge's famous and more conservative Systematic Theology. As for the doctrine of predestination he preferred Amyraldism above Dordrecht, although he was not a supporter of Arminianism. In line with his evangelical background, he also actively participated in the ecumenical activities of the Evangelical Alliance. Nevertheless, he was a dedicated crusader against the liberal school of thought in the Cape Church. His publications mainly consisted of culture-historical and practical religious readers.

 

3. PIETER JACOBUS GERHARDUS DE VOS (1842-1931)

The second Stellenbosch professor of dogmatics hailed from the same Scotch and Dutch background as his predecessor. Having received his first theological instruction, inter alia under Murray, at Stellenbosch, he then pursued his studies at the New College of the Free Church in Edinburgh (1865-1866). He also spent a few months in Utrecht, only a few years after J.J. van Oosterzee had been appointed professor there.

As academic teacher in Stellenbosch beginning in 1882, De Vos mainly prescribed Van Oosterzee's two-volume work, Christelijke Dogmatiek, as textbook. In addition he often referred in agreement to the above-mentioned dogmatic study of Hodge, which was not favored by Murray. Van Oosterzee's apologetical viewpoint was one of mediation - "geklemd tussen de wetenschap en het formulier" (caught between science and the formularies) (Sepp 1860:20). De Vos, however, was a proponent of a more clear-cut confessional theology than that favoured by Van Oosterzee. Proof of this, apart from his early controversy with the liberal school of thought, is his later stand against the dissenting views of the Rev. J. du Plessis. With regard to the doctrine of predestination, De Vos, in contrast to Van Oosterzee, also favored a clear and uncompromised confessional Reformed viewpointas is clearly apparent from his published sermons (De Vos 1906).

As a matter of fact it is strange that De Vos clung to Van Oosterzee so long. During the last stage of his professorship (which was destined to last until 1919), the Cape Church had already, with growing appreciation, started to take cognisance of the revival of Reformed theology under the leadership of Dr. A. Kuyper and others. Probably it was his evangelical background that made it difficult for De Vos to associate himself completely with a Cape proponent of the views of Kuyper, such as the Rev. S.J. du Toit. At least as far as the doctrine regarding the church was concerned, De Vos favored the Presbyterianism over the "Doleantie" church polity (Britz 1985).

 

4. BAREND BARTHOLOMEUS KEET (1885-1974)

When Keet took over the professorship at Stellenbosch in 1920, it was the start of a new phase of dogmatic thought in the DRC. He was the first former Stellenbosch student who obtained his doctor's degree in dogmatics, and that, of all places, at the Free University of Amsterdam (cf. Keet 1913).

Keet's dogmatic point of view was largely determined by his supervisor, H. Bavinck (Strauss 1992). In the introduction to his popular dogmatic work (1945:5 et seq.) he already made it abundantly clear that his point of departure would "naturally" be that of "Reformed doctrine, not only because we inherited it thus from our forefathers and grew up in it, but because we are truly convinced that Reformed doctrine provides us with the purest and most powerful interpretation of Christianity" (translated).

He also employed the theological approach of the Free University of Amsterdam in the other subjects he taught. His ethics, for instance, exhibit an unmistakable affiliation with that of W. Geesink. And as far as church polity is concerned, he exchanged the Presbyterianism of his predecessor (De Vos) for the Dutch Reformed principles acquired from H.H. Kuyper in Amsterdam. In doing so he became the first professor of the DRC to choose openly for the Reformed (Gereformeerde) Churches in the Netherlands over and against the ruling tendency in the Dutch Reformed (Nederlandse Hervormde) Church.

Keet was outspokenly in favor of the confessional Reformed viewpoint, but this does not imply that he was narrow-minded. He was actively involved in the activities of the Christian Students' Association for the greater part of his life and served as its national chairman for many years. This association would render him favourably inclined towards ecumenics. Thus he continued to pursue the evangelical approach of his predecessors, without always sufficiently taking into account the methodistic trends reigning in these circles. When, during the Du Plessis controversy in the thirties, two schools of thought crystallized in the DRC, he refused to choose sides, but strove to maintain what he himself (1936:311 et seq.) referred to as the balance of the DRC's traditional and characteristic "evangelical line of thought which takes into account the idea of the covenant" (translated). This deep-lying theological conviction must have been at the root of Keet's attempt to play a conciliatory role in the Du Plessis controversy without forsaking his principles. On the surface it might appear as if Keet belied his Amsterdam background. Two factors should, however, be taken into account in this respect. Keet was independent enough to be able to assimilate the theology of his preceptors and adapt it to fit the distinctive South African and DRC context. Moreover, the Amsterdam tradition itself contained certain more ecumenically minded nuances. Bavinck himself, for instance, had also supported the (Dutch) Christian Students' Associationmuch to the dismay of certain of his colleagues (Veenhof 1980:76)!

Keet's long and fruitful professorship (1920-1959) was indeed of lasting benefit to the DRC. His theology represents one of the junctures in the theological history of this church. He was the important transitional figure between the preceding indeterminate period influenced by the Scotch Presbyterianism and the Dutch Reformed (Nederlandse Hervormde) theology, and the more explicit Calvinistic school of thought which was to follow due to the influence of people such as A. Kuyper and H. Bavinck.


5. GEORGE MURRAY PELLISSIER (1881-1954)

During the professorship of Keet, the DRC, as of 1938, established a second theological training institution. The first professor of dogmatics appointed at the University of Pretoria by the DRC was George Murray Pellissier. Having studied at Stellenbosch, inter alia under De Vos, he obtained a B.D. degree at the University of London in 1907 by way of distance study (Van der Watt 1987:608).

While Pellissier was still a minister, he already provided evidence of his conservative standpoint. He was the author of a synodical report on the dogmatic questions that had caused such a controversy in the DRC surrounding the deposition of Prof. J. du Plessis (Ned. Herv. of Geref. Kerk van Transvaal 1934:49-51). The way Pellissier treated subjects such as the doctrines of inspiration and kenosis clearly revealed his dogmatic position. He appealed to the confession, without attaching a confessionalistic interpretation to it; he referred to various theological schools of thought in an erudite manner, but purposefully associated himself with the viewpoints of authors from the Reformed (Gereformeerde) Churches in the Netherlands. The fact that Pellissier's colleagues, who were ordained with him in 1938, were all graduates of the Free University of Amsterdam (Van der Merwe 1988:275 et seq.) clearly indicates the theological climate in the DRC of Transvaal of the time.

Although Pellissier left behind a rather meagre harvest of publications (Van der Merwe 1988:316), we are fortunate enough to have available an extensive account of his dogmatics lectures (Visser 1938-1941). From this it is possible to reconstruct his dogmatic method. In respect of each locus he expressly and unequivocally proceeded from the Three Formularies of Unity. Following this, he knowledgeably referred to a variety of older and younger theologians even at this early stage to authors such as K. Barth and E. Brunner! Personally, however, he for the most part identified with A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck and A.G. Honig. As far as the doctrine of predestination is concerned, he strictly adhered to the Canons of Dordt: both election and rejection were based on the council and sovereign will of God; the claims of both the supraas well as infralapsarianistic positions were acknowledged (ibid. 1939:602). His theological balance is also clearly apparent from his critical remarks on the so-called justification from all eternity (ibid. 1940:636).

Following his retirement in 1947, Pellissier continued to lecture in the practical subjects for a few more years. In doing so, he exercised an even greater influence on the DRC, extending to the fields of homiletics and liturgiology (cf. Fensham et al. s.a.).


6. ANDRIES BERNARDUS DU PREEZ (1905-1973)

The first dogmatist in the DRC who was born in the 20th century was the Free State Afrikaner, A.B. du Preez (Borchardt 1987). After completing his theological training at the University of Stellenbosch, inter alia under Keet, he obtained the doctor's degree at the Free University of Amsterdam under the supervision of V. Hepp in 1933. From 1946 to 1970 he was professor of dogmatics and ethics at the University of Pretoria.

The fact that Du Preez graduated under Hepp and also promoted the latter's visit to South Africa in 1935 (Swart 1978:14) may, however, not be interpreted as implying that he only taught Heppian dogmatics. In his thesis (Du Preez 1933) he, admittedly, expressly proceeded from the traditional Reformed approach to the Scriptures. As opposed to a dualistic inspiration theory, he favored what he himself referred to as a predestinatief-organiese (predestinarianistic-organic) theory. But apart from this, he was undoubtedly also influenced by dialectical theology (Swart 1978:10). Throughout his life he cherished an admiration for K. Barth, as is clearly apparent from one of his few publications in the field of dogmatics (Du Preez 1968). In discussing - of all places in the volume commemorating the Synod of Dordrecht! - the doctrine of predestination, he sympathetically associates himself with Barth and his Dutch kindred spirit, G.C. van Niftrik.

Du Preez made his students work hard. In addition to Calvin, Bavinck and Berkouwer, they were also expected to study the works of Barth, Brunner, Van Niftrik, and others exhaustively. Although he was basically of a conservative, Reformed conviction, especially with regard to the authority of the Scriptures, his theology was not marked by a strong element of unity. In an eclectic fashion he gathered bits and pieces from far and wide. According to one of his most gifted students (Jonker 1973), his real role in the theological development in the DRC lay in the fact that he was a trail-blazer for a more productive theological phase which was to follow.


Du Preez also had to teach church polity and ethics. In church polity he continued to build on the reformed foundation he had acquired under Keet at Stellenbosch. In his class notes (preserved in the Transvaal Church Archives), he identified with Joh. Jansen, H. Bouwman and F.L. Rutgers. As far as ethics is concerned, however, he made an independent contribution. In his voluminous work on the question of race relations in South Africa (Du Preez 1959) he revealed himself as a fierce protagonist of the apartheid policy of the day. In order to posit a Biblical-theological foundation for his viewpoint, he inter alia referred to certain statements by A. Kuyper (ibid.: 65, 102). In his polemics on the ethical justification of apartheid, he felt himself obliged to also carry on a controversy against colleagues such as B.B. Keet (Stellenbosch) and B.J. Marais (Pretoria) (ibid.: 72 et seq.). On the other hand, as far as the treatment of this topic in the area of social ethics is concerned, Du Preez enjoyed the support of his Stellenbosch colleague, F.J.M. Potgieter.


7. FREDERIK JOHANNES MENTZ POTGIETER (1907-1992)

Strictly chronologically speaking, Potgieter should have been discussed before Du Preez, for he was ordained as professor at Stellenbosch in 1946 a few weeks before Du Preez became professor in Pretoria. For the first few years, however, he taught church history and the history of dogma before he succeeded Keet as dogmatist in 1960.

Potgieter was an erudite theologian. He had already obtained a doctor's degree in psychology before he started his theological studies at the Stellenbosch Seminary. Like De Preez, he then obtained a doctor's degree in dogmatics at the Free University under the supervision of V. Hepp (Potgieter 1939). In his thesis he identified closely with his preceptor who, in matters of principle, had a profound formative influence on him (Strauss 1993a:237).

A publication on the church history of the Cape revealed Potgieter's own deepest religious conviction. He wrote as follows (1952:73 translated): "The more practical approach which the Dutch Reformed Church acquired as a result of its contact with methodism should be regarded as an asset; it has remained strictly theocentric, but also emphasises the Scriptural truth ..... that the Name of God is glorified by the conversion of immortal souls as by nothing else." Such was Potgieter himself: orthodox in doctrine and evangelical in everyday life. In this respect he found himself within the best tradition of the DRC's distinctive type of piety (Jonker 1978).

As handbook for his dogmatics lectures Potgieter mainly used, in addition to H. Bavinck, Het dogma der kerk (edited by G.C. Berkouwer and G. Toornvliet, 1949). In addition he often referred in agreement to the viewpoints of A. Kuyper. This was something new in the DRC. He also hadas few others havea thorough knowledge of the original works of Calvin.

As far as dogmatics was concerned, he was particularly fascinated by the order of salvation. In his booklet Verlossing (Salvation) (1953) he discussed the order of salvation with a distinct preference for the Three Formularies of Unity, but interpreted in a Kuyperian sense. Through the years he also untiringly strove to promote acknowledgement of the authority of the Scriptures. In a speech on the Teopneustie (1963) he unequivocally rejected the Barthian viewpoint. And, in contrast to Berkouwer and H. Ridderbos, he strictly adhered to the historical trustworthiness of the Scriptures. As if with prophetica insight into what was to come, he uttered the warning: "In this respect the ice is thin, and as far as epigones are concerned, the cracks are already assuming formidable proportions" (1967:374, translated). Astonishingly Potgieter carried on this good battle so alone and almost exclusively with dated weapons from the arsenal of Kuyper and Bavinck. Why did he not also seek to associated himself with contemporary Reformed thinkers (e.g. Trimp 1970)? Is it possible that his devotion to V. Hepp prevented him from taking the disciples of K. Schilder (Hepp's principal opponent!) seriously?

As already mentioned, Potgieter also supported apartheid in church and civil life. For him fundamental principles were at stake, such as his well-known Trinitarian conviction that all the works of God, whether of creation or recreation, are always in perfect harmony. Since unity in diversity and multiformity is one of the cornerstones of creation, he regarded the pluriformity of the church as inextricably linked to national and racial differences (Potgieter 1956). Like his colleague from Pretoria, Potgieter in this respect appealed to A. Kuyper. This standpoint has earned him much criticism in the recent past (cf. Kinghorn 1986: 117 et seq.). The tragedy is that his critics all too often throw out the baby (a Reformed Scriptural approach) with the bath-water (apartheid).


8. JOHAN ADAM HEYNS (1928-1994)

Heyns became professor of dogmatics and ethics at the University of Pretoria in 1971. In the same year W.D. Jonker, his contemporary from student days, was appointed at the University of Stellenbosch. These two productive theologians dominate the last phase of our research and have left a clear imprint on theological development in the DRC.

Johan Heyns completed his preliminary studies at the Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education. There the South African Calvinistic thinker and critical protagonist of the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea, H.G. Stoker, exerted a definite influence on his academic development. They were destined to remain lifelong friends. After completing his training as a minister of the church at the University of Pretoria, inter alia under A.B. du Preez, Heyns continued his theological study at the Free University. In 1953 he obtained a doctor's degree under the supervision of G.C. Berkouwer with a thesis titled Die grondstruktuur van die modalistiese triniteitsbeskouing. After he had been a minister for a number of years, he obtained a second doctor's degree - this time in philosophy under the supervision of Stoker on the topic of the anthropology of K. Barth. From 1966 Heyns was a lecturer in dogmatological subjects at Stellenbosch for a number of years, and in 1971 he succeeded Du Preez as professor in Pretoria. He retired at the end of 1993.

During the more than 20 years that Heyns served the DRC as a professor, he exerted an enormous influence on the church. It was especially the large number of publications from his pen (cf. Venter 1988) that distinguished him from and caused him to outshine all his predecessors. In addition he filled so many public positions in the church as well as in society at large that he could definitely be regarded as the best-known theologian in the DRC (Van der Watt 1988), until his tragic death in 1994.

Heyns wrote numerous works covering the whole spectrum of systematic theology: encyclopedia, symbolics, dogmatics, ethics and apologetics. In a short overview such as this it is almost impossible to touch upon his contribution, even in broad outline. Therefore we shall confine ourselves specifically to the basis of his dogmatics. He first published a number of monographs on the Scriptures (1973), mankind (1974) and the church (1977), before his Dogmatiek was published in 1978. This was the first handbook in the DRC to touch upon the whole field of dogmatics. The book mainly stood in the tradition of Bavinck's famous work, but in several instances also showed evidence of the influence of his preceptor Berkouwer (Kamphuis 1982) and even Barth (Velema 1988:18, 199-201). Due to its basically conservative flavor, this handbook has been prescribed by various theological institutions in South Africa and even in the Netherlands. Its most remarkable aspect, however, is that all the characteristic accents of Heyns's theology are not reflected in his Dogmatiek. In order to become familiar with these, we must take note of his other publications.

One of the first features of Heyns's theology was his creativity. from the very beginning he cherished the conviction that theology, by definition, should be contemporary theology (Heyns & Jonker 1974:137). Therefore he wrestled in more than one publication (cf. especially Heyns 1969 and 1971) with the problem of how Reformed theology should be practised at this juncture in order to remain true to the gospel and simultaneously be heard by modern man. Heyns found the answer to this question in what he called a theology of obedience, a kingdom theology (Heyns 1972 and 1973). In this we find the heartbeat of Heyns's theology! Since the kingdom of God is such a crucial concept in the Bible, all of theology can and must be built around it (cf. Theron 1984 for particulars). To a greater extent than in his Dogmatiek, he developed this point of view in numerous places in his three-volume Teologiese etiek. Theron (1984:12, 15,53 141) is of the opinion that with Heyns the kingdom functioned as the theological embodiment of a philosophical concept adopted from Stoker. This may be putting it a bit too strongly. What is true, however, is that Heyns used the concept of the kingdom in his ethics to develop various aspects of the Calvinistic life-and-world- view theologically. This is particularly apparent in his theories regarding social institutions, where he applied the well-known principle of sphere sovereignty (Heyns 1986:11-30). In this respect even the church, although unique, is described as a social institution (Heyns 1988:285 et seq). His exceptional love for Christian philosophy also clearly came to the fore in various facets of his theology. It also explains why he paid more attention than W.D. Jonker, for instance, to the scientific-theoretical pre-questions of theology (Heyns & Jonker 1974:13-137; Heyns 1982:7-16; 43-56). For the same reason his dogmatic method also differed from that of Jonker. While the latter employed a dogma-historical method (cf. the next paragraph), Heyns usually bypassed the historical questions and posited quite ordinary fundamental statements from which he then drew a number of logical conclusions.

In summary it may be said that Heyns continued and even developed the Reformed line of thought of his predecessors. On the other hand, he displayed greater openness towards the possibility of including elements of the post-war ecumenic theology in his own dogmatic stand.

 

9. WILLEM DANIEL JONKER (born 1929)

Discussion of Jonker's theological contribution is facilitated by the fact that it has already been comprehensively catalogued and even subjected to in-depth analysis in a commemorative album (Theron & Kinghorn 1989). Some of the contributions included in this volume in particular provide a valuable overview of his dogmatics (Strauss 1989).

Jonker was first introduced to dogmatics by A.B. du Preez at the University of Pretoria. Afterwards he obtained his doctor's degree at the Free University under the supervision of the famous G.C. Berkouwer on the basis of a thesis titled Mistieke liggaam en kerk in die nuwe Rooms-katolieke teologie. From Jonker's (1973a) thorough discussion of Berkouwer's dogmatic method we can conclude that he felt a close affinity with his preceptor.

Jonker was professor in ecclesiastical and historical subjects at the University of South Africa and in practical theology at the Theologische Hogeshool in Kampen (Oude Street) for a number of years. From 1971 to 1992 he was professor in dogmatic subjects in Stellenbosch. Here he continued the Reformed line of thought of his predecessors in a particularly productive and mature manner. Although Jonker has not yet published a complete work on dogmatics, his monographs in the series Wegwysers in die DogmatiekChristus die Middelaar (1977), Die Gees van Christus (1981) and Uit Vrye Guns Alleen (1988, on predestination and the covenant)provide enough material to clearly define his dogmatic position. In the introduction to the series, he and his co-author, J.J.F. Durand (1976:7), already clearly stated that they chose to proceed from "a confessional Reformed standpoint that presupposes the authority of the Scriptures as point of departure" (translated). As far as the dogmatic method is concerned, they favored a non-scholastic line of thought that strove to confine itself to the limits imposed by the Scriptures. In practice these fundamental points of departure entailed that Jonker covered the whole of dogmatic history in an erudite manner when he treated a doctrine. Following this the new schools of thought (nuwe weë) since the Aufklärung were scanned in elaborate detail. Finally a number of guidelines from the Scriptures were cautiously proffered and, on the basis of these, his own conclusion was drawn. In spite of the fact that he showed great understanding and sympathy for various deviant schools of thought, he never lost his Reformed perspective ("Hy kom altyd op sy gereformeerde pootjies tereg" - as somebody put it). Whether he succeeded in developing his own line of thought in the process is difficult to determine at this stage. What strikes one, however, in his latest work (1988a:164 et seq.) is his (cautious) criticism of Calvin and the Canons of Dordt concerning the doctrine of limited atonement. Jonker strove to uphold the standpoint of God's universal offer of salvation to all mankind. In this he associated himself with the standpoint of C. Graaflanda person who himself attached much value to the evangelical school of thought in Scotland, with its broad vision regarding the proclamation of the gospel to all mankind, together with the urgent appeal that they should turn to Christ (ibid.:167; cf. Jonker 1994: 143 et seq.). Is this perhaps an indication that the original Scotch dogmatic influence on the DRC is still vital and alive after almost one and a half centuries?

If one reviews Jonker's whole theological body of work, its typical characteristics clearly manifest themselves. Smit (1989:13) was quite correct in characterising him first and foremost as a Biblical theologian (Skrifteoloog), somebody inspired by the ideal of doing justice to the Reformed Biblical principle (reformatoriese Skrifprinsipe) in his theology. This basic motive he owed to two of the most important influences on his own line of thought, namely Berkouwer and Barth. According to Jonker's own testimony, it was indeed Barth who led him to turn away from the obsession with all kinds of hermeneutic pre-issues ("the sharpening of knives"). Instead he preferred to occupy himself with the message, the scopus of the Bible ("the cut itself") (ibid.:15)! Like Barth, Jonker also experimented with a Christological approach to theological knowledge, while avoiding any form of "natural theology", Within his own context, Jonker perceived this danger on the one hand in a "creation theology" that might inspire the concept of a national church, and, on the other hand, in a "theology of experience" that manifests itself in various forms of pietistic and methodistic approaches. In opposition to both these viewpoints, Jonker continued to emphasize, in every context, the uniqueness of the church and the objectivity of salvation in Christ (ibid.:16-17). This approach, however, did not imply that Jonker agreed with Barth in all respects. In giving account of his relationship to Barth, he (1988b) did not only express his admiration of Barth, but also voiced his serious doubts, especially about the manner in which Barth deals with Scripture.

Like all of us, Jonker has of late been wrestling with the seriousness of the problems with which the Enlightenment confronts us. He reminded us (1985:18) of the fact that we in South Africa currently find ourselves on the cutting edge of the knife (op die breuklyn) and that we should outgrow our naivety. We are confronted by new challenges that demand decisions - as far as our relationship with Europe as well as Africa is concerned (1989:156 et seq.). This implicitly inferred that the DRC will have to experiment with even newer trends in a new phase of its dogmatic development in the near future.

10. CONCLUSIONS

In studying the theological development in the DRC diachronically, one can distinguish four phases. The first is represented by Murray and De Vos (1859 to 1919) and can be typified as Dutch Reformed (Hervormde) apologetic and Scotch evangelical dogmatics. Particularly in De Vos there was a tendency towards a conservative confessional theology, although it was also not quite absent in Murray. During the second phase, represented by Keet and Pellissier (1920 to approximately 1950), there was a definite attempt to identify with the Reformed (Gereformeerde) tradition as embodied by Bavinck. The evangelical background, however, was not completely renounced. During the third phase, represented by Du Preez and Potgieter (1946 to approximately 1970), the Calvinistic influence of the Free University (Kuyper, Hepp) made itself even more strongly felt. This was also the golden age of the so-called apartheid theology. At the same time Du Preez, in contrast to Potgieter, showed evidence of a certain appreciation for the theology of Barth. The fourth and last phase, represented by Heyns and Jonker (1971 to approximately 1990), was characterised by productivity and independent thought. In accordance with Berkouwer, and to a certain extent Barth, traditional Reformed dogmatics were broadened by inputs from post-war schools of thought. Especially in the case of Heyns, due to the influence of Stoker, the concept of a Calvinistic life- and-world-view strongly comes to the fore.

From a synchronous point of view, there are particularly two theological ground motives that stand out clearly. The first of these is that of confessional commitment. This resulted in the dogmatists of the DRC adopting conservative viewpoints on matters such as, for instance, the authority of the Scriptures, Christology and soteriology with increasing conviction. However, the DRC never understood confessional theology as rigid confessionalism. It always displayed a certain flexibility that enabled it to acknowledge different theological convictions within the limits imposed by the confession. When these limits were exceeded, the DRC always defended the official doctrine of the church. The second outstanding characteristic is what might be called the evangelical approach. "Evangelical" is of course a concept very difficult to define. For our purpose we define it as that approach that includes at least the following aspects: emphasis on personal conversion; emphasis on a pious way of life; missionary zeal; accommodation of different accents within the own ecclesiastic circle; willingness to cooperate with other churches; and the desire to exert a Christian influence on society. The remarkable fact is that this approach was not limited to the first dogmatists who were directly influenced by the Scotch evangelicals. Even the later phases, under influence of the Dutch Calvinism, still show evidence of the same evangelical spirituality. In this we probably find the roots of the dogmatic tradition of the DRC. It represents the indefinable preconceptions that distinguish this tradition from other comparable traditions in, for instance, Scotland or the Netherlands. At the same time it is precisely this distinctive South African blend of "confessional-evangelical" that created a certain balance in the theology of the DRC. It preserved the theology from one-sidedness such as unconfessional evangelicalism or unevangelical confessionalism. It is presumably the same characteristic that enabled the DRC, at least to date, to ward off the assault of modernism.

Naturally, the above review of the theological development in the DRC is not comprehensive. In addition to dogmatics, there were also developments in other fields, especially in the biblical subjects (Old and New Testament). And apart from the ecclesiastic dogmatists described above, other dogmatists of the DRC have worked and still work in institutions that are not so closely linked to the church itself. Thus, for instance, there is the famous A. König (born 1936) who is professor at the University of South Africa (cf. the volumes in his series titled Gelowig Nagedink). He shows a strong influence of H. Berkhof and intentionally strives to promote an ecumenical theology. Last but not least, there is also the younger generation of dogmatists attached to the ecclesiastic faculties. At present D.A. du Toit and P.F. Theron are professors in Stellenbosch, C.J. Wethmar and D.E. de Villiers in Pretoria and P.C. Potgieter and S.A. Strauss in Bloemfontein. It would take us too far if we were to devote any attention to their standpoints. Quite in general and in a preliminary fashion we may, however, state that the first signs of a new dogmatic orientation can already be perceived (cf. Strauss 1989). Perhaps this is the beginning of a fifth phase in the theological development in the DRC.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY